No, REALLY. They ARE that stupid.
You thought back when Stephen Colbert skewered Bush at the Washington Correspondents' Dinner, somebody got fired for inviting him, right? I sure as fuck did. But as it happens, his victims might not have even realized he was being mean.
Seriously. This is un-fucking-believable. A significant number of conservatives polled think Colbert is only pretending to be joking … it's all us LibTards™ who are getting fooled, don't'cha know! That's right. The right-wingnuts of America are so mind-bogglingly stupid they think Stephen Colbert is pulling one over on The Liberal Media™. He's actually a bastion of NeoCon purity and fervor.
I'd love to rant about this some more, but I already pointed out once that Fox News devotees are stupid, and I'd hate to beat a dead, retarded horse like that. I just honestly had no idea even they could possibly be that stupid.
ahh. see, i find that refreshing and even a bit of a relief.
at least they don't think everyone's out to get them – much better than a bunch of raving lunatic paranoids.
if it takes some level of reality distortion for them to live with that pleasant sense that colbert likes them … who are we to judge?
28th April 2009 at 11:55 pm | permalink |I'm not sure the problem is the tops are that stupid, it's just that the only come back is the bible made them do it and colbert won't fit that out. lol
I'll live in the America that must set them right because "I" am paying my mortgage because "I" did not buy more than I could afford. "I" am paying all my bills and "I" am not asking for someone to bail me out of my stupid mistakes. This means that "I" get to trash on all the idiots in America who think they are better than I am. But this also means that "I" will be traveling to Mexico, Florida and any where else HOT because I can afford to pay with cash and the deals are incredible.
Oh crickey, did I steal your post? I am seriously sorry if I did. I'm opinionated at 1:30am lol
29th April 2009 at 12:32 am | permalink |@heiko: It is a little bit relieving to know that they are genuinely dumb, and not really all calculatingly evil, now that you mention it. lol
@Val: Been meaning to do a post about the whole economy/housing crisis thing. Not really taking that angle on it, but it's coming.
29th April 2009 at 12:58 am | permalink |Consider this:
They think Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity are intelligent.
They believe Obama is made of muslin … err … a Muslim.
They think George Bush was a genius.
They're too stupid to realize that God is nothing more than a very elaborate Santa Claus.
Yet, you say you're surprised to find that they think Colbert is putting us on?
Really?
29th April 2009 at 10:39 am | permalink |What is ya? A buncha morans?
29th April 2009 at 11:58 am | permalink |I love how it's getting easier more and more each day to make fun of conservatives. Case in point:
29th April 2009 at 1:11 pm | permalink |http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC8T4TPAIc0
@Becca: Point taken. lol … I'm just perpetually giving people too much credit, apparently.
@JX: They really are falling straight off the deep end, aren't they?
29th April 2009 at 1:20 pm | permalink |The most sophisticated type of humor is the type where the people who are supposed to get the joke get it, and the people who could be outraged by it don't even realize they should be outraged by it.
Colbert & Stewart have both proved time and time again that their humor is very high-level. How something that good actually made it on to television I'll never know.
29th April 2009 at 6:10 pm | permalink |At least 'ol George knew where his fucking plane was. And maybe a left wingnut nerd with Photoshop could have saved you and me $350K in tax money. I wouldn't be so quick to paint your team as the bastion of brainpower.
30th April 2009 at 6:24 am | permalink |All I hear is "waaah!"
30th April 2009 at 9:00 am | permalink |@ Dave: WTF are you talking about? Honestly. What. The. Fuck?
@ grimbles: Indeed.
30th April 2009 at 10:04 pm | permalink |@Elie: True enough … I still find it a little mind-boggling though.
@Dave: Ummm. I'm pretty sure Colbert didn't have anything to do with that. But who knows? Maybe it's a big conspiracy!!1!11!!! Oh NOES!
@Becca & Gribles: Yes.
1st May 2009 at 12:00 pm | permalink |It *would* be because of the liberal elite media, if they knew he was actually part of the liberal elite media… or something.
1st May 2009 at 3:58 pm | permalink |@ Becca, et al – Alright, I forgot I was working with liberals. I'll go nice and slow. Let us begin: The thread was titled, "No, REALLY. They ARE that stupid." "Stupid" being the operative word. Look that one up before replying, perhaps.
I was making a point from an opposing view that there is plenty of stupidity to go 'round with your chosen administration, as well. A relevant example, if you will.
As if there were no political underpinnings to this rant, or entire blog ("of iniquity" – you're welcome, btw) for that matter. Or as if Colbert was addressing the Rotary Club or something. Was I supposed to conveniently forget that Alpha mentioned "Fox News devotees are stupid" before replying? See how this all ties in? Stupid vs. stupid? Read it twice, if necessary. It's ok. I'll wait.
1st May 2009 at 6:08 pm | permalink |@ David: Usually, a complete sentence involves a verb and a noun. And a group of sentences form a paragraph that relates to an idea. They're the basic building blocks of writing. And if you're engaging in argumentative writing, then logic is also a requisite component.
The appropriate method to respond to a myriad of ideas/points (as you purport to do) is to bring all of those ideas/points together—usually via citation or quotation—to establish the basis of your complaint. Having established the basis of your complaint, you would then follow with your response which should be at least tangentially related to the complaint. However, your first response failed to do anything of the sort and gave us an obscure (and incoherent) reference to "a left wingnut nerd with Photoshop" somehow saving you $350K in tax money.
To that I say, "Purple monkey dishwasher!" What say you to that!?
