|
21 yr. old female posted:AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job. W-Wait a minute... It's almost as if all voters are somehow predisposed to voting for their own interests by various factors in their lives and are therefore unable to be paragons of objectivity.  BAN ALL VOTERS.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
Comedy answer; "congrats! You can no longer vote as you receive benefits in the form of ________". Pretty much every person uses some form of assistance in their life, and at the very least they use the infrastructure provided by taxes literally every day. Literally everybody who votes has a 'conflict of interest'. The entire point of voting is to facilitate your voice and interests. I hate how corporate greed is laudable as good business but the second you vote for a government that will help out the poor it's all about lazy do nothing's. Tell you what, people on assistance can lose the right to vote when corporate influence and money flowing into politics is eliminated. Oh, that's a violation of free expression now is it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
InsanityIsCrazy posted:Are we still doing dumb emails here? Republicans; champions of reproductive rights. Also if someone in my workplace sent this to me, I'd be in HR's office so loving fast. This is all pretty inappropriate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
If you get a tax deduction for having children or a mortgage you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Republicans; champions of reproductive rights. Its also predicated on the premise that all poors are lazy and are poor of their own accord. And dogwhistling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:If you get a tax deduction for having children or a mortgage you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:If you get a tax deduction for having children or a mortgage you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Conversely, if you have to pay the fine for the Children & Mortgage Mandate that also constitutes a conflict of interest and you don't get to vote. Any vote for a thing that may improve your life is now illegal. Voting Republican is still legal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
My SiL again. As much as Luke's comment makes me want to go all snarky and say "Yes, it does take an elementary understanding of economics to know that the price of a product is not wholly determined by the price of labor" but I think this may be one issue that I can get her to reconsider and actually look at the facts. Often I just kinda drive-by debunk her posts with articles and include summaries so that it's just not a poo poo ton of links that nobody will bother clicking, but even so she rarely ever replies. Anyone have any suggestions? I guess I could start by asking what her solution would be, but I'm guessing the answer to that would be "work harder" or some other form of the bootstraps mentality. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
hamster_style posted:My SiL again. As much as Luke's comment makes me want to go all snarky and say "Yes, it does take an elementary understanding of economics to know that the price of a product is not wholly determined by the price of labor" but I think this may be one issue that I can get her to reconsider and actually look at the facts. There's a certain depressing irony in someone fetishizing the market valuation of labor against an increasing minimum wage and then bemoaning the market valuation of labor as a result of globalization in the same breath. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:There's a certain depressing irony in someone fetishizing the market valuation of labor against an increasing minimum wage and then bemoaning the market valuation of labor as a result of globalization in the same breath. Not to mention local trade blocs are different from overseas trade blocs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Suggestions? Apparently the best suggestion is to ignore them. Showing proof that they are wrong, even if it's really good proof they can't get around... backfires and only makes their belief stronger, a study says.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
hamster_style posted:My SiL again. As much as Luke's comment makes me want to go all snarky and say "Yes, it does take an elementary understanding of economics to know that the price of a product is not wholly determined by the price of labor" but I think this may be one issue that I can get her to reconsider and actually look at the facts. "elementary understanding of economics" Actually, no, their problem is they have an elementary understanding of economics, to quote another poster quote:Econ101 is a huge contributor to the ranks of shithead libertarians, because they take an incredibly basic view of a simple optimal system, do no further study, and then apply it to the real world. It’s like if someone just took physics 101 and thought purely in terms of frictionless surfaces and perfectly elastic, spherical cows, but expected to be taken seriously as an engineer. I mean their understanding is essentially if one variable in an economics equation rises by 1, then all others must rise by 1, also labor makes up most of a businesses operating costs(it's actually between 15-30% usually, I believe there's some BLS or FED website that actually tells you the average for each industry)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
