|
borkencode posted:
Hey, it's good fun: 1. Take a picture depicting some tragedy 2. Paste in Obama and the "If you like your ____, you can keep your ____" macro 3. Chortle hoarsely, and turn on Limbaugh
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
The days of finding a job through the newspaper are over. The Internet is the only way to effectively jobsearch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
Hell, you can BUY a used 6month - 1year old smart phone for about 1/3 - 1/10th the price it was new, and then just use it on prepaid. I got a htc 8x with a bad screen for 75$ and I bought a new screen for it for 50$. Hell, in mint condition they go for 150, which is cheaper than a brand new one on contract. Smart phones drop in value faster than a Maserati Biturbo. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Whoa, easy there buddy. These are poors we're talking about. I pay $30+tax myself (T-Mobile), and I think part of the persuasion for the olds was seeing a clean-cut military-looking white dude make the case for it from a strict pragmatic angle. A dollar a day for cell service beats wasting hours going between bus/library/food/shelter/motel taking care of business while trying to gain/maintain a job or three with irregular hours. It lets you skip the library part (and prolong the shelter part, if they have a policy against repeat-dormers). One guy who was reciting nearly verbatim that rant about iPhones at the grocery store with food-stamp benefits, actually conceded the point after grasping that not every iPhone is on some $120 fancyplan. Without knowing the individual, assumptions are pretty much baseless. EDIT: to head off prolonged prepaid-smartphone chat, there's a thread for it: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3474380 (OP is outdated, but the last several pages should be informative) sweart gliwere fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 05:33
|
|
Posted by my aunt, who was on welfare after the man who knocked her up in high school left her with three kids and no child support:
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, $1200 (including medicaid, which would be hard to quantify there) for a 5 person household?! Living the dream right there, on $14,000 per year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
How do you even sell food stamps for money? Isn't that just a balance on an EBT card? Wouldn't you lose money too? You'd never get useful-everywhere money back at 1:1 against food-only stamps. That living the dream $1200/mn would be even less.  e: Thinking about it, the only way to make "free money" would be to reach a point where you can't spend your food stamps fast enough which sounds absolutely ridiculous in a household of five and planning on growing. And selling EBT would be buying somebody else's groceries on it and having them pay you back in "free money" at a discount. A quick google said foodstamps roll over to the next month so there's no need to unload them in fear of them disappearing, right? e2: vvvvvv Thanks, that makes sense Scrublord Prime fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 07:37
|
|
|
GreatRedSpirit posted:How do you even sell food stamps for money? Isn't that just a balance on an EBT card? Wouldn't you lose money too? You'd never get useful-everywhere money back at 1:1 against food-only stamps. That living the dream $1200/mn would be even less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Posted by my aunt, who was on welfare after the man who knocked her up in high school left her with three kids and no child support: This picture is attached to some fringe blog that doesn't discuss a "Kiara" at all. Its just a picture of a black woman with fake facts attached to the side. It's literally the "welfare queen" myth made real via MS Paint
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Posted by my aunt, who was on welfare after the man who knocked her up in high school left her with three kids and no child support: Sucks that none of them pay child support. Maybe we should stop throwing poors in jail and they could provide for their children. My sister said she saw a homeless person with an iPhone in Cambridge. It struck me as a great idea; if you know how to jailbreak your phone, you can buy prepaid minutes for whenever you need to use voice, and you can hang outside anywhere with free wi-fi for internet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 12:06
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. HOLY poo poo  
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
I like how it starts by quoting PBS and then moves on to a book on race from the 60s, because that's going to be accurate and unbiased. DACK FAYDEN posted:You're exactly right. You find some college student and have them pay you $100 for $200 in food you buy with your card or something. Happens all the time, I think it's an argument in favor of switching to straight cash payments, that'll never happen, etc. There are also crooked stores that will ring up the customer buying food but will instead exchange it for items not allowed and/or split the cash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 12:21
|
|
|
Fart Sandwiches posted:Holy poo poo. With folks like this I usually skip the perfunctory debate over whatever insane thing they're claiming and just compare them to Nazis. But in this case it might not get my feelings across too well!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
Fart Sandwiches posted:Holy poo poo. Started reading the prison stat, and the slavery one, assumed it would be going on to list other systemic discriminations and how they are the root cause of inequality, and the crazy would be in the form of some shitheads commenting on the image. Nope. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 13:10
|
|
|
Neptr posted:My sister said she saw a homeless person with an iPhone in Cambridge. It struck me as a great idea; if you know how to jailbreak your phone, you can buy prepaid minutes for whenever you need to use voice, and you can hang outside anywhere with free wi-fi for internet. That there may be people who know how to break iphones who are homeless saddens me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 13:32
|
|
|
I called someone out on being xenophobic for hatin' on people from the Middle East and she said "you'll understand when you have kids." This isn't the first time I've heard this. Why do people assume that, if and when you become a parent, you immediately start distrusting foreigners and voting Republican? nyquil hangover fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
Fart Sandwiches posted:Holy poo poo. Source: The Origin of Races. Are you loving kidding me?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
nyquil hangover posted:I called someone out on being xenophobic for hatin' on people from the Middle East and she said "you'll understand when you have kids." They think that you're ignorant of the real dangers in the world and won't really become cognizant of them until you have kids and need to think about their safety. The same "liberals are just naive" idea is expressed in the phrase "liberals are just conservatives who haven't been mugged yet".