But back to my main point, your opposing point of view is not evident in anything you've written. The most I've been able to derive from your posts is that there is equal amounts of stupidity on either side of the political spectrum. That may indeed be true. Yet the target of this post is the idiots who believe that Colbert is like some sort of obscene double-double secret agent for conservatives. This is based on a study which shows that conservative ideology is a predictor of those who believe that Colbert is serious in his presentation of opinions on his show. As this is a fairly absurd position, we are (deservedly) mocking it.
If you would like to counter our mocking, then perhaps you could provide something better than this nugget of wisdom:
"As if there were no political underpinnings to this rant, or entire blog for that matter. Or as if Colbert was addressing the Rotary Club or something. Was I supposed to conveniently forget that Alpha mentioned 'Fox News devotees are stupid' before replying? See how this all ties in?"
How does political underpinnings, Colbert's audience, or a reference to a study about FOX News viewers all supposedly tie together to make some self-evident point? Obviously, there is an idea in your head that is driving your responses, but so far it isn't appearing in any cognizable form in anything you've written.
2nd May 2009 at 1:28 am | permalink |@Becca: When his argument boils down to "well so are you, nyah!" do you really expect a reasoned response.
@Dave: your response has minuscule (at best) relevance when the comment made is 'they are that stupid' rather than 'they are the only ones in the entire world who are that stupid.'
2nd May 2009 at 4:01 am | permalink |Granted, there are people on the progressive side of politics who don't 'get' satire, or don't think it's funny, or aren't interested. But that's distinct from 'deluding oneself into believing in cunning double agentness' which is what the OP is about. Even assuming there are people on 'our side' who'd react the same way to conservative satire (if such a thing exists, short of ham-fisted-fumbling-in-the-back-seat-after-prom attempts), that's not what the study is about, and it's not what you responded to.
Look, I wasn't attempting to write a grammatically correct thesis on the subject. And I think you are confusing Colbert and his political satire in general with more direct statements Alpha made, as in, "The right-wingnuts of America are so mind-bogglingly stupid…" This prompted my reply referring to stupid left-wingnuts, etc., etc. Granted, I changed the context but stupid is stupid. And lest you forget, that word appears in the title of the rant.
So, don't throw in a bunch of pleonastic prose about establishing "tangentially related" items of my complaint. See it for what it is; an opposing view on the basis of stupidity in general. It wasn't my intention to change hearts and minds, just chime in and get y'all riled up. And to make a point that I'm certain you got in spite of your responses.
2nd May 2009 at 10:00 am | permalink |Ah, Dave? The hole you seem to be digging will stop getting deeper if you stop digging. Since you do seem clueless (whether you will eventually share your point or not), I just thought I'd step forward and provide you a clue.
Now, if your point is merely to call all us folks that are a bit left of Adolf..er…BushCo, "stupid" then I believe we can all grasp that concept. Of course, if that is your point, you have merely substantiated ours.
3rd May 2009 at 1:25 pm | permalink |'Tis no hole. Only a path to which thee is blind. You people of tolerance and benevolence have absolutely no room for anything but your opinion, but that's cool. That's why Alpha has a blog. I respect that. But doesn't it get boring when you sycophants (duh, I actually used an apposite quote!) worship at each other's alter all the time? I didn't pen this rant with its moniker, "stupid." I was simply pointing out that there is plenty go around…as you've proven with aplomb. Do you ever wonder why Limbaugh and Hannity even have jobs? You and your ilk have provided them with a mother load of material. And we thank you.
But if you just want to keep calling each other stupid and use up a bunch of electrons, I suppose I'm in. You're stupid. Neener. Your turn…
3rd May 2009 at 3:52 pm | permalink |Those shovelling noises are actually quite relaxing…
Oh, and Hannity and Limbaugh have jobs because they prey on the fears and prejudices of bigots and those too afraid to be bigots who like having their latent bigotry legitimised by the guy on TV. Oh, and in Hannity's case because people are stupid and actually believe the 'fair and balanced' crap, which then ties back in to legitimising bigotry.
I know a quite perceptive young woman, who's generally a nice person. But she thinks Fox is in fact fair and balanced, believes the myth of the Liberal Elite Media and – wait for it – thinks gay marriage is a horrible idea because she doesn't want 'the gay' to damage 'her' sacred institution of marriage. As though having 'the gays' allowed into the club will somehow have a detrimental affect on any other marriage. "I have plenty of gay friends, they just shouldn't have equal rights."
*That* is why Hannity and Limbaugh have shows, not because they're exceptionally incisive or anything like that.
3rd May 2009 at 8:37 pm | permalink |@grimbles See people, you can actually deviate from the original subject and have dialog with someone and still keep it relevant to the rant. And civil…Lesson time…
I can hardly agree with you more on Limbaugh and Hannity. I can barely stomach Hannity on any given day. He's such a one-track, republican shill it's as if you wind him up in the morning and he babbles all day with the same pre-programmed mantra. On both TV and radio! Limbaugh is at least an entertainer, albeit sophomoric humor. But both cite liberals as extremely intolerant and almost psycho-militant when it comes to left vs.right views. And this blog often proves that out.
Maybe the reason they and institutions like the NRA* exist is to bring some semblance of REAL balance to the spectrum. A classic representative spectrum would have an extreme left and an extreme right. And of course, all things in between. If views actually exist on the fringes, which they obviously do, there simply must be some equal and opposing position. And few outside this blog would like to see it all one way. For all of the Keith Olbermann's of the world there must be an opposing steward like Hannity or Limbaugh. Or maybe one just creates the other, I don't know. I'm curious, what do you think of Olbermann? Can the left have its whacko's among their own ala Hannity and myself?
