|
Perhaps today IS a good day to die! It's the Week in LL101! Bypassing Congress  Godwin  Melting Pot  NBC  Gay Marriage  Soldier deaths  Guns in church  Obamacare  Barack HUSSEIN Obama BONUS:         
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:37 |
|
|
I agree that Christians forcing religious indoctrination into schools and other public spaces is possibly an even bigger problem than the lack of marriage inequality. And it doesn't just affect Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.; they probably think atheism is a religion so they're concerned for us too. How generous!
mystes fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
I don't know about anyone else, but I'd use George HW Bush to help distinguish between him and his Son with the same name. Saying George Bush is vague now we've had 2 presidents with that name. The only reason to use Hussein is to try and create a link between Obama and Saddam Hussein.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
But that has nothing to do with homosexuality? It's just some Pharisees asking Jesus about divorce to try and get him to say something they can use against him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
"Wait a minute, if he can do that, why can't we bypass Congress and impeach him on our own?" I don't get the main part of the image, but calling out improper use of Godwin's Law is kinda sorta correct - it just means that any debate will get Hitler mentioned once it gets long enough, but the internet has taken it to mean that anyone who invokes Hitler "loses" the argument at that point. This is like 100% projection / getting-it-backwards Ummm ... yes? The only way this would work out to be a bad thing is if the person it's addressed would otherwise prefer that some people remain insured, period. The part about the formerly insured needing to pay more also isn't (universally) true. Actually, I find myself going "ummm ... yes?" more and more whenever I encounter a conservative meme/social network posting. Those things always seem to think that simply spelling out what actually happened is enough to get you riled up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
I agree. We should be more critical of Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Help! Help! I'm being repressed by the government forcing me to conduct business with people I don't like! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
"Smorgasborg"
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
These LL101 memes are the absolute definition of poe's law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
It's happening!!!!!! We are all being forced to gay marry!!!! Ummmm Matthew 19:3-6 posted:
Bit of a stretch to me. But wait! Matthew 19:7-12 posted:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A3-12 Context!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
While hostility towards Christians is a real thing throughout large portions of the world, this is what the report actually said: "Pew Research Center posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 20:42
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:These LL101 memes are the absolute definition of poe's law. There's a reason for this, actually- the author is basically using them to promote himself online. So he's not stating his own(horrible messed up) viewpoints, he's actually trying to market the viewpoints he thinks that the members of his political demographic will click on online. It's the lowest common denominator trying to manipulate an imagined even lower denominator.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
HipGnosis posted:It's happening!!!!!! We are all being forced to gay marry!!!! 1: it is the single most blatant bit of retconning in the Bible. "AHA! Why did you hate divorce before but are changing your mind now? Aren't you infallible?" "Ummm...you weren't ready for it? Yeah. You were not ready! But you totally are now! Still infallible baby!" 2: because of that "You were not ready yet" loophole the Church has taken this stand in the past too over certain issues. They'll fight, and fight, and fight but change their mind and go "Well, you're ready now..." 3: Atheists like me can turn this around by just pointing it out. Just say "Well, our hearts were hardened to gay marriage but now they're ready. You're like the Pharaoh of old: God will stop hardening your heart eventually. It's time. Stop fighting His divine Will."
