|
Sir Tonk posted:I thought the media was controlled by Jews. The whole "secretly run everything with their shitzillions and religious cabals" stereotype is heavily applied to both groups, so insert Jews/Arabs as needed.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Yeah sometimes I wish Beck would get into the Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission stuff Jones is so obsessed with. I'm sick of hearing about "political mastermind" George Soros and how he controls the entire world. I need more stories about how the elites are going to kill off 3/4 of the planet's population. Don't forget nazis and communists. Boogie men are always somehow connected to one or both of those groups. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:How old were you when it happened? I had the same reaction, and I was 7 years out of the military when 9/11 happened. I even went as far as to contact a recruiter about what I might need to do to sign back up. A lot of us (including myself, I'll shamefacedly admit) jumped on the crazy train for a while after 9/11. The difference between us and the people like Dennis Miller is that at some point, a lot of us couldn't remain cognitively dissonant forever and started doubting and questioning what the hell was going on. People like Miller either can't or won't ask themeselves those kind of questions (in Miller's case, I suspect it's because he makes way too much money off the conservative media to want to do so). Also, on the S.E. Cupp thing, I was watching "The Cycle" on MSNBC just now, and she's still showing off her legs. It's nowhere near as blatant as it was on Fox News, but every time the camera cuts to a shot of the table with the four-person group on the show, it's to her left, and you can see her gams in full view. I should also note that they do not do this with the other female host (Krystal Ball). I guess it's just a hard habit for Cupp to break. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I'm pretty disappointed he even felt like that. That's loving disgusting. I felt much the same way. Hell, check out the SA thread from 9/11 and you'll see a lot of the same attitude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I felt much the same way. Hell, check out the SA thread from 9/11 and you'll see a lot of the same attitude. I was only 12 and was swept up in all of the hysterics, but I can attest that some otherwise really pacifistic and awesome people were (in hindsight) hideously zealous about "KILL 'EM ALL" It was hugely prevalent, but while a lot of us got over it and are really embarrassed, our society still hasn't really "recovered", I don't think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
Pretty sure the default human position when you feel threatened and have no idea the extent of that threat is to move to a much more aggressive position, its a natural response. With 9/11 it was unexpected and for quite a while the general public had no idea exactly who was responsible and what they were capable of, so even people who are typically more passive were chomping at the bit to bomb the hell out of someone. As more information started getting out that was a much more untenable position. It wasn't a state attack, the organization who planned it was largeish but could be attacked, we had a figurehead to hunt down and in the end this attack was incredibly unlikely to succeed in the first place. The chances of it happening again are very low as something on this scale is something that is also very easily hosed up in the most mundane ways. Logical people realized the threat wasn't as bad as the weird stuff we had all pictured that morning and that blowing up the planet wasn't necessarily the wisest action. I don't fault anyone who reacted to those attacks badly, though I honestly cant understand those that couldn't make sense of it much later once the dust had settled and instead turned into angry bitter people. Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Nov 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Pretty sure the default human position when you feel threatened and have no idea the extent of that threat is to move to a much more aggressive position, its a natural response. With 9/11 it was unexpected and for quite the general public had no idea exactly who was responsible and what they were capable of, so even people who are typically more passive were chomping at the bit to bomb the hell out of someone. It didn't help that the internet and the media were reporting some wild poo poo in the morning/early afternoon of 9/11. I heard stories about terrorists shooting it out with the Secret Service over at the Capitol in Washington, I heard that there were upwards of 20 planes that weren't responding to transmissions, I heard that US embassies were being attacked all over the world. It was pretty intense and terrifying for the first few hours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
prefect posted:Dennis Miller absolutely cracked up around 9/11. He was relatively liberal beforehand, and turned into "bomb the dirty foreigners at all costs" afterward. It happened to a lot of people. I was a fan of a humorist named James Lileks who had the same thing go wrong in his brain. James Lileks? No...  I'm gonna have to try my hardest to avoid any political stuff he's written.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
