Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »

Shasta Orange Soda: Apr 25, 2007

quote:

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

Newt 2012: Because Three Women In America Could Look Past His Repellant Personality and Looks Long Enough To See the Money and Power.

Can you imagine this shrink trying to coach his own life, let alone getting paid to coach yours?

# ? Jan 23, 2012 06:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 14:51

cheese: Jan 7, 2004; Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.

Apparently if, as a wealthy and famous national politician, you can manage to find 3 women in America who are willing to marry you, you must be a good guy.

This is some fantastic logic. My girlfriend has a alcoholic, abusive older uncle who has been married a number of times as well. I guess I need to reexamine my feelings about him because hes clearly a swell guy if he can find that many women to tie the knot with.

# ? Jan 23, 2012 06:23

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Shasta Orange Soda posted:

Newt 2012: Because Three Women In America Could Look Past His Repellant Personality and Looks Long Enough To See the Money and Power.

Can you imagine this shrink trying to coach his own life, let alone getting paid to coach yours?

Exactly.

Fox News loves having Ablow on because he toes the party line and talking points while bringing in that shiny MD after his name.

It's pretty telling that he thinks Newt's infidelities and poor treatment of his wives constitute positive attributes, especially if you view them in light of Gingrich's other narcissistic behaviors, like having shut down the government as Speaker of the House because he felt he was treated poorly on Air Force One and hypocritically calling for Chris Dodd and Barney Frank to be imprisoned for their involvement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac even though he himself received millions of dollars as an ~~illegal, unregistered lobbyist~~"historian" for those organizations.

# ? Jan 23, 2012 12:15

redmercer: Sep 15, 2011; by Fistgrrl

Bruce Leroy posted:

Exactly.

Fox News loves having Ablow on because he toes the party line and talking points while bringing in that shiny MD after his name.

It's pretty telling that he thinks Newt's infidelities and poor treatment of his wives constitute positive attributes, especially if you view them in light of Gingrich's other narcissistic behaviors, like having shut down the government as Speaker of the House because he felt he was treated poorly on Air Force One and hypocritically calling for Chris Dodd and Barney Frank to be imprisoned for their involvement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac even though he himself received millions of dollars as an ~~illegal, unregistered lobbyist~~"historian" for those organizations.

So taking drugs means you have no agency; but being unable to not gently caress everyone who shows the slightest interest in you means you have highly evolved leadership skills.

I wonder what it's like to get a doctorate degree and still wind up being something much lower than a common whore.

(edit: Actual whores do useful work)

# ? Jan 23, 2012 23:48

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

redmercer posted:

So taking drugs means you have no agency; but being unable to not gently caress everyone who shows the slightest interest in you means you have highly evolved leadership skills.

I wonder what it's like to get a doctorate degree and still wind up being something much lower than a common whore.

(edit: Actual whores do useful work)

The funny thing is that it seems apropos for Ablow to be sort of "diagnosing" Newt Gingrich, because Ablow spent most of his career as a forensic psychiatrist interviewing and treating mentally ill criminals.

# ? Jan 25, 2012 13:31

Wraith of J.O.I.: Jan 25, 2012

I don't know if this is quite the right place to post this, but a kid I went to high school with posted this on Facebook.

quote:

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

I stopped myself from letting off a string of expletives on the kid's wall but god drat this professor/whoever wrote this (it's obviously a fantasy) sounds like a loving idiot. Their political/socioeconomic knowledge seems to be limited from post-1980s America, and then only from the typical white, upper/middle class FYGM douche perspective.

Wraith of J.O.I. fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jan 26, 2012

# ? Jan 26, 2012 20:39

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

That's poo poo that's been copied and pasted around for years. It's old as dirt.

# ? Jan 26, 2012 21:08

Doctor Butts: May 21, 2002

edit: quote wierdness. Redacting because it makes no sense.

# ? Jan 27, 2012 20:53

Johnny Cache Hit: Oct 17, 2011

Wraith of J.O.I. posted:

I don't know if this is quite the right place to post this, but a kid I went to high school with posted this on Facebook.

If you haven't yet, check out the crazy forwarded political email thread:
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3186581

That one shows up really often.

# ? Jan 28, 2012 01:25

platzapS: Aug 4, 2007

"No Need to Panic About Global Warming is spreading all over. It's signed by "sixteen concerned scientists".

