|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:My dad always gets on my case for "judging Republicans based on their extremists" My immediate comeback to this is "I judge Republicans for tolerating their extremists because they need their votes. If you welcome racists into your party then you're no better than a racist".
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:26 |
|
|
beatlegs posted:My immediate comeback to this is "I judge Republicans for tolerating their extremists because they need their votes. If you welcome racists into your party then you're no better than a racist". Oh, I've done this. He's then like "There are still many decent people who call themselves Republicans!" At that point, I'm half-tempted to yell, "Who gives a poo poo?"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Oh, I've done this. He's then like "There are still many decent people who call themselves Republicans!" "If you're walking on the street and you find a candy bar with a bunch of maggots on it sitting on the ground, you don't pick the maggots out, eat the candy bar, and say, 'that was a great candy bar once you got past the maggots'."
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:I can't help but wonder what issues they would have gone over. Both of them are hardcore wealth-worshiping Randroids to this day, and at best would have admitted that their recycling episode is out of date and reiterating that global warming and the dangers of secondhand smoke probably weren't entirely bullshit. I highly doubt they would have taken back their extremely flawed episodes on taxes (the pie analogy Penn gave was beyond retarded) or fast food (we're just giving the customers what they want! Free market!). They've since admitted that they were wrong about secondhand smoke, but I'd bet anything they still happily cash the residual checks from sales of the DVDs about how secondhand smoke isn't harmful.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I love the "more popular = better than" argument because it can easily be flipped to apply to that guy they hate, the President of the United States. He must be incredible because he won the biggest popularity contest in the country. No, see that doesn't count because he's popular with the "wrong" people. Pope Guilty posted:They've since admitted that they were wrong about secondhand smoke, but I'd bet anything they still happily cash the residual checks from sales of the DVDs about how secondhand smoke isn't harmful. They are capable of admitting they're wrong on stuff sometimes. For all of their many, many, many faults, that alone makes them infinitely better than Rush, Hannity, et al.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
King Dopplepopolos posted:No, see that doesn't count because he's popular with the "wrong" people. You mean low information voters, right?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
Phone posted:You mean low information voters, right? Don't forget
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:I still like Penn & Teller's live act and I like that they debunk psychics and dog whisperers and expose frauds and other poo poo that takes advantage of gullible people for money, but they really should stick to doing only those things. My friend's five year old could handle debunking dog whisperers and psychics, that's not really a big achievement. Tatum Girlparts posted:That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You don't get to do, what three seasons of "HMMM MAYHAPS RECYCLING AND THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT SUCK?!" and then do "Well we may not know anything so always be skeptical" that doesn't fix the damage, fixing the damage is going 'yea we were wrong about that, also why are you taking complex advice from loving sideshow acts?' Bullshit! and South Park are especially bad about this tendency, but they're both run by fairly libertarian types so it's not really surprising. It's cool that they admitted that some of the episodes were wrong, or that the science has changed, but the damage was done. Their willful ignorance convinced a bunch of people that would never do the research themselves that their idea of reality was correct. Those people aren't going to see any retractions, they only see the headlines. Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 05:13 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
The last few episodes of Southpark that I've seen are uber libertarian fodder. It has probably been that way for a while, I don't know, I try not to watch it. Can someone link to the creators rebuking on some of the messaging from past episodes?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
Connecting this to another topic, that Penn/Teller show had a brutal episode on how you shouldn't be mad at Wal-Mart, it's just the end game of capitalism, and yay capitalism so yay Wal-Mart. It seems to have done more to erode people's belief in capitalism than pump up love for Wal-Mart.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:My dad always gets on my case for "judging Republicans based on their extremists" and saying that "I need to grow up and respect their views" even if they're completely outlandish, asinine or outright detrimental to society. I'll stop judging the Republican Party based on their extremists when they stop electing them to national office. If the national party and media machine would have immediately disavowed the Tea Party rather than falling all over themselves to defend it, I'd have a lot more respect for them and they would also probably not have completely lost control of the direction of the party. Now the fear of getting primaried is just going to keep pushing things further and further to the right until they're pushing for full on authoritarian theocracy or the craziest old ones die off and the younger Republicans aren't as on-board with the batshit dogwhistling. Sir Tonk posted:It's cool that they admitted that some of the episodes were wrong, or that the science has changed, but the damage was done. Their willful ignorance convinced a bunch of people that would never do the research themselves that their idea of reality was correct. Those people aren't going to see any retractions, they only see the headlines. Those people look for facts after they've already reached a conclusion so it never really mattered what or how it was presented to them.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