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There's a reason for this, actually- the author is basically using them to promote himself online. So he's not stating his own(horrible messed up) viewpoints, he's actually trying to market the viewpoints he thinks that the members of his political demographic will click on online. It's the lowest common denominator trying to manipulate an imagined even lower denominator. Also known as the 'Free Republic' business model.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
That poor cake decorator, forced by the government to let gay people give him money. That's surely worse than a gay person not being able to visit their loved one on their deathbed and having their inheritance stolen by the government!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
Phillip Seymour Hoffman, totally obscure. Never heard of him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Ana Lucia Cortez posted:Phillip Seymour Hoffman, totally obscure. Never heard of him. Weren't these the people that were complaining that a bigger deal wasn't made of loving Temple Black's death? I mean how much more obscure actor can there be than a child star from the depression that hadn't had a film for 60+ years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Anubis posted:Weren't these the people that were complaining that a bigger deal wasn't made of loving Temple Black's death? I mean how much more obscure actor can there be than a child star from the depression that hadn't had a film for 60+ years. Consistency doesn't matter, all that does is stringing together enough words to generate hollow outrage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
If I died serving my country, I don't want to be remembered by my deeds or contributions or by what I meant to my friends and family. I want to be used to attack someone's political opponent for not paying enough attention to me. I'd want them to attack them before even mentioning me, if they did at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
This one is the worst because of the "pretend to be married" part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Real marriage only happens in a church under the eyes of god you see (if you look into it you'll find that foreign heathen marriages frequently don't count either)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is like 100% projection / getting-it-backwards No, it makes sense when you realize that what they mean by "conservatives see America as a stew with the ingredients blending together" means "minorities need to become more like white Christians."
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
"Conservatives see America as a stew with each ingredient complimenting flavors of the other ingredients(but just so you know this stew was intended to taste like potato and if you refuse to taste like potato too then you can get right the gently caress out.)"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
Was this ever even a thing? Clinton's campaign commercials just called him "George Bush", even the ones that were trying to paint him as an elitist dick. Also, it's pretty ballsy of LL101 to pick George H.W. Bush as the "unfairly painted elitist" considering he pretty much went full-on Lucille Bluth at a supermarket display.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:People use Bush's middle names because there are two recent presidents named George Bush. Even then I've only heard it referred to as H.W. or W.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
This happened a little more than 6 years ago. Why would media continue to cover this story? Besides, a cursory Google search reveals that it was actually covered by lamestream news organizations like the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times -- 6 years ago, when it happened. Anyway, the woman herself is a cop and not exactly the untrained model citizen of right-wing fantasies who stops a bank robber or mass murder dead in his tracks. Edible Hat fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Feb 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:This happened a little more than 6 years ago. Why would media continue to cover this story? Besides, a cursory Google search reveals that it was actually covered by lamestream news organizations like the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times -- 6 years ago, when it happened. But that doesn't explain why it isn't the lead story on every newscast every night!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Infomaniac posted:But that doesn't explain why it isn't the lead story on every newscast every night! 9/11 happened, so there just isn't room for anything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
I've never submitted one before, so here's my first! Posted by a friend to Facebook: http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/115254-obamas-celebrity-pal-half-brother-food-stamps-even-though-shes-worth-53-million/ We actually have Facebook debates whenever I feel like getting into it with her, but I always feel like I'm beating my head against the wall. I don't even know how to respond to this one. And for more information about my friend, she's worked in terrible jobs for minimum wage and has been treated like crap by bosses, but HATES unions. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
agent_wildflower posted:I've never submitted one before, so here's my first! I suppose it wouldn't make any difference to point out the (way higher net amount of) taxes that Beyonce pays [than most people]. Actually, I'll go ahead and say I know it wouldn't make any difference, because the facts are irrelevant to the point your friend is trying to make. Your friend is signaling that she is the kind of person who doesn't tolerate the kind of person who coasts by on free handouts. Granted, the story she's used to serve as such a signal doesn't reflect this reality, but that hardly matters. There can't ever not be people worse than you to yell about. All I'm saying is, debating the numbers is going to go nowhere. (As you've already indicated.) If you want to try a novel approach, see if you can't maneuver her into explaining the root of her anger, then recommend something written by Dostoevsky. Lemma fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Feb 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