I checked them out and found a quarter don't even have wikipedia pages. Among the sixteen signatures is one electrical engineer, one aerospace engineer, and an astronaut.

Wall Street Journal posted:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade�indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections�suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted�or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before�for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

# ? Jan 28, 2012 03:38

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

platzapS posted:

"No Need to Panic About Global Warming is spreading all over. It's signed by "sixteen concerned scientists".

I checked them out and found a quarter don't even have wikipedia pages. Among the sixteen signatures is one electrical engineer, one aerospace engineer, and an astronaut.

That's like the perfect denialist editorial. It hits all the classics, from citing "scientists" who aren't actually scientists and those that are have absolutely no training or involvement in climatology (meteorology is not the same thing as climatology), to arguing that rising CO2 rates and warming are not only harmless but actually beneficial, to false equivalencies between Soviets/Nazis and the current scientific establishment, to asserting global warming is hoax to make money without noting the huge amounts of money behind denying that it is occurring, to citing "Climategate" as a knock against global warming science, to arguing that it's unfair to third world nations to restrict CO2 emissions in first world nations (WTF?), to deceptively citing the debunked Soon and Baliunas (2003) article without actually mentioning it by acting like Chris de Freitas was somehow a victim of the "international warming establishment."

# ? Jan 28, 2012 11:30

Mr Interweb: Aug 25, 2004

Well, in fairness, don't you have to be super smart to be eligible to be an astronaut?

# ? Jan 28, 2012 11:37

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Mr Interweb posted:

Well, in fairness, don't you have to be super smart to be eligible to be an astronaut?

See, that's the problem most people don't understand, just because you are really smart or even one of the top experts in a given field does not make you an expert in other fields.

So, yeah, those physicists, engineers, and meteorologists who signed that stupid loving article might be pretty good at physics, engineering, and meteorology, respectively, but that doesn't make them experts in climatology. They should shut the gently caress up until they either get degrees in climatology OR provide some kind of empirical evidence and research that actually contradicts the current consensus.

# ? Jan 28, 2012 11:48

paint dry: Feb 8, 2005

Wraith of J.O.I. posted:

I don't know if this is quite the right place to post this, but a kid I went to high school with posted this on Facebook.

I stopped myself from letting off a string of expletives on the kid's wall but god drat this professor/whoever wrote this (it's obviously a fantasy) sounds like a loving idiot. Their political/socioeconomic knowledge seems to be limited from post-1980s America, and then only from the typical white, upper/middle class FYGM douche perspective.

There's no need to respond to that, just delete this person. I'm definitely an advocate of severing all ties with wingnuts in your life.

# ? Jan 28, 2012 12:11

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

paint dry posted:

There's no need to respond to that, just delete this person. I'm definitely an advocate of severing all ties with wingnuts in your life.

It's quite a bit harder when they are in your own family.

# ? Jan 28, 2012 12:35

redmercer: Sep 15, 2011; by Fistgrrl

Bruce Leroy posted:

It's quite a bit harder when they are in your own family.

But no less rewarding.

# ? Jan 29, 2012 00:03

Presto: Nov 22, 2002; Keep calm and Harry on.

Absolute gem in the Washington Post today. Hits all the notes: the poor aren't really poor, rich people have it hard too, we shouldn't tax the rich, etc, etc.

quote:

First, we must answer some key questions. Who constitutes the prosperous and the poor? Why has inequality increased? Does an unequal income distribution deny poor people the chance to buy what they want?

What do you think?

quote:

We could reduce income inequality by trying to curtail the financial returns of education and the number of women in the workforce � but who would want to do that?

quote:

Making the poor more economically mobile has nothing to do with taxing the rich and everything to do with finding and implementing ways to encourage parental marriage, teach the poor marketable skills and induce them to join the legitimate workforce.

As opposed to the illegitimate workforce? What?

quote:

In his book �The Poverty of the Poverty Rate,� Nicholas Eberstadt shows that over the past 30 or so years, the percentage of low-income children in the United States who are underweight has gone down, the share of low-income households lacking complete plumbing facilities has declined, and the area of their homes adequately heated has gone up. The fraction of poor households with a telephone, a television set and a clothes dryer has risen sharply.

