|
OneEightHundred posted:It's not really that simple. "Turn the other cheek" is a completely unreasonable request to begin with and only really practicable if you think the world is going to end very soon. Um, what about Henry David Thoreau, Gandhi, MLK jr., and all those non-violent protestors from the Civil Rights era? Glitterbomber posted:To be fair, Takei could maybe recruit me to join the KKK if he tried, so maybe they're trying to warn us about his magic mind control powers? Now that I think about it, George Takei could get me to do pretty much anything, so you're probably on to something there.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:They need recruiters? Indeed, they do. It's like pyramid marketing. If you recruit enough, Melissa Etheridge gives you a free toaster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Now that I think about it, George Takei could get me to do pretty much anything, so you're probably on to something there. Someone with a Conservapedia account seriously try to make this a thing. George Takei, much like Barrack Hussein Obama, has magic mind control powers to convert us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
They seriously do think that homosexuality only "spreads" from gay people though, and that if every gay person in the world stopped being gay and everyone stopped talking about gayness then nobody would be gay ever again because it wouldn't occur to anyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 03:50
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:They seriously do think that homosexuality only "spreads" from gay people though, and that if every gay person in the world stopped being gay and everyone stopped talking about gayness then nobody would be gay ever again because it wouldn't occur to anyone. Particularly because they think homosexuality IS being sexually adventurous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Replace "homosexuality" with "being sexually adventurous" and this would be more accurate. And these people have access to the internet!? Whoo boy. Anybody want to send them links to some of the more extreme stuff out there? I kinda want to see the reactions to that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 04:00
|
|
|
Metalix posted:And these people have access to the internet!? Whoo boy. Anybody want to send them links to some of the more extreme stuff out there? I kinda want to see the reactions to that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 04:13
|
|
|
Metalix posted:And these people have access to the internet!? Whoo boy. Anybody want to send them links to some of the more extreme stuff out there? I kinda want to see the reactions to that. I've studied hardcore confurvative fundies before. They're just as virulently opposed to homosexuality and sexual deviance as normal conservatives. They constantly  over how the DEGENERATES and PERVERTS have taken over the furry fandom. The best are the ones who were technically born after that had already mostly happened. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
The Rokstar posted:Someone link these guys to some Max Hardcore. You know, for science. Brutal misogyny where the woman doesn't enjoy sex is not sexually adventurous for most of them. If anything it might give some of the more MRA types more ideas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 05:14
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:And yet, their argument against UHC is "God wants us to give out of the goodness of our hearts, not have the government force us to. Also, a healthy dose of American Exceptionalism. By golly, we're just DIFFERENT! We can't be like Europe what with their  low crime rates and their higher quality of life . We are rugged individualists; we do things OUR way and any reasonable person can't possibly expect us to give a poo poo about our fellow Americans! That's just crazy talk!This is what conservatives actually believe and yes, it's viewed as a positive thing. I laughed and laughed at the disfigured veteran in the most recent Perry ad that says "I BELIEVE IN AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM. I'VE SEEN IT!". Yeah, you disgusting freak, you've seen in all right. You live in the only country on earth that will send you off to get your face burnt/blown off and then scream at you for being a lazy parasite for being too sick/hosed up to hold a job and having to rely on welfare to barely scrape by afterwards. At least your team hates gays and black people as much as you do! gently caress this country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 06:25
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:They seriously do think that homosexuality only "spreads" from gay people though, and that if every gay person in the world stopped being gay and everyone stopped talking about gayness then nobody would be gay ever again because it wouldn't occur to anyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 06:37
|
|
|
Tupperwarez posted:I've always wondered about this whole notion of "Ok, if we remove this very specific list of elements of society/culture, our problems will go away." Let's say they get their way, like with evolution for example. Poof, evolution is struck from the (school)books. What happens when, contrary to their expectations, there is no effect? Would they just move on to the next strawman, and keep burning strawmen until modern society is choked with smoke and fire? Probably. And they'd still manage to convince themselves that it was a positive change for society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 07:00
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Um, what about Henry David Thoreau, Gandhi, MLK jr., and all those non-violent protestors from the Civil Rights era? The Indian National Army? The Black Panthers? Non-violence is good, but it was nowhere near the sole cause of Indian independence and the successes of the Civil Rights Movement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