* NRA – A fine example of a fanatical right wing, gun-nut organization. (I love 'em so) But when you also have current bills on the floor making it a felony to pass 50 rounds of ammunition per month – even among family members – you need the fanatical right to block inane "leftaslature" like that. I mean, jail time because you gave little Johnny a few boxes of shells to take duck hunting? Don't get me started. And please, don't anyone send me crime stats in the U.S. vs. England or Australia (grimbles) because I know that each side skews the numbers to bolster their positions. Shoot first and consult the stats later…
4th May 2009 at 7:31 am | permalink |Hmm. 'Psycho militant', and a *blog* being proof of it?
While 'militant' can, arguable, be interpreted as just being mouthy, 'psycho militant' suggests shooting people, planting bombs, sending anthrax. While, for all we know, ab's done some or all of those things, this blog is not those things, and thus does not bear out any rhetoric from soapbox bigots.
Honestly, I can see why ultra conservatives think we're 'extremely intolerant,' because for the most part they consider it their god-given right to be right, and to hate gay people and black people and mexican people and democrats. And we're intolerant of those people being intolerant. However, given that one of ab's self-admitted themes of this blog is civil liberties, intolerance is a pretty hard accusation to make stick beyond 'intolerant to intolerance.'
Maybe some people think the blog bears out that rhetoric because they're told 'liberals hate christians, and god, and everything you hold sacred' and are too stupid to tell the difference between 'mind your own fucking business' and 'omg we want you all deeeeeaaaaad! … and/or practising wicca.'
As for 'left-wing' analogues for hannity, limbaugh et al…
For one, 'left-wing' is imprecise as hell, since Mugabe's about the same strength of 'left' as Tenzin Gyatso, but you'd be hard pressed to find two more utterly dis-similar people. Perhaps Mandela and Stalin, who are also about the same 'leftness' as each other.
There's also the issue of what conservatives (either neo-con or neo-lib) consider 'left'. Obama, despite being decried as a socialist by airhead fearmongers, is right-wing. The thing is, what many (if not most) Americans would consider the 'leftist fringe' is, for the most part, smack bang in centrist territory. Of course, there are some hard-left people everywhere, but if we're talking bell-curves as you suggest, then the mean of America's bell curve is shifted well to the right of center, and quite a way toward authoritarian.
Short answer? Yes, there are analogues for Limbaugh and Hannity on what you would likely consider 'the left'. I doubt there are analogues on the actual left though.
Gun control, stats, whatever? Oh yes, skewing gets done. But no matter the 'skew', tens versus (tens of?) thousands doesn't need skewing to get the point across. As for the 'leftislature', it's arguable that without the psycho gun nut right, there'd be no need for the 'leftislation' to reign in gun psychos. Also, I think jail time simply for giving 'little Johnny' shells would be a good idea. On the assumption little Johnny is in fact little, he has no place going off shooting on his own. And if he's being supervised, you don't need to give him the shells.
Of course, the name 'leftislation' is also in indication of the massively skewed interpretation of the political spectrum. The guy who introduced gun control 'leftislation' here in Australia was further right than John McCain, Sarah Palin *and* George Bush. So it's pretty obviously not a 'left' thing.
Oh, then there's the fact that gun control is quite obviously a social issue, not an economic issue, which places it on the libertarian/authoritarian scale, not the left/right scale.
4th May 2009 at 9:28 am | permalink |@grimbles Ok, "psycho" was a loose term however, some here, and especially one in particular, just may fit the bill. All I have to do is simply show up and utter an opposing word and I'm immediately branded a imbecile. I get the distinct impression that if this nameless person had a gun, she'd just as soon shoot me as read my reply, thereby cleansing the gene pool of opposing viewers. A service to the blog, if you will. And this has been my experience with others in my circle.
Interesting that you place "most" Americans in centrist territory. Using myself as the bellwether, I'd tend to agree. Though I consider myself more right-leaning, there are certainly components of my makeup that lean toward the left / center. I also think that with the current heightened state of political awareness in the U.S. (due to the abundance of aging baby boomers) that the center has been expanded to include the myriad issues on each side. It's had to find one's self as a lockstep supporter of your party on the too many problems we now face. Let's hope Obama is truly the great uniter.
On a side note, the NRA trots out Australia as an example of failed anti-gun policies quite often, or at least they used to. I get their magazines but find little time to read them. I've turned more guitar collector. No one wants to regulate and confiscate them. I know you've alluded to it before but I'd like to get a real Australian's opinion on just how that really turned out. Is there some sidebar "cafe" or something on this site? Far be it from me to muddy up this topic any more than I have.
4th May 2009 at 11:23 am | permalink |@ Dave: You state: "Limbaugh is at least an entertainer, albeit sophomoric humor. But both cite liberals as extremely intolerant and almost psycho-militant when it comes to left vs.right views. And this blog often proves that out.
Maybe the reason they and institutions like the NRA* exist is to bring some semblance of REAL balance to the spectrum."
I wholly disagree.
Balancing the spectrum of thought is not achieved by positing opposing political viewpoints. I can achieve the same thing by putting two toddlers into a sandbox with a single toy. However, what is produced is hardly a rational middle-ground perspective. In fact, it probably isn't even rational.
One of the reasons I stopped listening to Limbaugh so many years ago was because he couldn't ever admit he was wrong—in fact, he couldn't even contemplate the idea that the might be wrong, even though he was. Simply put, Limbaugh is an ideologue. He doesn't have ideas—he has an ideologue's script. He doesn't analyze situations—he addresses things from the sole perspective of his ideological script. I can predict Rush Limbaugh's answer to any given issue based on three criteria: 1) The conservatives/Republicans must be right or cast in a good light; 2) It must hew to core "conservative principles," which means fuck all besides "tax cut" and "no gays"; 3) Rush must be right, irrespective of what position he or the Republican party has taken previously. It's this type of thinking that has allowed Limbaugh to warble an apologia to his listeners for carrying water for the GOP during the 2006 elections, and then turn around and do the exact same thing in 2008.
