|
Fixed it! 
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:16 |
|
|
They don't say that the equal starting line was when God created the earth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
We're all born as sinners, therefore we're equal!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Democrats want everyone to be aborted, that's the ultimate equality!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBb5TgOXgNY I've always found this animation to poignantly illustrate the flaw in 'equal at the starting line'. The starting line was 100s of years ago and the rich white folk already have hundreds of laps of a head start.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
edit: Mine's better. VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Murders and executions.    Guy who posted the article hasn't weighed in again; I'm in pink.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Cool Chulainn posted:Murders and executions. I had an argument about the same thing that went a very similar direction. People are just animals. They just won't see how the death penalty is a bad thing from multiple angles. The politics involved, the inaccuracy, and just the fact that it makes us no better than any other murderer. I can cite day and night cases where we've discovered we killed innocent people and they just go back to the just world fallacy. silicone thrills fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:I had an argument about the same thing that went a very similar direction. People are just animals. They just won't see how the death penalty is a bad thing from multiple angles. The politics involved, the inaccuracy, and just the fact that it makes us no better than any other murderer. I can cite day and night cases where we've discovered we killed innocent people and they just go back to the just world fallacy. It's not even that he's arguing that the death penalty is ok, it's that he's arguing that the guy deserves to get raped with a broom stick before getting his throat slit. And when pushed on it, he  about the dirty liberals pussifying our nation with their stupid "standards" and "constitution"
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
The fact that even one innocent person in the history of the justice system has ever been executed is enough to invalidate that form of punishment in my eyes. An incarcerated innocent, despite being a horror of untold proportions, can at least be exhonerated for their crime. There is always room for doubt when an action cannot be reversed. People who support the death penalty forsake any claim to holding a moral high ground, as well as any claim that they are 'for' justice and not petty revenge driven barbarians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 03:43
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:People who support the death penalty forsake any claim to holding a moral high ground, as well as any claim that they are 'for' justice and not petty revenge driven barbarians. Careful, you're getting into he who fights with monsters territory here. This kind of categorical identification language would be right at home underneath some of the facebook posts we've seen in the thread.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
I agree death penalty is totally lame. I was trying to use arguments which I thought would resonate with this crowd but  nope.Edit: The various ethical quandaries involved in the justice system are complex and shouldn't be the focus of this thread except for the fact that the posted example is definitely of petty, revenge-driven barbarians. Cool Chulainn fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
It just surprised me how many people got all up in arms that the dude had a cruel death but IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE! Never mind the whole ethicality of the death penalty at all. Well the guy died in a crash after robbing a grocery store? He should have been violently raped in the mouth with a didgeridoo first!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:edit: Mine's better. Agreed 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Careful, you're getting into he who fights with monsters territory here. This kind of categorical identification language would be right at home underneath some of the facebook posts we've seen in the thread. Do you disagree with his point? If so you should argue against it instead of making limp tone arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 04:44
|
|
andrew smash posted:Do you disagree with his point? If so you should argue against it instead of making limp tone arguments. Well, in argumentation, tone is content. My objection was to the characterization of everyone who supports capital punishment as being like the people this thread covers. I do support capital punishment, for a set of reasons that won't commonly appear in the facebook comments and memes that populate this thread, because my position isn't bloodthirsty retribution. Like Cool Chulainn said, that larger debate doesn't fit this thread. When we treat the facebook fringe folk as representative of all arguments for a given policy, though, we risk becoming like them in our closemindedness. Hence the "he who fights monsters" comment. It would be just as bad if someone had said it about people who oppose the death penalty. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
So he touched a nerve?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Well, in argumentation, tone is content. My objection was to the characterization of everyone who supports capital punishment as being like the people this thread covers. I do support capital punishment, for a set of reasons that won't commonly appear in the facebook comments and memes that populate this thread, because my position isn't bloodthirsty retribution. Like Cool Chulainn said, that larger debate doesn't fit this thread. When we treat the facebook fringe folk as representative of all arguments for a given policy, we risk becoming like them in our closemindedness. Hence the "he who fights monsters" comment. Victor?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