I hear some of those fuckers have refrigerators too.

quote:

The case for progressive tax rates is far from settled; just read Kip Hagopian�s recent essay in Policy Review, which makes a powerful argument against progressive taxation because it fails to take into account aptitude and work effort.

gently caress me. I need a drink.

# ? Jan 29, 2012 05:59

Salvor_Hardin: Sep 13, 2005; I want to go protest.; Nap Ghost

Bruce Leroy posted:

That's like the perfect denialist editorial. It hits all the classics, from citing "scientists" who aren't actually scientists and those that are have absolutely no training or involvement in climatology (meteorology is not the same thing as climatology), to arguing that rising CO2 rates and warming are not only harmless but actually beneficial, to false equivalencies between Soviets/Nazis and the current scientific establishment, to asserting global warming is hoax to make money without noting the huge amounts of money behind denying that it is occurring, to citing "Climategate" as a knock against global warming science, to arguing that it's unfair to third world nations to restrict CO2 emissions in first world nations (WTF?), to deceptively citing the debunked Soon and Baliunas (2003) article without actually mentioning it by acting like Chris de Freitas was somehow a victim of the "international warming establishment."

I bolded this part because I have noticed a common trope in "debunking" an idea involves saying that "in fact the exact opposite may be true!" It is a calculated maneuver to target all the South Park, Truth-in-the-Middle types to arrive at the moderate conclusion of "Oh hey, it probably isn't bad or good, its neutral!"

You see this also in "But it used to be Global COOLING" and also in on many other contentious issues. The Rove Doctrine of accusing your opponents of doing what you are doing is a gambit to elicit the same "moderate" response.

# ? Jan 29, 2012 06:47

Iceberg-Slim: Oct 7, 2003; no re okay

quote:

In his book �The Poverty of the Poverty Rate,� Nicholas Eberstadt shows that over the past 30 or so years, the percentage of low-income children in the United States who are underweight has gone down, the share of low-income households lacking complete plumbing facilities has declined, and the area of their homes adequately heated has gone up. The fraction of poor households with a telephone, a television set and a clothes dryer has risen sharply.

This is literally a combination of Lucky Ducky and sheer, unadulterated obliviousness to how other people live and get by. I mean, the the data don't lie. If you're so poor how come you are also not underweight? Checkmate.

# ? Jan 29, 2012 18:58

redmercer: Sep 15, 2011; by Fistgrrl

Presto posted:

As opposed to the illegitimate workforce? What?

Poor people sell drugs to get by. Even 100% SSI barely covers rent and a few bills, many places.

# ? Jan 29, 2012 19:12

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

If you think this is bad just wait. These articles are all about justifying the status quo, so as it gets harder and harder to pretend that the poor aren't living in abject misery you can expect to see more and more articles arguing that they get what they deserve.

Same thing happened in regards to income inequality. First they denied it was happening. Then they died it was happening to the degree that it was. Now a lot of columnists are starting to write about why its good for economic dynamism.

Expect the same thing with global warming. Yes, really.

# ? Jan 29, 2012 20:50

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

redmercer posted:

Poor people sell drugs to get by. Even 100% SSI barely covers rent and a few bills, many places.

A tiny minority of poor people are drug dealers, the rest simply do without, rely on other kinds of government assistance (e.g. free school breakfasts and lunches for their kids, which is why many poor children aren't able to get 3 meals a day during the summer months), or utilize private charity (e.g. soup kitchens, food pantries, etc.).

# ? Jan 30, 2012 00:46

redmercer: Sep 15, 2011; by Fistgrrl

Bruce Leroy posted:

A tiny minority of poor people are drug dealers, the rest simply do without, rely on other kinds of government assistance (e.g. free school breakfasts and lunches for their kids, which is why many poor children aren't able to get 3 meals a day during the summer months), or utilize private charity (e.g. soup kitchens, food pantries, etc.).

I was pointing out the characterization and why someone might use that term. Believe me, I've had more than a few meals courtesy of St. Vincent de Paul.

# ? Jan 30, 2012 01:27

Chexoid: Nov 5, 2009; Now that I have this dating robot I can take it easy.

Presto posted:

Absolute gem

We could reduce income inequality by trying to curtail the financial returns of education and the number of women in the workforce � but who would want to do that?