Hannity is just as bad. He spends all day bitching like a little cunt about Obama's so-called "socialism" when he knows fuck-all about what socialism really is. He's also clueless to the fact that our constitution says dick about the type of economic system we will have in place. Instead, he cuts to commercial, has a Lee Greenwood moment, shudders while his eyes roll back in his head for a second, composes himself, and revs up for the next segment.
Neither Limbaugh or Hannity bother to engage in actual analysis, because that's stuff for the "elites" to do—stuff like thinking and reasoning, and asking questions to get more information, to ask better questions, get more information, and so on. Limbaugh and Hannity would tongue a monkey's scrotum in lieu of asking incisive questions on a topic BEFORE forming an opinion.
The GOP is a flaming bag of dogshit on the front porch of America for just this reason. And every time Michael Steele or some other GOP knob-polisher bows before the altar of Limbaugh or Hannity, it reinforces why the GOP is only marginally more popular than a serial killer, the swine flu, and ass cancer. This is what is mocked, and justifiably so.
Am I being inflammatory? Hell yes, I am. I'm tired of hearing the latest baseless, juvenile, tripe from Limbannity being presented as equally viable as a position based on core legal principles, analysis, and context. It isn't. It's just baseless, juvenile, tripe. Or better stated … if you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
Dave, I'm not attacking you, nor do I want to shoot you. I do, however, get frustrated that most every time you do a drive by comment, we have to do 2-3 iterations before we get to a substantive discussion.
I think you'd be quite surprised to have a clear view of my political roots—roots which were at one time firmly embedded in on the GOP side of the aisle. But that was easily a decade (or more) ago. What remains of those beliefs would probably be fairly similar to what yours are.
4th May 2009 at 2:16 pm | permalink |@Dave:
"I'm immediately branded a imbecile"
That's a really bad place to have a typo =p
"I'd like to get a real Australian's opinion"
You're sounding a lot like Sarah Palin. How am I any less 'real' than any other person that lives in my suburb? I may be less bigoted, and have a wider view of the world, but that does not make me less 'real.' The point I was making about Australian gun control was simply that it is not some 'leftist' thing, by virtue of the fact that the guy who championed it and passed to most restrictive legislation to date was *objectively* right-wing. My opinion has no bearing on that. As for my opinions re: Little Johnny, in Australia it *would* be illegal to give little Johnny some shells to go hunting on his own.(Incidentally, Little Johnny is one of the nicknames ascribed to the guy who brought in the gun control legislation =p)
I find it incredibly amusing that the NRA attempts to paint Australia as an example of failed gun control. What they claimed is that gun crime increased after the introduction of gun control legislation in 1996. Simply put, it didn't. Gun deaths dropped sharply, and violent crime with firearms dropped or stayed steady.
By way of what the 'average' Australian thinks, I'd comfortably wager that they're either happy with current controls or would like to see more. There's simply not a gun culture in Australia as there is in the US. People who have guns have them either for hunting and the like on rural properties, or for recreational target shooting. Organised crime groups still, obviously, get their hands on guns, but people don't tend to feel they need guns for self-defence because the vast majority of criminals with guns use them to kill other criminals with guns. Hell, most people look a bit oddly at someone if they carry anything more serious than a personal alarm. Even pepper spray is illegal in most places and heavily restricted in the one state it's not banned outright.
Also, I didn't say most Americans are centrist. I said that what most Americans consider 'loony fringe left' is actually centrist. Which, again, is an objective analysis of the political arena in the US. If the 'socialist' candidate for president is right of center…
Admittedly in an isolated America only context, 'most' Americans are 'centrist' based on the interpretation of centrist being the mean of political opinion. But that's not what centrist means.
5th May 2009 at 12:48 am | permalink |@Becca: (with a side of grimbles) Why Becca, your conscience must be burning. What ever made you think I was referring to you? I guess it was obvious.
You're lecturing me on Hannity and Limbaugh like I was their producer or something. I think I made myself clear on what I thought of them. Hannity is to most conservatives as Jesse Jackson is to African Americans. But I think Rush does actually put a lot of time and thought into things. It may be all spent on putting his agenda first and foremost but he presents his argument fairly well. Hannity is simply a robot. But it's really all in the name of entertainment. I hardly listen to them for real content. In fact, I hardly listen at all.
"The GOP is a flaming bag of dogshit on the front porch of America…" Now that's just funny. They are having their problems at the moment but we'll have our day again.
In so far as having to pry intellectual intercourse out of me, you might be just as guilty with your spiteful replies as the contrarian. In fact, you just might have a little "Limbaugh Syndrome" yourself. I don't see you as one who freely admits you just might be wrong. The existence of a God is a good example. You might want to leave a little wiggle room on that one. You know, just in case.
Shouldn't you address this blog as something you might enjoy? There are a lot of frustrating things in life but chiming in here shouldn't be frustrating, IMO. I'd have to point out that that seems another area where you lefties have something in common. You're all so angry. Look at grimbles, I mention getting an opinion from a "real" Australian (as opposed to what I read in a NRA rag) and gets all "twisted and bitter." (to use an Aussie phrase) He launches into "how am I any less real…" Geesh, take a pill. It was essentially a compliment. And give Alpha some shit for not capitalizing the first words of this rant, Mr. self-appointed spell checker.
Well, I guess I'm glad to hear you're not attacking me but suffice it to say I won't be inviting you to the rifle range any time soon. I'd find the distraction of looking over my shoulder not very conducive to target acquisition.