The study in question is a) really bad and b) doesn't have external validity- there's no reason to apply it outside the vaccination context. There's a whole body of research on persuasion theory that gets into how to actually get the other person to think on the subject and not just re-intrench. My advice generally is to phrase your refutation so that they figure out the problem with their argument themselves, not simply through reading your response- and, where relevant, ensure that they feel threatened/insulted by the source of the faulty talking point, not you. The reason people double down on beliefs is often to try and save face. If you can make sure they don't identify themselves with the argument or talking point, and are sure you don't seem to imply that they are a lesser person for being wrong, they are much more likely to consider your viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Crain posted:What is with these people and the desire to remove peoples right to vote. Because they think these people will literally collapse the country. My dad is constantly reciting these two quotes at me and it will tell you everything you need to know: "When the people find that they can vote themselves other people's money, that will herald the end of the republic.” --Ben Franklin* "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." --Alexis de Tocqueville** I wish I could bring my dad on here so he could fully explain this idea, God knows he's certainly explained it to me enough times but I've learned to tune it out. The general gist, as I recall, is something similar to the 47 percent line that got Mitt Romney in trouble. The lack of balance between makers and takers is simply unsustainable and will turn the American economy into something like a Ponzi scheme which is doomed to collapse. So, these people have to be prevented from voting to preserve the republic. Meanwhile, in reality, rich people manipulating the economic system for their own interests actually did collapse the economy. But to be fair to dear old dad, he thinks the banks are a bunch of crooks who all deserve to be in jail and he's anti-Citizen United, as is a surprising chunk of the Tea Party. *not really **also not really
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
InsanityIsCrazy posted:From work Ah, so if I'm laid off, I must deny myself all pleasure, eat nothing but the most basic meals, sell all of my physical possessions, and remove myself from the democratic process entirely so as not to offend the job-havers? Serves me right!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:Because they think these people will literally collapse the country. My dad is constantly reciting these two quotes at me and it will tell you everything you need to know: It might be worth trying to show him "Inequality for All" on Netflix. I found it to be very well done and informative without having an obvious bias. In fact, Reich goes to lengths to show that he's always tried to have an open mind and that it's not necessarily an issue of Republican vs Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
As far as I understand it, the whole "who deserves to vote" debate was actually a dominant political issue in the early 1800s in terms of whether or not suffrage should be extended to include all white males, rather than just land-owners. The anti-elitist, pro-"yeoman farmer" party won out, and was later termed Jeffersonian Democracy. I do acknowledge though that contemporary comparisons can get fuzzy over such a great expanse of time, insofar as Jefferson was an advocate of states rights and limited government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:It took you a while, but it looks like you finally got my point.  The post I responded to was a mishmash of nonsensical comparisons ("Although they had consent, they didn't have a warrant" isn't a valid comparison, because the actual situation is "Because they had consent, they didn't need a warrant") and statements of fact ("the allegation of a threat was not sufficient probable cause" is not something that logically follows from the premises of "they had consent" and "they did not obtain a warrant"). Don't pretend you were saying something else and then be a cock about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:
That really was my point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
InsanityIsCrazy posted:Are we still doing dumb emails here? "Put me in charge of food stamps. Put me in charge of Medicaid. Put me in charge. Put me in charge" Everything he* says about crushing undesirables and generally making life miserable for others should really just be dismissed. It's not supposed to produce a result or solve anything and it's a mistake to argue on those merits, it's just descriptive color of how much power he wants. That's what he and the other people forwarding it are getting off on, the idea that they could someday wield that much unearned, unqualified, and undeserved power that they could throw random obstacles and hardships into the paths of anyone they wanted. What's more hosed up about it is the way it takes a directly confrontational tone with the reader that puts them in the position of one of their victims and barks commands and abuse at them. "You will maintain our property" "Your 'home' will be subject to inspections at anytime" "We will sell your 22-inch rims and low profile tires" And the people who forward this eat that poo poo up, because they love an authoritarian voice hurling abuse at them. Everyone who is not in the intended audience is put off by this (I've ended a relationship before because someone would talk like this when they were upset at other people), but for the people who forward it, it reminds them of their drunk bloody-knuckled daddy. Anytime this is sighted the whole S&M totalitarian power fantasy angle is what should be mocked. The idea that someone with no experience, education, or qualification to run a successful social program should be suddenly handed unchecked power and authority over the entirety of others' lives and possessions is the meat here, the government cheese, forced labor, sterilization and losing voting rights is just garnish on the plate. *LOL if anyone seriously believes any of the headers claiming a young female wrote this