Conservatives saying Obama is like Hitler: Broadcast on national TV! But no really, let me (not) explain how he really is like that!  I mean, he's a socialist right? (Ignores how actual socialists say both Obama and Hitler are anything but.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:(Ignores how actual socialists say both Obama and Hitler are anything but.) That's clearly socialist taqiyya.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:Liberals saying Bush is like Hitler: Something that mainly happened in the Daily KOS' comments sections, and was never really condoned. Even Socialists agree then, Obama is like Hitler. QED
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Translated from a friend's Facebook page. I'll be the first to admit that I responded poorly, but whoever coined the term "libertarian word-salad" was right on the money. I need to remember that the best way to deal with a Gish Gallop of Gobbledygook is to focus on one idea at a time, and definitely not to cloud the issue by raising extra points myself.  ----- OP: People who are opposed to new technologies because they might destroy jobs do not understand that work is a means, not an end. Israeli Libertarian #1: It's also simply not true. Computers created jobs. Israeli Libertarian #1: I'm saying that the notion that technology destroys jobs is factually incorrect. In addition to what you said. We work in order to satisfy our needs. We create value in order to consume value. Work is just a means towards getting the value we wish to consume. Me: Technology does destroy jobs in the short term, and in the last few decades the rise in productivity has mostly gone into the pockets of the higher-ups, and very little gets to the workers themselves. The question is whether it will lead to the creation of jobs in the future, and how many significant social upheavals there will be on the way. World wars are no longer as easy to do, and the fall in demand (which is different than need in a capitalist society) is not going to go away without an artificial increase in salaries, or a creation of minimum welfare payments. Even the Economist, not known as a very lefty or anti-progress rag, is not as sanguine about this, by the way: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21594264-previous-technological-innovation-has-always-delivered-more-long-run-employment-not-less Israeli Libertarian #1: That's not true. The fact that much of the increase in productivity goes to the higher-up is due to a distortion of the financial system, an entirely different phenomenon than job loss. There is a movement of resources to different sectors. Israeli Libertarian #1: The workforce always moves over to where there is more need and demand. Besides, the article is talking about a prediction by John Maynard Keynes. People have seen that reality is not as he had predicted but still act as if his predictions make sense. If anything the distortions in the financial system came about through implementing his policies which brought amazing profits to the upper crust without significantly increasing the consumption potential of the lower classes. Me: These two things are very related, because what this means is that there are fewer jobs, and also whoever's working has less money with which to create demand for new products, which means that it is harder to create relevant workplaces. The article in question discusses many things, including more recent research. The distortions in the financial sector came about due to the lowering of taxation and regulation on the financial system, in parallel to the weakening union movement. The rich got most of their wealth since the '70s, during an era of the elimination of the Keynesian policies of the various welfare states, lower taxes, etc. Israeli Libertarian #1: Most of the distortions began with the Federal Reserve. The '20s and the crazy boom of that era sowed the seeds of the crisis of the '30s, which was only exacerbated by the New Deals (which actually merely continued Hoover's policies). Additionally, demand does not create jobs. It provides information, while entrepreneurs create jobs. Israeli Libertarian #1: Never in the course of history has technology ever destroyed jobs. It moved demand around and lowered the worker's power in one sector, while allowing resources to move to another. As it did during the Industrial Revolution. So we suddenly have something that runs counter to a process that has repeated itself throughout human history? Israeli Libertarian #1: Demand does not create jobs. It puts up a red light in front of entrepreneurs and tells them “hey, this is where there's good stuff to be done”. Without entrepreneurship, jobs are not magically formed, it requires people who can invest the capital needed to create these jobs in order to make a profit. Me: Human history also includes the fall of empires and the collapse of entire societies*. “The entirety of human history” is not just the past couple of centuries. I don't think we really have the foundation for a discussion here. For forty years we've been running with this supply-side nonsense, and it's only been making GBS threads on the world economy. If there's nothing to buy with, that is, if there are no instruments with which to create demand, then there's no point in encouraging supply. Empirically, it doesn't work. It's time to change DVD's. Israeli Libertarian #1: Definitely, companies* are founded and then fall, it doesn't change the simple fact that technology has never destroyed jobs. It has created jobs and put more people into the workforce. Supply-side nonsense? Meanwhile, the dollar supply has risen so dramatically that people really don't have anything to buy. Another instance of Keynesian policies which love inflation, which simply robs the poor. And of course spreads power to cronies with government contacts, but why deal with the real problem of central banks? The nationalization of money, which made its worthless. You don't think that this monetary meddling in people's savings is what is robbing them of their purchasing power? Me: After it caused mass firings and years of socio-economic riots. It was only when workers organized so that they would not be spat upon that things reached the point where they could get the government support they needed to get to the level of higher education which allowed them to poo poo on the very programs which brought them there and spread all this libertarian nonsense. What is “worthless money”? Money has no intrinsic value, the only value it has comes from a social convention. I am guess you mean basing money on the gold standard, which is an utterly stupid use for gold and which makes the currency dependent on the metals market. Israeli Libertarian #1: After it did what? Are you serious? What started were processes of job automation and people moved from agriculture to factories, and processes of computerization and people moved from a lot of jobs into high-tech. The productivity during eras like the Industrial Revolution were lower than today, so the work-day was much longer, it wasn't a matter of the big man with the white mustache and the bags of money, it's a matter of how much can be produced. And money is a commodity like any other, it's not used in consumption but its value makes it ideal for trading. And it is definitely trivial to move a currency to the gold or silver standard, the metals market is stable and this kind of standard allows you to lower the levels of inflation that countries can promote and thus reduce the ability of central banks to lower the value of money by increasing the money supply. Israeli Libertarian #1: The gold standard allows a coin to be as stable as metallic gold, but that's not the point. Money is a sector which has been nationalized, and like every nationalized product, it cannot treat the money supply in a way suitable for the market. They just do not have the capability. That is why Bitcoin is such a monetary revolution, the fact that there is finally a distributed currency with a value to its users that is independent of political whim. I don't think Bitcoins is going to be successful, but it has become a precedent which opens new options allowing people to think about money in ways which haven't been seen for a long time. Me: It's called the “Industrial Revolution”, basically worker organizations and struggles in the 19th and early 20th Century. You might want to learn some history before you start talking about “the entirety of human history”. Bitcoin is so independent of political whim that it changes its value by 200% every couple of days. There's a reason it's mostly used by criminals, because they aren't bothered by this level of volatility. Israeli Libertarian #1: There was no connection between human development and worker organizations in the 19th and 20th century. Wherever there was the possibility to work less, people did it, whether there were strong labor organizations or not. And Bitcoin is very stable lately because the demand for it is stable, just like the demand for gold is stable. Its value mostly moves up. And this stigma is outdated. The Chinese and Indian markets have opened to bitcoin, and more people than ever use it. I don't think it's going to be successful because there is no consumption, just trade in exchanges. But it's an amazing precedent for the fact that people can finally use the internet revolution to demand what was theirs to begin with, which is their money. Israeli Libertarian #2: For hundreds of years people claim that every new invention is going to create unemployment, and it simply doesn't happen. Aren't people tired of this tiresome claim that is said about every new invention and just never happens? * Hebrew uses the same term for “company” and “society”
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
My "moral theologian" "friend" just posted this turd without comment: http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/14/you-cant-be-upset-about-killing-animals-if-you-dont-care-about-killing-babies/
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Badera posted:My "moral theologian" "friend" just posted this turd without comment: quote:Matt Walsh is a 27-year-old conservative blogger, writer, and talk radio host. He calls himself a “professional sayer of truths,”
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Badera posted:My "moral theologian" "friend" just posted this turd without comment: Your moral theologian friend is a bad ethicist if they can't see the glaring problems with this argument. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Feb 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
I actually like Michelle's outfit there, it's cute and trendy but still age-appropriate. Plus, if she was wearing nothing but Versace 24/7, you know people would bitch about her being "out of touch" and "elitist".
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:37 |
|
|
Knight posted:This is not how you want to start an article if you want to be convincing in any way. But then again, with statements like "You cannot, as a sane adult, find animal killing to be morally offensive but abortion to be morally neutral," the article is meant to be affirming to believers and not to be convincing to anyone else. I have seen this guy's name and blog pop up so many times from my Conservative friends on Facebook. Every single article incites incredible rage within me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 03:07
|
|