|
How Darwinian posted:That the money from rich white gay men was involved in funding the messaging behind a shift in opinion surrounding homosexuality is irrelevant to what I'm trying to point out, which is that the messaging worked and it is worth scrutinizing how it worked. What I'm suggesting is that part of how it worked is by changing the exemplar brought to mind when talking about homosexuality. It's only when people start to call to mind an exemplar of a group that they can empathize with that they'll start to be willing to extend rights to them. I'm sorry, but I despise this post. Why do I despise this post? Mostly because I think 'empathy' is not the solution, and in many ways part of the problem. The example of the rich gay man is a good one. When you at the end write "with the help of rich white gay men," it'd probably be more accurate to add "and in the image of (respectable) rich white gay men." The problem is that the markers of homosexual depravity or whatever -- the reasons people cite for being unsympathetic towards gays -- are all the things that arose mostly as a response to criminalisation of homosexuality, the non-recognition of gay relationships, public disapproval, etc. ('look, they screw in public bathrooms! What sickos!'). Your example of the poor is a good one, but misses the horrifying twist that exactly the reasons people cite for despising the poor are because of the conditions of their impoverishment, and the conditions created to get them there. When you point out the predominant image of the poor is of 'scary' inner city blacks (gang-bangers, addicts, the chronically lazy, and so on), does that then mean then that we need to convince people that 'oh no, there are actually conservative, conformist WASP children living in poverty who you should feel bad for?' (Who of course refuses government aid, never shoplifts, etc. -- remember the right-wing's response to the murder of Trayvon Martin was to produce a school suspension and a few smoked joints as proof he doesn't deserve our empathy.) I'm not accusing your of being a racist or a homophobe or whatever, my point is just to say that in many cases what should motivate empathy is exactly what is cited to deny it. I'm reminded of the 'Occupy is back' thread, where posters complained about the smell of the homeless discouraging people, as if it conditional on encouraging empathy for the homeless was that that people don't see the conditions they're reduced to, and so can imagine an ideal homeless person to sympathise with instead (who presumably smells like fresh roses and lavender). If you start this empathy poo poo about the poor with a right winger, you'll inevitably fall into this deadlock: how many are gangbangers? How many are 'welfare queens'? Is such-and-such sufficiently a gangbanger or welfare queen? The answer will inevitably have to be somewhere in the middle. And then it becomes a question of whether there's enough 'good guys' to be empathetic to. (And it of course goes without saying the response is not -- which I've disgustingly seen so-called 'progressives' pull -- to grow to disdain wealthy gays as being one step off the dreaded White Anglo-Saxon Male. The joke here is exactly what would make gays empathetic to the right -- being these conservative family figures -- disqualifies them from the empathy of 'progressives' who fetishise the homosexuality as transgressive and so on.) Kieselguhr Kid fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Oct 19, 2012 |
#
¿
Oct 19, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
joedevola posted:Maybe I'm being naive. You think the right wing punditosphere is some kind of long-running, totally cynical fraud and you think you're naive? It sounds more like paranoia to me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2012 08:26
|
|
|
I simply can't draw a coherent comparison between the situations. It reminds me of another terrible macro showing soldiers saying stuff like 'oh, at least they [Wal-Mart employees] don't get shot on Black Friday' (paraphrasing). My response then was: does that imply Wal-Mart employees need to be at least shot at to justify complaint? The comparison makes no sense to me, and anyone who'd feel it probably would already agree with it. Image macros: probably not a good or appropriate venue for political discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 12:54
|
|
|
I'd be more inclined to listen to fingerpointing at a culture of violence and violent media if people demonstrated any kind of knowledge of what forms that actually took. In real life, the kid would probably being playing Call of Duty or something -- exactly the kind of media that indulges right-wing fantasies.Mister Macys posted:Is this reaction normal when viewing his comics? Yes, the normal reaction to Ramirez comics is wanting to seize him by the throat.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 12:04
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
az posted:Am ironic thing about many holocaust deniers is that while technically they would approve of it, even they know down below that it was absolutely barbaric and thus try to absolve their idols and teachers from wrongdoing as to not look as bad. I don't like this topic of 'deep-down.' Why is it they superficially support it but deep-down know it's bad? Why not that they deep-down support it but accept that 'superficially' people will be disgusted by mass slaughter? My experience with most 'scholarly' holocaust denial is that it the usual desire is to equivocate between Nazi atrocities and others, to say basically 'look, everyone committed a few war-crimes, we all came off bad but fascism/Nazism is a legitimate and respectable ideology.'