I meant to mention this the other day. I tune into Rush for a few minutes a week just to...well...just to tune I guess. As of today, he's still going with the Obama Claus meme but that's not what I came here to post. Thursday, I think it was, when Skyfall came out, I caught about 5 minutes of him going on about how Bond villains always used to be secret cabals and world domination types like SPECTRE and whatever but he was saying how, as much as he "loves Bond movies and has them all on Blu-ray", that James Bond isn't what he used to be because now all of the villains are rich, corporate overlords trying to steal everyone's money, which I guess is indicative of...I dunno...something. Probably Hollywood not wanting to offend terrorist organizations or something and instead going after corporate barons. I didn't listen long enough to get to the punchline, but what's he on about anyway? Like Goldfinger, Dr. No, Francisco Scaramanga or Blofeld ever had an interest in global finance? Rush can find a liberal conspiracy anywhere. Also, if Hollywood is run by liberal Jews, as they espouse, why would they worry about offending Muslim terrorists anyway? As an aside, can anyone point me to a dedicated Benghazi thread? I haven't seen one. Or even a link with a coherent narrative of what we know so far? I'm taking on a lot of FOX listening right wing dopes on some other boards and could use some help rebutting a lot of foolish talking points. Basically, they think Obama smoked cigarettes and shot hoops while watching 4 Americans die while giving "stand down" orders because...um...he's incompetent and doesn't care about them. For some reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
The Benghazi discussion has been strewn over several threads. I know that armyman of all people compiled a decent short list of things that happened. I guess you could ask in the middle east thread for someone to give you a quick rundown.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Bait and Swatch posted:I was listening to that as well (Patriot on Sirius gives me the talking points I will be hearing from my Conservative co-workers, it pays be be prepared)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:I was only 12 and was swept up in all of the hysterics, but I can attest that some otherwise really pacifistic and awesome people were (in hindsight) hideously zealous about "KILL 'EM ALL" I was 8 and I don't think my reaction was more complex than "whoooo I get the day off school whoooo". Perhaps I should have been more concerned at the time since both of my parents worked in DC at the time but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:How old were you when it happened? Sydney Bottocks posted:I had the same reaction, and I was 7 years out of the military when 9/11 happened. I even went as far as to contact a recruiter about what I might need to do to sign back up. I was 20 when 9/11 happened, and prior to that I was what you would then consider a moderate Republican. When the attacks happened I was on my way to school and hadn't flipped on the radio yet - the whole campus was shut down and I finally got the whole story. I wasn't shocked or afraid - I remembered the earlier WTC bombing from childhood, as well as the Oklahoma City bombing. And there were attacks on US embassies and on the USS Cole within a few years of 9/11, so it wasn't like I'd never heard of Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden at that point. It seemed like a large attack was looming. It was in the aftermath where my ideology really got pulled hard left and it's been there ever since. The Patriot Act was pretty outrageous and it was pretty depressing trying to argue with lots of so-called conservatives who advocated for really draconian security measures. Then for some reason we invaded Iraq and the GOP became very strongly anti-Muslim and at that point I don't think I voted for a single GOP candidate ever again. A few years ago I got laid off and spent some time at a community college taking some classes to brush up on random skills, and during one copywriting class we were all directed to write about traumatic experiences. Without fail, everybody under the age of 22 cited 9/11 as the most traumatic experience and some of them broke down emotionally while reading their writing out loud. It was a pretty  moment for me, because I got a little terrified that those kinds of people would become our nation's political leaders in 25-30 years.I still can't reconcile the fact that the younger generation has popularized ironic detachment and yet is still so moved by something like 9/11. Or perhaps that detachment was borne from a need to distance emotionally from unpleasant feelings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
Lord Lambeth posted:I was 8 and I don't think my reaction was more complex than "whoooo I get the day off school whoooo". Perhaps I should have been more concerned at the time since both of my parents worked in DC at the time but whatever. The best analogy I heard was that it invoked the same basic response as finding out some scumbag slept with your little sister. It doesn't matter the circumstances, the reasons, or anything else, you have an instinctual primal response to hit him, don't stop until he wishes he never met her, and maybe gently caress up his car for good measure. Back here in the real world, you don't, and you smile when she invites him over for thanksgiving even though he's in dirty jeans and a hoodie and doesn't look like he's washed his hands ever. No matter how rational you are, somebody hurt our country, and we had no warning or explanation, so that pack instinct to protect those of our group that cannot defend themselves kicked in. The best way to do that is to hurt the enemy until they can't or at least never want to do it again. And that feeling swept across the entire country. Which is good, and normal. Not letting go of that anger after 10 years? Especially