|
Dudes! posted:I just checked out Redstate; is it usually this bad. quote:But with some estimates of nearly 75% of Black babies being born outside of marriage, obviously commitment and family are not as valued among this particular human classification as he is persuading his readers to believe. Wow...this was just atrociously bad. Ignorant on so many levels. So I googled for more Frederick Meekins stuff to see if this was his modus operandi of racism: http://www.friedwire.org/fried_racist_11-1-05.html (the link is a little nutty but these are Meekins quotes) quote:I had intended to augment my stable of media pinheads with this sorry-rear end dufus. But as a self-described 'Internet Columnist' (in other words he's a guy who types opinionated crap on the Web like myself), I thought it was pushing it too far to call him a journalist – even a bad one. If Fred's a journo, then Orlando Bloom is a 300 pound trucker from Buffalo. Here's the official bio: He also says this about black history month: http://www.friedwire.org/scornucopia.html quote:"Why is there even a Black History Month? I don’t remember there being one where we clap for people just because they are White." Here Fred employs the time-honored excuse of accusing the other side of racism first (the old fuckwitted 'minorities oppressing whitey' bullshit that didn't even work on Archie Bunker) to make his drooling white supremacism seem less offensive and merely defensive. And, if Fred's 'keeping it too real for you', you're always free to go home. "Those whose hearts are elsewhere are always free to return to their places of origin if they find our way of life all that odious" he says. I guess Fred could never get his pinhead around the fact that you don't have to be a minority to hate him. If this prick represents the white race, I'm changing my name to Yusef and filling out an application for the Nation of Islam ASAP. Fred Meekins is basically a David Duke racist. Spacedad fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jan 4, 2013 |
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
sicarius posted:I love listening to Levin. At this point all he can do is grasp at straws and ask his people to be obstructionist assholes and primary EVERYONE who voted for the guy. I love how, at this point, Republican no longer means Conservative and it's now a completely different class of political entity. Please, please, please, please splinter the right even more. The further these people drive one another apart the better this nation is going to be in the long run. I have never in my life been happier to have the extreme right around. The best part of Levin is how angry he gets all the time, I love his shrill yelling. Warcabbit posted:My personal favorite bit of birther blather is the 14th Amendment Citizen theory. You see, since the slaves were freed under the terms of the 14th amendment, no black person can be a natural born citizen, but rather a unique category of person known as a '14th amendment citizen', so no black will ever qualify to be President. They blather on about how everyone is equal there are no classes and anyone that doesn't succeed is lazy and then push for a caste system on citizenship, it's absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 08:35
|
|
|
radical meme posted:I view Levin as just a straight up anarchist. He continually fumes about how we live in tyranny and don't need government in our lives. I like to think of him and his kind as wanna be mountain men, but they have no idea the amount of deprivation involved in living that lifestyle. They want less government the way a schoolyard bully wants less teachers watching them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:The best part of Levin is how angry he gets all the time, I love his shrill yelling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
radical meme posted:I view Levin as just a straight up anarchist. He continually fumes about how we live in tyranny and don't need government in our lives. I like to think of him and his kind as wanna be mountain men, but they have no idea the amount of deprivation involved in living that lifestyle. The most hilarious thing is that although he basically supports no restrictions on business whatsoever and the lowest (flat) tax rate possible, on social issues he is a complete authoritarian. He has literally complained about "the government in my bedroom" regulating the flow levels on his toilet and then later called sodomy laws "a basic expression of moral standards held by the vast majority of Americans." He also regularly rails against drug legalization and has even called for criminalizing porn. Levin is the best case study on how "freedom" to the right is in fact "freedom to do what I want but gently caress you if you want the same."
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Pander posted:I've heard his voice described here as "Master Shake up in arms". I love it. I've never heard him once, just read what transcriptions are written here, hear it in that voice, and it just makes me smile. He sounds like a 1920s mobster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:They want less government the way a schoolyard bully wants less teachers watching them. Well put. I'm gonna' use this in the future, with your permission.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Well put. I'm gonna' use this in the future, with your permission. "Get out of my way so we can gently caress over anyone we please" is pretty much what they mean when extremists say "small government."
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
Pander posted:I've heard his voice described here as "Master Shake up in arms". I love it. I've never heard him once, just read what transcriptions are written here, hear it in that voice, and it just makes me smile. Having listened to him once I'd be inclined to agree. Compare this: http://homeofthegnome.net/junkdrawer/beautiful--PEEple.mp3
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
I am not sure if this is the right thread for what I'm posting, since I'm not convinced this can be described as "Right-wing" unless we use the same definition of the term that includes Alex Jones. In 2008 I did a sort of running commentary on a strange, strange conspiracy film called "The Empire of the City"- the thread is in the LF Goldmine, but the pictures are gone so it probably won't be too funny. I thought it was an aberration- the product of a collection of harmless wackos. I was aware of truthers and the like, but I couldn't fathom that there's a whole industry for this stuff. Now I find it fascinating, in a strange way. Furthermore, the basic mechanisms in these films are the same mechanisms in partisan media- they seek to provoke a misfiring in pattern recognition by cherry-picking facts, letting the viewer build the pattern and then reinforcing it. Am I alone in finding this super interesting? Here's a nice example of what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idAz7mFKPrc Can we call these type of videos "Right-Wing"? Or are they beyond partisan politics?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
So largely as a result of this thread I've been sampling Boston's local AM schlock station on the way to work to get a taste of Massachusetts' favorite conservative ideologues. They run big names like Rush and Levin but they've also got a few lesser known crazies, my favorite of which is a guy named Jeff Kuhner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGz5jmOqML0 Holy gently caress what a tool. I can't tell what's more obnoxious- his stereotypically doctrinaire position on literally every Republican talking point or his ridiculously punchable voice(?). How does a native Canadian come to adopt the worst of American conservative rhetoric, anyway? 
the2ndgenesis fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jan 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Sick_Boy posted:Can we call these type of videos "Right-Wing"? Or are they beyond partisan politics? There's three flavors of dissent/speech, as I call them - left, right, and gonzo. Alex Jones definitely aims at Gonzo-Right types
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Sick_Boy posted:Furthermore, the basic mechanisms in these films are the same mechanisms in partisan media- they seek to provoke a misfiring in pattern recognition by cherry-picking facts, letting the viewer build the pattern and then reinforcing it. Am I alone in finding this super interesting? I don't know if it's a purely right wing phenomenon, but a lot of the people in my life who believe poo poo like this are generally right-leaning at best. I once had to explain to a 35 year old doctor that Lady Gaga was not in fact Satanic, that the lyrics in "Judas" were in fact an allegory and the actual lyrics (which she had never listened/paid attention to) are not about the literal Judas. After that I had to explain what the literary device "allegory" was and how it is used by authors. This woman was an evangelical Christian who by all external accounts was successful and intelligent, but this poo poo threw me for a loop because of how lazy it all was (not paying attention to the words in a song she'd heard a million times, not critically evaluating something someone else told her, etc)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
Spite posted:There's plenty of precedent for "natural born citizen" to mean "citizen at birth" - which would be governed by the 14th amendment and some other laws. So again they are insane since Obama was born in the US and it doesn't matter where his parents are from. So either they have to stop being scared of anchor babies or admit they have no standing. There are two categories of citizens: naturalized and natural born. Naturalized means that they became citizens via some process after they were born, and natural born means they were born citizens. A great deal of Birther "logic" involves attempting to create a 3rd category between naturalized and natural born.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:"Get out of my way so we can gently caress over anyone we please" is pretty much what they mean when extremists say "small government." See also, "Right to Work".
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:See also, "Right to Work". "Right to fire you for whatever damned reason we please and discriminate"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
the2ndgenesis posted:So largely as a result of this thread I've been sampling Boston's local AM schlock station on the way to work to get a taste of Massachusetts' favorite conservative ideologues. They run big names like Rush and Levin but they've also got a few lesser known crazies, my favorite of which is a guy named Jeff Kuhner. I try to listen to right wing radio, for the sake of the thread that I started, and report back with my findings, but it's so dark, angry, apocalyptic, and filled with lies that I get too angry and have to shut it off within the first minute. I can barely take the time and have a shower, or even take a short trip to the grocery store, long enough to absorb this horse poo poo, let alone mark down in my head every objectionable thing I hear with enough time to commit it to memory and bring it here. By the time I'm toweled off and in my sweat pants for the evening, or unbagging my groceries, I can't even remember what it was that sent me into a rage. These shows spew lies and untruths with impunity and base what they say - their entire thesis - upon the theis that previous lies are accepted fact (Obama is a Marxist, the election was rigged, Benghazi was intentional, the media is liberal, unions suck, teachers are rich, ACORN, etc.) You couldn't even call them up and debate them on air because you'd have to go so far back into their monologue just to find the first time they something demonstrably untrue and misleading.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:See also, "Right to Work". Naturally they're using the word "right" incorrectly on purpose in that instance. It's, as GOP themselves put it, 'marketing.' Who fights for worker's rights? Unions. Who do the so-called 'right to work' laws hurt? Unions. (And workers.) It should be called "Stripping away workers rights" but then there's that lovely 'marketing' the GOP loves so much of course... Spacedad fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:These shows spew lies and untruths with impunity and base what they say - their entire thesis - upon the theis that previous lies are accepted fact (Obama is a Marxist, the election was rigged, Benghazi was intentional, the media is liberal, unions suck, teachers are rich, ACORN, etc.) You couldn't even call them up and debate them on air because you'd have to go so far back into their monologue just to find the first time they something demonstrably untrue and misleading. There's a term for that: quote:Gish has been characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop," describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate"[7] and criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[8] Since the coining of the phrase "Gish Gallop" several other religious apologists have been attributed with the use of this debating technique, notable examples being Dinesh D'Souza and William Lane Craig.[citation needed] The phrase has also come to be used as a pejorative to describe similar debate styles employed by proponents of other, usually fringe beliefs, such as homeopathy or the moon landing hoax.[9][10] Basically it amounts to a liar spewing out more bullshit than anyone can hope to refute in a timely manner. It is easier for a liar to lie and repeat lying than a truth-seeker to expose them on every single tedious point. Compulsive liars know this and are well-practiced at just spewing great volumes of hogwash. Unfortunately that hogwash has now cost the GOP any hope of winning national elections for perhaps at least the next decade. Because the amount of people who buy into that nonsense is shrinking rapidly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:Naturally they're using the word "right" incorrectly on purpose in that instance. It's, as GOP themselves put it, 'marketing.' I've always been amazed they were able to get away with calling it that because it's so nonsensical and comically misleading. But then again they started calling it the "Democrat" party (as opposed to "Democratic") a few years ago, and even though many tried to point out that it was a disparaging term, today I hear Democrats calling it the "Democrat party". Sometimes I just wanna give up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:Naturally they're using the word "right" incorrectly on purpose in that instance. It's, as GOP themselves put it, 'marketing.' Most people see Orwell's 1984 as a cautionary tale. The GOP sees it as a how-to guide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
Sick_Boy posted:Furthermore, the basic mechanisms in these films are the same mechanisms in partisan media- they seek to provoke a misfiring in pattern recognition by cherry-picking facts, letting the viewer build the pattern and then reinforcing it. Am I alone in finding this super interesting? No. See the free downloadable book The Authoritarians for more on the correspondence in America between right-wing political views and an opposition to evidence-based assessment of reality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:There's a term for that: I don't know, I have a feeling that America wants a competent GOP candidate and will eat up anyone who can avoid making GBS threads their pants in public. They will shrug off the current iteration of the GOP as an outlier, think back to some nonexistant time when the party had common sense and elect the new guy in because they get bored of the Dems holding the presidency. Of course, its highly debatable as to whether such a composed candidate exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
nachos posted:I don't know, I have a feeling that America wants a competent GOP candidate and will eat up anyone who can avoid making GBS threads their pants in public. They will shrug off the current iteration of the GOP as an outlier, think back to some nonexistant time when the party had common sense and elect the new guy in because they get bored of the Dems holding the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
watt par posted:Considering Time Warner Cable's already announced they're dumping Current in response, and surely others are soon to follow, probably not. This is kind of old, but TWC has been looking to dump Current for months, long before this purchase was contemplated. Apparently their contract allows them to drop current if it is sold with no penalty. It sucks, but it isn't a result of the fear mongering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:No. See the free downloadable book The Authoritarians for more on the correspondence in America between right-wing political views and an opposition to evidence-based assessment of reality. That sounds great, I will! By the way, does Levin have a podcast or somesuch?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Bob Altemeyer's free online book gets a ton of attention but his other (non-free) books are great too. They get a bit more technical but that might even be better for people in this thread. Specifically Enemies of Freedom is a good read even though it is a bit older at this point.
Fuck You And Diebold fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:I've always been amazed they were able to get away with calling it that because it's so nonsensical and comically misleading. But then again they started calling it the "Democrat" party (as opposed to "Democratic") a few years ago, and even though many tried to point out that it was a disparaging term, today I hear Democrats calling it the "Democrat party". There is madness on the surface, but under the hood the reasons for doing what they are doing are the charlatan's game of misdirection and confusion - getting a crowd of people confused and infighting, or speaking in the charlatan's own terms, rather than have them realize they're all being had and come after the charlatan en masse. For example - there is the stinging fact that nazis were very very very very very right wing. But there's been an active campaign by the extreme right in this country to demonize the left by confusing the ignorant with the idea that the nazis were left wing. This is just one of the many ways they deliberately and intentionally try to confuse and demonize people regarding information about their political rivals. (This is part of a larger campaign to demonize all things socialism, of course.) Thankfully it's become a point of mockery of ignorant extremism - with people making jokes about 'communist nazis.' Of course, this last election showed that the lunatics have begun dominating the asylum - the rhetoric which once was used to confuse opponents now makes the republican party and electorate in the face of an increasingly informed public look out of tough and clownish AT BEST. Spacedad fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:I've always been amazed they were able to get away with calling it that because it's so nonsensical and comically misleading. But then again they started calling it the "Democrat" party (as opposed to "Democratic") a few years ago, and even though many tried to point out that it was a disparaging term, today I hear Democrats calling it the "Democrat party". Even liberal minded people in these threads do it. I've lost count of the times I've read people refering to social security as "entitlements."
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Twisted Perspective posted:Even liberal minded people in these threads do it. I've lost count of the times I've read people refering to social security as "entitlements." I don't think there's anything wrong with referring to Social Security non-pejoratively as an "entitlement" in the case of people who've literally been paying into it for the duration of their working lives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Jesus, stop getting so hung up on the "Democrat" bullshit, it really is the biggest loving waste of displeasure I have ever seen in my life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
the2ndgenesis posted:I don't think there's anything wrong with referring to Social Security non-pejoratively as an "entitlement" in the case of people who've literally been paying into it for the duration of their working lives. Not in and of itself, but we should probably avoid it anyhow because of its connotations. In a better world, yeah, but so long as Republicans are trying to frame it through using the word "entitlements," we can't buy into their game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
the2ndgenesis posted:I don't think there's anything wrong with referring to Social Security non-pejoratively as an "entitlement" in the case of people who've literally been paying into it for the duration of their working lives. They should only refer to social programs as entitlements if they also do it to tax cuts, loopholes, and whatever else the super rich have lobbied for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
The state department has decided to call out and mock Fox news over the stuff I mentioned earlier about their retarded idea that she was 'faking' her head injury to evade Benghazi investigation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYk3q_vbr7I I am liking this new era of Democrats and others not being spineless pussies and calling out right wing media when they are being loving idiots. Spacedad fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Not in and of itself, but we should probably avoid it anyhow because of its connotations. In a better world, yeah, but so long as Republicans are trying to frame it through using the word "entitlements," we can't buy into their game. It's kind of amazing that you've bought into conservative framing of the word "entitlements" in a post about not buying into conservative framing. Social security is an entitlement; those that receive it are legally entitled to it. The framing here is that conservatives have poisoned the word by attaching it to a common vernacular usage. When we think of someone as "entitled" in a negative way, we are really thinking that they are falsely entitled, that they do not deserve what it is they think they deserve. We just leave out the "falsely" part as inferred. However, those that receive government benefits do deserve them and so they are aptly described as entitled. Entitlement has a negative political connotation because the right has specifically strived to make it so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:It's kind of amazing that you've bought into conservative framing of the word "entitlements" in a post about not buying into conservative framing. Social security is an entitlement; those that receive it are legally entitled to it. The framing here is that conservatives have poisoned the word by attaching it to a common vernacular usage. When we think of someone as "entitled" in a negative way, we are really thinking that they are falsely entitled, that they do not deserve what it is they think they deserve. We just leave out the "falsely" part as inferred. However, those that receive government benefits do deserve them and so they are aptly described as entitled. Entitlement has a negative political connotation because the right has specifically strived to make it so. Yeah, as in that literally is your money. Conservative framing is trying to make it seem like this is free money from the government instead of money the government legally has you set aside out of your pay for later in life. This is because, as with corporate raiding on pension funds that started up like crazy during the Reagan era de-regulation, they also want to open up corporate raiding on social security - they could make a killing privatizing it and practically giving away free (your) money to evil conglomerates. Likely through all kinds of overhead cost middleman 'where did the money magically go' bullshit. I don't think middle or lower class conservatives quite grasp that when they are talking about privatizing entitlements they are literally talking about stealing your money away from you. Spacedad fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:It's kind of amazing that you've bought into conservative framing of the word "entitlements" in a post about not buying into conservative framing. Social security is an entitlement; those that receive it are legally entitled to it. The framing here is that conservatives have poisoned the word by attaching it to a common vernacular usage. When we think of someone as "entitled" in a negative way, we are really thinking that they are falsely entitled, that they do not deserve what it is they think they deserve. We just leave out the "falsely" part as inferred. However, those that receive government benefits do deserve them and so they are aptly described as entitled. Entitlement has a negative political connotation because the right has specifically strived to make it so. That's not true though. "Entitled" has a naturally negative connotation in any democratic society because it is derived from Monarchistic practice - "Entitled" as in given an aristocratic title with special priveledges no one else can have. Everywhere else in the world social security payments are called "benefits". Only in America are they refered to as "entitlements", and that is no coincidence. Twisted Perspective fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
I thought this was one of those 'euphemism treadmill' things, though; doesn't benefits have a similar negative connotation in the UK? Like Welfare in the US? Or is it that unspoke 'unearned' before benefits that I'm hearing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 09:48
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:I thought this was one of those 'euphemism treadmill' things, though; doesn't benefits have a similar negative connotation in the UK? Like Welfare in the US? I always viewed on benefit as the politically correct way of saying "on the dole". Although they both carry those connotations now. E- and, thanks to League of Gentlemen, "Jobseekers"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 10:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
Sick_Boy posted:Furthermore, the basic mechanisms in these films are the same mechanisms in partisan media- they seek to provoke a misfiring in pattern recognition by cherry-picking facts, letting the viewer build the pattern and then reinforcing it. Am I alone in finding this super interesting? Gazpacho fucked around with this message at 11:19 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 11:15
|
|