|
sicarius posted:Has anyone told your aunt that, despite the crowing of the Religious Right, that the number of "Other" and "None" in the religious column is increasing. Gay marriage has unprecedented support. Evolution is now taught in every state by government mandate... even if some backwaters (like my lovely home Tennessee) also teach creationist nonsense. The problem is, you go tell a conservative religious person something like that, and you're far more likely to get told how God is going to sort it all out, the sinners are going to burn, blah blah blah. It's just going to strengthen their It'd be nice if we could tell these people stuff like that, and have them go "holy crap, you're right! I never thought of it that way before" and have the scales fall off their eyes and so forth. But sadly, we don't live in the Land of Reason. 
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 10:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
Why is the religious right so sure that their god would have wanted a heretic to be elected over Obama? I still can't wrap my mind around how they are ok with mormonism all of a sudden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 11:58
|
|
|
Branis posted:Why is the religious right so sure that their god would have wanted a heretic to be elected over Obama? I still can't wrap my mind around how they are ok with mormonism all of a sudden. He may be a mormon but at least he is not that scary black man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 12:24
|
|
|
Basically they both believe in religious hogwash, but one is Christian hogwash and the other is some crazy foreign brown hogwash. A lot of voters seem to have a 'eh, close enough' mentality. edit: We're operating under the assumption that Obama is Muslim, right? Ror fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Nov 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 12:28
|
|
|
I'm really looking forward to 2016 when America's economy has recovered, gay people have more civil rights than ever before, and Joe Biden is running for president. Then I'm going to use the right's rhetoric and point out how great socialism must be, if America had a Commie Nazi Muslim Socialist in office for 8 years and he saved the economy and stopped treating people like second-class citizens, and also it turned out he wasn't the Antichrist and the Rapture didn't happen. Then they'll get even madder, somehow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
'Fieldworks' being what exactly? Acorn?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
Ror posted:Basically they both believe in religious hogwash, but one is Christian hogwash and the other is some crazy foreign brown hogwash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 15:17
|
|
|
AlliedBiscuit posted:More terrible crap posted by my aunt: quote:4. All the Pollyanna Christians out there who voted for this anti-biblical mess, you should be ashamed and hit yourself in the head with a sledgehammer. Repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 15:41
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:This is all brilliant. I especially like the misogyny re: Madonna and "stop being pussies" imagery, and this quote: It's not like Evangelical Christians follow any of Jesus's other teachings why start now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
Branis posted:Why is the religious right so sure that their god would have wanted a heretic to be elected over Obama? I still can't wrap my mind around how they are ok with mormonism all of a sudden. This still remains the best description of the Abrahamic religions I've ever seen:  
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
This thread has me thoroughly convinced, at this point, that there is a direct correlation between one's ability to accept and interpret data and one's leftness on the political scale. Direct. The more I read, the further left I swing. I don't see myself becoming a full out Marxist, but I'm definitely further left of center than I was just a year ago when I started reading a non-fiction (usually economics or political) book with academic credentials every other week. It's impossible to remain a soulless right-wing bootstraps rear end in a top hat when you actually take the time to understand things that are hard... like numbers and data.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
sicarius posted:This thread has me thoroughly convinced, at this point, that there is a direct correlation between one's ability to accept and interpret data and one's leftness on the political scale. Direct. Not coincidentally, psychological studies (well, at least one) have shown a direct correlation between low intelligence, discrimination, and conservatism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Not coincidentally, psychological studies (well, at least one) have shown a direct correlation between low intelligence, discrimination, and conservatism. Yeah... and I've met a small number of very well educated and reasoned right wingers. Maybe it's my bias where I believe that leftist thought is more cohesive and reflective of the real world, but I'd think if it was bias I wouldn't have been the one drifting. I'm about to read The Republican Brain because I have to know just how deep the rabbit hole of self-imposed stupidity is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Branis posted:Why is the religious right so sure that their god would have wanted a heretic to be elected over Obama? I still can't wrap my mind around how they are ok with mormonism all of a sudden. Because for a large part of American Christianity, there is no division between religion and politics. Just because Mitt Romney calls himself a Mormon doesn't mean he's a different religion; after all, he's a rich, white man who hates poor people and gays and wants to keep browns and women in their places. So long as he namedrops Jesus, he's the exact same religion as whoever wrote that screed. Obama, on the other hand, is willing to at least pay lip service to social justice and equality, and is himself a black man, so he doesn't count. I mean, look at that thing. Point #3 is specifically that Christians should recommit themselves to GOD by following the U.S. Constitution. It is straight up saying that religion and reactionary politics are the same thing. It's nothing short of idolatry. e: Everyone should be careful about trying to argue that the right-wing is less educated, since in practice this is false. After all, the right-wing is overwhelmingly white privileged people, who are by far the most likely to have a good education. Intelligence and education help draw correct conclusions from data, but they also help defend the irrational beliefs that you need to (for example) justify being rich. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
sicarius posted:Yeah... and I've met a small number of very well educated and reasoned right wingers. Maybe it's my bias where I believe that leftist thought is more cohesive and reflective of the real world, but I'd think if it was bias I wouldn't have been the one drifting. I think the key difference is that most people that tend to consider themselves as liberals also tend to be fairly skeptical about most things without adequate proof. Whereas most conservatives (at least, in my experience anyways) tend to accept things at face value, don't bother to investigate things too deeply (lest they find out the truth about some of their most cherished beliefs) and tend to assume that the rest of the world thinks the same way they do. One of the funniest Obama attacks I ever read from one of my conservative friends was a FB argument (he posted the usual bullshit link to whatever Obama conspiracy theory was hot that week, several people responded by debunking it, to which he replied by getting progressively more personal and dismissive in his attacks) that ended with him saying "People need to learn to think for themselves and not just accept what they're told!" Yes, clearly it's the skeptical liberals that need to free their minds. Not the guy who worships Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and says that Romney worked for a company that "employed millions". 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:My girlfriend just got this from her grandad, and she sent it on to me for our mutual amusement and props to whoever it was in D&D that predicted early on that Benghazi would become the "loose change" of the Obama administration. Pretty fascinating to watch this whole thing escalate as it has. My own prediction is that Dinesh D'Souza will be announcing an expose documentary fairly soon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Because for a large part of American Christianity, there is no division between religion and politics. Just because Mitt Romney calls himself a Mormon doesn't mean he's a different religion; after all, he's a rich, white man who hates poor people and gays and wants to keep browns and women in their places. So long as he namedrops Jesus, he's the exact same religion as whoever wrote that screed. Obama, on the other hand, is willing to at least pay lip service to social justice and equality, and is himself a black man, so he doesn't count. It is actually true. I don't have the source on hand (on phone) but look up political party affiliation by education level, and you will see that something like 56% of people with a four year education identify as Democrat, and the split becomes much greater among grad degrees. There is some basis behind the "Ivory Tower Liberal" accusation after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Because for a large part of American Christianity, there is no division between religion and politics. Just because Mitt Romney calls himself a Mormon doesn't mean he's a different religion; after all, he's a rich, white man who hates poor people and gays and wants to keep browns and women in their places. So long as he namedrops Jesus, he's the exact same religion as whoever wrote that screed. Obama, on the other hand, is willing to at least pay lip service to social justice and equality, and is himself a black man, so he doesn't count. You would think so, but evidence suggests that while whites tend to break for Republicans, educated whites (4+ year degrees) tend to break for Democrats. And people with higher education are more likely to self identify as liberal. Of course, its important to distinguish between party voting and ideology. 95% of blacks voted for Obama, but that doesn't mean blacks overwhelmingly consider themselves liberal. Generally they prefer the Democratic Party because it at least wants to help the poor, even if it sometimes only half-asses it, and they at the very least aren't outright hostile to non-whites. But this all centers around statistics. Even if 40% of educated whites identify as liberal, and another 40% don't but still vote Dem, that still leaves 20% who are Conservative and/or vote Republican. So education isn't a guarantee of liberalism, it just tends to go that way. I wonder though if there's a difference in why people get an education. Like if liberals are more likely to seek an education out of a desire to learn more things and if conservatives tend to simply see it as a means to an end. As for conservatives you generally have two overly broad groups (who in no way encompasses everyone), in my experience. Those who are educated and espouse conservative ideology tend to have some stake in it. They may realize very well that what they are saying is garbage, or they really buy it, but either way they stand to benefit from it considerably (Koch brothers for example). Then there are the rank-in-file true believers barely getting by who honestly believe that if only the government didn't waste all their tax dollars and put gays and blacks back in their places, they too could be rich. This is the group that tends to fall in the "uneducated" category. But you are correct that people should avoid jumping to the conclusion that people are conservative simply because they're stupid. Everyone is different and people are complicated. For example, my grandparents are both Republicans because they always have been. They've been voting Republican since at least Eisenhower, and yet, if they liked Eisenhower, they should love Obama. But they don't. Not because they're stupid, but because they're tribal, and as the party message has changed, they've followed along because that's their team, so they must be correct! Of course, they also aren't the type who send out the poo poo you see in this thread, so they're hardly arch-conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:e: Everyone should be careful about trying to argue that the right-wing is less educated, since in practice this is false. After all, the right-wing is overwhelmingly white privileged people, who are by far the most likely to have a good education. Intelligence and education help draw correct conclusions from data, but they also help defend the irrational beliefs that you need to (for example) justify being rich. Actually, the study I posted accounts for both education level and socioeconomic status, and still finds a statistically significant correlation between low intelligence, discrimination, and conservative political views.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
Sarion posted:I wonder though if there's a difference in why people get an education. Like if liberals are more likely to seek an education out of a desire to learn more things and if conservatives tend to simply see it as a means to an end. This is a very interesting idea. When I started college I would consider myself a fiscal conservative - I was never in my life a social conservative, at least not what anyone would classify as one. However, I have always been an "academic"... even in high school I learned poo poo just to know more. I ended up with a triple major, double minor and a Master's degree - now pursuing a PhD. None of this is a "means to an end" for me. Certainly my desire to be a professor necessitates a PhD (realistically) but I'm not spending 5 more years working my rear end off just to do that - I enjoy the environment and atmosphere. If "learning poo poo" was a job, I'd be doing that since that's my real joy. I wonder if the conservative mind just doesn't understand pursuing a goal that has no "end". It fits with why many artists and writers are liberal. Certainly there are writers who, now, make gobs of money but no person picks the career "writer". They love to write and they do it - it just so happens they're good enough to make a career out of it. Very interesting hypothesis. If I was in sociology I might pursue that: "Goal seeking behavior as a determinant for political values."
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 03:42
|
|
AlliedBiscuit posted:More terrible crap posted by my aunt: That guy is literally Roger Dudek only real and way less funny.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:e: Everyone should be careful about trying to argue that the right-wing is less educated, since in practice this is false. After all, the right-wing is overwhelmingly white privileged people, who are by far the most likely to have a good education. Intelligence and education help draw correct conclusions from data, but they also help defend the irrational beliefs that you need to (for example) justify being rich. I can't quite agree with the notion of the right-wing electorate being made up of mostly privileged white people. I would argue that it's made up primarily of underprivileged white people, while being mostly controlled by privileged white people. There just aren't enough rich white people in the US to account for the (literal) 47% of the vote Romney got. Of course, that depends on the definition of "privileged"; in this case I'm referring to rich fatcats like Romney, the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Trump, Grover Norquist, the Papa John's guy, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:the Papa John's guy, etc. Not sure if this is helpful, but as someone who actually knows about him, the whole thing where he's taking a principled stand against doing the right thing has been eminently entertaining. He really is just a fucker. v  v
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
Man-Thing posted:I actually have some personal experience with John Schnatter, he is a fucker who doesn't tip, not his limo drivers, not his waiters, and theoretically, not his pizza delivery guys. The whole poo poo with Papa Johns is enough to make me not want to buy from them. Except, their pizzas make me physically ill to my stomach when I eat them... so I already stopped buying from them years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 05:34
|
|
|
Sarion posted:The whole poo poo with Papa Johns is enough to make me not want to buy from them. Except, their pizzas make me physically ill to my stomach when I eat them... so I already stopped buying from them years ago. It's a bad sign when your pizzas are so bad, people would rather eat the cardboard box they came in. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
sicarius posted:This is a very interesting idea. When I started college I would consider myself a fiscal conservative - I was never in my life a social conservative, at least not what anyone would classify as one. However, I have always been an "academic"... even in high school I learned poo poo just to know more. I ended up with a triple major, double minor and a Master's degree - now pursuing a PhD. None of this is a "means to an end" for me. Certainly my desire to be a professor necessitates a PhD (realistically) but I'm not spending 5 more years working my rear end off just to do that - I enjoy the environment and atmosphere. If "learning poo poo" was a job, I'd be doing that since that's my real joy. I was similar, both in ideology going into college and what I did when I was there... though not to the degree you have. I got a major in computer engineering, plus a minor in history just because I wanted to take some extra history classes for the fun of it. And then, instead of just going and getting a job, I stuck around to get my Master's. In computer engineering there is a definite benefit to this as it makes it easier to find a job and started me at a higher pay grade. But at the time, I had taken some classes from professors I really liked, and they had more graduate level course work that they taught so I applied to grad school just so I could take those classes. It paid off, but I would have wanted to do it anyways. Though, the financial benefits played a part too, mainly from the stand point of: "I really want to take those classes, but do I want to take them badly enough to pay $32,000 plus interest?" In a perfect world I would still be in school studying more stuff, not just computer engineering. Though I do love computer engineering, I went into it because it interested me, though there were plenty of others in my classes who obviously felt differently but wanted a fairly certain, good job. I just can't imagine spending years studying something you hate just to get a job doing that very thing for 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
Sarion posted:The whole poo poo with Papa Johns is enough to make me not want to buy from them. Except, their pizzas make me physically ill to my stomach when I eat them... so I already stopped buying from them years ago. Papa Johns is... alright. It's overpriced as all get out though... and now we're RAISING PRICES! Dominos is, basically, the only delivery pizza I'll eat anymore. It tastes good enough, is delivered hot and on time, and I can get two mediums for like 13 bucks. It's not what I'd choose if I was doing carryout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:I would argue that it's made up primarily of underprivileged white people, while being mostly controlled by privileged white people. Hey, you should really be siding with us, because we're white like you, rather than with them because they are poor like you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Hey, you should really be siding with us, because we're white like you, rather than with them because they are poor like you. Also known as "Welcome to the Republican Party!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Hey, you should really be siding with us, because we're white like you, rather than with them because they are poor like you. You mean an entire group of people votes against their economic interests and has done so for decades?!  Tell me more! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
My step-dad told me today that if he was diagnosed with some terminal disease and only had one month to live, he would spend it trying to kill Obama. I think he may have seen my "I <3 NPR" bag and gotten upset at me. I was also driving through the DFW area yesterday and found a conservative radio station. Some dude was talking about how he was having drinks one day with an advisor for the Carter administration, and that the advisor said that "welfare is societies' payment for keeping the poor in their place." This, of course, has a biblical story to go with it - when Jesus was being anointed with expensive oils by his disciples, one of his disciples asked why they were using the oils for that, when they could instead sell the oils and donate the money to the poor. And do you know what that disciples' name was? Judas. So I guess the moral of the story is that liberals secretly hate the poor and want to see them all crucified, while upstanding Christian Conservatives want to... not do that i guess? It was so absurd that I just burst out laughing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
Got this one from an uncle the other day:quote:The more and more stuff that comes out of Congress and the ongoing hearings, the more questions that are left unanswered. President Obama had a press conference where he was asked "What did he do to save the four Americans in Lybia." To which his answer was, "That he ordered his people to do EVERYTHING they could to save them."