Have any of you ever listened to Andy Dean? His show is probably the most hateful of the right wing radio shows here in southern Arizona that I've heard. He comes up with insane shitthatneverhappened.txt stories that usually end with "And thats why I was the most hated person on campus" because he totally stumped the professor with his right wing views. He also adds in snide little comments to everything and just bays for blood in everything. I think he replaced Levin here which is sorta sad because Levin was always good for a laugh, but Andy Dean just seems vicious and hateful. Edit: Holy crap he looks *exactly* like how I pictured he would: http://www.americanowradio.com/main.html That's his website.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:Connecting this to another topic, that Penn/Teller show had a brutal episode on how you shouldn't be mad at Wal-Mart, it's just the end game of capitalism, and yay capitalism so yay Wal-Mart. This is why I was excited to have Paul Ryan and Rand Paul running for higher office, or for Alex Jones to be on Piers Morgan (or whoever it was). These people have been operating outside of the mainstream discourse for a long time and it has allowed them to build up a following, while avoiding significant analysis/criticism from the media. Libertarians seem to always think that their ideas are the most logical and that people are fools to not believe them and this comes across very badly in debates and TV interviews and even generic coverage. As for the conspiracy types, that Jones appearance did him no favors. He just sounded like a crazy person that wasn't interested in actually discussing anything.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
Libertarians probably do have the most logical ideas if you completely ignore the fact that human beings are social animals and that a prerequisite for a free market is a stable and functional society with cooperation between all members. If human beings were money in, productivity out robots that did not form groups or have prejudices or possess life goals outside of "hoard as much money as physically possible" then libertarianism would be a perfect belief system.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Libertarians probably do have the most logical ideas if you completely ignore the fact that human beings are social animals and that a prerequisite for a free market is a stable and functional society with cooperation between all members. If human beings were money in, productivity out robots that did not form groups or have prejudices or possess life goals outside of "hoard as much money as physically possible" then libertarianism would be a perfect belief system. I don't think it would work even then. Libertarianism has no good solution to problems like the tragedy of the commons or other elements of game theory that reward free riders.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Libertarians probably do have the most logical ideas if you completely ignore the fact that human beings are social animals and that a prerequisite for a free market is a stable and functional society with cooperation between all members. If human beings were money in, productivity out robots that did not form groups or have prejudices or possess life goals outside of "hoard as much money as physically possible" then libertarianism would be a perfect belief system.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
Yeah, but it does reward people that are rich so there's plenty of incentive to be all for it if you already have money or are so self-deluded that you think the only thing stopping you from getting rich is the government and its stupid taxes, regulations, and trying to help people less fortunate than yourself.Sir Tonk posted:This is why I was excited to have Paul Ryan and Rand Paul running for higher office, or for Alex Jones to be on Piers Morgan (or whoever it was). These people have been operating outside of the mainstream discourse for a long time and it has allowed them to build up a following, while avoiding significant analysis/criticism from the media. Libertarians seem to always think that their ideas are the most logical and that people are fools to not believe them and this comes across very badly in debates and TV interviews and even generic coverage. As for the conspiracy types, that Jones appearance did him no favors. He just sounded like a crazy person that wasn't interested in actually discussing anything. Well, the thing about Alex Jones is that he's a charlatan. The guy is milking this conspiracy theory thing for all its worth because he knows there's a deep vein of paranoia that's happy to fork over money for books, DVDs, and t-shirts that reaffirm their belief system. I will say that Alex Jones on Piers Morgan was hilarious. Two screeching morons screeching at each other.  ↓↓That sounds like some liberal hippy-dippy eco-friendly poo poo! But seriously that's actually really impressive on the part of Chris Christie. Sand dunes are a natural storm surge buffer during hurricane conditions. Of course with development of beach front real estate all of that was wiped away. Same poo poo goes for wetlands and mangroves, which have been severely damaged by real estate development along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico and along Florida. But hey, who needs protection from hurricanes when there's lots of money to be made? Darkman Fanpage fucked around with this message at 06:22 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