5th May 2009 at 7:07 am | permalink |@Dave:
You'll notice that the title of the blog, the quote at the top, the links at the top, the sidebar titles and all of the non-proper-noun tags are not capitalised. It's a stylistic thing. Yours on the other hand was a typo/grammatical error in the midst of a comment on intelligence. Which I was noting with amusement. Since I'm on the topic though, unless you say NRA as 'nra', it should be 'an NRA rag.' =p
Honestly, I interpreted the 'real Australian' thing as you saying I didn't fit the bill, given that you used the contrasting conjunction of 'but' between something I'd alluded to and the opinion of a real Australian. Fitting the theme of the nitpicking in this comment thus far, it was grammatically awkward =p
As for the 'anger,' I think you're projecting. I wasn't angry about it, more amused. Because simply put, the concept of a 'real *insert nationality*' is hilarious. One because it's mind-numbingly stupid, and two because the people who use the term in a Sarah Palin-ey manner don't seem to understand that.
Regardless, you ended up getting the answer you seemed to want anyway re Australian public opinion to gun control.
Also: excellent work completely ignoring any argument raised against your position that you can't misinterpret or replace with a straw man. *That* sounds like something Limbannity (love it Becca, not least for its phonetic similarity to 'insanity') would do… =D
5th May 2009 at 9:30 am | permalink |Oh and re: Becca shooting you as evidence of psycho-militancy derived from this blog? She hasn't shot you. So, there's a distinct lack of evidence. And even if she did shoot you, it would not occur within the confines of this blog, and therefore the blog could not provide the evidence you posit of psycho-militancy.
And yes, I get to dedicate time to tongue-in-cheek tomfoolery because I've also done some of that 'point addressing' stuff that you seem to struggle with. Either that or it's just not a double standard when I do it.
5th May 2009 at 9:38 am | permalink |"Oh and re: Becca shooting you as evidence of psycho-militancy derived from this blog? She hasn't shot you. So, there's a distinct lack of evidence. And even if she did shoot you, it would not occur within the confines of this blog, and therefore the blog could not provide the evidence you posit of psycho-militancy."
Huh? Now that's just plain whacky.
5th May 2009 at 9:53 am | permalink |Well, you claimed this blog was proof of psycho militancy on the left. You then claimed, indirectly, that Becca would should you, given the chance, which allegedly bore out your earlier assertion. But you have no evidence that she *would* shoot you given the chance, nor that she already has shot you. In fact she denies that very same. Which means your 'evidence' for the blog being evidence of psycho militancy on the left is… absent.
Keep up.
The latter part is saying that even if Becca were to shoot you, it would be physically impossible for that to occur within the confines of this blog, thus the blog would not provide evidence of this, unless she were to brag about it on the blog. This, I think, is even less likely than her shooting you in the first place. Again, the blog provides no evidence of psycho-militancy.
Also, thank you for illustrating my point regarding your lack of response to awkward points. =D
5th May 2009 at 10:57 am | permalink |Awkward points or inane points? Some simply aren't worth responding to. But I will anyway…
Saying someone might shoot you (not "should" you, btw) is an expression we use here in gun cultured America. Your whacky illustration that a shooting did not and could not take place on a blog is ridiculous. But as usual, this discourse has led to silly recriminations and holier-than-thou stances by you and (sometimes)Becca. Very predictable. I say black, you say white and Becca might say, "purple monkey dishwasher." But it always ends the same way. I'm sure we'll find something to argue about down the line. I can't wait!
5th May 2009 at 2:26 pm | permalink |I quite clearly stated that that was merely a bit of random stupidness for the fun of it. And again, while you claim to be addressing my points 'anyway', you haven't.
You've not addressed my criticisms of your use of the contextually irrelevant use of the terms 'left' and 'right', particularly with regard to gun control 'leftislation.'
Nor have you addressed the fact that what you deem the left is actually still quite right-of-center, and so in reality what Limbannity et al are railing against is not in fact extreme leftism, but rather centrism. Which is nothing to do with balance, and everything to do with pushing an extreme ideology.
No response to orders of magnitude in gun crime per capita being pretty hard to 'skew'.
But please, feel free to continue pretending that you're actually engaging in honest discussion while avoiding anything even remotely resembling it. That more than anything is why you, and conservatives like you, get very little respect around here. Instead of actually engaging with something you say 'nyaah, liberals, nyaah pinko' and somehow consider that an 'argument'.
While you're right that I usually have opposing views to yours, I don't say white merely because you say black. You say black. I say white, and explain why it's white. Then you say black with a random attack on 'liberals' thrown in. Then I get bored of you holding your breath until you get what you want and start exploring the grammatical and logical inconsistencies in your passing comments to provide more entertainment than a toddler throwing his toys because he can't get what he want by saying the same thing over and over and ignoring everything the adults say.
Word of the day: condescending.
5th May 2009 at 7:52 pm | permalink |Actually, it seems to me that it's not so much Colbert, or the intelligence or lack thereof of the folks unaware they were been roasted to a crispy turn, it's the type of humor: satire.
Americans of every political stripe seem to have a very difficult time distinguishing straight-faced satire from straight-faced honesty. Europeans, on the other hand, seem to gravitate toward satire as a matter of course. The Brits, Germans, Swiss, and Scandinavians I know who live in the area pick up on satire instantly, whereas most of the Americans seem to take longer to understand that there's humor involved. Many times, they never get it, and it has nothing to do with political orientation.
Americans seem to appreciate slapstick and broader, more obvious forms of humor, but irony and satire are, evidently, slippery to grasp. Interesting, no?
6th May 2009 at 12:07 pm | permalink |Er. That should have been "unaware they were roasted to a crispy turn".
Bad editor! bad, bad!