Tupperwarez posted:I've always wondered about this whole notion of "Ok, if we remove this very specific list of elements of society/culture, our problems will go away." Let's say they get their way, like with evolution for example. Poof, evolution is struck from the (school)books. What happens when, contrary to their expectations, there is no effect? Would they just move on to the next strawman, and keep burning strawmen until modern society is choked with smoke and fire? Probably, and then they'd decide there were yet more strawmen lurking deep in the shadows. It would, I expect, end with everybody in a big Mexican standoff, wondering who was loyal and who was a Commie Jew Reptilian Atheist Nazi. Just rambling, but I read a story once, on a site which has since died. Two agents of the Space Nazi empire, perfect Aryans both of them, are sent out to track down the Jews which must, logically, still have agents in their empire, why else would it be failing so badly? They track the Jews through several other star Aryan nations, each of which began to die after expelling the Jews. Eventually, they track the Jews to an uninhabited planet, which has but one city on it, with an enormous statue and scientific apparatus, and one Jew in cryostasis. They wake him, and he explains that there are no Jews in this universe, saving him; the rest have slid between universes to another one, where they shall be safe from Nazis forevermore, and also he took a suicide pill. The two agents think about it, then one of them shoots the other, deciding his people weren't true Aryans, but were the cause of all the problems in the empire. Time for some new pogroms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 07:23
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Probably, and then they'd decide there were yet more strawmen lurking deep in the shadows. It would, I expect, end with everybody in a big Mexican standoff, wondering who was loyal and who was a Commie Jew Reptilian Atheist Nazi. "After the Protocols", by Adam-Troy Castro.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 07:40
|
|
|
Tupperwarez posted:I've always wondered about this whole notion of "Ok, if we remove this very specific list of elements of society/culture, our problems will go away." Let's say they get their way, like with evolution for example. Poof, evolution is struck from the (school)books. What happens when, contrary to their expectations, there is no effect? Would they just move on to the next strawman, and keep burning strawmen until modern society is choked with smoke and fire? That is a good question and I honestly can't imagine the answer. I'd like to see it posed to Conservative, but I do know the (probable) answer to that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 07:55
|
|
|
Tupperwarez posted:Poof, evolution is struck from the (school)books. What happens when, contrary to their expectations, there is no effect? They look around for completely unrelated things that have happened and blame them on whatever they're mad at. See, for example: Jerry Falwell blaming 9/11 (an event actually caused by American imperialism and meddling in other countries affairs) on "abortionists, feminists, evolutionists, homosexuals", etc. The irony is that the sort of people that "did 9/11" probably aren't too keen on "abortionists, feminists, evolutionists or homosexuals" themselves. My favorite thing, speaking of which, is when conservatives try to rally liberals to the muslim hate bandwagon by saying "why don't you hate them, libs, they hate gay people and womens rights!" and it's like "uhh, so do you, idiot". C.C.C.P. fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Dec 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 08:14
|
|
|
They have *really* strange views on women...Conservapedia article on Chivalry posted:realizing that every young woman could be someone's future husband
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 13:55
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:They have *really* strange views on women... It's not at all surprising coming from Phyllis Schlafly's son. I've always been a bit perplexed that the Schlafly family doesn't seem to get the irony that Phyllis has made a career fighting feminism and women in the workforce while promoting women just staying at home. How do they overcome such blatant, rank hypocrisy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 14:07
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:It's not at all surprising coming from Phyllis Schlafly's son. To be fair, and I don't mean this as some sort of South Parkian "the answer is in the middle" thing, but it does happen on both sides. One of the most disgusting acts of hypocrisy that comes to mind is the founder of PETA, who is a diabetic, preaches that people shouldn't use animal products. She, herself, uses insulin derived from pigs. Her reasoning? It's totally okay because she has to live to fight the good fight against animal cruelty. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
I think you two have missed why that quote is strange.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
kissekatt posted:I think you two have missed why that quote is strange. Preemptive edit:  I didn't even see it the first two times I read the post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 14:24
|
|
|