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:So you do affirm that you were in the middle of the act of defecation while the first news of BENGHAAAZI!!! started coming in? I cannot shake the suspicion that the Benghazi stuff is at least somewhat a knowing, spiteful response to attacks on Bush over the response to 9/11.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Blastedhellscape posted:From watching the video it looks like more of Beck's usual schtick. From time to time on his show he'd have a poignant monologue about how totally apolitical he is and how much he just wishes we could all love each other and get together and solve America's problems before it's too late and blah blah blah. I agree. This seems basically indistinguishable from his normal stuff -- I don't get where 'Beck has a change of heart' comes from.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:So here's something utterly horrifying. I wonder how many of them would've shot if they were being followed by a large Hispanic man?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Considering how many of these people fly the Confederate flag, assuming there's a 'once-and-for-all' is probably a mistake.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
Nyyen posted:I think the problem is that Michele and others in the campaign wanted to bring manufacturers and distributers onboard, but to do so had to avoid explicitely saying that people should drink water rather than soda. Those same companies now get to sell more water to those that buy into the campaign, and also raise a big stink about "the questionable health benefits of water" and sell more soda to the other side. 'Double-dipping' is pretty much the motto of capitalism. Remember how not long ago fast food companies were introducing comically-unhealthy options -- like the Double Down -- basically as a way for people to react against a 'healthy eating' buzz those same companies indulged? It's like, you bring in a healthy choice menu, then you bring in a comically-unhealthy thing for people to spite-eat ('drat political correctness trying to keep me from my burgers!').
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Honestly, the double down is probably less unhealthy than most fast food sandwiches. The concept was just really loving gross. Yeah, I had heard this. I was thinking more in terms of the concept though. It was sold as, and gained fame for, the 'how obscene is this!'-factor. Whether it objectively has more saturated fat, salt, whatever is kind of secondary.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Disco Godfather posted:Wasn't there a GOP memo from a few years ago that suggested recruiting C-list celebrities to the cause? I would assume it just said 'celebrities,' but maybe they're brutally honest behind closed doors (heh: as if they weren't totally absorbed by their own bullshit). mr. mephistopheles posted:[Rush] has more power than an elected official and makes substantially more money. Plus he doesn't face loving up. Really, there's no reason not to be an opinion-maker over an actual politician.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:Maybe it was in the Freep thread but there's at least one person out there who literally believes that Osama and Obama are the same person, and by extension probably believes this(or at least that it was one part of the plan). You think if Osama was going to pull a trick like that he'd be smart enough to change more than one letter in his name. It's like how in the old monster movies Dr. Frankenstein tries to hide away by calling himself Dr. Frank or Dr. Stein, or how Dracula calls himself Alucard.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2013 10:00
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Evaded the draft by not showering for weeks and then making GBS threads his pants in front of the recruitment officer. Then justified it by saying he's totally hardcore crazy and would've killed everyone, so it's best he didn't go.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:All I can think of is the old "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" line when I read that. (unfortunately, Falwell popularized that one) Yeah, but the Adam and Steve line is a decently clever pun. 'The Statue of Immigration' isn't anything. It's not even a joke if you squint at it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Looks like someone else is getting in on the WOC money train. Y'know, most of these right-wing books -- by Palin, O'Reilly and whatnot -- I legitimately wonder how someone could write enough to fill the pages. On the Amazon page, they say a lot of it is Palin talking about how important Christmas and Christ and so on is to her and her family, which I guess could consume a lot of pages, but gently caress me you've got to be spreading this stuff thin.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
I watch a lot of Fox News, so I can tell you all about those liberals...Dr Christmas posted:I'm pretty sure I've heard far more obsessive discussion about Miley Cyrus and twerking from people old enough to be my parents than I have from people of my own generation. Almost none from the latter, in fact. I'm convinced this is just a way to be smug while indulging in your lust for a young woman. Like a lot of hated pop-stars, Cyrus' critics quickly became way more annoying than she could ever be. And she's not particularly annoying, though I might just be liking her out of spite at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Nicknames can be funny and endearing when they're not given to you by someone more powerful. It's the hierarchy that fucks things like this up -- your boss is not your friend, and it can be humiliating for them to pretend they are. Also  on 'Man of Steel' for little Johnny Howard.I'll have them know some of my best friends were gay cokehead sluts in college!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:He's reviewed DOZENS of books? Well lemme go sign the Top Amazon.Com Reviewers for a book deal then! Academic book reviews. He reads a book and writes about its scholarship and arguments. Academic's reviews are sometimes considered critically important works in their corpus. It's kind of a bigger deal than 'PAIN AND GAIN RULES!!!!11 explosions are fun, i like the rock, 5/5.' Kieselguhr Kid fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Nov 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2013 05:48
|
|