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Boywhiz88 posted:It might be worth trying to show him "Inequality for All" on Netflix. I found it to be very well done and informative without having an obvious bias. In fact, Reich goes to lengths to show that he's always tried to have an open mind and that it's not necessarily an issue of Republican vs Democrats. Ha ha ha, sorry, man, my dad is emphatically not going to listen to an argument by loving Robert Reich. Fox News has fully got a hold on him, getting him to bend on this issue would be like getting him to agree to a sex change at this point. I spent all my energy getting him on the right side of gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:Ha ha ha, sorry, man, my dad is emphatically not going to listen to an argument by loving Robert Reich. Fox News has fully got a hold on him, getting him to bend on this issue would be like getting him to agree to a sex change at this point. I spent all my energy getting him on the right side of gay marriage. What's funny is that he brings up his relationship with Fox News as being amicable to good early on, but now he's viewed as a communist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
bobservo posted:Ah, so if I'm laid off, I must deny myself all pleasure, eat nothing but the most basic meals, sell all of my physical possessions, and remove myself from the democratic process entirely so as not to offend the job-havers? Serves me right! Something that just came to me reading your post: Such a system would create an extremely exploitative environment for lower class and minority voters. Every 4 years (or when ever local elections occur since the right to vote extends there as well) you'd see people firing off tons of people. Probably doing so far enough from the election that they'd have to take some sort of government assistance in order to eliminate huge swaths of the voter pool. Even if that was made illegal (and honestly it's already illegal since you can't discriminate based on political ideology) it would take you so long to get through the legal process that you'd most likely lose your chance to vote anyway. And considering it would be the lower working class people who would be hit, the chances of even trying to get a legal case going would be next to impossible. The obvious counter argument is "well if you want to vote then just get another job". This would be difficult for two reasons, 1) Honest "Job creators" wouldn't be firing people, so there'd be few to no jobs available from honest employers (even if they wanted to hire) and 2) Being fired around that time would be a signal to dishonest employers that these people are liberals (because lets be honest here, she's not talking about conservative's on welfare) and they won't be hired. Then, to add in the "work house" logic laid out in the plan, you'd also have to account for the fact that you're being forced to work long hours doing menial labor like a slave and would have no time to construct such a case, and spending your money on something like a lawyer to try and "get easier handouts from the government" would probably put a stop to your case from the get go. Assuming you'd even be allowed to use your money to hire an attorney. What a wonderful system. Edit: We already see similar attempts with voter ID laws coming on the books right around august/september every election year. Crain fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
I'm guessing this fits because its an experience with someone I know, although an event in real life. So I get my new apartment now that 1st semester is over, so glad to be out of the loving dorms I grab a roommate. So I decide to room with a guy from one of my Engineering classes who also played a fair amount of video games and seemed a half way decent guy (and met my criteria for not being a shithead who comes back drunk at 4 am to throw up on the couch). 2nd day in the apartment he throws an absolute shitfit because I own a Red army flag and hang it in my personal bedroom because his grand father died in Vietnam fighting the evil communists and me hanging my antique flag is destroying his grand fathers memory. So I take the flag down and chalk up the incident to him being super stressed (Hes never lived outside of home before coming to college). Of course with my poo poo luck on the third day he spots my "Glorious Revolution" patriotic war pocket watch ,A pocket watch given to soviet soldiers after WW2(my father gave it to me for my birthday),and goes apeshit and throws it at the wall once again screaming about his dead grand father. Thank god the drat watch is practically indestructible and could be run over by a tank with out it getting damaged, regardless I told him to pack his poo poo and  . Thank god he did exactly that, and I got a call from his mom the next day apologizing for his behavior her exact words "He got into Ayn Rand and this whole libertarian thing when he was in high school, and really feels strongly about his views". I told her that it was not a problem and my property wasn't damaged, it was shocking how nice she was about the entire thing. Afterwards I just said gently caress it and forked over the cash to live by myself (I go to school on a ROTC scholarship so I have enough money saved up to foot the bill thank god).Apologies for the wall of text, in conclusion: gently caress Libertarians  (The biggest irony is my father is a Vietnam vet and hes the one who got me the flag and the watch) Venom Snake fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:I'm guessing this fits because its an experience with someone I know, although an event in real life. This guy isn't just a Libertarian, he has anger and/or emotional issues and is quite possibly an rear end in a top hat as well. So, good call there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