So, GOP non-person Chris Christie wants to build a dune to prevent another Sandy from causing 30 billion dollars in damage to his state. People with shore property don't want their first floor view of the ocean obstructed, so they're doing everything they can to oppose it. Anyway, Christie is saying gently caress you, we'll save money by doing this. This makes him a big government RINO.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:So, GOP non-person Chris Christie wants to build a dune to prevent another Sandy from causing 30 billion dollars in damage to his state. People with shore property don't want their first floor view of the ocean obstructed, so they're doing everything they can to oppose it. Anyway, Christie is saying gently caress you, we'll save money by doing this. This makes him a big government RINO. Just build the dunes right behind their houses, that way it still gets built and if there are any other damage then their beach houses are wrecked and they're poo poo out of luck because they didn't get protected. Everyone wins!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:So, GOP non-person Chris Christie wants to build a dune to prevent another Sandy from causing 30 billion dollars in damage to his state. People with shore property don't want their first floor view of the ocean obstructed, so they're doing everything they can to oppose it. Anyway, Christie is saying gently caress you, we'll save money by doing this. This makes him a big government RINO. Just make anyone who doesn't agree sign away their right to purchase federally funded flood insurance, problem solved (since no one would).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:So, GOP non-person Chris Christie wants to build a dune to prevent another Sandy from causing 30 billion dollars in damage to his state. People with shore property don't want their first floor view of the ocean obstructed, so they're doing everything they can to oppose it. Anyway, Christie is saying gently caress you, we'll save money by doing this. This makes him a big government RINO. Any studies showing the dunes would actually be effective at preventing damage from something that's extremely uncommon in that area? I haven't seen any definitive info either way so I'm not ready to declare this a battle between the practical Christie and the greedy land owners.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Libertarians probably do have the most logical ideas if you completely ignore the fact that human beings are social animals and that a prerequisite for a free market is a stable and functional society with cooperation between all members. If human beings were money in, productivity out robots that did not form groups or have prejudices or possess life goals outside of "hoard as much money as physically possible" then libertarianism would be a perfect belief system. Libertarianism is all about the freedom to form exclusive groups, act on prejudices (as long as you don't, you know, "hurt" anyone), and to posses life goals outside of hoarding money, even if those life goals are achieved to the extreme detriment of others. Libertarianism is tyranny of the privileged. Typical Pubbie fucked around with this message at 07:59 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:That's like saying if hallucinations were real then schizophrenics would be perfectly sane. I mean, what's the point? Making fun of libertarians, mostly.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 08:20
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Any studies showing the dunes would actually be effective at preventing damage from something that's extremely uncommon in that area? I haven't seen any definitive info either way so I'm not ready to declare this a battle between the practical Christie and the greedy land owners. Absolutely. Other coastal areas have built protective dune and fence barriers for decades, which helps against road overwash. Raising all the buildings on at least 8' of pilings with minimum setbacks from the mean high tide line is a smarter play, but good luck getting that sort of thing done in New Jersey. The problem there is the development density hurts natural dune growth, so even if they were to do it, they'd have to spend tons of money every year rebuilding them, just from natural erosion. Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 08:40 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 08:33
|
|
|
watt par posted:Raising all the buildings on at least 8' of pilings with minimum setbacks from the mean high tide line is a smarter play, but good luck getting that sort of thing done in New Jersey. Eh what? A whole lot of the buildings are already raised similar amounts, or have a ground floor thats left mostly empty and designed to handle flooding (eg the "basement" level will be essentially a shed under the house hosting some changing rooms). And there's always a ton of redevelopment happening, and people tend to build like that instead of down-at-ground-level housing.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Eh what? A whole lot of the buildings are already raised similar amounts, or have a ground floor thats left mostly empty and designed to handle flooding (eg the "basement" level will be essentially a shed under the house hosting some changing rooms). Are you sure about that? Looking at any random spot along the NJ coast there's a whole lot of structures built at ground level, and their regulations are fairly lax compared to other states, which would probably explain why Christie's pushing for dunes. Another big problem are the rock groins, which screw with natural sand buildup, and the rock and steel seawall. Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 08:49 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