6th May 2009 at 12:08 pm | permalink |@ grimbles: I'm certain you'll find nothing in this post that you'll feel is relevant to whatever it is you think I'm avoiding but I trudge on, undeterred.
You said, "Admittedly in an isolated America only context, 'most' Americans are 'centrist' based on the interpretation of centrist being the mean of political opinion. But that's not what centrist means." Webster defines a centrist as, "a member of a political party of the Center; moderate. Middle of the road." When I agreed that a good number of Americans are indeed "centrist", I had a similar definition in mind. Let's take a current issue you may or may not be aware of. Yesterday, Great Britain issued a list of people not deemed worthy of being welcome in the UK. An American "conservative" talk show host (Michael Savage) who, incidentally, was just as critical of Bush as he is now Obama, somehow made the list. There is some credible evidence that his name made the list from people not in London but in Washington. It's no secret Rush Limbaugh has come under attack recently along with new talk over the Fairness Doctrine. I wouldn't think that anyone who was a free speech advocate would call for the heads of radio talk show hosts essentially because they rail against the current admin. In Savage's case, all they'd have to do is play archived shows where he called Bush a "fiscal idiot", "where's Waldo" etc. And I'd have to believe that any true "centrist" would see this for the witch hunt it is. I'd also submit that many who frequent this blog would like to see Limbaugh, Hannity AND Savage run out on the same rail. (tying in my comment about what this blog may or may not prove) I don't recall the right ever calling for the heads of any of the Air America hosts – which were spewing extremely vitriolic invective over the airwaves. We just let the free market determine that they weren't interesting enough to listen to.
I see events like this as left extremism and can't fathom how you'd place similar events in the same postal code as centrist or "quite right of center."
However, guns are a better example of the political spectrum moving toward center, at least in America. Between the many Democrats who own guns / hunt – as well as what had become "political suicide" by opposing them, that issue has taken on a more centrist approach. If for no other reason but to keep your Washington gig. But it now appears the anti-gunners will ramp up the rhetoric once the bigger economic fish is fried.
And while on that subject; Your homicide rate since 1989 has dropped from 1.94 per 100,000 population to 1.65 / 100,000 in 2001. Less than a half person. While this is certainly better than our almost 4 persons / 100,000, it isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for gun control being the do all, end all, in the reduction of homicide. I did read where about 40% of Australians ignored the buyback program for assault type weapons making "law abiding citizens" a little bit of a skewed notion. So, like America, where there are roughly 90M guns, (about 2M in Australia) some of which are high-capacity semi auto "assault" units, most days go by without anyone shooting anyone – especially with those style weapons. Interestingly, your suicide rate dropped much more dramatically after Port Arthur / gun control. I guess a gun was the method of choice among those seeking an early departure. And I got my gun stats off the web, so sue me if they're different than what you might find.
6th May 2009 at 1:22 pm | permalink |@Deirdre Helfferich: While true that satire, irony, etc., aren't nearly as widely grasped in the US as in many other countries, the study cited in regards to Colbert did show that US Republicans were much LESS likely to understand his point than other Americans. Which is equally interesting, IMO.
@Becca, grimbles & D Watson: Damn fun read.
6th May 2009 at 3:20 pm | permalink |Alpha; Damn you! This is a masochistic addiction I can't quit. I just want to go about my meager existence but these people draw my in like the proverbial moth to the (satanic?) flame. All in good fun. Glad you got a charge out of it.
Dw
6th May 2009 at 5:34 pm | permalink |@Deirdre; I would point out that the Brit's practically invented slapstick. To wit: Benny Hill, Monty Python, et al. But I'll admit, I'm not sure if Vaudeville came first or what. Or was it the Three Stooges? Gawd, I love them. And if you all don't, well, you're just messed up!
6th May 2009 at 5:46 pm | permalink |@Deirdre:
While there may be a difference in uptake between Americans and Europeans, I think it's likely that everywhere around the world conservatives are less likely to 'get' satire than their opposites. I say that as satire has its roots in progressivism, with getting a society-changing message out without the establishment realising. So in many ways, conservatives not getting satire is exactly the point of satire.
@Dave:
I wasn't suggesting a 'ringing endorsement', but merely that it was not the complete failure/counter-productive mess that the NRA claimed.
The example of the UK is a poor one, since the party currently in power over there is objectively further right and more authoritarian than the Obama administration. Hardly an indication of 'lefties' getting up in arms.
While I'm not personally familiar with Savage, from what I've been able to ascertain from some quick snooping, most of what makes him controversial is not his fiscal opinions, but rather his stance on social issues. Therefore any supposed political intervention against him has nothing to do with left and right, rather with authoritarian and libertarian.
I've actually heard plenty of conservatives *literally* calling for the heads of 'liberal scum,' including those on TV and Radio. To suggest that it's an exclusively 'leftist' phenomenon is disingenuous at best.
And again, the issues the rile up the most vitriol, anger and hatred from people of all persuasions tend not to be the economic issues, which sit on the left/right scale. Granted, given the state of the current financial shitstorm (or economy, whatever), people are being more vocal about fiscal issues. But school kids don't tend to get bashed and brutalised for being fiscally conservative. It's for being gay. Nutjob conservatives (where Nutjob is a subsection, not an indictment of all) have a tendency more towards sending death threats to abortion clinics, gay rights activists, stem cell scientists, rather than trade unions. And I give examples of conservatives not because I'm trying to tip the scales, but because ultra-conservatives tend to be a lot louder about it. Social libertarians also tend to be a lot more 'live and let live,' so long as their toes aren't trodden on.