C.C.C.P. posted:To be fair, and I don't mean this as some sort of South Parkian "the answer is in the middle" thing, but it does happen on both sides. One of the most disgusting acts of hypocrisy that comes to mind is the founder of PETA, who is a diabetic, preaches that people shouldn't use animal products. She, herself, uses insulin derived from pigs. Her reasoning? It's totally okay because she has to live to fight the good fight against animal cruelty. Yeah, I saw that on "Penn and Teller's Bullshit" too. It's a similar kind of hypocrisy but I'm a little less critical of her for it because she could literally die without it. It's still one of the dumbest and hypocritical things I've ever seen, but I still don't think it's in the same league as what Phyllis "There's no such thing as spousal rape" Sclafly does. Also, there is kind of a point and another "the answer is in the middle" thing with animal rights. Sure, those ALF people are literally terrorists and PETA is pretty dumb, but factory farming, vivisection, cosmetic testing on animals, etc. are awful and needs to be stopped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 14:26
|
|
|
prefect posted:Preemptive edit: poo poo, I guess I just read it too fast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 14:27
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:They have *really* strange views on women... I thought they hated transpeople. How about that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 15:44
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:It's a similar kind of hypocrisy but I'm a little less critical of her for it because she could literally die without it. It's still one of the dumbest and hypocritical things I've ever seen, but I still don't think it's in the same league as what Phyllis "There's no such thing as spousal rape" Sclafly does. Well, that's kinda the point. SHE could die without it, so of course SHE takes it. But she still tells other people (who would also die without it) they shouldn't and that it's unethical and wrong to use medications derived from animals or tested on animals or anything animal-related at all. But of course, in her own mind, she is above those rules because she thinks her message is sooooooo important to the animal rights movement that it's worth breaking a few eggs to make an omelet (pun fully intended). (As an aside, Ingrid whateverhernameis is literally First World Problems personified. There was some interview she did where she bemoaned the fact that she  had to stop vacationing in poorer countries because the way the locals treated animals - as beasts of burden and food, no doubt - enraged her sooooo much that she'd spend all her time yelling at people and "rescuing" their animals instead of relaxing. Yeah, those stupid ignorant savages. How dare they live in a developing nation and not have the luxury of bourgeoisie veganism!) I wonder if she ever got so worked up while yelling at a mexican hog farmer that she forgot to take her pig insulin?To bring this back to the topic at hand, it's probably the same way Phyllis views herself. Sure, women shouldn't work but she just has to be out there to get the message out so it's totally justifiable, in her own mind, if she doesn't follow her own rules. Either that, or it's some kind of conscious, Newt Gingrichian "people should do as I do, not do as I say" craziness where she thinks the "rules", as she would have them, just simply don't apply to her which is also entirely possible since conservatives with authoritarian, hierarchical views of the world absolutely think that different rules should apply to different groups of people. C.C.C.P. fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Dec 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 15:59
|
|
|
C.C.C.P. posted:Well, that's kinda the point. SHE could die without it, so of course SHE takes it. But she still tells other people (who would also die without it) they shouldn't and that it's unethical and wrong to use medications derived from animals or tested on animals or anything animal-related at all. But of course, in her own mind, she is above those rules because she thinks her message is sooooooo important to the animal rights movement that it's worth breaking a few eggs to make an omelet (pun fully intended). (As an aside, Ingrid whateverhernameis is literally First World Problems personified. There was some interview she did where she bemoaned the fact that she Good points, though it's not Ingrid Newkirk who is diabetic, it's one of the other executives/founders. C.C.C.P. posted:To bring this back to the topic at hand, it's probably the same way Phyllis views herself. Sure, women shouldn't work but she just has to be out there to get the message out so it's totally justifiable, in her own mind, if she doesn't follow her own rules. Yeah, that's what I've heard from other people with whom I've discussed this, but either way (justified to stop dirty feminists or Do As I Say, Not As I Do), it's still amazing that the Schlaflys can perpetuate this hypocrisy for literally decades with no outward stress or trouble.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 17:00
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:I've studied hardcore confurvative fundies before. They're just as virulently opposed to homosexuality and sexual deviance as normal conservatives. They constantly These people need to have a documentary done about them, stat. Bruce Leroy posted:truth in the middle I don't think it's really so much about the truth being in the actual middle of the spectrum, as it is about the truth actually often being or arising from a conglomeration of the different points that have been raised, or considerations that have been brought to the table, if that makes sense. "gently caress the chimpanzees; their tears are delicious," and "Refuse your insulin; die for the animals" are extreme views because they propose a black-and-white, absolute, don't-trouble-me-with-details-or-outliers, yes-we-ALWAYS-have-an-app-for-that approach to life, the universe, and everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Yeah, that's what I've heard from other people with whom I've discussed this, but either way (justified to stop dirty feminists or Do As I Say, Not As I Do), it's still amazing that the Schlaflys can perpetuate this