The thing about Bullshit that's super subtle is that their arguments are designed to be consistent within the context of the information they've provided in the show. Someone else said before that Libertarianism makes sense if you first accept their flawed notions about how humans tend to work. Bullshit is the same way. If you're actually familiar with anything they're discussing going in then it's actually very easy to find the holes. So I think that all the normal uninformed people that watch the show probably have a couple episodes they think are suspect. They don't realize, though, that those same holes exist in pretty much every episode of the show. They're just not informed enough to notice. I corresponded with Goudeau a little bit about their AA episode, and he essentially just hand-waved away a bunch of my concerns based on technicalities to do with the language in the 12 Steps. So he ended up being technically correct, but basically wrong. So just like the rest of Libertarianism, it's great in theory but ultimately fails in actually reflecting reality.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:Have any of you ever listened to Andy Dean? His show is probably the most hateful of the right wing radio shows here in southern Arizona that I've heard. He comes up with insane shitthatneverhappened.txt stories that usually end with "And thats why I was the most hated person on campus" because he totally stumped the professor with his right wing views. He also adds in snide little comments to everything and just bays for blood in everything. I think he replaced Levin here which is sorta sad because Levin was always good for a laugh, but Andy Dean just seems vicious and hateful. God he does. Yeah, he's been mentioned a few times here. You're right about the snide comments too. He replaced Savage in my market and reminds me a lot of Hannity in his delivery. They run back to back too so it's particularly insufferable. The other night he was explaining how he's figured out the whole Boston thing and told everyone the Mom is the ringleader.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
It's no coincidence that libertarians tend to be young white males. If you've had everything you needed your whole life and your future seems bright, why would you ever assume that everyone else doesn't have the same opportunities?Cheapsteaks posted:Just build the dunes right behind their houses, that way it still gets built and if there are any other damage then their beach houses are wrecked and they're poo poo out of luck because they didn't get protected. loving genius right here, we need you in Washington.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
My daddy came from nothing and works 14 hours a day and those lazy minorities can also do what he did!  
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
watt par posted:Are you sure about that? Looking at any random spot along the NJ coast there's a whole lot of structures built at ground level, and their regulations are fairly lax compared to other states, which would probably explain why Christie's pushing for dunes. Another big problem are the rock groins, which screw with natural sand buildup, and the rock and steel seawall. Yes I'm quite sure of it, I go there often enough and all over the shore not just one particular area. There's also plenty of houses that look like they're built at the ground level, but the ground floor is pretty much empty with the real stuff up on the next floor - which is a design made due to the flooding concerns. And people have their stuff built a decent way away from the normal high tide in most cases, though in a few locations they end up built very close - but that tends to be buildings that have stood there for decades anyway and have already been hit by multiple hurricanes in the first place. You'll get some places like Mantoloking that just get stomped:  But that's what happens when you build on the absolute narrowest part of a barrier island.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:The last few episodes of Southpark that I've seen are uber libertarian fodder. It has probably been that way for a while, I don't know, I try not to watch it. Can someone link to the creators rebuking on some of the messaging from past episodes? I think the poster above you was still talking about Penn and Teller, when they talked about walking back claims from old episodes. South Park has a couple different problems. Its whole format is "third graders teach adults how common sense solves everything" which naturally creates a major bias toward simplistic answers, especially in politics where things are actually complicated. For instance their approach to presidential elections is "Both sides suck," and their take on the recession is "Well nobody really understands the economy." Libertarianism also provides a lot of simplistic ideological answers to complex policy questions, so there's a lot of natural overlap and I think it's sometimes hard to distinguish the effects of the writers' opinions from this bias, although I'm sure both play a role. Separately from that, I can't very well talk about this without mentioning that their episodes on transsexuals are horrifying and reprehensible.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
The reprehensible side of South Park seems to be an intentional shock-jock/parody style thing - I really doubt ode guys actually hold reprehensible views as a whole. But seeing reprehensible views being boldly presented when they usually are not can often stir thought and discussion. That was always what I assumed their intent was, anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Actually their intent is to make people laugh and watch commercials. Anyone taking their political opinions from a show that dedicated a solid 22 minutes of TV to a story about a boy trying to get back a photo of him gleefully putting another boys penis in his mouth is a major idiot. I don't find it all that disappointing that a show like that isn't consistently well versed and eloquent on economic policy and the science of social equality.