when nobody you actually know was affected? That's another story. At this point it's not an emotional response to tragedy, it's Anger Logic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I was 20 when 9/11 happened, and prior to that I was what you would then consider a moderate Republican. When the attacks happened I was on my way to school and hadn't flipped on the radio yet - the whole campus was shut down and I finally got the whole story. This was exactly me too. I remember being completely shocked by the violence, but my initial reaction, that never really changed, was "they finished the job from 94". I was glad we went into Afghanistan to try and track down OBL, but the Patriot Act and Iraq really really pulled me hard left. I bought into "compassionate conservatism" as a 17 year old, but the aftermath of 9/11 revealed it all to me as a farce.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I meant to mention this the other day. I tune into Rush for a few minutes a week just to...well...just to tune I guess. As of today, he's still going with the Obama Claus meme but that's not what I came here to post. Thursday, I think it was, when Skyfall came out, I caught about 5 minutes of him going on about how Bond villains always used to be secret cabals and world domination types like SPECTRE and whatever but he was saying how, as much as he "loves Bond movies and has them all on Blu-ray", that James Bond isn't what he used to be because now all of the villains are rich, corporate overlords trying to steal everyone's money, which I guess is indicative of...I dunno...something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_cM7tpsHx0 They do this all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_cM7tpsHx0 That's hilarious. The poor tend not to have the means to carry out grand evil schemes that make for good action adventure movies. There are tons of movies about street crime that "villanize the working man" if you want that, Fox.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 08:28
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:James Lileks? No... Oh Lileks was the worst. He would alternate between posting these saccharine, vapid anecdotes about his young daughter and bloodthirsty cheerleading for war in Iraq. At one point he just posted a picture of his daughter and words to the effect of "Don't you get it? This is why we must invade Iraq immediately. " I was fascinated by him, actually. It was like he was unknowingly demonstrating some kind of innate human savagery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 13:30
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:James Lileks? No... Yeah, that was a sad turn. His food writing is still hilarious!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 13:38
|
|
|
So I was on my lunch break yesterday and I tuned into Hannity's radio show for a few minutes and heard the most ridiculous segment on affirmative action. He was talking about affirmative action as it related to college admissions (and California schools in particular) and his bullet points were essentially this: 1) Do away with all affirmative action 2) We know and accept that all ivy league schools (Harvard, Yale, Berkley, etc) would become de-facto segregated within a few years 3) That's okay because we have studies that show black people usually get bad grades, or drop out, of ivy league schools 4) It's better for black people to go to a state school rather than ivy league because they'll do better and not drop out so they'll feel better about themselves 5) Ivy league schools will want to work with high schools in their state (and maybe nation) to help set standards that will help the next crop of black high school students get in to ivy league schools. They will do this out of the goodness of their hearts. 6) Profit?  I was trying to not project my own feelings on Hannity but it really sounded as if he was insinuating that black people are dumb and lazy, but of course it's not HE who thinks that, he had "studies" that "all the experts agree on." It's weird how some conservatives can get half way to a reasonable argument... "the high school education system is radically different for white versus minority students in America and minorities are generally under-prepared for college" and then hang a sharp right and take the crazy train to FYGM-ville "so therefore we should let them get the sub-standard post-secondary education they deserve to spare their feelings for having the unfortunate problem of being black." And that's not even taking into account the unquantifiable perks of going to an ivy league school like meeting people with money and connections that presumably will be an asset to the person, black or white, for the rest of his/her life. Arrghhh why do I listen to talk radio!?!?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
Xarthor posted:And that's not even taking into account the unquantifiable perks of going to an ivy league school like meeting people with money and connections that presumably will be an asset to the person, black or white, for the rest of his/her life. Arrghhh why do I listen to talk radio!?!? Actually, I'm very sure he was taking into account all of those perks that "Urban Voters" shouldn't get because they won't be allowed at Ivy League schools because he's at worst a racist gently caress and at best a classist shill. Oh... and this "black guy" went to an Ivy League school and now we all have to pay for it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
Xarthor posted:
How odd. You sure that was Hannity? that doesn't sound like him at all. What a strange diatribe for him to go off on. edit: A Winner is Jew posted:he's at worst a racist gently caress and at best a classist shill. Why can't he be both? He's a greasy, oily, shameless, smug used car salesman that will do anything for money. The more I listen to these types of shows, the more I'm convinced that Hannity is probably the worst of the lot. Rush is caricature - a walking cartoon character at this point - that only the hardest of the hardcore believers take seriously at all and who most people tune into just for the outrageousness of it all, but Sean has a way with his demeanor, his arrogant, punchable face and a talent for delivering unbelievable bullshit in a way that's believable and marginally credible to the gullible and naive horde he preaches to every day. What I mean is gently caress Sean Hannity and I wish he would go away. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Nov 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
Relentless posted:The best analogy I heard was that it invoked the same basic response as finding out some scumbag slept with your little sister. That is a really dumb analogy in at least two ways. It takes away "little sister's" free will to sleep with whoever she wants to sleep with (to me that is really nothing my big brothers have any say in). Unless it is rape or she is somehow forced into things ("cannot defend [her]self"), she does not need to be protected from sleeping with people. And if she brings him around to Thanksgiving then clearly she sees something in him. In another way it also contradicts what you say about "no warning or explanation" since the analogy says Osama ("little sister") slept with America, we don't like that so we will hurt him and his followers. -- OK, so I cannot really find the words to express clearly what I mean here, sorry. I am just a stupid foreigner, things are simpler over here 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I meant to mention this the other day. I tune into Rush for a few minutes a week just to...well...just to tune I guess. As of today, he's still going with the Obama Claus meme but that's not what I came here to post. Thursday, I think it was, when Skyfall came out, I caught about 5 minutes of him going on about how Bond villains always used to be secret cabals and world domination types like SPECTRE and whatever but he was saying how, as much as he "loves Bond movies and has them all on Blu-ray", that James Bond isn't what he used to be because now all of the villains are rich, corporate overlords trying to steal everyone's money, which I guess is indicative of...I dunno...something. If you ever needed a non-political example of how Rush is full of poo poo, it's this. Between the Muppet movie, the newest Batman movie, and now this James Bond movie, Rush has shown that he will not hesitate to bloviate about films he has not seen or even bothered to read a plot synopsis. He will then take this complete lack of facts and knowledge, sometimes even reverse facts to their exact opposite like he did with the Bane character in Dark Knight Rises, and apply it to his ideology . His complete incompetence at even being able to render an informed opinion on a movie millions of people have actually seen should highlight exactly why his thought process is corrupted and should never be taken seriously. It may seem trivial given all the other poo poo Rush is constantly super wrong about but people who might actually listen to Rush are immune to facts when it comes to politics. If it can be pointed out he can't get the simplest things right about hugely popular movies that almost everyone has seen, it can be a way to show just how uninformed and useless his opinions really are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
This is just a natural extension of having the dumbest, least critical audience around. He knows their bullshit detectors have been disabled in the BIOS, so why even bother being right about anything. He just loving talks, and sometimes those words add up into a killer hate riff, but usually he's just talking. Everything springs from the premise of LIBERALS!LIBERALS!!UAGGGHHLIBRALS!!?!. There's no such thing as a lie in the media anymore and so there's no punishment for telling them. So why even bother to wiki your African child-soldiering terrorist groups before pronouncing them friends of Jesus. Like why even loving bother if there's no rewards and no consequences involved.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
Perfidia posted:That is a really dumb analogy in at least two ways. It takes away "little sister's" free will to sleep with whoever she wants to sleep with (to me that is really nothing my big brothers have any say in). Unless it is rape or she is somehow forced into things ("cannot defend [her]self"), she does not need to be protected from sleeping with people. And if she brings him around to Thanksgiving then clearly she sees something in him. The point is that your older brothers don't actually beat up your boyfriend, even if they don't like him. The initial response to 9/11 from a lot of people was "Nuke the entire middle east from Egypt to Pakistan until it's a solid sheet of glass". You still go after Osama, but there were quite a lot of people suggesting bombing of entire countries to get him. Not in a targeted drone strike way, but in a "We're running low on nuclear missiles" way. That is not a rational response, but it's an understandable one. At least for a few seconds or minutes, but then you calm down and actually address the problem. Hell, after we actually killed OBL, there were people saying Obama should have just nuked it instead of risking American soldier's lives. They're loving crazy, but