hypocrisy for literally decades with no outward stress or trouble. The human mind is a powerful thing. We have trouble comprehending their thoughts because we have relatively normal thoughts; they have absolutely zero problems thinking the way that do, but they have trouble trying to imagine how we think. In their own minds, their thoughts are 100% rational and normal, and why can't those drat dirty liberals understand that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:These people need to have a documentary done about them, stat. They're honestly so pathetic and lonely that it's kinda sad. They refuse to associate with the furries who aren't sexually puritan (which is like 95-99 percent of them), and they're detested by other fundies for being part of a deviant outgroup. I wouldn't be surprised if there was one or two on Conservapedia, desperately hoping Schlafly doesn't decide to randomly google their username some day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 18:34
|
|
|
Shima Honnou posted:The human mind is a powerful thing. We have trouble comprehending their thoughts because we have relatively normal thoughts; they have absolutely zero problems thinking the way that do, but they have trouble trying to imagine how we think. In their own minds, their thoughts are 100% rational and normal, and why can't those drat dirty liberals understand that? I'm usually pretty good at putting myself in other people's mental perspectives, but every time I do that for Andy, any of the other Schalflys, Conservative, etc., I feel like an rear end in a top hat and want to go see a psychiatrist. Small Frozen Thing posted:They're honestly so pathetic and lonely that it's kinda sad. They refuse to associate with the furries who aren't sexually puritan (which is like 95-99 percent of them), and they're detested by other fundies for being part of a deviant outgroup. I wouldn't be surprised if there was one or two on Conservapedia, desperately hoping Schlafly doesn't decide to randomly google their username some day. You'd think that people in an outgroup would have more empathy for other outgroups, but it's probably a case of "yeah, people may look down on us, but we're really not that bad. Just look at those people."
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:You'd think that people in an outgroup would have more empathy for other outgroups, but it's probably a case of "yeah, people may look down on us, but we're really not that bad. Just look at those people." They don't even do that. They try to justify their whole thing, claiming that since it's all puritan, there's nothing wrong with it. They don't seem to grasp that the reason furries are so hated isn't the weird sex stuff, it's the drama, victimization complexes, and attention-mongering stupidity that makes them despised. All of which the fundy furs do just as much. ... Well, at least that's how I feel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
For a few days they linked to this "amazing video" a 13 year old kid made for the question evolution campaign. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv-zhTppvow I thought maybe Conservative was being nice to the kid, but then they link over to the QE blog on the main page now with choice quotes such as: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/13-year-old-creationist-cecil-b-demille.html quote:13-year old creationist Cecil B. DeMille helps part the sea of evolutionary nonsense and paves the way for the 2012 triumph of the Question evolution! campaign With a bonus new video! Honestly, if this is how they feel and those are truly the words they use to describe the videos, my brain goes straight to thinking that they have to be parody, then just moves on to feeling bad for them because I know that it isn't. I hope the kid is a troll at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 21:55
|
|
|
It's gotta be that this 13 year old (if he even exists... he doesn't appear on camera in either video) is Conservative/Shockofgod's son or nephew or something and they're just promoting him out of sheer nepotism. No one could be that genuinely enthusiastic about such a crappy video, right? And who the hell names a kid "Cecil B. DeMille"? Odds are this kid isn't real. e: I'm dumb. Of course they're just comparing him to the director of The 10 Commandments
Binowru fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Dec 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
Binowru posted:And who the hell names a kid "Cecil B. DeMille"? Odds are this kid isn't real. I'm guessing this is a fake, or Daddy DeMille was just an rear end in a top hat. Fake Edit: Cecil B DeMille made loads of biblical films, most notably Charlton Hestons "The Ten Commandments".
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
I think he was just comparing him to Cecil B DeMille, as in "a little Cecil B DeMille."
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
Conservapidia posted:
From their news section. I don't think any of them have been to Europe og knows what is going on. And I don't thiink they like us  Also doesn't the ant have a Queen? so they probably don't know ants either
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
Equester posted:Also doesn't the ant have a Queen? so they probably don't know ants either
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Calling an ant queen a "guide, overseer, or ruler" would not be especially accurate, either. It's not really an administrative position. I know, it was more of a joke... But then agian calling the Queen of Denmark, a guide overser or ruler would not be accurate at all either
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
Equester posted:I know, it was more of a joke... But then agian calling the Queen of Denmark, a guide overser or ruler would not be accurate at all either
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 22:44
|
|