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:They think that you're ignorant of the real dangers in the world and won't really become cognizant of them until you have kids and need to think about their safety. The same "liberals are just naive" idea is expressed in the phrase "liberals are just conservatives who haven't been mugged yet". I like the counterpoint I heard somewhere; "Conservatives are liberals who haven't been arrested yet."
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
nyquil hangover posted:I called someone out on being xenophobic for hatin' on people from the Middle East and she said "you'll understand when you have kids." I've called people out for being immature when it comes to this point of view, so I guess it can swing both ways. My reasoning was that it's like treating the new kid at school differently because they have "strange" customs, and all of [that person's] friends were saying how much they didn't like the new kid, and [she] didn't want to be left out. This person was my aunt and her friends were a bunch of old, racist cops (many of whom were Jewish, and staunch supporters of Israel at that). The irony is that she was a pretty strict Democrat at first (even going so far as to vote for Obama the first time around), but then she got into this whole "anti-Muslim movement", and they're basically synonymous with the birther crowd. Now she's a card-carrying Republican, and her youngest son is following suit (because he hangs out with a very racist, insular crowd of affluent white kids who play COD all day, and those racist tendencies are being affirmed by his mother). Ultimately I feel bad arguing with her. She's not very well-equipped when it comes to battling views on the internet, but I was also pretty smug and felt immense satisfaction with calling her out over Facebook, especially after she started posting really obviously racist stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:They think that you're ignorant of the real dangers in the world and won't really become cognizant of them until you have kids and need to think about their safety. The same "liberals are just naive" idea is expressed in the phrase "liberals are just conservatives who haven't been mugged yet". Ironically, I would consider modern American 'conservatism' (read: extreme-right lunacy) to be an extremely naive ideology, since it relies on more-or-less absolute trust in and obedience to the people who tell you who your enemies are. It relies on the assumption that the leaders of the Party will never be corrupt, or irrational, or incompetent, or amoral, or dishonest; that they will always have the best interests of the people in mind and never, ever make mistakes. The head on the TV says (Person/Group/Thing) is bad, therefore (Person/Group/Thing) must by definition be bad, checkmate liberals. That's what loving naivete looks like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Fart Sandwiches posted:Holy poo poo. I feel like I should be arrested just for reading that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Yesterday I was on an inter-city bus and had the pleasure of sitting behind a pair of strangers who got involved in an incredibly in-depth wide-ranging conversation. He turned out to be a 29-ish man who was incredibly left-wing, reminded me of some of the more extreme posters in here, kept bringing up Noam Chomsky, etc. She turned out to be an 18-ish FYGM religious libertarian. It was an amazing conversation with too many highlights to name (including her firm belief that sex is morally wrong, gross, and disgusting despite never having had sex, her first-year-university dorm mates who had gone crazy all went crazy because they did drugs, her parents shouldn't have to pay taxes to support public schools because she went to private school, and abortion is wrong under all circumstances including the morning after pill, despite it not matching her logic that abortion is wrong because the single cell in your uterus is a life). The two highlights that actually caused me to try and stifle laughter from behind them, though, were when she a) said the BP oil spill was Obama's fault, and this: Her: The problem with government is that there's corruption! Him: There's corruption in every large system. Her: NOT IN THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:This picture is attached to some fringe blog that doesn't discuss a "Kiara" at all. Its just a picture of a black woman with fake facts attached to the side. It's literally the "welfare queen" myth made real via MS Paint A whole 1200 a month for rent, food, and four kids? That's outrageously little money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