babies havin rabies posted:This guy isn't just a Libertarian, he has anger and/or emotional issues and is quite possibly an rear end in a top hat as well. So, good call there. The thing I hate is that there is a massive overlap between people who share my interests and people who cannot even tolerate the slightest hint of anything that doesn't fit in their world view. Their didn't seem to be anything wrong with him at all at first glance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:I'm guessing this fits because its an experience with someone I know, although an event in real life. This is one of those stories where'd I've love to read his version on bizarro SA/Ayn Rand Fanfic Fiesta Forums. I'm wondering how you have to frame it so that seeing random stuff associated with communism from 40 years ago makes you try to break your roommate's stuff in a rage since I'm sure he doesn't consider his actions to be unjustified.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
God dammit, I touched the poop. This has been floating around facebook... http://www.politicalears.com/blog/72-people-killed-resisting-gun-confiscation-in-massachussetts/ Not sure where to begin tearing about the gross misunderstanding of revolutionary war history, either with the fact that Mass. was already in basically open rebellion at that point, or that the British and the militias were both spoiling for a fight and were deliberately provoking each other or something else that the idiot article makes up out of whole cloth. Probably shouldn't reply to facebook post. Stupid poop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Isn't it a better argument to approach it from the perspective that even if everyone automagically had enough money, intelligence, drive, etc etc to get a college degree or even a PHD, you literally cannot have a society where no one is working minimum wage? In my experience, the logic of that argument is totally ignored in favor of doubling down. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
I like how "you can't pay everyone what they're worth" is one of the most damning things you could post about society, and that guy is like "welp that's just the way it is!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:I like how "you can't pay everyone what they're worth" is one of the most damning things you could post about society, and that guy is like "welp that's just the way it is!" The idea that society is unable to be fixed and we should just "let people do whatever because freedom!" is a staple of the modern libertarian movement. I absolutely despise the idea that humanity is forever doomed to the gently caress you got mine mode of operation because that pretty much spells doom for any kind of progression. God help us people are running and getting elected on the "gently caress it let them starve because helping people is evil socialism!" platform.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:I like how "you can't pay everyone what they're worth" is one of the most damning things you could post about society, and that guy is like "welp that's just the way it is!" Most of the stuff posted here from Facebook is from people with privilege enough to never really think about the details of what they're actually saying. The person most likely doesn't realize how bad living on minimum wage actually is and will victim blame any problems. One of the best explanations I've heard here is that conservatives are obsessed with "a person," but they know very little about "people." Their world view comes from thinking, "a person can do <X>" where <X> is bootstrapping out of poverty in the same way they have imagined themselves to have done. They do not think about the fact that their solutions do not work when you start broadening the scope of their argument to include things like "all people in society," or asking the silliest questions like... "would you have been able to study basic mathematics as a child if you were more worried about avoiding violence being done to you or where your next meal is coming from?" They're so sheltered that they really don't understand how deep the poverty rabbit hole goes in the US. They also really don't want to know because that information might make them feel bad. It might mean they have to do something about it, and they're very comfortable not having to think about it. This is why they minimize the problem by talking about poor people with refrigerators.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
ErIog posted:One of the best explanations I've heard here is that conservatives are obsessed with "a person," but they know very little about "people." Their world view comes from thinking, "a person can do <X>" where <X> is bootstrapping out of poverty in the same way they have imagined themselves to have done. Also, I just adore people like that, who say that the world's not fair, and shouldn't be. And by adore I mean hate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