that sentiment still exists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:This is just a natural extension of having the dumbest, least critical audience around. He knows their bullshit detectors have been disabled in the BIOS, so why even bother being right about anything. He just loving talks, and sometimes those words add up into a killer hate riff, but usually he's just talking. Everything springs from the premise of LIBERALS!LIBERALS!!UAGGGHHLIBRALS!!?!. There's no such thing as a lie in the media anymore and so there's no punishment for telling them. So why even bother to wiki your African child-soldiering terrorist groups before pronouncing them friends of Jesus. Like why even loving bother if there's no rewards and no consequences involved. Oh I know why he does it. It's just mind blowing that people go along with it, even with poo poo that they see with their very own eyes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Oh I know why he does it. It's just mind blowing that people go along with it, even with poo poo that they see with their very own eyes. I said it a while back, but it bears repeating: though everyone is guilty of varying degrees of cognitive dissonance, the amount required to go through daily life as a modern-day conservative must be staggering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
Relentless posted:The point is that your older brothers don't actually beat up your boyfriend, even if they don't like him. Well, thanks for explaining it a bit more to me. I guess there are some cultural differences between our countries that can be confusing sometimes. (For example, Hollywood tells me that if I so much as mention someone's mother, the other person will immediately go bersek on me. Huh.) Other than that I do understand the immediate rage at the perpetrators and backers of an event like 9/11. My parents had some similar reactions at the murder of Olof Palme, except that was too undirected since nobody knew who had shot him. It is natural to want to strike back, but it is a bit strange to me that so many people feel this way over a decade later and with all the fighting that has gone on since then. I don't know, it feels like it could be time to move forward without forgetting the past. Also, perpetual rage is very unhealthy, as can be seen over in the FReeper thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
Perfidia posted:Well, thanks for explaining it a bit more to me. I guess there are some cultural differences between our countries that can be confusing sometimes. (For example, Hollywood tells me that if I so much as mention someone's mother, the other person will immediately go bersek on me. Huh.) As a Jew living in So Cal I can tell you that 100% of Hollywood is bullshit. And yeah, most Americans did go pretty ape poo poo after 9/11 but for the vast majority of us those emotions only lasted a few years at the most (thus Bush getting re-elected) with only the crazies still wanting to nuke the ME over it. Also, those same crazies probably wanted to nuke the ME before 9/11, it's just that now they have a significant historical event to make it seem just slightly less than bat poo poo when they talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Right wingers and movies You just reminded me that a few years ago I was visiting my FOX News watching/Drudge reading/am radio listening in laws for Christmas and a few of us got the idea to go see Avatar late one night. A weird look washed over my in laws' faces when the idea was suggested. I didn't know why at the time but later I learned that this, I guess, is one of those movies on conservative's poo poo list for one reason or another. Something about a left wing environmental agenda. I remember it struck me as really odd at the time; the reaction I got. Like suggesting to a group of atheists or Jews at 11pm on Christmas Eve that we should all go to midnight mass. It wasn't until months later, after I'd finally seen the film and had heard the talking points about it why It Was Bad that it suddenly hit me why I may as well have taken a poo poo on the table instead of suggesting that movie. One more anecdotal example about how this poo poo really penetrates people's thinking. 800peepee51doodoo posted:Oh I know why he does it. It's just mind blowing that people go along with it, even with poo poo that they see with their very own eyes. They don't trust their own eyes until Rush tells them what to see. It wasn't until 48 hours later after Romney's completely indefensible "47% video" surfaced that I began to hear parroted defenses about why he was really right. I can only surmise that Limbaugh listeners watch that video, instinctively and correctly view it as horrible and then turn to Hannity and Limbaugh to learn why they shouldn't be repulsed by it. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Nov 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
Perfidia posted:Well, thanks for explaining it a bit more to me. I guess there are some cultural differences between our countries that can be confusing sometimes. (For example, Hollywood tells me that if I so much as mention someone's mother, the other person will immediately go bersek on me. Huh.) My girlfriend comes from a nice christian family (of liberal and/or libertarians, thankfully) and uses "your mom" jokes. To her pastor brother. In front of her mother. So, yeah, ignore Hollywood. Some people just get sucked in by the anger logic, and that rage just keeps looping back and feeding itself. Relentless fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Nov 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
