|
Joementum posted:Pretty sure David Vitter is going to poo poo himself when he sees this. Fortunately for him, he knows how to handle that situation. This is pretty loving amazing.
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:what exactly was the context behind this image again? Mitt Romney giving a press conference about Benghazi the day after it occured once it was known four people were killed, grinning the entire time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Bill Ayers? Jeremiah Wright? Birthers? "Dreams from my Real Father"? Accusations that he's a crypto-Muslim? by definition he didn't get enough scrutiny, because he got elected president something that would never happen if the American people knew the depths of his evil
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So is Missouri the Deep South now because every rural area in the nation is now the South? if you rebelled against the united states so you could keep slavery, you are part of the south edit: Deep South is a stretch though but not all that much of one given what's going on evilweasel fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Amergin posted:To be fair I think all of the demands given by the Mizzou 1950 organization are valid (and your comparison to Yale is spot on in terms of "this is how to do it" versus "this is how not to do it") and the president should step down - not because he's racist (although his right wing bootstraps/opportunity talking point was hilariously inept) or because of his "white privilege" but because he and his PR team are loving idiots. Given that he was quoted as denying systematic oppression exists and claiming it's all just a silly thing in their head, it's reasonable to include that. It's a pernicious lie that shouldn't be acceptable for someone in a position of power to make. It sounds strange because it should go without saying: but apparently here, it didn't.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Amergin posted:To quote from earlier: yeah no both what he said, and what you're claiming, are pernicious lies that should exile people from the public sphere and polite society it's just racism with a polite veneer, "oh blacks aren't inferior naturally, just because they believe they're inferior, making racism actually their fault"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
greatn posted:Do they think these guys are gonna break out of supermax? They'll probably just get terrorized by other inmates. They think that by keeping them in Guantanamo they make the Bush policies seem more legitimate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Here's my question: the ban on bringing the inmates has been attached to every military spending bill. What day does the current ban expire?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Carson's poll numbers plummeted. What the hell happened? No way those "scandals" over the weekend could have effected him this much. even the most religious and conservative and distrustful of the liberal media republican voter still thinks that calling the pyramids granaries is so loving dumb that he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any power at all
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:i mean, if you threw the book at every edgy, ironically racist 19 year old shitlord you would depirve 4chan of its entire userbase and reddit of half so...make sure to short reddit stock beforehand? I can't figure out what else you'd use this information for.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Alligator Horse posted:An attempt to un-poo poo this thread a bit: Recent veterans are probably voting more Republican than veterans have historically. I'll excerpt the good stuff for y'all: My immediate suspicion is that the most recent wars have been so politicized that the bias is in who enrolls in the military. The article notes that as a possibility but dismisses it for reasons I don't consider compelling - "Young men (and women) join the armed forces for many personal, career, financial, and civic reasons beyond ideology or politics." Sure, it's not the only reason people join but you only need a bias - and once you get that bias it can be self-reinforcing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I met a marine at a local bar, through an army reserve friend of mine, that openly boasted he killed at least one kid, and 3 other "durkadurkas". There's no way that all soldiers are like that, but I guess it was why my friend had to preface before meeting him "that the guy crazy hated the people over there, and might have killed a baby". I didn't believe him and this was about 2006. I suspect being in combat causes a certain degree of racism: you've just killed people, your brain is going to be much, much happier with itself if those are bad people (and the more bad, the better), or even better if they're not really people. Sort of a coping mechanism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:I'd like to see some evidence for this, if there is any at all that is. It's basically using the principle of cognitive dissonance. People don't like holding two contradictory ideas in their head at once, and one idea most people have is "i am a good person". Ergo, if you do something that was bad, you are much more likely to start believing reasons why its actually not bad you did that. People think they're good people, good people don't kill other people, ergo if you killed someone you have a powerful push in your brain to make it OK you did that. I don't know of any studies that have been done on that specific application of cognitive dissonance but the concept itself is very well demonstrated in studies.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