It's been a long time but I finally got one! This came from one of my last remaining outspoken right wingers on FB. Old college roommate. He was insufferable then and continues to be on a limited basis on Facebook. Dude works too hard for too little and loves it. I refuse to touch the poop. All I want to do is take the argument to his side of the lawn and talk about how if the business was worth a drat they would figure out a way to provide meaningful healthcare for their employees. Anecdotal evidence points to my employer who is constantly growing the business, hiring more people, and suffered nary a consequence of the ACA because the healthcare provided was already great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
In a thread about cultural appropriation:quote:When I was at Ft. Stewart I dated a black woman for about eight months or so. Sometimes we hung out with her friends and sometimes with mine. Except for the most part we had the same friends. Still I guess I was being disrespectful to black culture. When I was in Korea I dated a Korean woman. Sometimes we hung out on base and other times we went to formal and informal Korean functions. Still I guess I was stripping her culture of any significance. When I was in the Sinai I dated a Palestinian woman. My god what have I done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:I always like comparing it to musical chairs. There aren't enough chairs for everyone. We can quibble over whether somebody's got a chair because they were faster than everybody else, luckier, or because their father owns the chair factory, but the fact remains, there will always be somebody left standing up. It also ties into the "you're just not willing to work hard" argument, because no matter how fast you are or how hard you work, you're still SOL if somebody's faster or harder-working. When it comes to jobs, the musical chairs analogy is quite apt. However, be careful not to tacitly fall into their framing by applying it in other cases. If you're talking about something quite basic like feeding, housing, or delivering healthcare to people then it's not a game of musical chairs at all. The US, as the richest country on the face of the earth, is actually in a position to be able to provide those things to all people within its borders. Other countries with fewer resources manage to be able to do it more effectively than the US, and yet somehow it's the only problem conservatives think is just impossible for Americans to solve. When it comes to controlling Putin, conservatives think government is all-powerful. When it comes to getting surplus food to starving people... the government is just oh so powerless. AmericanExceptionalism.txt
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:I always like comparing it to musical chairs. There aren't enough chairs for everyone. We can quibble over whether somebody's got a chair because they were faster than everybody else, luckier, or because their father owns the chair factory, but the fact remains, there will always be somebody left standing up. It also ties into the "you're just not willing to work hard" argument, because no matter how fast you are or how hard you work, you're still SOL if somebody's faster or harder-working. Contiuning the analogy, you could say that the wealthy and the inheritors take three, five, ten, or even twenty of the chairs, and accuse you of "class warfare" when you try and get into one of "their" chairs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/09/snl-skit-hammers-pro-life-activism-viciously-stereotypes-politically-involved-conservative-men/ So... conservatives have called dibs on MRAs? Cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:I like how "you can't pay everyone what they're worth" is one of the most damning things you could post about society, and that guy is like "welp that's just the way it is!" this is basically how I end up having to handle holiday family gathering political topics. i'm the sort of scapegoat liberal of my family so after a while of bullshitting someone always wants to stir the pot and will say something ridiculously political and everyone will sort of look over at me expectantly eventually i just started taking all of the fun out of it, and agree until the argument is reduced down to having to accept that the poors will die in the street "make people get a job after X days on unemployment or they're cut off" "ok sure let's do that, what if they don't get a job after X days, then?" "well, cut 'em off!" "so they just starve? like, the person just becomes homeless and dies?" "..." it changes absolutely nothing, but the hardest thing for me to accept is that there are a decent amount of people--some of my family included, maybe--who really wouldn't see a problem with that scenario Waffles Inc. fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:In my experience, the logic of that argument is totally ignored in favor of doubling down. Yeah, a plumber or framing carpenter is "on top." That's the top. Someone's got really narrow horizons, and has no idea how rich the rich are. And people never have children, then have their circumstances change to where they can't afford them. That never happens. Also, the most successful evolutionary strategy in situations where offspring have a low chance of success is to have lots of offspring. VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 03:24
|
|