Intel&Sebastian fucked around with this message at 16:43 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Actually their intent is to make people laugh and watch commercials. Anyone taking their political opinions from a show that dedicated a solid 22 minutes of TV to a story about a boy trying to get back a photo of him gleefully putting another boys penis in his mouth is a major idiot. I don't find it all that disappointing that a show like that isn't consistently well versed and eloquent on economic policy and the science of social equality. No sorry they explicitly intend to make (dumb and bad) social and political commentary in a way that makes people laugh. There is a topical message in almost every episode and it is deliberate.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Actually their intent is to make people laugh and watch commercials. Anyone taking their political opinions from a show that dedicated a solid 22 minutes of TV to a story about a boy trying to get back a photo of him gleefully putting another boys penis in his mouth is a major idiot. I don't find it all that disappointing that a show like that isn't consistently well versed and eloquent on economic policy and the science of social equality. This is a bunch of poo poo. "Yeah guys but like, the only purpose of telling stories is advertising revenue because capitalism". gently caress that, telling stories goes way the gently caress back to before capitalism, and the thing about stories is, they have morals, and critiquing those morals and the messages they send is entirely valid.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
They have opinions and do commentary, I'm just saying that's not their main gig and I think it's a bit much to ask that all our dick joke entertainment also be socially conscious and insightful everytime out. I'm not defending any of the range of bad messages they've concocted with their social commentary over the years but I do think it's missing the forest for the trees. I'm not all that worried about bad policy from South Park because I'd automatically question anyone giving me a personal view that starts out with "You remember that one South Park when...".
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:They have opinions and do commentary, I'm just saying that's not their main gig and I think it's a bit much to ask that all our dick joke entertainment also be socially conscious and insightful everytime out. I'm not defending any of the range of bad messages they've concocted with their social commentary over the years but I do think it's missing the forest for the trees. I'm not all that worried about bad policy from South Park because I'd automatically question anyone giving me a personal view that starts out with "You remember that one South Park when...". You might be smart enough to see through their bullshit but not everyone else is. I'm sure you've heard of the normalization phenomenon where someone who tells a racist joke ironically in front of a group of people who all get that it's ironic, but a couple people outside the group hear it and don't get it, and instead have the idea that racism is okay and funny reinforced indirectly. This happens all the time on that show. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that Trey & Matt had to make Cartman back into an unlikable shitheel again because too many South Park fans took all the stupid poo poo Cartman said seriously. They didn't realize that Cartman being a racist, sexist sack of poo poo was making fun of racist, sexist sacks of poo poo. They do exactly same disingenuous poo poo The Daily Show does. They send out socio-political messages wrapped in humor and then when anyone criticizes them, they say "B-b-b-but we're just a comedy show! You're not supposed to take us seriously!" without realizing the kind of power their mass media messages have and how much stock people still put into messages they receive through media.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Except that the Daily Show oftentimes discusses salient political news. Sure, its a comedy show at its heart, but the source of the comedy is usually things that are actually happening in the political sphere that are so ridiculous that it is comedic. Also, the show often features guests that frequently discuss political topics.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:26 |
|
|
Honestly, I think South Park can be explained by saying that Matt and Trey are simply more annoyed by stereotypical hippie liberals than stereotypical redneck fundamentalist conservatives.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 19:46
|
|
