Defenestration posted:

Meanwhile, I see what you're getting at here but I think that the link between traditional gender roles and violence is harder to overcome than you think. Consider all those EPORW memes about shooting people who come within 1000 yards of your family, or how if you don't like guns you do not have testicles and are in fact a weak, gross Woman. Why not instead of saying "be a man" and all the baggage that comes with that, let's say "be a good person" and leave the gender roles out?

JawnV6 posted:

I'm having a vibrant discussion with some folks who think Robert Bork is the epitome of (D) partisan hacks gumming up a straightforward nomination of an upstanding Judge. I have a vague memory of a Jeb Lund (ish?) article detailing just how off-kilter Bork went after he lost the nomination, does that ring a bell with anyone?

Fulchrum posted:

If I recall correctly, that's Animorphs. Everyone is depressed and going crazy, they need to blow up hospitals and civilian targets, there's absolutely no backup or help coming, and the best they can do is stall the efforts of an enemy with far far more resources.

quote:

Horror, war, dehumanization, sanity, morality, innocence, leadership, freedom, and growing up are the core themes of the series.

Moxie posted:

I don't know the tropes you're referring to. I agree that feminism and patriarchy issues are important, but I'm not sure if war is a symptom. I recognize the descriptive power of the phrase "toxic masculinity" but without examination or an academic eye for language it sounds like a pure condemnation of male identity.

I guess my question is, are you arguing that war is men's fault, and we'd have world peace if women were in charge/held equal power?

Edit: Eh, I'm being a dick about this. I just didn't expect gender identity issues to be brought up during the subject of pacifism. I guess I relate it to my own pet issue of global economy , but it's tough to argue that human psychology doesn't play an equal role.

Moxie posted:

I don't know but toxic masculinity could use some rebranding. The phrase is pretty off-putting.

quote:

it sounds like a pure condemnation of male identity.

N. Senada posted:

Would've liked to have seen that episode on Nickelodeon.

Defenestration posted:

this is a tone argument. It is often used to distract, minimize or dismiss what feminists say. The problem is not the phrase.

Moxie posted:

I don't know but toxic masculinity could use some rebranding. The phrase is pretty off-putting.

Cugel the Clever posted:

It, at the very least, is a term that needs more explanation than the average Joe is going to be interested in after they perceive you as attacking who they are. That's not tone. Are they incorrect in their perception? Probably, but they aren't going to get it unless you make the opportunity to actually communicate with them—which is impossible now that they're feeling defensive.

Polybius91 posted:

How many people do you think hear the phrase "toxic metals" and think all metals are toxic

What I'm saying is some ignorance is willful.

Cugel the Clever posted:

It, at the very least, is a term that needs more explanation than the average Joe is going to be interested in after they perceive you as attacking who they are. That's not tone. Are they incorrect in their perception? Probably, but they aren't going to get it unless you make the opportunity to actually communicate with them—which is impossible now that they're feeling defensive.

Kit Walker posted:

That is some real fragile masculinity

Moxie posted:

Actually all metals are toxic (in large enough quantities)

Moxie posted:

Actually all metals are toxic (in large enough quantities)

quote:

Donald Trump’s loss in Iowa cannot be chalked up to a wave of antidisestablishmentarianism. After all, Iowa winner Ted Cruz is hardly a Beltway favorite. But the downing of the Donald makes total sense if you realize that, when it comes to campaign mentality, Trump is the establishment candidate. He’s even campaigning like it in South Carolina, fresh off his New Hampshire win.


This is counterintuitive because Trump earns much of his support from the idea that he is running against the Washington establishment. He gives voters the idea that he is here to disrupt the system that has failed them and rig it in their favor instead. This works so well because voters have legitimate reasons to distrust the system.

As has been noted countless times, the 2014 election of a Republican Congress and the subsequent voter disappointment in conservative legislation is enough reason for voters to seek candidates with an anti-establishment message. Voters are reacting against Republican candidates who pander to their conservativism for their votes then go on to betray conservative principles once in office. Voters feel taken for granted.

Donald Trump Takes Voters for Granted

But in Iowa, Trump did exactly this—he took voters for granted. He assumed that his usual bravado and politically incorrect comments were enough to win him the historically tight Iowa caucuses. He assumed he could win Iowa without attending the only Republican debate held in the state and without a serious grassroots campaign.

Trump even told attendees at one Iowa rally, “I have the most loyal people, where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters. It’s like incredible.” This shows tremendous disrespect for voters—the same disrespect Trump supporters are supposedly rallying against. Trump himself admitted after Iowa he had “never realized” the importance of meeting voters in person to ask for their votes: “It would seem to me that people would just go out and vote.”

Trump repeated this mistake in New Hampshire. After the initial Iowa shock set in, Trump’s campaign squeezed in a few more stops in the Granite State. However, Trump only made around 40 stops to the state. In contrast, his opponents Marco Rubio, John Kasich, and Jeb Bush all made 80, 185, and 111, respectively.

Already underperforming in face-to-face events, Trump cancelled all his campaign stops due to snow, including a town hall in Londonderry—one of the few voter-focused events he was hosting. Trump’s campaign said these cancellations were because nearby airports were closed (they weren’t) but that should not have been a problem for the Donald, who travels via his private jet.

The Little People Exist to Make Me Win

Think what you want about Ted Cruz’s controversial Iowa mailers: he asked for votes. Not only does he ask for votes, Cruz expects to earn them. Cruz’s South Carolina headquarters are calling in people from across the country to reach South Carolina voters in person. Even the candidate many say is the establishment’s choice, Rubio, practices asking for votes. It’s at the end of most of his speeches: “I ask for your vote.”

Even a month out from the primaries, the Washington Post reported Trump’s New Hampshire hub was empty. In addition, there is growing evidence that his usual tactic of drawing crowds at rallies is beginning to diminish. Trump won New Hampshire because his genuinely conservative opponents divided the other votes among them, as the New Hampshire Union-Leader pointed out, not because he has the overwhelming support he claims.

Donald Trump does not give voters the dignity of acting like he ought to earn their votes. He thought that showing up for a few rallies and a view inside his private jet would be enough for the little people of Iowa. Since he won New Hampshire with little change of tactics, he almost certainly thinks he’ll get votes in South Carolina just for existing.

The biggest lie the Donald ever told was that his philosophy was somehow different than that of the Republican establishment. It is clear that Trump and the GOP have the exact same view of voters: a patronizing view of an expendable herd that can be easily swayed by rhetoric without needing proof candidates can achieve results through the political process. For voters burned by the 2014 midterm elections, this is some serious déjà vu.

Hermetic posted:

I once would have said Paths of Glory, until a student told me that the 3 soldiers deserved to be executed, because the troops should have taken that hill.

Kubrick Wept.

A Fancy 400 lbs posted:

Not about war in particular, but in my advanced English class in high school, after we read Of Mice and Men one of the other students said "Lenny deserved to die because he was retarded". That's an exact quote. Never underestimate the human capacity to take the worst possible wrong message from a work of art.

Fulchrum posted:

The Wolf of Wall Street

gradenko_2000 posted:

Throw in DiCaprio's character from The Great Gatsby and you could do a whole special on "image macros that clearly missed the point"

Radish posted:

He's so crazy he MUST be right!!

Guavanaut posted:

Fulchrum posted:

Armyman25 posted:

Except that the Joker did make a good point. Remember back when Charlie Hebdo was attacked and it seemed like the entire Internet was out in solidarity with them? That same week Boko Haram razed something like a dozen villages in Africa and it got very little attention in the news, even though the death toll was an order of magnitude greater than what happened in Paris. And the explanation? "Well, that's Africa, it's just what happens there."

People really don't object to horrifying things as long as they don't interfere with the status quo.

Hermetic posted:

Sometimes I wonder if I should take people off of ignore. Then I see things like "Except the Joker did make a good point" when someone quotes them, and I am super-happy that we have an ignore list.

Armyman25 posted:

So you don't think it was hypocritical of people to freak out over a few journalists being shot in Paris and then turn around and not care about hundreds of Africans being killed the same week?

quote:

6. Aside from the humanitarian concerns, war is an enormously expensive venture.

Parachute posted:

The point of his post just soared way over your head, hoss. (You're ignored)

TapTheForwardAssist posted:

Silly liberal, wars *make* money. They cause massive government spending on R&D, heavy machinery, fuel, food, transport, a vast web of contracts and subcontracts, etc. The combined effect is that taxpayer funds turbo-charge the economy creating a feedback loop, creating more value across American society.

It's not like building a new school or fixing a bridge or anything, that's pretty much like just chucking the money into a hole in the ground and burning it.

Fulchrum posted:

So I'm afraid the LL 101 harvest isn't quite big enough for a Scalia dump yet. I'll need to give it a week.

Moxie posted:

Accuses opponent of being liberal

Extols the value of spending money for its own sake

Moxie posted:

Accuses opponent of being liberal

Extols the value of spending money for its own sake

VorpalBunny posted:

This post about a man "smuggling" powdered milk brought these lovely comments to my page:

"Guarantee you'll hear those people say,"oh, it won't happen here"
Little do they know.... it's where we are headed. "

"The little twits that support the dems don't even understand this."

The second one is from someone I do business with but apparently has no idea my political view and considers me a "little twit". Thanks!

And I am seeing SO MANY Scalia conspiracy posts, it would take me a while to compile them all. Seriously, the dude was 79, overweight and complained of not feeling well the day before. Not everything is but anything to pull these people away from Hillary and the emails, I guess.