It's quite obtuse to accuse me of using language to dehumanize my opponents with malicious intent, when that malicious intent is what I'm arguing against. At no point in my argument did I state or imply 'and these people should be mistreated/stripped of rights because of their barbaric beliefs'. That runs counter to the thesis. I don't see much point delineating 'has barbaric beliefs' from simply calling someone a 'barbarian' anymore than I see a point in delineating 'has homophobic beliefs' from 'is a homophobe', and I can't help but feel that argument feels similar to the whole tone argument of 'tolerate my intolerant/horrible belief'. When I advocate imprisoning or silencing supporters of the death penalty you may have something approaching a point. I am sympathetic to how language shapes attitude and discourse. In fact I was going to give you the benefit of a doubt on this being a good point. I've done enough research (actual research in the field of attitudes and behaviours, not the kind of research your average schmo claims) to understand that feedback loop. But I think the real reason you objected is I struck a nerve, as you support it. I'm pretty confident in the opinion the death penalty holds no value in society anymore than bigotry does, and I'm totally ok with heaping shame upon the institution and it's supporters. It's irreversible (innocents get killed), runs counter to justice in favour of retribution, and doesn't even work as intended (as a deterrent). I just wanted to defend my comments in the face of the 'monster comment'. I don't have anymore to add so I can't see the value on a dedicated topic on the issue, though if there's much more to be said we ought to avoid a derail perhaps. Though I'm not sure the level of discourse could be elevated much above gun chat- even abortion seems to have more people crossing the battle lines in a debate. Edit: I really wish I had more actual. Crazy stuff and forwards to add to the thread but damned if my little corner of Canada isn't tame. I've countered anti vax and conspiracy stuff quite well when it's popped up (I count convincing my step sister and cousin, who've since become very pro vaccine and both of whom have kids) as a huge victory. People are usually willing to listen rather than doubling down on crazy, and the one libertarian I know who's argumentative is actually rather intelligent and fun to engage. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
 At first I thought it was a joke but nope. Posted by a libertarian, shared from a libertarian page.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 05:43
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:I am sympathetic to how language shapes attitude and discourse. In fact I was going to give you the benefit of a doubt on this being a good point. I've done enough research (actual research in the field of attitudes and behaviours, not the kind of research your average schmo claims) to understand that feedback loop. But I think the real reason you objected is I struck a nerve, as you support it. I'm pretty confident in the opinion the death penalty holds no value in society anymore than bigotry does, and I'm totally ok with heaping shame upon the institution and it's supporters. It's irreversible innocents get killed), runs counter to justice in favour of retribution, and doesn't even work as intended (as a deterrent). I actually think this is useful to the core sentiment of the thread, so I'll keep going on this. First of all, greetings, fellow scholar! I too am studying this sort of thing. Please understand, I'm not targeting you or your post beyond its potential benefit for our consideration of the forwarded email crowd and their mentality (I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of malice!). The reason I focused on your comment and responded to it wasn't because it touched a nerve in terms of the policy (my support for the death penalty is mostly theoretical and limited). Rather, it's because it reflects a problem of discourse that's shared here on SA as much as on facebook. I think it's generally counterproductive to dehumanize or generalize supporters of views we oppose. Mock 'em, sure, identify them, absolutely, but let's also try to understand why they are so screwed up that they would say and support the things they do. One reason facebook comment threads are so terrible is because the meme-forwarder has the false belief that the environment is safe- that they are sharing this meme with like-minded people. This is common with this sort of memetic stuff because they usually haven't really thought about beyond allowing it to confirm their beliefs. What really drives this communication, though, is a sense of external threat. These folks feel driven out of the normal discourse, but the public shaming and direct criticism doesn't serve to move them away from these beliefs- it just serves to radicalize and re-intrench them- they become more resistant to contrary information, they derive self-worth from their outsider status, and they view other positions as illegitimate. But no matter how nutty these folks get, they do still exist in society, they still vote, and they can still persuade others to join them. In communication research, this is the problem of shame appeals and stigma mechanisms more generally. If you oppose the death penalty, then "heaping shame" on those who suppport it indiscriminately doesn't help your cause. Instead, it serves to strengthen the rhetorical positions of the pro-death people at the extremes, and it damages your ability to persuade folks who aren't in that group (yes, like me in this instance). Although it was unsuccessful, Tigntik showed the right way to engage on these topics. When we do otherwise, the feedback loop you mentioned comes into play. What I'm getting at is, I think this thread works better when we mock the actual things that people say, rather than turn each subtopic into a broad referendum on the policy involved. There's a tendency toward overbreadth in a lot of comments, when the real comedy gold lies in the fine details of the posted nuttery. For example, in the facebook thread above, Mr. Red is direct and to the point, while Mr. Green has a penchant for animal metaphors. If we had more data, we could probably find the exact places each of them got their talking points from; wouldn't that be awesome? edit: speaking of animal metaphors... It's remarkable how these memes demonstrate that for the author, everything circles back to their fixation of choice. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:
Other than being posted by libertarians, there's nothing really wrong with the thinking behind the image there. People shouldn't be hassled by police based on nothing. Setting a confrontational tone with police by using trigger words like "Am I being detained?" might not be the best approach, but cops still abuse even people who aren't being confrontational so it seems kind of reasonable to be suspicious of police.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 05:55
|
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:
The libertarian is jaywalking and will likely be fined after cussing out a police officer who was going to let them off with a verbal warning.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
The Libertarian is a middle-class white male so the cop never stopped him in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
Going back to this one, but doesn't this image suggest that conservatives support a 100% estate tax? For everyone to be equal at the starting line, nobody can be allowed a leg up by inheriting money from their parents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 08:13
|
|
BBJoey posted:Going back to this one, but doesn't this image suggest that conservatives support a 100% estate tax? For everyone to be equal at the starting line, nobody can be allowed a leg up by inheriting money from their parents. I suspect that the response would be to focus on the fact that an estate tax is a seizure of your property by th' gubmint. Which doesn't address the point, but that is the point.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
nsaP posted:Victor? Did Victor also have retarded mad-ons about weed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:Going back to this one, but doesn't this image suggest that conservatives support a 100% estate tax? For everyone to be equal at the starting line, nobody can be allowed a leg up by inheriting money from their parents. No it doesn't, because they don't think about things like that or acknowledge that it makes a difference until you corner them on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
A Facebook "friend" posted this.quote:So again....Mr Obama can give religious exemptions to all other sects of religion but not to an American Company that truly follow the "Christian" doctrines. I find this absurd. Aside from the fact that the whole health care plan is forced for all of us to participate. Is this the "American Way"? http://tomohalloran.com/2013/09/05/hobby-lobby-may-close-all-500-stores-in-41-states/ I almost passed it up because it seemed too boring, but man oh man, that site is just gold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
borkencode posted:A Facebook "friend" posted this. Ask them to identify just one Muslim or Jewish corporation that has successfully received the exemption the Hobby Lobby CEO asked for. Oh wait, there are none? Guess Christians aren't being treated unfairly on this issue. The Christian victim complex is just in full swing. Hobby Lobby is a lovely store with a lovely track record of stories of anti semitism and other such things so gently caress em. Only sympathy I have is for the line employees who will suffer from the CEOs petulant fit. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
borkencode posted:I almost passed it up because it seemed too boring, but man oh man, that site is just gold. Oh wow you weren't kidding. Lots of Christian values on display. PUTIN TAKES HIS BITCH FOR A RIDE 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Nothing reminds me more of the teachings of Christ than an old, out-of-shape Russian riding a horse shirtless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Well, in argumentation, tone is content. Under no circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
So Facebook now has "trending topics" and I saw something about Wendy Davis being caught in a ~web of lies~. (Apparently she got divorced at 21 instead of 19, OH MY GOD ALERT THE MEDIA) How can you post stuff like this, with your full name attached, where everyone can see it, and not think "hey maybe I'm a hateful regressive tool"? edited because I'm dumb and forgot to crop out some identifying info PUGGERNAUT fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
PUGGERNAUT, you should censor the purple poster's title under the initial post. I'm betting identifying them from that would be easy. While you're at it, the last post name(which is yours, I guess) also isn't fully obscured.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:PUGGERNAUT, you should censor the purple poster's title under the initial post. I'm betting identifying them from that would be easy. While you're at it, the last post name(which is yours, I guess) also isn't fully obscured.  What the hell kind of REDACTED gets into lovely slapfights on Facebook, much less one where he's the reactionary rear end in a top hat?
gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:PUGGERNAUT, you should censor the purple poster's title under the initial post. I'm betting identifying them from that would be easy. While you're at it, the last post name(which is yours, I guess) also isn't fully obscured. My apologies - I will delete that and fix it. Thanks! (And no it's not me)
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Look at all this protecting people on facebook. Facebook is public.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:30
|
|
SedanChair posted:Look at all this protecting people on facebook. Facebook is public. It's also generally a good idea on a forum known for occasionally hunting down and tormenting folks via the internet. At a minimum I don't think it does any harm. SedanChair posted:Under no circumstances. Well, actually, under all circumstances. When we try to communicate ideas, the way we communicate them influences how they are received. choice of language, order of ideas, tone, all of this goes into what the audience thinks you're saying, and whether or not they believe you've made a convincing argument. In communication, the tone and style is a part of the argument, and can't be separated from it in the argumentative space. A lot of the stupidity this thread enjoys isn't just because the content author has the wrong idea, but because they can't even begin to articulate why they forwarded the email or post in the first place. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:16 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Well, actually, under all circumstances. When we try to communicate ideas, the way we communicate them influences how they are received. choice of language, order of ideas, tone, all of this goes into what the audience thinks you're saying, and whether or not they believe you've made a convincing argument. In communication, the tone and style is a part of the argument, and can't be separated from it in the argumentative space. A lot of the stupidity this thread enjoys isn't just because the content author has the wrong idea, but because they can't even begin to articulate why they forwarded the email or post in the first place. Nobody cares about convincing people in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:47
|
|