|
XyloJW posted:Oh I did. She's done it before. She posted some blatant racist poo poo one time about how there are no Muslim charities, my mom and I pointed out how entirely untrue it was, linking a dozen charities, so she deleted the entire thing, and reposted her original statement. And did so every time we responded. Send her racist stuff to her boss, give her an actual reason to feel persecuted.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
LP97S posted:To get a glimpse into the psyche of a "0bongo = Muslim" person, take a gander at this Day by Day classic. Thought I was in the political cartoon thread for a second. For those not familiar with DBD, the blue 'sponsor' box means that someone paid him to make that specific strip.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
Emy posted:Thought I was in the political cartoon thread for a second. For those not familiar with DBD, the blue 'sponsor' box means that someone paid him to make that specific strip. Paid in what sense? Like said "here's exactly what I want the cartoon to be:" or just "make whatever cartoon you want and put my name on it" (or somewhere in between)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 07:27
|
|
|
Emy posted:Thought I was in the political cartoon thread for a second. For those not familiar with DBD, the blue 'sponsor' box means that someone paid him to make that specific strip. Can we pay him to kill off his strip?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 07:47
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:Can we pay him to kill off his strip? Seeing as how the strip seems to be Muir's only source of income, it would have to be a fuckton of money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 10:24
|
|
|
Wait, so is it real or satire? I thought it was supposed to be a joke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 13:31
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Paid in what sense? Like said "here's exactly what I want the cartoon to be:" or just "make whatever cartoon you want and put my name on it" (or somewhere in between)? For $250, a donor gets to give a topic for Muir to do a comic on. However, there's a very long backlog, and if by the time yours comes up, your topic is no longer relevant ("Do one one about that guy who flew a plane into that IRS building in Texas!"), Muir will attempt to contact you to ask if you want to change it. If he can't get a hold of you, he'll just do one on whatever he wants, but he'll offer you another chance to offer a topic later if you want or a full refund. He's very professional with his pay-for-porn system. So that one might have been a specific request, or it might've just been the guy's name attached. Sarion posted:Wait, so is it real or satire? I thought it was supposed to be a joke. Day by Day is deadly serious. Chris Muir is the last poverty-stricken line between America and the forces of feminists, Muslims, blacks, Marxists, Kantian nihilists, and liberals. A while back, TaptheforwardAssist held a Day by Day parody contest in D&D, if you missed it: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3492295
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 13:44
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Oh I did. She's done it before. She posted some blatant racist poo poo one time about how there are no Muslim charities, my mom and I pointed out how entirely untrue it was, linking a dozen charities, so she deleted the entire thing, and reposted her original statement. And did so every time we responded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 15:01
|
|
|
My mom is now baiting my aunt. My mom is Blue, my aunt is red. My brother is green, and random people I just kept to purple.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:My mom is now baiting my aunt. My mom is Blue, my aunt is red. My brother is green, and random people I just kept to purple. I just troll these people by asking why the religion of our president matters at all. Very few of them have anything resembling a reasonable response, and most don't respond at all other than to talk about how a Muslim president would be a supporter of terrorism and hate Israel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
Trolling is ineffective when they openly admit horrible racist poo poo. My aunt is really racist, and I have Muslim family on my wife's side who read my Facebook (and my mom's) so I'd rather not invite my aunt to launch into a screed that my cousins and aunts on my wife's side might read.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Trolling is ineffective when they openly admit horrible racist poo poo. My aunt is really racist, and I have Muslim family on my wife's side who read my Facebook (and my mom's) so I'd rather not invite my aunt to launch into a screed that my cousins and aunts on my wife's side might read. Do you have any other family members that are this crazy or just her? Did she just learn this behavior from wherever?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
I mean, her mom is pretty Christian and conservative, but she generally errs on the side of the Jesus "love your neighbors" side of things. She really is disappointed by how crazy and hateful my aunt gets in these conversations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
My brother is in high school. Earlier, he told me that his teacher (I don't know which class) asked a question, apparently in an attempt to start some kind of conservative rant. She asked, "Do you think welfare in this country works the way it should?" I informed him of the proper response the next time he hears such a question: "Social or corporate?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: 'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.' So the doctor said: 'Ok and what do you want me to do?' She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.' The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.' She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request. Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.' The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!' 'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.' The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same! Love says, 'I sacrifice myself for the good of the other person.'Abortion says, 'I sacrifice the other person for the good of myself.'
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
The Albatross posted:A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: Is it bad that my first thought was 'revoke his license'?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 04:50
|
|
|
I've recently taken up partners dancing (salsa and swing mostly, a little ballroom) as a hobby and so now my facebook is flooded with all the young mormons and evangelicals who dance in lieu of partying it up in the clubs and bars. The above is pretty typical for my feed now, but what I find interesting is nobody seems to notice my avowed socialism, (mentioned in my profile alongside "nonreligious" for my religious views) and every once in a while I'll post something that criticizes Obama from the left and I'll get a ton of upvotes from my ultraconservative peeps who just saw "*critical language* OBAMA!!" in the title line and clicked the like. The other weekend my closest dance partner (a young, white evangelical) seemed legitimately confused when I mentioned I wouldn't be voting for Obama... because I was voting for the Party for Socialism and Liberation candidate. "Why would you vote for a socialist?" "Well, so-and-so, because I'm a socialist."
