|
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. Artificial dunes don't do poo poo for storm protection (unless given a decade or more to naturalize), nor does armoring the shoreline (as Sea Bright found out). The best thing you can do for the New Jersey coast is blow up every jetty, groin, and seawall. Anything you build on a barrier island should be considered a temporary structure, and the overwash everyone tries so hard to block is what builds elevation there in the first place.
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Crasscrab posted:I think that's an unfair thing to say about Scientologists. Not everyone in Scientology is affiliated with the shadiness that occurs at the executive level. Yes, as an institution Scientology is a profit driven religion. But it still provides the same communal and spiritual at a personal level for many adherents. An interesting book that I recently read is Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion. It's a really interesting story. A family friend lost over $150,000 to Scientology before she got wise to it. It wasn't David Miscavige that flew in from LA to bang at her door, hunt down her phone number whenever she changed it, and generally terrorize her etc. It was other Scientologists. gently caress Scientology.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
I do like how the revelation of Scientological(?) doctrine is done like the old Greco-Eastern mystery cults where you had to slowly get initiated into it before you learned the good news about Sol Invictus/ Dionysus/ This-a-here Snake Who I Swear Knows Him Some Secrets. Though Scientology seems to structure these revelations more like a cross between an MLM and an MMO talent tree.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
ed Total derail. Rush Limbaugh is a meanie pants. Zuhzuhzombie!! fucked around with this message at 19:23 on May 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Hey guys can we talk about dumb poo poo Rush and Hannity say? I like that part about this thread....
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
poor nose posted:Hey guys can we talk about dumb poo poo Rush and Hannity say? I like that part about this thread.... Here is Limbaugh actually gloating about making the world a worse place.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
And here indeed is Fox News trying to spin today's more positive than expected jobs report: http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/03/foxs-jon-scott-bungles-the-labor-force-particip/193902
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Oh, God. gently caress this dumb loving South Park poo poo. This is worse than when there 3 pages of wrestling posts. Can we stick to "dumb poo poo dumb person on the radio or FOX said"? I wandered in here after one day, saw three new pages and assumed Rush managed to top himself somehow and had reached a new low. Nope. Matt and Trey. Thank you Vertical Lime. That's what this thread is for.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
I have always wondered why more ultra conservative Christians don't get more upset with Rush when the man compares himself with God on a daily basis by stating that his "Talent is on loan from God!". How is that not viewed as a blasphemous statement?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
poor nose posted:I have always wondered why more ultra conservative Christians don't get more upset with Rush when the man compares himself with God on a daily basis by stating that his "Talent is on loan from God!". How is that not viewed as a blasphemous statement? It's almost as if a great number of American Christians aren't actually all that serious or knowledgeable about their faith and only call themselves Christians or go to church out of a sense of tribalism and because church is the only place to socialize in Bumfuck, TX.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
FOX News Guest: Reason gave us the Holocaustquote:You know the Age of Enlightenment and Reason gave way to moral relativism. And moral relativism is what led us all the way down the dark path to the Holocaust...Dark periods of history is what we arrive at when we leave God out of the equation.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Oh, God. gently caress this dumb loving South Park poo poo. This is worse than when there 3 pages of wrestling posts. Can we stick to "dumb poo poo dumb person on the radio or FOX said"? I wandered in here after one day, saw three new pages and assumed Rush managed to top himself somehow and had reached a new low. Hey buddy, it's going to be ok, I promise.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
poor nose posted:I have always wondered why more ultra conservative Christians don't get more upset with Rush when the man compares himself with God on a daily basis by stating that his "Talent is on loan from God!". How is that not viewed as a blasphemous statement? Because given the fact that we are all created in His image and he bestows it upon us, all talent should be considered on loan from God  (This was his actual defense in one of his two awful books I read as a teenage Republican)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
kitten smoothie posted:FOX News Guest: Reason gave us the Holocaust Ah yes, reason is what led Hitler to the conclusion that Jews, a small minority within the nation of Germany, caused them to lose WWI. Yes. That is a reasonable and not completely irrational conclusion brought on by preconceived antisemitic beliefs! I also like how they completely forget about how America would not exist if not for the Age of Enlightenment. Darkman Fanpage fucked around with this message at 23:14 on May 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Rev. Bleech_ posted:Because given the fact that we are all created in His image and he bestows it upon us, all talent should be considered on loan from God Those books were the worst. I posed an excerpt in a D&D thread once, I wish I could find it - it was his defense of sexual harassment after a professor got banned from a pool for bringing in a snorkel and goggles so that he could swim under women and stare at their breasts the whole time they were swimming. This banning was obviously an attack on the institution of masculinity itself, and it included something along the lines of "What are they going to do next, ban masturbating in the locker room? You can't even be a man anymore!!"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
kitten smoothie posted:FOX News Guest: Reason gave us the Holocaust Apparently massive crimes against humanity didn't happen in the West before the Enlightenment took us all away from God. Just ignore things like the Thirty Years War, the French Wars of Religion, the Albigensian Crusade, etc. Who am I kidding though, these people probably haven't even heard of those events.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
kitten smoothie posted:FOX News Guest: Reason gave us the Holocaust Never thought I'd see them on the same side as Adorno and Horkheimer, especially considering Beck used to rant about the Frankfurt school in his televised fever dreams, but there you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic_of_Enlightenment Of course this goes hand-in-hand with what the Texas GOP said in their 2012 platform: "We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." http://wonkette.com/476114/texas-gop-will-literally-and-nonmetaphorically-ban-critical-thinking
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:Never in my life did I hear the term "ginger" or the idea of "gingers don't have souls" before that particular episode of South Park aired. I understand that it was an established thing that the South Park creators didn't make up out of thin air, but you're bonkers if you don't think they had huge hand in popularizing it in America. If they can popularize one lovely idea, they obviously have the cultural pull to popularize others. As an interesting aside, prejudice agains redheads originated in the UK and was directed at the Irish. It might be interesting to put that to anyone using "ginger" as an insult, as I'd bet quite a lot of them have Irish ancestry. Twisted Perspective fucked around with this message at 01:40 on May 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Never thought I'd see them on the same side as Adorno and Horkheimer, especially considering Beck used to rant about the Frankfurt school in his televised fever dreams, but there you go. I was going to bring up that connection, but I think the commentator's attitude is a different one. Okay, obviously I need to majorly simplify the thesis, but Adorno and Horkheimer's basic schtick is about subordination and domination of particularity under universality, heterogeneity under homogeneity, multiplicity under unity and all that, whereas this commentator seems to suggest the opposite: Enlightenment let the proliferating, heterogeneous, whatever multitude go hog-wild, accepting total relativism and refusing to subordinate morality under the universal rule of the One God. They both finger the Enlightenment and reason, but for completely opposite reasons. Could you imagine the commentator saying something like this? Adorno and Horkheimer posted:"Bourgeois society is ruled by equivalence. It makes dissimilar things comparable by reducing them to abstract quantities. For the Enlightenment, anything which cannot be resolved into numbers, and ultimately into one, is illusion; modern positivism consigns it to poetry. Unity remains the watchword from Parmenides to Russell. All Gods and qualities must be destroyed." The commentator would say 'yes, all qualities should be destroyed, but it should be (the One) God to do it!'
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Well yeah, I was being a bit facetious with that; they're very much in opposition to each other. On the other hand, "The fully enlightened earth radiates Obummer triumphant."
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
I'm assuming this counts as Right Wing Media... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/03/david-stein-cole-holocaust-revisionist Hollywood conservative unmasked as notorious Holocaust revisionist Republican Party Animals operator David Stein says he is really David Cole, and that he still holds controversial views quote:To those who knew him, or thought they knew him, he was a cerebral, fun-loving gadfly who hosted boozy gatherings for Hollywood's political conservatives. David Stein brought right-wing congressmen, celebrities, writers and entertainment industry figures together for shindigs, closed to outsiders, where they could scorn liberals and proclaim their true beliefs.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Miltank posted:You didn't get it. The tobacco industry being utterly wholesome and in the right is the running joke of that episode. How is it being depicted as a running joke, versus just a shameless attempt to smear an organised effort to get people to stop doing recklessly harmful things, and frame the tobacco industry in the most positive possible light? Just because they make add hyperbole later doesn't change the fact that they're repeating these statements about a 'rich american history' and 'people choosing to smoke' verbatim, with the slavery thing slotted right in the middle. Sephyr posted:As for South Park, one needs only watch one of M&T's interviews to see that they consider themselves valid commentators on all things, so that's how they should be treated. I love how in one episode they were all rabid about "Scientology is a ridiculous fraud and it sucks!" and in a later one it's "Mormonism is fake and a fraud but it helps people lead happy lives, so back off!!". My guess is that the difference is entirely due to them knowing/respecting some mormon person while Scientologists occupy the same mental space as hippies in their universe: people who have no real impact in their lives, but sound annoying. Not to defend them, but thats completely horseshit - they've never worked with a Mormon in their lives, but Isaac Heyes, the man who was with them on the show since episode one, is a Scientologist.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 09:07
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Not to defend them, but thats completely horseshit - they've never worked with a Mormon in their lives, but Isaac Heyes, the man who was with them on the show since episode one, is a Scientologist. Not only that, but Hayes quit South Park around when the Scientology episode came out (about four months later) and Stone and Parker basically pointed out that Hayes had no problem making GBS threads over Mormonism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, etc in other episodes (and cashing the resulting checks) but once his faith was questioned, it magically became an issue.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
Brown Paper Bag posted:I'm assuming this counts as Right Wing Media... How persecuted are conservatives in Hollywood? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm asking a legit question. I hear this all the time from the right wing, that they're a persecuted minority in whatever circle they're in, be it Hollywood, or academia, for example. Do directors and casting agents refuse to hire known conservative actors? Just what do they mean by "persecution?" Are they routinely abused or assaulted? Are they blacklisted? (Like, if you were, say, A COMMUNIST!!) Or is this that same old canard where disagreement with one's politics equals persecution? It is kind of funny that one of the people they interviewed outright says "it plays into every horrible stereotype about the right." It's almost as if one could say the right keywords and act enough like a true believer, and some people will buy it. It's Hollywood, people! Isn't everyone fake? I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle!  But seriously, gently caress his Holocaust-denying rear end.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
They're just a minority, not particularly persecuted in any way. Conservatives in general conflate being in the minority and not getting your way 100% of the time with actual persecution. This is no different.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Leofish posted:How persecuted are conservatives in Hollywood? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm asking a legit question. I hear this all the time from the right wing, that they're a persecuted minority in whatever circle they're in, be it Hollywood, or academia, for example. Do directors and casting agents refuse to hire known conservative actors? Just what do they mean by "persecution?" Are they routinely abused or assaulted? Are they blacklisted? (Like, if you were, say, A COMMUNIST!!) Or is this that same old canard where disagreement with one's politics equals persecution? Well, I mean, if you have stupid political opinions, you can still be a doctor, a mechanic, etc. But in Hollywood, everything's essentially a popularity contest. Having unpopular opinions is detrimental there. Tom Cruise, Charlie Sheen, right now they're viewed as pretty crazy, and a lot of people don't want to be associated with that. It's not unlikely that if you're an extreme conservative who is very vocal about his crazy beliefs that you're going to find yourself losing out on a lot of jobs. For a specifically conservative example, there's Mel Gibson. E: It's not really persecution, but it's probably worse being conservative in Hollywood than in, say, New York.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
Leofish posted:How persecuted are conservatives in Hollywood? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm asking a legit question. I hear this all the time from the right wing, that they're a persecuted minority in whatever circle they're in, be it Hollywood, or academia, for example. Do directors and casting agents refuse to hire known conservative actors? Just what do they mean by "persecution?" Are they routinely abused or assaulted? Are they blacklisted? (Like, if you were, say, A COMMUNIST!!) Or is this that same old canard where disagreement with one's politics equals persecution? Getting work in Hollywood depends on connections and interpersonal relationships. You can be a fantastic actor but if people hate working with you, you're not going to get any work (*cough* Val Kilmer *cough*). Hollywood is run by absolute motherfuckers, but a lot of those motherfuckers tend to be really socially liberal and vote democrat, so having conservative political opinions or simply being a run-of-the-mill republican can end up loving you out of work. Oddly enough, right now the most conservative people in Hollywood tend to be the mainline comedians.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Getting work in Hollywood depends on connections and interpersonal relationships. You can be a fantastic actor but if people hate working with you, you're not going to get any work (*cough* Val Kilmer *cough*). Hollywood is run by absolute motherfuckers, but a lot of those motherfuckers tend to be really socially liberal and vote democrat, so having conservative political opinions or simply being a run-of-the-mill republican can end up loving you out of work. On the other hand, Bruce Willis and Arnold are both outspoken conservatives and they seem to be doing okay. I doubt just being a "run-of-the-mill republican" will prevent people from making money from an otherwise bankable actor. I can imagine someone just getting a start may find it hard to get roles if they show up to their first hollywood party all "libruls, am i rite," but it's not like they care if Joe in Southaven, MS gets refused work at the tire shop because he's not evangelical or straight enough, and those situations probably affect far more people.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:On the other hand, Bruce Willis and Arnold are both outspoken conservatives and they seem to be doing okay. They're outspoken Republicans, but not necessarily conservatives--they both tend more toward being libertarian on social issues, which is where I suspect there's more of a stigma in Hollywood. On the other hand there are actors like Gary Oldman and Robert Downey Jr who both are doing very well right now but are pretty cagey when talking about their political beliefs. Pretty much everyone I can think of off the top of my head who is an outspoken social conservative primarily works on television now. I'm sure a big part of this is paranoia on the part of conservatives, but studio executives can be very petty and hold grudges.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Well, I mean, if you have stupid political opinions, you can still be a doctor, a mechanic, etc. But in Hollywood, everything's essentially a popularity contest. Having unpopular opinions is detrimental there. Tom Cruise, Charlie Sheen, right now they're viewed as pretty crazy, and a lot of people don't want to be associated with that. It's not unlikely that if you're an extreme conservative who is very vocal about his crazy beliefs that you're going to find yourself losing out on a lot of jobs. For a specifically conservative example, there's Mel Gibson. But Mel Gibson isn't "persecuted" for being a conservative, he's "persecuted" for being a big old racist! Of course I'm sure it's a liberal/conservative thing in his mind -- I don't particularly know but would bet money that he blames his troubles on "P.C. liberals" -- but that doesn't necessarily make it so. If it were so, that would just go to say that racism is unavoidably linked with (present-day American) conservatism, in which case, hey persecuting conservatives doesn't seem like such a bad thing! But I'm more inclined to explain it by saying that there's a bit of a persecution complex on the right, and part of it comes from this method of writing off legitimate grievances as partisan sniping; in the racial sphere but also in others.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Hollywood is run by absolute motherfuckers, but a lot of those motherfuckers tend to be really socially liberal and vote democrat, so having conservative political opinions or simply being a run-of-the-mill republican can end up loving you out of work. Being conservative in and of itself is pretty far down on the list of why people don't get work in Hollywood. If you look at actors who are openly conservative whose careers have tanked, you'll see that in each case they've said or done something to alienate people at some point, which in turn can affect their money-making potential. That's what hurts them, not their beliefs. Individual people in the film industry might be liberal in the donor class sense, but Hollywood itself is extremely conservative. Where do you think most conservatives get their ideas about how the world is supposed to work? That's the audience every big money movie in the cineplex is written for. Individual conservatives' personal hurt and feelings of betrayal toward Hollywood stem from finding out that the people who create the primary reinforcement mechanism for their belief system don't themselves share in those same beliefs, in large part because as a group they're incapable of separating fiction from reality.