this is the best part: quote:What have you learned by watching the Republican primary race? We promised the American people a whole host of items: not raising the debt ceiling, lowering taxes, getting rid of Obamacare, reducing deficits, strengthening the military, etc. Right now some folks are saying that the Freedom Caucus is unrealistic. But how can we be unrealistic when we’re just trying to hold firm to our talking points? edit, no this is: quote:I do want to reflect your principles accurately. It sounds as if you don’t see people as neatly divided into conservatives and liberals as the press does. If there is one thing that unites both parties up here, it’s money. My principle that cuts across all of that is representing the will of the people. And I’m called a hard-right conservative for some reason for being with Adam Smith, a Scottish Enlightenment philosopher. Is he hard right? evilweasel fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Again, "literally more than tripling" would still mean I'm paying about the same as healthcare premiums, and that's for a single man earning $90k with zero deductions. Doesn't matter. Taxes tripling is going to make people instinctively oppose it no matter how much you try to argue that it actually saves them money.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Your state is taking the initiative in diverging from federal law in order to better fit the needs of its populace? gently caress you, your state doesn't have that right - A Republican, probably No, they'd pass a law that said sure, that sounds like a great idea, in fact all states get to block grant their medicaid funds on anything, down with obamacare.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I think it does matter. A good message would be "your paycheck won't change, period." Nope. Not least because it's not always true so when the media says "who's right" the Republicans will be right and you will be "well, it depends". The Republican argument will be clear, concice, and easy to show: "look, this is the current tax rate, this is the proposed tax rate, that is XXX DOLLARS OUT OF YOUR POCKET", while you have to go "well, thats true, but if you bear with me lets do some math..." Everyone in D&D constantly thinks they're a messaging genius because all Democrats have to do is just say what convinces you. It's never that simple. People constantly, constantly, constantly post about their silver bullet message and complain that the reason Democrats lose is they used the wrong message.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Democrats are bad at messaging because nuance and fact are critical to complex, society-wide proposals that take time to explain and comprehend. I think that it's better to say that Democrats are at a disadvantage in messaging rather than they're bad at it - like you're saying, certain policies are just harder to message than others. It's not like if you swapped the people doing messaging between the parties Democrats would start winning. They might be better at it because of having to deal with messaging nuance instead of black and white, just not good enough to overcome the natural handicap. I think for something like this you have to break up the tax hikes into smaller pieces spread around places: it's the one tax that everyone pays tripling that's such a problem. People will pay for heath care, but 300% tax increase sounds way higher than baking smaller percentage increases into various sections of the tax code. It may simply be that there's not a good way to do it on a state level without needing a significant growth in the size of the state government - and its tax base - and that it just needs to be a federal program. I'd like to see it succeed but I'm not sure that it can be done politically yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I'd say what evilweasel posted constitutes a rant, yeah, especially since it was aggressive and completely irrelevant (since there is no official Democratic support behind the initiative beyond one state legislator). I don't really care about bothering to draw a distinction between who, precisely, supports the measure when it's not relevant to my point. The idea that everyone is a messaging expert is common and annoying and gets in the way of any sensible discussion because it's just people reciting what resonates with them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Joementum posted:And it won't just be the Republicans saying that. The insurance industry, pharma, and hospitals will run a media campaign against this plan. Wow you weren't kidding, also I need to watch the next Vermont governor debates. http://www.businessinsider.com/vermont-gubernatorial-debate-highlights-2014-10 quote:All seven of the people running for governor in Vermont faced off last week and it was far from your typical political debate. The event featured interesting apparel and a heated discussion of a wide variety of topics including; aluminum nanoparticles, the "Zionist regime," bathrooms at highway rest areas, and a potential nuclear disaster near the city of Burlington. And it just gets better from there!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I didn't want to cause a derail in the GOP Primary thread but I did want to ask a question that I was reminded of there. Is there a good reason why inert gas is off the table for executions, or is it really just a bloodlust thing? It comes up from time to time in industrial accidents/Darwin Award nominees and it seems like a whole bunch of nitrogen just makes you stop living without realizing it or feeling any pain. States don't like to experiment with execution procedures because it leads to more difficult court challenges. Also, anything that can fairly be described as a "gas chamber" has obvious PR problems no matter how humane it is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:More from that article: This line is really key: quote:“We’re potentially careening down this road of nominating somebody who frankly isn’t fit to be president in terms of the basic ability and temperament to do the job,” this strategist said. “It’s not just that it could be somebody Hillary could destroy electorally, but what if Hillary hits a banana peel and this person becomes president?” Trump and Carson are so bad that a Republican strategist isn't just worried they'd lose to Hillary if nominated. He's worried that one of them would win. They're so insane a Republican strategist is indirectly saying they're worse than Hillary.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:The establishment really has no idea how to dislodge Trump right now and time is starting to run short. It hasn't yet dawned on them that the primary voting GOP base doesn't want a serious, electable establishment candidate. They want a giant middle finger covered in offensive bumper stickers, and that's exactly what Trump is. it turns out when you base your political power on feeding insanity to crazy people, it's hard to convince them to suddenly act sane  Republicans are suddenly realizing the downside of getting into bed with the crazies: they thought they were in control but the crazies finally managed to take over.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The funniest part of that article is that this is the year the entire Republican bench is running for President and it's not good enough so they're panicking and begging Mitt to run again. I think that's also part of the problem, at least according to that article: because there's a bunch of wannabe establishment candidates, each of them wants someone else to take down Trump/Carson and suffer the potential blowback, but none have managed to get strong enough that it's worth it for them to do it. Rubio was looking like he might...so Cruz has started blasting him on immigration and Jeb! is planning on attacking him from the center so he'll now be too busy fighting off the other wannabe NotTrumps 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:What does the Louisiana legislature look like then? Is there just a guarantee of deadlock? without doing an ounce of research I can assure you it's heavily Repubican