nyquil hangover posted:I called someone out on being xenophobic for hatin' on people from the Middle East and she said "you'll understand when you have kids." I've had the same happen, except about generally voting Republican with "You'll understand when you own a home." Didn't get an answer about how a mortgage or residential land-tax would change my mind on sexual issues, racial issues, public health and environmental issues, net neutrality, etc. And by that logic, shouldn't I be voting against bonds for schools and candidates who subsidize pre-K, because as a non-parent I won't immediately benefit from those tax expenditures? I've made the case for a safety net and higher wages by reminding that once you've chosen a home, you're locked in for a number of years unless you have lots of cash. If your town can't count on a stable tax base, you could end up with neglected infrastructure and a general lack of culture aside from basketball courts and whatever else requires no maintenance. It's important to provide everyone with the expectation that they have a real future and the knowledge that they won't go cold or hungry because fewer citizens will be likely to commit crime or skip town, turning your neighborhood into a Detroit lookalike. I've seen it happen in plenty of small North Carolina towns, the educated kids move away and the town spirals into a fractal pattern of the elderly and impoverished. It's a roundabout way to force someone to accept that we actually are in this together, showing them undesirable neighborhoods with nice homes. Even better if you can pull up old records on income, population, education. It didn't happen overnight and doesn't need to keep happening now. edit: In-person, that is. I wouldn't bother with the effort for facebook or anything impersonal. If there's no mutual respect, you're mostly going to talk past each other or waste a bunch of time. sweart gliwere fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:her firm belief that sex is morally wrong, gross, and disgusting despite never having had sex After dating someone a bit like that in college, I always wondered how people who think this end up doing later in life. I mean, if sex is icky, what kind of life are they going to have when they get married? I have to think the early life demonization of sex before marriage turns into an issue with all sex pretty quickly. Maybe that has something to do with why we are so locked down on sex in the US, since we try to do everything we can to push people's sexuality into a box until marriage and then expect it to be all good when you let it out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Yesterday I was on an inter-city bus and had the pleasure of sitting behind a pair of strangers who got involved in an incredibly in-depth wide-ranging conversation. He turned out to be a 29-ish man who was incredibly left-wing, reminded me of some of the more extreme posters in here, kept bringing up Noam Chomsky, etc. She turned out to be an 18-ish FYGM religious libertarian. It was an amazing conversation with too many highlights to name (including her firm belief that sex is morally wrong, gross, and disgusting despite never having had sex, her first-year-university dorm mates who had gone crazy all went crazy because they did drugs, her parents shouldn't have to pay taxes to support public schools because she went to private school, and abortion is wrong under all circumstances including the morning after pill, despite it not matching her logic that abortion is wrong because the single cell in your uterus is a life). Why bother stifling your laughter? A bit of passive aggressive snickering is always fun real-life trolling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Maybe that has something to do with why we are so locked down on sex in the US, since we try to do everything we can to push people's sexuality into a box until marriage and then expect it to be all good when you let it out. It's fun to refute that puritanical ideal with the classic Even Grandma had premarital sex report. (Official Paper) Some people just go into shock and denial about it, "Not MY grandma!" sweart gliwere fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
I like that the last image on this seems to be an old white woman about to help an (apparently) homeless black guy, and her husband staring straight ahead pretending the guy doesn't exist. Also  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:Ironically, I would consider modern American 'conservatism' (read: extreme-right lunacy) to be an extremely naive ideology, since it relies on more-or-less absolute trust in and obedience to the people who tell you who your enemies are. It relies on the assumption that the leaders of the Party will never be corrupt, or irrational, or incompetent, or amoral, or dishonest; that they will always have the best interests of the people in mind and never, ever make mistakes. The head on the TV says (Person/Group/Thing) is bad, therefore (Person/Group/Thing) must by definition be bad, checkmate liberals. That's what loving naivete looks like. I think you can see it when they try to get Democratic voters to 'admit' that Obama has done some bad things in his Presidency and treat it as some sort of gotcha moment. Like, no poo poo our guy is flawed, we don't have an irrational need to make our political leaders into infallible deities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