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 09:28
|
|
|
What the gently caress did they think Obama hoped to accomplish by letting this happen? "Oh yep ya caught me I sure am a gently caress up of a president hur hur!" If he was going to let the "muslim brotherhood" invade wouldn't he have them take out something that could actually destabilize the US? I'm not saying these deaths aren't tragedies, but if he wanted to bring the US to its knees this isn't making a huge statement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 14:00
|
|
|
People really forget how big of a deal Watergate was. It destroyed so much faith in our system and was a direct strike against democracy as a whole. It was the first stumble into the US with becoming a country where the ruling party can harass, steal and destroy any opposing parties in order to maintain their power and we should all be thankful that it was (mostly) handled in such a way that prevents those who came after from trying to continue down that path. Also, these assholes need to learn how to spell Libya.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 14:06
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:What the gently caress did they think Obama hoped to accomplish by letting this happen? alot of them probably suspect it was done out of pure murderous spite for American soldiers and Obama just couldn't help himself from letting them die, even if it came at a political cost. The real Obama has revealed himself, you see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
PBJ posted:Got this one from an uncle the other day: This kind of stuff is amazing to me. Its like, they think dropping a bunch of JDAMs on it is the go to answer for everything. No intel on what's going on..surprise attack...CALL IN FAST MOVERS. We're doomed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:This kind of stuff is amazing to me. Its like, they think dropping a bunch of JDAMs on it is the go to answer for everything. No intel on what's going on..surprise attack...CALL IN FAST MOVERS. I was particularly stunned when former fellow service members were posting the same kind of poo poo. These are people who really should know better. The US military isn't a goddamn SWAT team; short of a small, rapid response force that is already on high alert, there's no way in the world the average military force would have been able to mobilize quickly enough to 1)arrive in time to save the people in Benghazi and 2)be the remotest bit effective once they hit the ground. To say nothing of the fact that if you hurl either missiles or troops into an area where you have zero loving intelligence on the ground as to what's what, you're going to have some horrendous losses of life on all sides. Yet there they were, people I know who served at least four years in the military, all claiming that Navy SEALs were amped up and ready to go, and/or we should have bombed Libya off the face of the planet (and throw Egypt in as well)! Yeah, never mind that they'd have arrived four or five hours after the attacks were already over, and that we'd have wiped out every ounce of goodwill we had with the civilian populace. Christ almighty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:I was particularly stunned when former fellow service members were posting the same kind of poo poo. These are people who really should know better. The US military isn't a goddamn SWAT team; short of a small, rapid response force that is already on high alert, there's no way in the world the average military force would have been able to mobilize quickly enough to 1)arrive in time to save the people in Benghazi and 2)be the remotest bit effective once they hit the ground. To say nothing of the fact that if you hurl either missiles or troops into an area where you have zero loving intelligence on the ground as to what's what, you're going to have some horrendous losses of life on all sides. Fox News is a hell of a drug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:e: Everyone should be careful about trying to argue that the right-wing is less educated, since in practice this is false. After all, the right-wing is overwhelmingly white privileged people, who are by far the most likely to have a good education. Intelligence and education help draw correct conclusions from data, but they also help defend the irrational beliefs that you need to (for example) justify being rich. Mostly I think that people should be careful about arguing that way because 'You only believe this because you are stupid and ignorant' is a pretty bad way to begin any sort of discussion and basically poisons the dialogue before it begins. I mean if you don't give a poo poo about changing people's minds, ok, but if you are hoping to actually sway anyone it isn't a good way to start (or continue).
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I feel really bad to claim bullshit on a rape story but with a subject as heated as Islam in the US, a random post from an anonymous source doesnt raise a lot of confidence in its validity. There's no reasons to claim bullshit on this. This person was raped by a friend of the family. Depressingly, this happens all around the world, and is not unique to Muslims. It's unfortunate that she concludes from this that Muslims are all rapists, but some people come to terrible conclusions as a response to traumatic events in their lives. That doesn't mean we should accept these conclusions on face value. What I find really strange is that this person's parents had just one Muslim friend in Saudi Arabia. How does that work? Content: I've had the distinct pleasure of, during the span of a few hours, being called a hypocrite and only wanting to bring ruin to Israel by one set of people (arguing under one of the many Hasbara memes promulgated during the now soon to be forgotten Cloud Pillar operation), and being called an Israel supporter for telling someone that just blocking out all Israeli IP's from your website, as a response to Israel's crimes, is stupid for many, many reasons. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle.  A positive part, I guess, of the first discussion is that I manage to outlast my interlocutors, as in, they decided to give up on the discussion instead of me getting exasperated. So progress, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 20:03
|
|