I need to limit the number of D&D threads I read. Reading the political comments, freep, and this thread in the same day... it's... it's too much. :negative:

# ? Jan 30, 2012 03:38

Ned: May 23, 2002; by Hand Knit

Adam Smith posted:

A linen shirt � is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct.

This is the part of Adam Smith's writing that people seem to ignore when they talk about poor people owning x-boxes and the like.

# ? Jan 30, 2012 04:18

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

Ned posted:

This is the part of Adam Smith's writing that people seem to ignore when they talk about poor people owning x-boxes and the like.

Right wingers who invoke Adam Smith have never read anything he wrote, at all. They just remember "Adam Smith = free trade" from high school, if that much.

# ? Jan 30, 2012 04:56

Chef Boyardeez Nuts: Sep 9, 2011; The more you kick against the pricks, the more you suffer.

So it turns out that SSI doesn't give a gently caress if you leave the country. If you get government paychecks get the gently caress to Costa Rica already.

# ? Jan 30, 2012 05:03

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

VideoTapir posted:

Right wingers who invoke Adam Smith have never read anything he wrote, at all. They just remember "Adam Smith = free trade" from high school, if that much.

I haven't read all of it, but doesn't Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" emphasize pretty much the opposite ideas of the type of capitalism championed by right-wingers (e.g. fetishizing the rich and hating on the poor) and their interpretations of "Wealth of Nations?"

# ? Jan 30, 2012 12:59

LP97S: Apr 25, 2008

Bruce Leroy posted:

I haven't read all of it, but doesn't Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" emphasize pretty much the opposite ideas of the type of capitalism championed by right-wingers (e.g. fetishizing the rich and hating on the poor) and their interpretations of "Wealth of Nations?"

Basically, there's many references in various works of Smith to a good safety net, an educated populace being better than a non-educated, and the dismissal of investments just to get money, not to invest in business. I've learned that trying to bring this up just gets you dismissed because of other misgivings about Friedman and The Chicago School. I still can't believe people defend Pinochet.

# ? Jan 30, 2012 13:05

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Smith was actually a fairly impressive moral philosopher in addition to expounding economic sentiments that wouldn't put him out of place among many social democrats. Pity he's remembered and feted as a champion of amoral ruthlessness.

# ? Jan 30, 2012 13:07

LP97S: Apr 25, 2008

Pope Guilty posted:

Smith was actually a fairly impressive moral philosopher in addition to expounding economic sentiments that wouldn't put him out of place among many social democrats. Pity he's remembered and feted as a champion of amoral ruthlessness.

It's also a pity that he isn't remembered for living with his mother most of his life, like many of the libertards who worship him.

# ? Jan 30, 2012 13:09

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

Pope Guilty posted:

Smith was actually a fairly impressive moral philosopher in addition to expounding economic sentiments that wouldn't put him out of place among many social democrats. Pity he's remembered and feted as a champion of amoral ruthlessness.

Anyone who could become a symbol of or champion for class conflict or for forcing upper classes to take responsibility for the society that feeds them has their identity coopted and attention toward their writings directed to ...anything other than that. Smith is the Free Market Capitalism founder, Marx is only about killing the wealthy classes, and Martin Luther King's only concern was the treatment of black people. We'll focus only on something that is part of OUR message, on something that doesn't really make a difference, or on something we can use to demonize them.

# ? Jan 30, 2012 13:27

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

^^^

Also see Einstein.

# ? Jan 30, 2012 16:17

Saint Sputnik: Apr 1, 2007; Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!

Just gonna jump to the meat of this Kathleen Parker write-up about the NYT's coverage of sex assault charges against a former Yale quarterback:

Kathleen Parker posted:

Who knows what �assault� even means as used in this case? The definition of assault can range from �unwanted sexual advance� to rape as most understand it. As long as we�re making inferences based on anonymous allegations, an inquisition by any other name, we might just as readily conclude that this was no rape. The accuser first reported whatever happened to the university�s Politburo-sounding �Sexual Harassment and Assault Response & Education Center,� then later filed an informal complaint with the �University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct.� Why not just call it �The Torquemada Institute�?

Make an allegation about sexual assault against an athlete? What are you, the Spanish Inquisition?

# ? Jan 30, 2012 16:56

Bel_Canto: Apr 23, 2007; "Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo."