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:Is it bad that my first thought was 'revoke his license'? Yeah, bringing a pregnancy to term carries all sorts of health risks on its own. I'm angry at this fictitious doctor even before the morality stuff kicks in to high gear. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
THe anecdote completely ignores the rights of the mother to control her body. Which of course is the legal basis of abortion rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
Ignoring the interests of women? Well, I'll be...
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
The Albatross posted:A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: And then the woman, exhausted from births so close together as well as having to care for two newborns at once, lost her job, her husband had to take more hours leading to the stress combining to end their marriage leaving her alone and still unemployed and overworked. Then when she needed government aid we called her a stupid slut who should have thought before having that second baby.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
euphronius posted:THe anecdote completely ignores the rights of the mother to control her body. Which of course is the legal basis of abortion rights. And your argument ignores the rights of the unborn child to life, which of course is the legal basis of curtailing abortion rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
I didnt mention it because the anecdote had that covered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
I find that the simplest way to respond to this stuff is with the Fertility clinic thought experiment. If people really believed that "Life begins at conception," then they would have an easy answer to the problem, but they will twist themselves into knots trying to weasel out of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 05:50
|
|
|
This isn't really a crazy political e-mail, but I thought this might be the best place to ask. Please forgive me if I'm mistaken. A while ago my Dad and I were having dinner and I was telling him about the movie that was coming out on the Osama Bin Laden manhunt, Zero Dark Thirty. He kind of throws his hands up and starts talking about a 60 Minutes expose where they interviewed some Navy SEAL, who claimed to have had Bin Laden targeted, but had orders to let him go from way up the chain of command; this happened before '08. So my Dad's under the impression that there was some conspiracy to save the Bin Laden kill for a rainy day, "and now here comes big bad Obama, who needs to look like he's worth a poo poo on foreign policy..." There's obviously no convincing him that it happened any other way, but just to sate my own curiosity, does anyone know if there's more to the story? I never bothered to look up what 60 Minutes episode it was, I'm pretty bad at sniffing out things like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:Yeah, bringing a pregnancy to term carries all sorts of health risks on its own. I'm angry at this fictitious doctor even before the morality stuff kicks in to high gear. Not to mention she'll get some rest since being pregnant is as easy as having a beer belly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
The Albatross posted:A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: And that baby was Einstein.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
The Albatross posted:A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: Why don't people who forward/post anti-abortion e-mails/status updates ever realize that any fetus their efforts save still has to be raised into adulthood and that unwanted babies-> unloved/abused/neglected children-> adults with issues so severe they find it difficult to even keep a crappy minimum wage job? constantIllusion fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Oct 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 07:18
|
|
|
Because that fetus is Einstein.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Oh I did. She's done it before. She posted some blatant racist poo poo one time about how there are no Muslim charities, my mom and I pointed out how entirely untrue it was, linking a dozen charities, so she deleted the entire thing, and reposted her original statement. And did so every time we responded. No Muslim charities? I take it she's never even heard of the concept of zakat then? I suppose mandatory charitable giving might come a little too close too socialism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 11:44
|
|
|
constantIllusion posted:Why don't people who forward/post anti-abortion e-mails/status updates ever realize that any fetus their efforts save still has to be raised into adulthood and that unwanted babies-> unloved/abused/neglected children-> adults with issues so severe they find it difficult to even keep a crappy minimum wage job? The same reason they are for abstinence only education, treating drug addiction or homosexuality like they are just hobbies that can be given up at any time, trickle down economics work or that poor people are just hard work and a little gumption away from being the next Bill Gates. The world should work in a very specific way and rather than ever actually look at that critically it's better to just bunker down on the story and try to avoid anything that could shake up their world view. To them it's more that "the world should work this way and if it doesn't well people just aren't trying hard enough to force it."