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:With a little bit of research, looks like at least the Senate is just barely so Your link says it's 26-13, that's a Republican supermajority.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
to be fair I believe Amherst is named after the guy who gave the native americans plague blankets, pioneering biological warfare against civilians that guy was kind of an rear end in a top hat but i don't see what apologizing for him does now
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Something like that is going to get a reaction because it's imposing your ideology on people in a tangible way that they don't like. People aren't upset 'meatless monday' is an option, they're upset someone's trying to mandate it. Doesn't justify racial epithets or the like but it's definitely something that you can expect a pushback on and frankly the pushback is correct.SirKibbles posted:Did you miss the wrote racial and sexist slurs on their door. Like vegans can be annoying but walking maybe 3 minutes across campus does not excuse that. And also that's kind of the point of this thing was to convince people like here try this. It's bi monthly so it doesn't even happen that often. Like this is some pretty textbook poo poo wrong with America on both sides but one side really really wanted to prove their point. By making the entire dining hall meatless, you're not trying to convince people to try it: you're trying to coerce them to try it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
we are making every other sunday in one of the two dining halls Sermon Sunday, where the local southern baptist preacher will be preaching a sermon if you don't like it just go somewhere else what's the big deal 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
farraday posted:Yeah and you know who else hated meat? HITLER. I don't get offended by vegetarians or anything but I'd be annoyed too if someone tried to impose it on me, just like anyone else would be annoyed if someone tried to impose an ideology on them. There's such an easy alternative that certainly exists: the cafeteria serves a vegetarian option every day. I'm quite serious with my comparison - it's not that you're trying to get people to try it, it's that you're trying to force people to try it and "well you can just go somewhere else!" is a dodge we don't tolerate in other contexts. It's certainly not going to justify lovely stuff like fox news, racial epithets, and the like but I'd be mad too and trying to pretend people have no basis to be mad is nuts. PUGGERNAUT posted:Goddamn I didn't realize it was that big of a deal to not have meat with one meal. I do that all the time, primarily because I'm broke. I eat plenty of meals without meat, but I wouldn't appreciate you telling me I'm not allowed to eat meat with a particular meal because you don't approve of meat.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:How is this coercion in anyway unless you're using some weird libertarian definition of it Unless the other dining hall is way the hell on the other side of campus and even then campuses are littered with cheap food places surrounding them in even the tiniest of community colleges and on top of that it's bi monthly so I'm going to assume it's 2 Monday's a month because otherwise holy poo poo. It's a pretty standard definition of it: you are deliberately making it more difficult to not comply. The distinction is between that and what someone was suggesting this was - an attempt to 'convince' people. You're making it either more expensive or more inconvenient for people to do what they want. If you're trying to convince people, you convince the dining hall to make an effort to have good vegetarian dishes that people may choose over the other options, not having the dining hall remove the other options. People can easily see through that and be annoyed by it, and they're right to be annoyed. I am not defending anyone who was a shithead over it, nor do I need to. But it's baffling to me how much difficulty people are having in understanding why people are right to be annoyed at this when it's pretty much the definition of pushing your ideology on people - in a mild form, but in a very unmistakable form as well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
farraday posted:Your comparison is stupid and if you thought about it for more than the 2 seconds it took to write it down you'd realize having a vegetarian day is not the same as having someone preach to you while you eat either about the saving hand of Jesus Christ or that meat is murder. It's an attempt to push your ideology and trying to justify it by saying that you can go out of your way to avoid it. It's precisely on point: it is more obvious, but that's the point of a comparison - to draw out the issues that are being obscured. The "difference" here is you're fine with one but the other one (because I selected it to be) irritates you. That's the point of the comparison: to swap the ideology that you support with the one you oppose. Hell, just have the sermon printed on the napkins. You'll still be annoyed and "well just go to the non-christian dining hall!!!" will not be a reasonable response to your irritation. PUGGERNAUT posted:I just don't consider meat a requirement for a meal to be complete? Like if they don't serve broccoli for one meal out of the full week, I'm not gonna assume the dining hall doesn't approve of broccoli. Sure. But it's not like we've found the dining hall serving a meatless meal for no reason and we're wondering if it's because vegetarians pushed for meat to be removed. We are discussing a case where that was the entire point. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Nov 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Actually, if we look at what was posted: Yeah but come on, nobody then believed that and I don't believe it now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Are you seriously going down the "they're coming for our I'm saying that I assume "meatless monday" was actually a vegetarian thing, and that everyone also understood it to be, not an environmental thing. Looking through trivially obvious facades isn't anywhere close to tinfoil ranting that we must stop this meatless monday or soon meat will be banned. It's saying "come on, nobody actually believed this was an environmental thing instead of a vegetarian thing". I really do not get how people are having such difficulty with the idea that something can be annoying. This is not a case where it's an outrage, it's a case where it's annoying and people will be right to be annoyed. Annoyed isn't ranting about how they're coming to take your meat and ranting about the meat-grabbers, its "this is annoying, stop it". People seem unable to grasp that there's a level between "nobody reasonable can be unhappy about this" and "moral outrage".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:The response that is being discussed was not "people being annoyed" (as people are probably constantly at the lovely food dining halls usually have), but outrage including property damage and threatening behavior towards individuals, to the point where one dining hall not serving meat on a Monday every couple of weeks was canceled in fear. No it's not. Nobody is justifying or even discussing that response, because it's unjustifiable. What I was discussing when I started this line of discussion was: evilweasel posted:Something like that is going to get a reaction because it's imposing your ideology on people in a tangible way that they don't like. People aren't upset 'meatless monday' is an option, they're upset someone's trying to mandate it. Doesn't justify racial epithets or the like but it's definitely something that you can expect a pushback on and frankly the pushback is correct. What I am discussing is that people will be annoyed, and why they'll be annoyed. As I said, I do not understand what the difficulty is in understanding there is a spectrum between "there is no reasonable objection to this" and "moral outrage", but the only arguments people are able to make on your side are precisely trying to pretend there's nothing in between and that I must be morally outraged at the idea. If you want to compare this to guns you need me ranting about how this is just one step in a plot to take all my meat, which again, is not something I've said or could be inferred from my posts. It's just baffling inability to understand anything between zero and pitchforks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:One dining hall out two is not coercive, then. Students could just go to the other one, instead of throwing raw meat at people's cars, etc. Making the entire dining hall meatless is coercive, yes. This is another thing that has levels, it's not binary. It's not heavily coercive but the distinction is if people are trying to "convince" people or "coerce" them. There's not any convincing going on with this - there's coercion. It is mild coercion but the main point is that it is not an attempt to convince people. You can use all sorts of words instead of coercion, but the basic point is that you're not trying to suggest to people they should do this by making it more attractive or explaining the benefits or whatever, you're trying to make any option other than doing it harder. Students should not express their displeasure by throwing meat or anything else like that, but they are allowed to express displeasure over it rather than just going out of their way - through complaining to the school and asking them to cancel it, expressing displeasure when asked, etc. Again, there's things between compliance and throwing meat/shouting epithets/going on fox.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
farraday posted:It's funny that you're claiming nuance when you're seriously saying having a vegetarian day si the same thing as being forced to listen to a baptist while you eat. I'm not noticing a lot of nuance in your argument. I am well aware that you're not noticing a lot of nuance in my argument, but that's not because it's not there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Do you guys also feel that the 99% of time when the dining hall was serving bacon and burgers and poo poo on prominent display was 'coercing' people who don't eat meat, or does this insane outrage only apply to when your food of choice involves walking a few extra yards to get one day. I would agree with vegetarian students who were annoyed if one dining hall deliberately had no vegetarian options, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea these are exactly the same situations The goal isn't to have the situations be the same, it's to demonstrate a specific point - in this case, that 'coercion' can still exist when you can get around it. You generally go for an example that is unarguable so you can extract the necessary point instead of just arguing over a new situation as well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:If people just didn't eat the meat then it would be wasted, because the dining hall would still be offering it. What you're suggesting is that maybe they should have had some kind of a feedback process before setting up this experiment, except I'm guessing there was one. Even if there wasn't, it was an experiment, so if people were so annoyed they could have provided feedback afterwards and this could have ended without raw meat on people's cars and going to Fox News crying about those drat liberals. That is not what I'm suggesting, what I'm suggesting is exactly what I said: it is understandable why people will be annoyed at something like this. I'm saying that because people seem to genuinely not get that, or get why that annoyance is reasonable. I am not, and nobody else is, suggesting that the reaction that made the news was reasonable or justifiable. There's no reason anyone would discuss it because it's very obviously not justifiable or reasonable. Certainly some people's annoyance, in the sense that those people are lunatics, will get more notice because they take lunatic actions. If you want some ~global lesson~ about food, then I'll give you one: a dining hall should strive to have a number of options that will appeal to different people because usually it's the main or only source of meals for a wide variety of people. But that's obvious so I haven't been bothering making that either, dining halls have known that for a while and generally have options other than the main meal/meals so that people can have something they like. My main point is that people won't be happy when you try to make it harder for them to make the choice they want to make, rather than convincing them to make the choice you think they should make.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 18:45
|
|