Perfidia posted:Well, thanks for explaining it a bit more to me. I guess there are some cultural differences between our countries that can be confusing sometimes. (For example, Hollywood tells me that if I so much as mention someone's mother, the other person will immediately go bersek on me. Huh.) I think it's just Italians and blacks that freak out like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:You just reminded me that a few years ago I was visiting my FOX News watching/Drudge reading/am radio listening in laws for Christmas and a few of us got the idea to go see Avatar late one night. A weird look washed over my in laws' faces when the idea was suggested. I didn't know why at the time but later I learned that this, I guess, is one of those movies on conservative's poo poo list for one reason or another. Something about a left wing environmental agenda. Avatar is one of the most widely seen and popular movies ever made, the fact that they can't handle a relatively simple sci-fi flick where the overarching message is "committing genocide against indigenous populations is bad" means they're the ones hosed in the head.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:
What was the reason anyway? I've heard a bunch of criticism launched at that film, some with more cogency than others and I'm willing to bet the reason given was firmly loving nutty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:What was the reason anyway? I've heard a bunch of criticism launched at that film, some with more cogency than others and I'm willing to bet the reason given was firmly loving nutty. I never asked them the reason or got into it with them and, at the time, couldn't understand the resistance to seeing it. I just remember feeling like I'd suggested we all vomit in a beer pitcher together and suggesting we have a contest to see who could chug the most. Even later, when they visited in the spring and it was on OnDemand, they didn't want to watch it. I know it's on the conservative poo poo list for some reason, some of them probably along the lines of what Axetrain cited. I vaguely remember FOX and conservatives having some sort of problem with it when it came out. ... Ah, yes. Here it is. I'll spare everyone the entire article and the bravest amongst us can click on it and see what I mean. FOX News posted:A white man “going native.” Where have we seen that before? It’s the story of “Dances With Wolves,” for openers, along with a little bit of the old cartoon series, “Captain Planet.” And did I mention there’s a maniacal military officer as the heavy? Needless to say, this character, Colonel Quaritch, gets all the best lines in the film, and indeed Quaritch, played by Stephen Lang, is so over-the-top that he is destined to develop his own cult following, as did Lee Ermey, two decades ago, for his poetically profane performance as Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in the 1987 film, “Full Metal Jacket.” http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/18/james-pinkerton-avatar-review/ So FOX News and conservatives can see a liberal left wing agenda in anything and spin a persecution complex out of it, from math, science and reading all the way up to James Bond and James Cameron and whether or not WalMart greeters say "Happy Holidays" or "Merry Christmas". My guess would be that my in laws heard/read these things about Avatar (which was loving awesome by the way), decided ahead of time they didn't like its message and wouldn't watch it. Yes, they are hosed in the head. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Nov 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:What was the reason anyway? I've heard a bunch of criticism launched at that film, some with more cogency than others and I'm willing to bet the reason given was firmly loving nutty. It's because the movie depicts Glorious Job Creators as amoral sociopaths willing to displace, exploit and murder native populations in order to more easily extract resources for profit. This is seen as an objectionable fabrication by the right wing, despite literally countless examples from reality throughout history. Avatar is a lovely movie, though, for many many reasons but not for the ones conservatives come up with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:It's because the movie depicts Glorious Job Creators as amoral sociopaths willing to displace, exploit and murder native populations in order to more easily extract resources for profit. This is seen as an objectionable fabrication by the right wing, despite literally countless examples from reality throughout history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
There are a lot of glorious Conservative tears on the Mike Church show this morning. Today's talking point seems to be over the idea of voter fraud and the activist calling for boycotting the electoral college so the House can decide the president. Either way, liisten in if you enjoy 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
If you don't want to put up with your liberal relatives gloating at the Thanksgiving table, pretend you're a liberal and come up with fun scenarios like, "I made an A in biology but three other students got Fs so my professor asked if it would be okay if I'd take a C so everyone can have a passing grade." Heh, or you can give everyone at the table a shot glass full of eggnog and tell them you're just trying to be fair. Your relatives won't be mad at you because you aren't arguing with them and maybe they'll understand why "spreading the wealth" just makes no darn sense. That was the hour of Hannity I listened to yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 15:02
|
|