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 13:17
|
|
|
 Who wants to guess what genre South 107 plays? I keep trying to break each point down, but my head just starts spinning each time. The more I think about it, the more I think that each statement may be technically true, but in a sense that is completely lost on anyone who uses the argument to rail against Welfare Queens. Mistaken For Bacon fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Oct 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
I'm not the type suited to detailed breakdowns and whatnot, but 1-3, at the very least, state governments are afforded the authority to tax constituents by the constitution, and the federal government is also considered to have this power via the 16th amendment. 4, marginal utility of the dollar, also food stamps in particular, but aid to the poor in general, generates more than 1 dollar in economic activity per dollar the government takes to pay out those benefits. 5 is way the gently caress off because that's based on the 47% nonsense which includes military, retirees, and the working poor. e: Also the idea that the upper x% of society will stop working because boohoo mean taxman take my money is laughable on its face. We used to have a 90% top marginal income tax rate and rich people still wanted to live here. Is this person a libertarian by any chance because that whole thing reads as Ron Paul Kill Your Parents nonsense?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
1. I guess that's true, but it's also a vigorous attack on a straw man. The point is that everyone gives up a little bit for the greater good, which includes making sure the less fortunate don't starve in the streets. 2. Basically true, but phrased as though each working person has one personal parasite sucking on their bank account, rather than millions of people giving up a portion to help provide a safety net that they themselves might need some day. 3. This implies that the government is inherently unjust in taking money from people, and that it is utterly incapable of creating anything of benefit. Someone will have to actually make an argument to establish this premise, and then further make an argument as to why it's true of government and not other organizations. 4. I suppose not, but that utterly fails to address the idea that extreme concentrations of wealth are not good for the overall health of a society. 5. If half the people did in fact decide that they could just slack off, that would be a bad thing. If the other half did actually decide that being productive isn't worthwhile because a portion of it will be used to help someone else, that would be even worse. From what I can tell, in real life what's happening is the vast majority of people are trying their best, and quite a few feel that a reasonable safety net is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Someone in this topic said this already and I think it's apt but those aren't really arguments, they're slogans. You might as well argue back "You can't hug children with nuclear arms" for all the good it does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
Garanimals4Seniors posted:
4. Never heard of multiplier effects? Most businesses funnel money upwards, so if you divide/redistribute profits, businesses will likely see that money again. Only now, people aren't starving. 5. People want to work, and find reward in working, but when you can't do it to support yourself even when you're generating value and profit for your company that they won't share, that kills a lot of morale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
#4 is definitely wrong. Take the two following scenarios. A: I own a large widget factory. All profits from widget sales go directly to me. I decide that anyone who wants to work in the factory shall receive $0.00/hr. My wealth is not going to be divided. B: I own a large widget factory. All profits from widget sales go directly to me. I decide that anyone who wants to work in the factory shall receive $10.00/hr. My wealth will be divided. Which of those two is more likely to multiply my wealth? Of course, I may be interpreting the statement incorrectly, but it's not like these were meant to educate anyone. Quite the opposite, in fact. As has been pointed out, they're just folksy memes. Sound bites are the opiate of the anti-intellectuals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
1) This is useless point because no one is proposing it. Its based on the assumption that socialists and liberals want everyone to have the exact same income regardless of how hard they work. That's not true. Even if you said we were going to tax people like Mitt Romney 50% at the Federal level, and assumed another 10% at the State and Local level, leaving him with 40% of his income - he's not being legislated out of prosperity. He would still be making millions every year after taxes. In Mitt's specific case, in 2010 he would have still had $8M from one year. That's more than most families make over several generations. 2) So you agree then! It is awfully unfair that a factory worker does hard labor all day long for wages that barely keep their family's head above water, while investors sit around collecting the profits. Oh, sorry, did you mean someone else? 3) Good news! If you don't want society to give you anything, you can opt out of having anything taken. Go on, there's plenty of wilderness still out there. Oh, you like electricity, and roads, and safe housing, and having an educated workforce to be your employees/coworkers/customers? You just don't want to pay for it; got it. 4) This ignores the marginal utility of a dollar. Lets look for a minute at the wealth distribution in the US (2007): Top 1% - 34.6% Next 19% - 50.5% Next 20% - 10.9% Middle 20% - 4% Bottom 40% - 0.2% Ok, so lets take 2% of the nation's wealth from the top 20% of the country and give it to the bottom 40%. We've just divided up a bunch of wealth. In doing so the top 20% of the country has just lost 2.4% of their total wealth, a barely noticeable amount; but we just increased the wealth of the poorest 40% of the country by over 1000%. You've just vastly improved the lives of millions of people at the bottom, while keeping society extremely lopsided in favor of the rich. And the resulting economic activity of millions of American's having more money to spend will absolutely result in economic growth. 70% of our GDP growth comes from consumer spending. NOTE: I am not advocating driving up to rich people's houses with a truck and taking 2.4% of their stuff and then driving the truck around and giving it to people (though that might be fun). The processes by which you "take" and "give" are more complicated than the example requires to make it's point. 5) Thanks for the warning about a thing that has never happened ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
ThePeteEffect posted:5. People want to work, and find reward in working, but when you can't do it to support yourself even when you're generating value and profit for your company that they won't share, that kills a lot of morale. Wrong. People don't want to work, they are perfectly happy living on the dole their whole lives. Just the other day I saw a (black, but I'm not racist I'm just saying) woman with 5 kids buying lobster with food stamps then getting into an Escalade. I would never be able to do that because I am a moral and just person, unlike that person (did I mention they are not white? Not that it's relevant but it makes you think). Point being, everyone is right to not directly engage - there's nothing behind those statements but empty rhetoric. And anger, but you know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
1. The prosperous will still be pretty drat prosperous of liberals implement the taxes they want. They will still be richer than ever, and there is never a point where they lose money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 20:33
|
|