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Well, I mean, if you have stupid political opinions, you can still be a doctor, a mechanic, etc. But in Hollywood, everything's essentially a popularity contest. Having unpopular opinions is detrimental there. Tom Cruise, Charlie Sheen, right now they're viewed as pretty crazy, and a lot of people don't want to be associated with that. It's not unlikely that if you're an extreme conservative who is very vocal about his crazy beliefs that you're going to find yourself losing out on a lot of jobs. For a specifically conservative example, there's Mel Gibson. Tom Cruise just opened up another million dollar blockbuster last month. He's been consistently employed for the last 30 years. I think its safe to assume that Cruise's fervor for his faith has had no impact on his getting work (and rightfully so, I should say. I see no reason why he should be punished for believing something weird). Mel Gibson did not drop off the Hollywood Map for being insanely conservative and Christian - Apocalypto came after the Passion of the Christ, and won pretty much all the awards. He dropped off the map because he got drunk and called a cop sugartits. People in Hollywood are not persecuted for their beliefs or views, they are punished for their actions. Schlitzkrieg Bop posted:They're outspoken Republicans, but not necessarily conservatives--they both tend more toward being libertarian on social issues, which is where I suspect there's more of a stigma in Hollywood. On the other hand there are actors like Gary Oldman and Robert Downey Jr who both are doing very well right now but are pretty cagey when talking about their political beliefs. Pretty much everyone I can think of off the top of my head who is an outspoken social conservative primarily works on television now. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 21:45 on May 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Leofish posted:How persecuted are conservatives in Hollywood? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm asking a legit question. I hear this all the time from the right wing, that they're a persecuted minority in whatever circle they're in, be it Hollywood, or academia, for example.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
For all the reputation that the film/tv industry gets for being liberal as hell, there are still supposedly a bunch of gay actors/actresses out there who remain closeted because coming out would be bad for their careers, too. I'm not sure if that's an "executives won't cast gays" thing or a "middle Americans won't watch gays" thing, though. Either way, I wouldn't be too surprised if Hollywood was more moderate than people think.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Arnold Schwarzenegger is about as conservative as Obama is, judging by his track record as governator, possibly less so.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Tim Selaty Jr posted:For all the reputation that the film/tv industry gets for being liberal as hell, there are still supposedly a bunch of gay actors/actresses out there who remain closeted because coming out would be bad for their careers, too. I'm not sure if that's an "executives won't cast gays" thing or a "middle Americans won't watch gays" thing, though. Well, how many of these are actors who are "supposedly" gay? As in, attractive straight guys that cause less attractive guys to feel threatened, so they try to tell themselves the guy in question is gay?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Arnold Schwarzenegger is about as conservative as Obama is, judging by his track record as governator, possibly less so. Not to mention California governor and HUAC stoolie Ronald Reagan. But as governor he did pass gun control...
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Not to mention California governor and HUAC stoolie Ronald Reagan. And the first no-fault divorce laws.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
All you need to do in order to disabuse yourself of that notion that Hollywood is "liberal" is to take a look at how they handle female and minority roles in their films.
VirtualStranger fucked around with this message at 23:11 on May 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Hollywood is an amazingly capitalist place. Everything is focus-grouped and cross-marketed to a fare-thee-well, and your career is only as good as the box office numbers of your last project. You can be a tremendous jerk or right-wing loon, but if your movies make money, your career will be fine until you do something that hurts your marketability. The example of Mel Gibson above shows this - he had no problem making films and getting them distributed until he started wishing that the mother of his children be raped to death by n***ers. And if you're having trouble making a right-wing film? Well, get off your rear end and raise the funds and write a script and hire a crew and a cast and spend on marketing to get your film made. What could be more free market? Gibson had trouble getting anyone interested in his Jesus torture-porn film, so he raised the money and made it himself, and he made a giant pile of money doing it. He didn't whine about how no one wanted to make his film, he went out and made it, and that made it possible for him to easily raise the money for his next film. Hollywood's putative liberalism only goes so far - ask anyone involved on the production side what they think of unions, and be prepared to hear an earful. The real problem is that 99% of people who try to make it in Hollywood fail, or their careers are cut shorter than they like. Peoples' phones stop ringing (or they never rang in the first place) and they decide to blame The Sinister Left Wing Cabal That Runs Show Business rather than the fact that there's a limited number of slots in showbiz, and every one has hundreds of people willing to do anything to land it. Plus, it gives them a second career of pandering to right-wing groups as a former celebrity who had their career cut short because that's how Hollywood treats conservatives. Victoria Jackson, whose career had been in a coma for ten years before she latched onto the Tea Party, is a good example of this. Hollywood's full of people who don't get called back for second auditions or who can't get their screenplay looked at. It's because that's how Hollywood works. Only a tiny sliver conclude that it's because they've been blackballed because of their right-wing beliefs. Hollywood is a brutal, cold, maximizing, hyper-efficient capitalist machine, and peoples' careers go ice-cold all the time, usually because something fresher or hotter or younger comes along. (There's also the matter of showbiz people generally having huge egos and not exactly being the best objective judges of why their career has arced the way it has).
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 23:20
|
|