The definition you give from webster just reinforces what I was saying. There is no indication what 'road' they are talking about. But it makes a lot more sense for 'the road' to be the entire breadth of the political spectrum, rather than merely a slice of it. Because there *are* people in the US, the UK, Australia, etc, who are on the hard left, the hard right, who are ultra-authoritarian and massively libertarian.
Since you brought up definitions, 'middle' is the point/line/space between two extremes. Subjectively, if you want to refer to the people between the republicans and democrats as 'centrist,' that's reasonable. But when words like liberal or socialist are being thrown about, you're working from two different points of reference. 'Left of the American mean' does not necessarily mean socialist or liberal, as they are terms to describe a specific section of an objective map of political opinion.
Also, given that this discussion is happening on an international forum, objective points of reference are a better idea. What you call left, much of the rest of the world would call pretty average, or even right-wing.
6th May 2009 at 8:28 pm | permalink |@grimbles…Catching a plane but had to get my morning fix…your point is well taken about the international perspective on where the "left" might fall in the larger picture. But I guess that is what us (rational) right thinkers fear the most – that our views and positions will become a watered down, adulterated mash tuns of global philosophy stripping us of our individuality.
7th May 2009 at 6:58 am | permalink |You don't have to embrace ethnocentrism to maintain political views. If your ideas are valid, they are just as valid regardless how many people are in agreement or otherwise. Nothing that anyone else can do can change your views, so any 'watering down' is not the fault of a broader perspective, or a wider range of opinions, but of the people who choose to water them down.
If you're speaking in terms of the influence of the right 'movement' being 'forced' to water itself down to accommodate widening horizons, I'm sorry but that's called democracy. It still doesn't change your personal views and positions, though.
Besides, I don't see why that would bother you, you seem to enjoy being the vocal pariah around here well enough. =p
7th May 2009 at 7:39 am | permalink |I suppose I should clarify that all 'you's in that, save those in the last paragraph, are generic, non-targeted 'you's. The part of my brain that actually learned the names of some of these things before teachers gave up on the idea that knowing the names of grammatical rules was at all important wants to say 'nominative case'. Though, that could just be a different part of my brain playing tricks on me for its own perverse amusement.
7th May 2009 at 7:53 am | permalink |@D Watson: I'm pretty sure an individual's personal views can't be "watered down" unless they're damnably weak-minded. That said, an individual whose views never change in the face of new information and changing times is probably damnably closed-minded, and I'm not sure which is worse.
As for a group or political party's views becoming watered down, that's pretty fucking unavoidable in a two-party system even without any kind of international influence… the only solution to that would be to introduce a true multi-party system with proportional representation in Congress. Then any group with enough votes to get their views represented in Congress would get the same percentage of representation as their views had support among the voting public.
But then, that might be "watering down" our political system with wacky foreign structural ideas?
7th May 2009 at 1:34 pm | permalink |@becca
"They're too stupid to realize that God is nothing more than a very elaborate Santa Claus."
I absolutely love that line. Must remember to use on the next god-botherer who gives me grief.
9th May 2009 at 4:12 am | permalink |@ grimbles/Alpha: Surprise, I disagree.
"…I'm sorry but that's called democracy."
"I'm pretty sure an individual's personal views can't be "watered down" unless they're damnably weak-minded."
Let's bypass the new world enlightenment horse pucky and look at a real world, topical example. Take our friends, the Taliban. When they move into your neighborhood and "ask" you to embrace a new way of thinking, you either comply by their perverted views of Sharia or they relieve you of your head. Period. Or, make you more "open minded" as some might say. Extreme? Dilute borders language and culture and you ultimately leave yourself open to these possibilities. That's not democracy. That's the death of a nation. I see Great Britain going down this path as we speak.
9th May 2009 at 5:58 am | permalink |@ Dave: First, as an American citizen, ex-pat living in the U.K., I can tell you that the U.K. is not going down the path you suggest.
Second, your example is absurd to the point, where you can't even use the absurd to illustrate your point.
Adopting a rigid, narrow-minded approach (e.g., the Taliban) in lieu of a more open-minded approach, as a means of showing the wrongness of the open-minded approach is really probably not the example you should be using. Why? Because the reality of your analogy is that it pretty much describes the current state of the GOP purification ritual, objects of worship and dress code withstanding. Granted, the GOP excision is a little more figurative than literal, but they've certainly gone down the same path.
* Requiring purity/singularity of thought and word? Check.
* Exclusionary, repressive, and/or anarchic? Check.
* Embracing military or para-military themes? Check.
* Indifferent to use of violence? Check.
* Fealty to an ideologic leader? Check.
* Party membership congeals around a central religious point of view? Check.
* Attacks on non-believers/non-members? Check.
* Willful ignorance? Check.
And your "borders, language, culture" bullshit (gratuitously stolen from Michael Wiener/Savage) is some of the foulest crap ever to emerge. You want to talk about watering down "borders, language, culture"? Go take a trip to Europe where the notion of border protection is largely an anachronistic leftover from the Cold War. None of the European countries are in danger of losing their essential experience.
On the other hand, philosophically-speaking, "borders, language, culture" is simply a euphemism used by those resistant to change or the idea of change. If you're serious, then excise all of those linguistic and cultural incursions into the American experience. Send the Italians back to Italy. The Irish back to Ireland. The Germans back to Germany. The English back to England. Not just those who are newly arrived, but everyone who's roots are not in the North American continent. The native Americans would love to have their borders, language, and culture back … unspoiled by the immigrants. That isn't "new world enlightenment horse pucky," but the real-world implications of hewing to some amorphous idea of what actually constitutes "borders, language, and culture."
A truly healthy nation can change and evolve as the makeup of its people changes. It is an evolutionary maxim that specialization breeds extinction. Extrapolated to a macro level, it means that a nation which cannot change or adapt—a nation which is so committed to a singular type of existence—wills itself into extinction because it cannot accommodate the inevitable changes occurring around it. Need an example? Take a look at the current state of the newspaper or auto industry.
9th May 2009 at 7:35 am | permalink |@ Dave: "I don't see you as one who freely admits you just might be wrong. The existence of a God is a good example. You might want to leave a little wiggle room on that one. You know, just in case."
Pascal's Wager? Are you serious?
What if you happen to be wrong about Vishnu? Or Mohammed? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Shouldn't you leave room for them?
If you want to understand or debate my religious beliefs and understand how I've arrived at them, I'd suggest you study up first.
9th May 2009 at 8:38 am | permalink |@Dave:I find there to be some slight niggle when I combine your assertion of 'rational thinking Americans concerned for their country' and 'the Taliban moving into the neighbourhood'. It may have something to do with what Becca's already mentioned in regards to 'the taliban will take over if we make it harder for people to impose their personal religious beliefs on others' being slightly… uh, fucking insane?
I love it how when Becca disagrees with evidence it's "liberal extremism", but when you disagrees with 'evidence', he's… what, defending the country or some shit? National hero even? =p
Beyond the inanity (and religiocentrism) of pascal's-unlubed-backdoor-violation, the other one (Christian) god-botherers seem to ignore is that, of all the (major, non-fsm) gods to not believe in, the Christian God is probably the safest one, in terms of potential ramifications.
Simply put, the 'no other god before me stuff' was wiped off the slate by… one of the apostles, can't remember which one, but they said 'fuck the old testament, jesus is where it's at, werd (to your mutha!, even)'.
I may be paraphrasing.
But basically Christians were absolved of the need to follow all the old testament laws. The only thing Jesus was on about in the bible was not being a dick. Y'know, the do unto others, judge not stuff. That's it for what Christianity is about. So, don't believe in the Christian God? Meh, new testament says the Christian God doesn't give a shit about that any more, so apostatise away.
Alternate approach. Christian doctrine says Jesus = God (despite the implications of polytheism which are inherently contradictory to the claims of monotheism, and the fact that the idea of the trinity only cropped up a few hundred years later). Christian doctrine also says Jesus = perfect. No sin. So God = Jesus = No sin. Bible also says pride is a sin. God = Jesus = No sin = no pride. And that whole 'no other gods before me' thing, that's pretty damned prideful. Can't be right. Either Jesus was swimming in sin, or God's pretty relaxed about the whole worshipping him alone thing (which also poses a problem in light of the polytheism thing, particular for many Catholics who are *way* big on idolatry, particularly of Mary). Of course, an alternate interpretation is that the bible can't possibly be the divine word of god, y'know, since it's more like a slab of inconsistency with occasional holes of coherence rather than the other way around. (Dammit! You got some sense in my holy book! BASTARD!)
I'm sure Dave that you're also not new to the idea that lip-service (which is what Pascal's Wager implies) is pretty much bullshit. Any god that's going to send people to hell for eternity (another post-biblical fabrication) is probably going to notice people cynically saying 'oh yeah, uh, I'm so tight with… uh… what's his… Jeses?'
One advantage of not being crammed tight into the little corner of 'the bible is the only source of truth ever possible' is that you can look at ethics and morality objectively. And you can say "hang on, if God is so good, then why would god want me to discriminate against minorities, and/or kill the non-believers?"
From which emerges my general philosophy: I'll live my life as a good person. I will do good things, I will speak out against injustice, and generally be a nice (if slightly-prone-to-sarcasm) guy. If god exists and is truly divinely good, god doesn't give a fuck whether I do that good in the name of God, Jesus, Allah, FSM, Tiamat or Beelzebub. If god's petty enough to actually care, then – wait for it – fuck god. Seriously. If you're petty enough to care what people you supposedly have supreme power over think, then you're more of a shallow prick than most humans. And punishing them for all eternity? Kid + magnifying glass + anthill. If that's god, god isn't divine, just powerful, and so very not worthy of worship, in earnest or otherwise. Plus, if aforementioned all-powerful and all-petty 'god' did exist, I so would have been rained on by sulfur already.
I humbly term it Grimbles' Wager: If there really is some divinity out there, woo, you're in their good books. No divinity, nothing. Some powerful but petty asshat? Isn't suffering for your convictions supposed to be really cool? Its just that my convictions are 'being good' and it's pretty unlikely I'll suffer for them.
*removes gleefully-long-winded-ranting hat* … for now *dramatic reverb*
9th May 2009 at 10:31 am | permalink |*adds an "it was 4 am when I typed that, forgive incoherence and rambling" disclaimer* =p
9th May 2009 at 10:35 am | permalink |I thought "incoherent rambling" was the stock-in-trade around here? Har! And believe me, it would take plenty of both to try and make a rational argument drawing a parallel between the GOP and the Taliban. Really Becca? Seriously? Maybe I'll set the alarm for 4:00am and see what I can come up with. And maybe if W grows a long beard and dons a turban (ala LBJ's long hair upon returning to Texas after his stint in the White House) I'll begin to come around.
I was watching a TV show a while back about this dude who photographed snowflakes. Obviously, he enlarged the prints to illustrate the incredible detail. He stood out in the cold to try and catch the "best ones" on glass slides in the middle of a snowstorm. In those snowflakes I saw more evidence of the existence of a God. Beautiful, random, mathematical precision. Can I explain why I felt that? Not a chance. Some things simply need no explanation.
Never mind the endless handwringing on the subject, look at a leaf. Look at a snowflake. I think it's all right under your (elevated) noses. Sorry, couldn't resist that one.
9th May 2009 at 12:41 pm | permalink |