sweart gliwere posted:It's fun to refute that puritanical ideal with the classic Even Grandma had premarital sex report. (Official Paper) Americans do tend to have less sex (in number of events per week) than the rest of the developed world, so we are locked down about it. Also, it's hard to say that it's not treated awfully, even if people do have sex before marriage. The whole thing has me thinking because of the way my folks treated it when I was a kid-- there were times when my folks talked about how sex was something the married poor did a lot, and we shouldn't. It's just a weird attitude to have, and it really opened my eyes when I met long married couples who had healthy sex lives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:The whole thing has me thinking because of the way my folks treated it when I was a kid-- there were times when my folks talked about how sex was something the married poor did a lot, and we shouldn't. "Only poors have sex, we have season tickets to the Redskins instead!"Edit: Reminds me of a story I heard recently about a deeply conservative married couple who believed that sex, even married sex, was only for procreation. She had to have a hysterectomy as a result of some complications...and so they pledged to remain abstinent for the rest of their lives. 
The Macaroni fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
I really want to see the myth die that if you pop out enough kids, the government will subsidize your entire life at the taxpayers' expense. The only people that maybe applies to are the Duggars, and I think that's some reality TV network footing that bill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Did one of your friends post that? Why are you friends with literal honest-to-god Nazis? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
So here is a fun thread about company scrip and why it is immoral in an objectivist worldview. The OP seems to acknowledge the economic problems associated with it, so then why is it bad?quote:I think a more significant issue is that scrip is an anti-concept: an idea designed to negate a legitimate concept. In this case, that legitimate concept is property.  The funny part comes in later when the guy ties himself in knots trying to illustrate why paying someone in scrip is illegal in objectivistopia, possibly even warranting the death penalty, but paying someone a penny a week is totally okay. Oh, and he references Rand characters as though they are real people on more than one occasion. I'm not really looking for advice, here. ~I just posted it because I thought it was interesting~
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
I wonder what amusing poor arguments are in the emails thread toda-Fart Sandwiches posted:Holy poo poo.  That is some vile loving poo poo. The premise of each of them is so hosed up, and #9 is just outright offensive to science. I think I'd just respond to that with as much trolling as possible, because anyone posting that image in agreement with it isn't going to be swayed by a detailed dismantling. They've picked their view and then assembled "evidence" after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Did one of your friends post that? Why are you friends with literal honest-to-god Nazis? Friend-of-a-friend. My friends were commenting about how it was all bullshit and even the "accurate" statistics aren't because black people are inferior but problems with systemic racism and lack of education. I have decent friends now that I've blocked most crazy people. Edit: looking through the original poster's facebook he is a crazy racist libertarian. So I have friends who are friends with bad people. Fart Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
A friend posted this Jefferson quote:quote:"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." I made a joke about him being a slave owner, and so did another guy. After that some guy I don't know pops in, starts rambling about taxes being theft(his interpretation of the Jefferson quote), and , I guess that slavery wasn't so bad(image)?  Am I totally misreading this, or is the guy in green nuts? edit: It keeps getting weirder, with new people I don't know popping in: 
Dirt fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Yeah, and accepting a lot of falsehoods. Slavery was, of course, brutal and while there is some truth to the argument that Africans were partially to blame for fostering the slave trade, we gave them a market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
Dirt posted:A friend posted this Jefferson quote: Hey the Europeans only bought slaves who were condemned in order to save their pagan souls. Is it too much to ask that they repay their rescuers with a lifetime of forced Labor? And their children. And their children's children. And their children's children's children on down until that dictator Lincoln confiscated the rightful property of the poor Southern farmers. I love that he compared people to farm equipment. Would you buy a tractor and beat it? Of course not! And could you imagine just setting a tractor free to run across the country with no one to control it? Absurd! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:53
|
|