VideoTapir posted:

Anyone who could become a symbol of or champion for class conflict or for forcing upper classes to take responsibility for the society that feeds them has their identity coopted and attention toward their writings directed to ...anything other than that. Smith is the Free Market Capitalism founder, Marx is only about killing the wealthy classes, and Martin Luther King's only concern was the treatment of black people. We'll focus only on something that is part of OUR message, on something that doesn't really make a difference, or on something we can use to demonize them.

Hellen Keller was just this kind of okay lady who did work for the blind and stuff and totally wasn't a socialist or anything and definitely wasn't a member of a radical socialist/anarchist labor union. Seriously, the amount of history that gets glossed over in schools and the popular press never ceases to astonish me. People like Martin Luther King and Hellen Keller become like a hundred times cooler when you realize that they really were working for a better world for everybody.

# ? Jan 30, 2012 18:05

FISHMANPET: Mar 3, 2007; Sweet 'N Sour
Can't
Melt
Steel Beams

Whenever I read this I'm reminded of a letter to the editor a few years ago in my school paper. It's petty, but every time I walk across the bridge it talks about I get mad.

So our campus is separated by a river, and there's a double decker bridge with cars on the bottom, pedestrians on top to connect the two sides. Now engineers found a problem with the bridge that while the middle of the walking bridge was strong, the edges were not laterally braced well, so if something happened that the sides moved the walking deck could collapse. So foot traffic was blocked to the (sturdy) center of the bridge while repairs were made. This was all reported in the school news paper.

Then some idiot wrote into the paper complaining about how stupid the school was, and if the bridge wasn't safe why would we concentrate all the weight in one part instead of spreading out the weight.

gently caress him.

# ? Jan 30, 2012 18:09

ThePeteEffect: Jun 12, 2007; I'm just crackers about cheese!; Fun Shoe

LP97S posted:

Basically, there's many references in various works of Smith to a good safety net, an educated populace being better than a non-educated, and the dismissal of investments just to get money, not to invest in business. I've learned that trying to bring this up just gets you dismissed because of other misgivings about Friedman and The Chicago School. I still can't believe people defend Pinochet.

Don't forget about progressive taxation:

Adam Smith posted:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

# ? Jan 30, 2012 18:44

Phlag: Nov 2, 2000; We make a special trip just for you, same low price.

I've never understood the obsession with Adam Smith in the first place. Economics is a science - or at least it strives to be one-, and obsessing over what one of the first modern economists thought and basing your national policy around that seems analogous to obsessing over what Alexander Graham Bell thought about telephones and basing the latest iPhone design on that. It lends credence to the idea that much of the devotion to various economic theories is more of a religious relationship than a practical, scientific one. While it's interesting that Smith had some progressive ideas (and revealing that so many conservatives don't recognize this), it shouldn't even matter if he hadn't, because in the 235 years since Wealth of Nations was published, a lot of other very smart people with very good data have also thought about the topics at hand.

# ? Jan 30, 2012 19:42

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Phlag posted:

I've never understood the obsession with Adam Smith in the first place. Economics is a science - or at least it strives to be one-, and obsessing over what one of the first modern economists thought and basing your national policy around that seems analogous to obsessing over what Alexander Graham Bell thought about telephones and basing the latest iPhone design on that. It lends credence to the idea that much of the devotion to various economic theories is more of a religious relationship than a practical, scientific one. While it's interesting that Smith had some progressive ideas (and revealing that so many conservatives don't recognize this), it shouldn't even matter if he hadn't, because in the 235 years since Wealth of Nations was published, a lot of other very smart people with very good data have also thought about the topics at hand.

Foundational principles are important. It's been 153 years since 'On the Origin of Species' was published, and Darwin is still the central name in biology, despite that many other great minds have worked on and helped to evolve (so to speak) the ideas on which he wrote.

To an extent, it's just about symbolism.

# ? Jan 30, 2012 23:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 14:51

A Fancy 400 lbs: Jul 24, 2008

The difference is that Biologists admit Darwin was wrong about many specific mechanisms even if he correctly figured out the general process, whereas hardcore ancaps all seem to base their ideas off the assumption that what Adam Smith said(or what they were taught he said) is correct and anything contradicting it is false.

# ? Jan 30, 2012 23:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »