What Tea Partiers Really Want

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby doogly » Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:03 pm UTC

Cain wrote: "at a Georgia Tea Party event I attended last Friday July 16, which included a live broadcast of my radio show, I asked all of the white supremacists and KKK members to raise their hands. There were none."

So that's how you check for racism! Oh man, I had totally been looking for activism directed towards the institutionalized marginalization of minority participants and concerns. But asking for a show of hands, now that is cutting right to the heart of the matter without getting bogged down in laziness like I have.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:14 am UTC

"Eleven percent said that Obama's race, religion or ethnic background was either a 'very important' or 'somewhat important' factor in the support their group has received..."


Anyone find it annoying that those 3 were all put together into one statistic? I would actually be interested to see those 3 individually(or at least religion seperated). After all, there are some rather reasonable concerns about Obama's religion(jerimiah wright not obama is a secret muslim) that have nothing whatsoever to do with race.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

jesseewiak
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:29 pm UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby jesseewiak » Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:18 am UTC

doogly wrote:Cain wrote: "at a Georgia Tea Party event I attended last Friday July 16, which included a live broadcast of my radio show, I asked all of the white supremacists and KKK members to raise their hands. There were none."

So that's how you check for racism! Oh man, I had totally been looking for activism directed towards the institutionalized marginalization of minority participants and concerns. But asking for a show of hands, now that is cutting right to the heart of the matter without getting bogged down in laziness like I have.


Yeah, I just went to jail and everybody said they were innocent. Well,there ya' go. Just release them all.

Xenks
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:22 pm UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Xenks » Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:22 am UTC

Before I get into my post, I'd like to clarify I'm not a Tea Partier. They're not extreme enough for me. I'm an anarchist. So for those of you looking for a Tea Partier who isn't racist or homophobic, I suppose you should keep looking. For those of you who simply want someone who sympathizes with many Tea Party beliefs, has attended a Tea Party rally, and believes the libertarian origins of the Tea Party are worth supporting, hello.

Well, this thread is certainly a bit nasty. In my personal opinion, as someone who agrees with many Tea Party principles, I do believe the removal of safety nets is a desire common to the group. It's a desire I sympathize with. Now, I know I'm just opening myself up to attacks here, because that's what has happened to every person who advances the idea that the Tea Party, as a whole, is not racist. Still, I must say that in my opinion the Tea Party, as a whole, is not racist. The statistics linked earleir in this thread seem to imply that the Tea Party is actually less racist than America as a whole. Whether that statistic is manipulated or not, I have not checked. My experiences at rallies lead my to believe it is not manipulated, however.

Now, if you still must insist the Tea Party is racist, as it's impossible to prove a negative, then you have the responsibility to prove that the group is racist. Not that some members are, or that you heard your second cousin Bob's finance's friend from California heard that the Tea Party is racist. If there are racist ideals in the group,I advance the idea that they are not representative of the group as a whole, and that the group disapproves of racism. So by all means, continue insisting the group is a bunch of racist homophobes not worth listening to. I, however, will respectfully disagree, unless you back up your argument with statistics, not stories.

As for homosexuality, the Tea Party, as far as I'm aware, actually has libertarian roots. This is a group that actively sought out the LGBT community to try to recruit members. Granted, they're not the popular choice, but they certainly don't actively discriminate against LGBTs. The Tea Party, of course, has members that don't approve of the LGBT community. The Democratic and Republican parties also contain these people. These people are not representatives of the group. The Tea Party has no representatives. Please don't judge the entire group because you have heard a few reports of negative behavior. In any political scenario, negative behavior will exist. In one without a representative to say "No, we do not believe in those things" it is too often taken to be the norm. We're intelligent people. We know better.

Now, on to less touchy matters. Yes, birthers are stupid. Yes, there are birthers in the Tea Party. No, the Tea Party does not consist entirely of birthers. Much like nobody declares the Democratic Party to be insane for containing people who believe 9/11 was an inside job, and the Republican party for having people who believe the Moon Landing was a hoax, neither should the Tea Party be declared insane for containing people who have, quite frankly, insane beliefs. Every group has some people who have crazy beliefs. Only the Tea Party seems to be defined by them. The Tea Party, in my experience as someone who has attended a rally, is only defined by these beliefs because we allow it to be. We allow it to be defined by insanity not because we are incapable of speaking rationally, but because of a combined No True Scotsman fallacy and having no public representative. After all, a sane Tea Partier is "Not a real Tea Partier," right? Between that belief and having nobody to represent the beliefs that unite the Tea Party, the group is in a no-win situation.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, calling each other names and degrading their beliefs is the opposite of constructive. I believe in a world where we can have different beliefs, and still be civil to each other. It's a belief I hold dear, but every time I see an argument dissolve into this mess, I lose a little bit of that belief. I've got enough belief to let some bleed out, but these forums usually help restore my belief in that world. Right now, this thread is not. We're better than this, XKCD. Let's act the part.
Last edited by Xenks on Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:31 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:23 am UTC

jesseewiak wrote:
doogly wrote:Cain wrote: "at a Georgia Tea Party event I attended last Friday July 16, which included a live broadcast of my radio show, I asked all of the white supremacists and KKK members to raise their hands. There were none."

So that's how you check for racism! Oh man, I had totally been looking for activism directed towards the institutionalized marginalization of minority participants and concerns. But asking for a show of hands, now that is cutting right to the heart of the matter without getting bogged down in laziness like I have.


Yeah, I just went to jail and everybody said they were innocent. Well,there ya' go. Just release them all.


False analogy; people in jail(who are guilty) have every reason to lie about the truth.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby netcrusher88 » Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:25 am UTC

Xenks wrote:As for homosexuality, the Tea Party, as far as I'm aware, actually has libertarian roots. This is a group that actively sought out the LGBT community to try to recruit members. Granted, they're not the popular choice, but they certainly don't actively discriminate against LGBTs.

A group that opposes anti-discrimination legislation is no ally of the LGBT community and should stop pretending to be one.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

jesseewiak
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:29 pm UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby jesseewiak » Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:27 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
jesseewiak wrote:
doogly wrote:Cain wrote: "at a Georgia Tea Party event I attended last Friday July 16, which included a live broadcast of my radio show, I asked all of the white supremacists and KKK members to raise their hands. There were none."

So that's how you check for racism! Oh man, I had totally been looking for activism directed towards the institutionalized marginalization of minority participants and concerns. But asking for a show of hands, now that is cutting right to the heart of the matter without getting bogged down in laziness like I have.


Yeah, I just went to jail and everybody said they were innocent. Well,there ya' go. Just release them all.


False analogy; people in jail(who are guilty) have every reason to lie about the truth.


People trying to be politically legitimate don't have every reason to lie about being racists?

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Gelsamel » Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:35 am UTC

Hell, you're a KKK member and you're at some sort of big ass rally that ISN'T specifically for KKK members. Someone asks the huge crowd that surrounds you to put their hand up if they're a KKK member... do you?

Yeah didn't think so.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:36 am UTC

Spoiler:
jesseewiak wrote:
mmmcannibalism wrote:
jesseewiak wrote:
doogly wrote:Cain wrote: "at a Georgia Tea Party event I attended last Friday July 16, which included a live broadcast of my radio show, I asked all of the white supremacists and KKK members to raise their hands. There were none."

So that's how you check for racism! Oh man, I had totally been looking for activism directed towards the institutionalized marginalization of minority participants and concerns. But asking for a show of hands, now that is cutting right to the heart of the matter without getting bogged down in laziness like I have.


Yeah, I just went to jail and everybody said they were innocent. Well,there ya' go. Just release them all.


False analogy; people in jail(who are guilty) have every reason to lie about the truth.


People trying to be politically legitimate don't have every reason to lie about being racists?


I would agree if we were talking about a survey of house members; but people at a rally are not exactly the most devious group in the world.

[quote=netcrusher88]A group that opposes anti-discrimination legislation is no ally of the LGBT community and should stop pretending to be one.[/quote]

So I take it you aren't a friend of minorities unless you are willing to use force of law to empower them?
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby netcrusher88 » Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:49 am UTC

If you are of the opinion that allowing discrimination is superior to preventing it and work towards such politically, yes, you are no ally of mine.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Jahoclave » Sat Dec 04, 2010 3:00 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:If you are of the opinion that allowing discrimination is superior to preventing it and work towards such politically, yes, you are no ally of mine.

And quite frankly, if you're going to knowingly support legislation that will be oppressive to minority groups then you're supporting racist/sexist/xist legislation. And quite frankly, I can tolerate a juvenile, I've got mine fuck you argument from a child, but not from an adult. It's quite frankly semi-sociopathic to consider that a chunk of society should off and die because they haven't had the opportunities or have had some hindrance to their making a successful living. Especially when the society can so clearly support taking care of the weakest members of the group; who, by said support, can better contribute to society.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Steroid » Sat Dec 04, 2010 3:11 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:You misunderstand. The stance is "discrimination on the basis of morally neutral properties is bad; discrimination on the basis of morally non-neutral actions is good, or at least OK." I don't advocate taking action against white people, but I do advocate taking action against open bigots. Those groups are not the same, and I'm again puzzled that you can't conceive of the latter without the former.


I can conceive of "open bigots" without "white people," but only from a more arduous set of criteria. Can a non-white engage in unconscious racism? Is there a reason the Web site of the Seattle Public Schools once defined racism as, "The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites)"? Have not arguments in this thread implied that because of the concept of white male heterosexual Christian privilege that it's easier for anyone who fits in those categories to be bigoted than for those who don't? Indeed, have not other arguments said that that privilege is evidence of malfeasance by those groups? (Presumably, the arguers don't see themselves as bigoted. If it's harder for one group to escape the charges of bigotry than another, and the difference in those groups is morally neutral (race, gender, orientation, etc.), then that standard is discriminatory, which you say is bad.

Here's an example. Two people: a straight white male and a Hispanic lesbian. Both start in roughly the same economic conditions, both achieve success in their own lives. If you presume that the Hispanic lesbian had it harder and that if the planet were equitable would have greater success than the straight white male, I say that that's racism and sexism and orientation-based bigotry. Or at the very least, if I *don't* make that presumption, I am not guilty of racism and sexism and orientation-based bigotry.

Again, you misunderstand. It's great that you're proud of your sexuality. My argument is that the term "straight pride" does not convey the same sort of pride that you describe. This is a consequence of sociolinguistic circumstance and has nothing to do with the appropriateness of pride to heterosexuality.

Ah, that I did misunderstand. But does that misunderstanding not lend weight to my point above?

++$_ wrote:So, are you arguing that because it's difficult to measure amounts of harm caused, we should assume that the only things that cause harm are those that involve physical violence?


In a political context, yes, that is what I am arguing, with one modification. I am not saying that it is difficult to measure mental harm; I am saying it is impossible to do so accurately to an objective standard. But as I said, this is politics, and since the means of politics are based around physical violence, that should be its sole bailiwick. That is to say that if any level of government, or any private group for that matter, wants to try to tackle the problems of mental harm, they are and ought to be free to do so by talking or advertising or any means that does not itself involve physical violence. And that includes compulsory taxation. You can call it a tax, you can say, "Everyone must pay a tax to me so I can run the mental harm police," but you cannot prosecute and arrest those who evade such a tax. If you do, or if you use the threat of arrest or fine (that is to say, the non-empty threat) to those who engage in non-violent activities that effect mental harm, then you have become the aggressor, and it is you who deserves to be curtailed, fettered, and arrested, yes, even with physically violent means.

netcrusher88 wrote:A group that opposes anti-discrimination legislation is no ally of the LGBT community and should stop pretending to be one.


I'm sorry, I know this is to some degree asked and answered, but that's really how you want to advance your cause? Not through education or social change or evolution (having those who discriminate retire and/or die off) or even by denying your benefits to society and saying, "See, you miss us when we're gone!"? Legislation is a necessary factor? And you regard this as a practical course? You don't expect to inspire resentment? You, playing the part of the aforementioned Claude Rains, are shocked, shocked to find that LGBT concepts, which barely existed in the public consciousness 40 years ago, have not been immediately and smoothly absorbed by that consciousness, and are further beset upon with shock that calls to legislation--and the exclusion of all groups that oppose it--neither speed nor smooth that process of absorption? Is that what you are saying?

I am incredulous. I am incredulous if for no other reason than that I thought the American reputation for orneriness was so ubiquitously ingrained in everyone's minds that even the most ardent advocate of progressive change would know that such an abject stance would be counterproductive to its stated end.

I am glad of this thread. I am glad, Mr. Crusher, that you are here to read it. I have hope that even if you are not swayed one bit from your own values, that you will have understood in some way What Tea Partiers Really Want, and that someday, maybe not soon but someday, you will receive epiphany, you will slap your forehead and say, "Holy crap! My methods of dealing with the Tea Party mentality have been the exact thing to do if my goal were to exacerbate, spread, radicalize, and militarize it! I should consider changing tactics!"

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby doogly » Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:08 am UTC

Steroid wrote:Here's an example. Two people: a straight white male and a Hispanic lesbian. Both start in roughly the same economic conditions, both achieve success in their own lives. If you presume that the Hispanic lesbian had it harder and that if the planet were equitable would have greater success than the straight white male, I say that that's racism and sexism and orientation-based bigotry. Or at the very least, if I *don't* make that presumption, I am not guilty of racism and sexism and orientation-based bigotry.

An essential feature of bigotry is exactly what you described here: ignoring every thing that society does to lift up people like you. The list of ways in which you have it easier than the hispanic lesbian is both long and widely available to learn about if you happen to care.

netcrusher88 wrote:A group that opposes anti-discrimination legislation is no ally of the LGBT community and should stop pretending to be one.

I'm sorry, I know this is to some degree asked and answered, but that's really how you want to advance your cause? Not through education or social change or evolution (having those who discriminate retire and/or die off) or even by denying your benefits to society and saying, "See, you miss us when we're gone!"? Legislation is a necessary factor? And you regard this as a practical course? You don't expect to inspire resentment? You, playing the part of the aforementioned Claude Rains, are shocked, shocked to find that LGBT concepts, which barely existed in the public consciousness 40 years ago, have not been immediately and smoothly absorbed by that consciousness, and are further beset upon with shock that calls to legislation--and the exclusion of all groups that oppose it--neither speed nor smooth that process of absorption? Is that what you are saying?

Yeah, better slow roll it like African Americans did from 1865 to 1965. That made the Civil Rights movement go a lot smoother when it was finally time. And it didn't even take legislation! The racists all just eventually go away.

Oh wait no, they just stop raising their hands when asked "are you a racist." Well, that's enough progress for a few centuries, right?
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Vellyr
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:57 pm UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Vellyr » Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:23 am UTC

I think it's important to distinguish between legislation that removes barriers to equality and legislation that gives a favored status to minorities. I understand the liberal perspective that since they're underprivileged to begin with they deserve favored status, but it makes more problems when the government starts deciding to give things to certain minorities for whatever reason. Not the least of these is that it helps perpetuate the separation of minorities into their own distinct groups.

Yeah, better slow roll it like African Americans did from 1865 to 1965. That made the Civil Rights movement go a lot smoother when it was finally time. And it didn't even take legislation! The racists all just eventually go away.

Oh wait no, they just stop raising their hands when asked "are you a racist." Well, that's enough progress for a few centuries, right?


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you implying that it's possible to legislate away racism?

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby doogly » Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:28 am UTC

No, what I'm saying is that so long as racists continue to exist, which we can't really force a change in, we have to legislate the ways they are allowed to behave.
F'rexample, if you wanna do some 'white flight' from neighborhoods that are gettin a little dark, then bon voyage. But it is just not going to be legally tolerated to refuse to sell a home to minorities. Even if it is very much a piece of property you own that some might say you should be free to dispense with entirely as you choose, that shit will not fly.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:40 am UTC

Steroid wrote:Here's an example. Two people: a straight white male and a Hispanic lesbian. Both start in roughly the same economic conditions, both achieve success in their own lives. If you presume that the Hispanic lesbian had it harder and that if the planet were equitable would have greater success than the straight white male, I say that that's racism and sexism and orientation-based bigotry. Or at the very least, if I *don't* make that presumption, I am not guilty of racism and sexism and orientation-based bigotry.
I don't think anyone advocates your depiction here of an "equitable" planet. It's not that the Hispanic lesbian should get more for having done more work, it's that she shouldn't have had to do that additional work. We can't fix the past, but we should aim for a society where future Hispanic lesbians don't have to overcome more to achieve the same as their straight white male counterparts.

I'm sorry, I know this is to some degree asked and answered, but that's really how you want to advance your cause? Not through education or social change or evolution (having those who discriminate retire and/or die off) or even by denying your benefits to society and saying, "See, you miss us when we're gone!"? Legislation is a necessary factor? And you regard this as a practical course? You don't expect to inspire resentment? You, playing the part of the aforementioned Claude Rains, are shocked, shocked to find that LGBT concepts, which barely existed in the public consciousness 40 years ago, have not been immediately and smoothly absorbed by that consciousness, and are further beset upon with shock that calls to legislation--and the exclusion of all groups that oppose it--neither speed nor smooth that process of absorption? Is that what you are saying?
You're making an assumption here that legislation is in and of itself bad. This entire exclamation makes zero sense unless you start with that premise. Why is legislation NOT a practical course? You seem outraged at the very idea, but offer no support here for that outrage.

Vellyr wrote:I understand the liberal perspective that since they're underprivileged to begin with they deserve favored status, but it makes more problems when the government starts deciding to give things to certain minorities for whatever reason.
What things do certain minorities get for whatever reason?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Vellyr
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:57 pm UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Vellyr » Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:58 am UTC

F'rexample, if you wanna do some 'white flight' from neighborhoods that are gettin a little dark, then bon voyage. But it is just not going to be legally tolerated to refuse to sell a home to minorities. Even if it is very much a piece of property you own that some might say you should be free to dispense with entirely as you choose, that shit will not fly.


I'm not sure why you think making a law would be an effective way to deal with this problem. If the guy doesn't want to sell his home to a black guy he's not going to. He'll find some other reason, and then you're stuck probing his actions and guessing at his motives, which typically goes nowhere and ends up wasting peoples' time. People do have a right to act racist, that's a flaw in the system, but there's nothing that can be done about it. I think we're doing a decent job solving the problem through social means, but it does take time.

What things do certain minorities get for whatever reason?


Well at this point it isn't a whole lot, but hate crime laws for one. I just want to see where the tea party has supported barriers to equality like DADT or the protection of marriage act or something rather than opposing affirmative action/reparations flavored legislation.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Steroid » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:01 am UTC

doogly wrote:An essential feature of bigotry is exactly what you described here: ignoring every thing that society does to lift up people like you. The list of ways in which you have it easier than the hispanic lesbian is both long and widely available to learn about if you happen to care.

The ways that involve violence, private or governmental, I argue against and I work against. The ways that are individual preferences I hold as independent variables, and I do not presume to think that I know better than other people in constructing their values.

What you are arguing here is not even the understandable (but incorrect) view that equality of opportunity can only be proven by equality of results. It's much worse: you're arguing that equality of results implies inequality of opportunity. That the only proof of a fair system is if the non-whites and non-males outstrip the white males significantly. And then you're confused when I see bigotry in your position.

Yeah, better slow roll it like African Americans did from 1865 to 1965. That made the Civil Rights movement go a lot smoother when it was finally time. And it didn't even take legislation! The racists all just eventually go away.


Yeah, because all the racists went away once the Civil Rights Act was passed. That's why there's no racism today, no more need for legislation, no Tea Party, and no 6-page thread on why it's racist. :roll:

doogly wrote:No, what I'm saying is that so long as racists continue to exist, which we can't really force a change in, we have to legislate the ways they are allowed to behave.


Or there's one more thing you could try, which is to let the racists have as fair a chance as anyone else. Look, I consider myself fairly idealistic, but I would never be so bold as to say, "This ideal is so self-evidently correct that I can, with no compunction, force those who disagree into not acting on alternate premises, even if no outside party is involved in their transactions." That is hubris writ large. Perhaps someday I'll be as sure of myself and be able to draft legislation declining property rights to non-libertarians, on the grounds that they don't understand property in the first place.

F'rexample, if you wanna do some 'white flight' from neighborhoods that are gettin a little dark, then bon voyage. But it is just not going to be legally tolerated to refuse to sell a home to minorities. Even if it is very much a piece of property you own that some might say you should be free to dispense with entirely as you choose, that shit will not fly.

So you've succeeded in making racists into good liars. Congratulations.

Princess Marzipan wrote:I don't think anyone advocates your depiction here of an "equitable" planet. It's not that the Hispanic lesbian should get more for having done more work, it's that she shouldn't have had to do that additional work. We can't fix the past, but we should aim for a society where future Hispanic lesbians don't have to overcome more to achieve the same as their straight white male counterparts.


You're making an assumption here that the Hispanic lesbian did do more work. I gave no details. Maybe her success was due to affirmative action. Or maybe she won a fortune in a sexual harassment suit that the white man would have won less in. Perhaps she saved startup capital for a business by working in pornography, where again a lesbian would have an advantage over a straight man. Or it could be that she was just in the right place to meet the right people. But the picture in your head was of an old-boy network shaking hands with the white man at the signing of some lucrative deal with him as one of their own while going off to look down the blouse of the lesbian and crack jokes at her expense. Or some similar double standard. I gave a hypothetical with many unknown variables, and you prejudged the situation. That's the prejudice I abhor.

You're making an assumption here that legislation is in and of itself bad. This entire exclamation makes zero sense unless you start with that premise. Why is legislation NOT a practical course? You seem outraged at the very idea, but offer no support here for that outrage.


I don't think I've seen you post in the thread, so I'll be repeating points I made earlier. Legislation is the direction of physical, violent force. At the back of all legislation are the police with their guns, clubs, and jails. The most esoteric piece of civil legislature is ultimately a compass that points a gun in a given direction. And legislators are not angels; they are human beings. And whenever human beings, alone or in concert, ponder and discuss the ways and means of pointing guns, they should be looked at askance, and examined very carefully, and whenever possible convinced to keep the guns holstered and safetied.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Shivahn » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:06 am UTC

Vellyr wrote:
What things do certain minorities get for whatever reason?


Well at this point it isn't a whole lot, but hate crime laws for one.


You know that those don't protect minorities, right? The law's not written in the form "It is a more reprehensible crime to kill a black man than a white man, and carries a harsher punishment." If a white person is killed for being white then they get the same "protection" a black man would for being killed for being black.

I mean, I guess you could argue that it helps minorities more than majorities because minorities are victims of hate based violence more often but then

hey wait a minute. It's almost like the only way minorities benefit from hate crime legislation is if they're murdered for who they are more often.

Which is to say any perceived "benefit" to being protected more under hate crime legislation is due to being more likely to be murdered, and I have a hard time figuring out why someone would see that and conclude that it's unfair that the legislation is invoked to protect them more.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby netcrusher88 » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:11 am UTC

Steroid wrote:Here's an example. Two people: a straight white male and a Hispanic lesbian. Both start in roughly the same economic conditions, both achieve success in their own lives. If you presume that the Hispanic lesbian had it harder and that if the planet were equitable would have greater success than the straight white male, I say that that's racism and sexism and orientation-based bigotry. Or at the very least, if I *don't* make that presumption, I am not guilty of racism and sexism and orientation-based bigotry.

No, the assumption that a Hispanic lesbian would have a harder time of life than a straight white man is based on observation. It is fact that there are privileges enjoyed by white people, by men, and by straight people over their minority counterparts. We learn this from observation and introspection (like Avenue Q says, everyone's a little bit racist - we can learn from observing our own reactions). Read Scalzi's post again, or for the first time if you haven't. This time with introspection. Observe how easily you match the statement to the minority for most of them. There's a reason you can do that. The observation that a specific group does not have privileges afforded another is not racist, sexist, orientation-ist, or anything-ist. It is a statement of fact. The intentional advocacy against policy that recognizes and tries to smooth inequality is - you're saying "you don't deserve the benefits of an equal footing because you are part of a group that does not have the same privileges".

EDIT: ooh! I've got some more!
Today I don't have to think about people assuming I'm only successful because my minority status allowed me to cruise through on what they think affirmative action is.
Today I don't have to think about people saying I should work in porn and save up money because I'm suited to that.
Today I don't have to think about people thinking I have a better life as a result of being a victim of sexual harassment.

I'm sorry, I know this is to some degree asked and answered, but that's really how you want to advance your cause?

...by fighting for it? Yeah, I would say so.
Not through education or social change or evolution (having those who discriminate retire and/or die off) or even by denying your benefits to society and saying, "See, you miss us when we're gone!"?

That is what I am trying to bring about.
Education is merely lip service of no use in the face of a society that turns around and makes a lie of it. You can't have a society that says "gays should be equal but no really no fags at McDonalds".
Social change, again, is what I am trying to bring about. Social change does not occur without pressure to bring it about. The way that it happens - the way that it always happens - is pressure begins from whatever force and does begin changing minds, people maybe get the idea that you know, these minority people are pretty okay actually and maybe let's not vote for the guy who says they should be locked up, and at some point that pressure reaches critical mass and becomes legislative.
Societal evolution... that is what is happening. But that will only take you so far, particularly when there is a systemic literally religious belief that a minority deserves to be marginalized.
And I love that last one. Let's all strike. All the LGBT people. Estimates run around 7-10% though there are indications 25-30% is more accurate, with an inclusive definition of bisexual. That's a big part of the workforce! Except the ones who don't identify as gay or otherwise aren't out. And, let's exempt the people who need their jobs to live, which I'm going to go out on a limb and say is roughly all of them. So, eventually, what do we have, a fraction of a percent? Yeah, sorry, nobody's going to miss them. Their fifty person march on uh... well I guess there won't be a march on Washington. Their self-exclusion would become a curio.
Legislation is a necessary factor?

Always has been.
And you regard this as a practical course?

Always has been.
You don't expect to inspire resentment?

I expect people resent the fact they can't own slaves. I know people resent the fact they can't discriminate against black job candidates or customers. Or female, perhaps. And I know for a fact because they won't shut the fuck up about it that people resent the fact that they can't throw gay people in jail for being gay anymore.

No, I do expect to inspire resentment. But like it has for all other legislatively expedited social change, I expect it to taper off over time. And honestly? If people can't find anything better to resent me for than helping to bring about equality I will be in damn good company with Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., Susan B. Anthony, and Harvey Milk.
You, playing the part of the aforementioned Claude Rains

Wasn't my reference and I didn't actually understand it. I have a vague idea what that's about.
are shocked, shocked to find that LGBT concepts, which barely existed in the public consciousness 40 years ago,

40-50, yeah, but no - the public was aware LGBT people existed 50 years ago. Well, lesbian (of a sort) and gay at any rate. But lesbians were confused girls who just needed a good dicking to straighten them out (pun intended, and a painfully not-dead meme) and gay men, well, sodomites destroying [country]. No, the public knew about queer people 50 years ago. Society was just too busy driving one of the best mathematicians, cryptanalysts, computer scientists, and AI philosophers of all time to suicide to think much about it.
have not been immediately and smoothly absorbed by that consciousness

Unlike you I have a modicum of understanding for history and sociology and realize it took a rather long time - and that legislative kick after popular support hit critical mass - for other groups to achieve equality as well. There's plenty of people still don't have it through their heads that not-white humans are people not property and plenty of friction over it. But I also, from the same history, can look and see that after the mid 60s racial bigotry hit a sharp decline. Actually, earlier - probably Brown started it. Not to diminish the work of civil rights leaders, but the watershed came when American society judicially and later legislatively marginalized bigotry.
and are further beset upon with shock that calls to legislation--and the exclusion of all groups that oppose it--neither speed nor smooth that process of absorption?

What you are saying with this is that you believe racial prejudice would have disappeared faster if not for people like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Rosa Parks. That LGBT people would be in a better place socially if not for Harvey Milk and the "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" movements. That women would be in a better place politically if not for Susan B. Anthony.

You're an idiot.
Is that what you are saying?

No, it isn't. I'm saying that I do understand how acceptance makes its way into society, and while I may find it annoying that it takes so goddamn long I am anything but shocked. I am also saying that I look to historical fact for an effective way to expedite it and historical fact points to a groundswell of popular support aided by executive or judicial decisions and leadership culminating in legislative action that marginalizes bigotry as a consistently successful method of doing so.

I am saying that I consider my time-tested fact-based approach superior to your unfounded bullshit.
I am incredulous.

No, you are incredible.
I am incredulous if for no other reason than that I thought the American reputation for orneriness was so ubiquitously ingrained in everyone's minds that even the most ardent advocate of progressive change would know that such an abject stance would be counterproductive to its stated end.

Any fool can see from history that legislative action is how discrimination is brought to an end in the US. Every time. Well, no, there was that one time Truman took executive action (sort of... I think it was as much command decision as executive order, both are within the President's power) to integrate the armed forces. But that was ultimately similar - government action against discrimination.

I am glad of this thread. I am glad, Mr. Crusher, that you are here to read it.

Me too, I've had fun.
I have hope that even if you are not swayed one bit from your own values, that you will have understood in some way What Tea Partiers Really Want

What I have come to better understand from you is that, no, tea partiers really don't understand what they really want. Or they do not understand the implications of what they think they want. Or, in some cases, they choose to ignore them because they are not directly affected. Which is vile.
and that someday, maybe not soon but someday, you will receive epiphany, you will slap your forehead and say, "Holy crap! My methods of dealing with the Tea Party mentality have been the exact thing to do if my goal were to exacerbate, spread, radicalize, and militarize it! I should consider changing tactics!"

I tire of paraphrasing history for you, so I'm just going to point in the general direction of Dr. King's Letter and suggest you try to understand it. Again.

Steroid wrote:That the only proof of a fair system is if the non-whites and non-males outstrip the white males significantly. And then you're confused when I see bigotry in your position.

Incidentally this is still a straw man.
Last edited by netcrusher88 on Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:31 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby doogly » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:13 am UTC

I didn't just invent the Fair Housing Act, it came in 68 and has been effective.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Vellyr
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:57 pm UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Vellyr » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:24 am UTC

Ok, ok, hate crimes were a bad can of worms to open and I don't really know what I'm talking about, I apologize.

Anyway, on topic, what I really want to know is what anti-discrimination laws the tea party movement has opposed. We still haven't figured out why people think they're racist.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Belial » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:25 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:What you are saying with this is that you believe racial prejudice whether would have disappeared faster if not for people like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Rosa Parks. That LGBT people would be in a better place socially if not for Harvey Milk and the "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" movements. That women would be in a better place politically if not for Susan B. Anthony


Sit down, shut up, stop asking for things, go back to being invisible, and we'll let you have your rights when we feel like it.

(Which will be never, because you won't be forcing us to care anymore)

Thanks,
The Kyriarchy

Vellyr wrote:We still haven't figured out why people think they're racist.


You got a mouse in your pocket?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby netcrusher88 » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:30 am UTC

Oh dear, I left an extra word in there. Let me fix that.

Vellyr wrote:Anyway, on topic, what I really want to know is what anti-discrimination laws the tea party movement has opposed.

ENDA for sure. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act happened before the movement was really catapulted to relevance, so I don't know about that. The Civil Rights Act is not an unpopular target, though off the top of my head the main person I can think of as coming out against it is Rand Paul. The 14th Amendment, Republicans all the way up to McConnell have called for its repeal. Or at least the repeal of birthright citizenship, and I don't know if I can think of any more fundamental anti-discrimination language in US law.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby doogly » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:34 am UTC

And I'm sure they omniloathe ADA. "If my business can handle losing the wheelchair-bound market, why can't I just decide to do that?"
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:35 am UTC

Steroid wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:I don't think anyone advocates your depiction here of an "equitable" planet. It's not that the Hispanic lesbian should get more for having done more work, it's that she shouldn't have had to do that additional work. We can't fix the past, but we should aim for a society where future Hispanic lesbians don't have to overcome more to achieve the same as their straight white male counterparts.


You're making an assumption here that the Hispanic lesbian did do more work. I gave no details. Maybe her success was due to affirmative action. Or maybe she won a fortune in a sexual harassment suit that the white man would have won less in. Perhaps she saved startup capital for a business by working in pornography, where again a lesbian would have an advantage over a straight man. Or it could be that she was just in the right place to meet the right people. But the picture in your head was of an old-boy network shaking hands with the white man at the signing of some lucrative deal with him as one of their own while going off to look down the blouse of the lesbian and crack jokes at her expense. Or some similar double standard. I gave a hypothetical with many unknown variables, and you prejudged the situation. That's the prejudice I abhor.


I misread you initially and thought your example DID assume more work on the Hispanic lesbian's part. But my point remains valid: No one here advocates what you depicted as "equitable." (No one thinks the Hispanic lesbian should get a minority bonus; rather, people think we should remove her bonus obstacles.) And you're actually prejudging more about my stance than I was about that situation. I'm not picturing such an old-boy network. I'm picturing normal people, good people, who are so used to certain modes of thought that they don't even recognize them as modes of thought, and I'm picturing unconscious biases at work in many different places each contributing a very small amount of hardship to this woman's life. And I'm picturing an advantaged white kid who honestly does work hard, and honestly does deserve his rewards for that, but that advantaged white kid happens to have a lot more opportunities and a lot fewer pitfalls to look out for. That's all.

I don't think I've seen you post in the thread, so I'll be repeating points I made earlier. Legislation is the direction of physical, violent force. At the back of all legislation are the police with their guns, clubs, and jails. The most esoteric piece of civil legislature is ultimately a compass that points a gun in a given direction. And legislators are not angels; they are human beings. And whenever human beings, alone or in concert, ponder and discuss the ways and means of pointing guns, they should be looked at askance, and examined very carefully, and whenever possible convinced to keep the guns holstered and safetied.

Your paragraph here is basically meaningless. You're saying we should think long and hard about what's worth actually making laws about. Um. We have. We got together, talked it out, and decided There Oughtta Be A Law, the same way any other law gets made. At some point someone said "You know what should be illegal? Taking pictures of naked children playing with sex toys!" And some other people said "Yeah, that SHOULD be illegal!" And maybe one guy in the corner said "Well hold on now, should we really be making LAWS about this sort of thing?" and everyone looked at him yelled in unison, "YES, now shut the fuck UP, Barry. JEEZ." And that's how a bill becomes a law.

Ahem. Anyway, yeah, you can't just say "But laws are the same as guns!" It's cute as a metaphor I guess, but the idea falls flat as a philosophy of governance. If your argument against a proposed law is essentially "but it shouldn't be a law" and you can only support that within a single narrow metaphorical viewpoint, you need a better argument.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:37 am UTC

ENDA for sure. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act happened before the movement was really catapulted to relevance, so I don't know about that. The Civil Rights Act is not an unpopular target, though off the top of my head the main person I can think of as coming out against it is Rand Paul. The 14th Amendment, Republicans all the way up to McConnell have called for its repeal. Or at least the repeal of birthright citizenship, and I don't know if I can think of any more fundamental anti-discrimination language in US law.


Just important hairsplitting; the only opposition is about the part of the civil rights act that applies to private businesses(a rather important detail). And I don't think I have actually heard anyone discussing the actual repeal of it, only utopian if we get elected for the next 40 years straight we coudl repeal that thinking.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby netcrusher88 » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:43 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:Your paragraph here is basically meaningless. You're saying we should think long and hard about what's worth actually making laws about. Um. We have. We got together, talked it out, and decided There Oughtta Be A Law, the same way any other law gets made. At some point someone said "You know what should be illegal? Taking pictures of naked children playing with sex toys!" And some other people said "Yeah, that SHOULD be illegal!" And maybe one guy in the corner said "Well hold on now, should we really be making LAWS about this sort of thing?" and everyone looked at him yelled in unison, "YES, now shut the fuck UP, Barry. JEEZ." And that's how a bill becomes a law.

So, Steroid, since there's no force involved I reckon you're okay with softcore child porn? What if the kids happen to enjoy touching themselves? Others? At what point is force involved, meaning at what point is it allowable to outlaw the porn? What about the act of producing it? The act depicted in it?

I'm sorry, that's a cheap shot and it's kinda argumentum ad populum. But at the same time it's logically sound, I think.
mmmcannibalism wrote:Just important hairsplitting; the only opposition is about the part of the civil rights act that applies to private businesses(a rather important detail). And I don't think I have actually heard anyone discussing the actual repeal of it, only utopian if we get elected for the next 40 years straight we coudl repeal that thinking.

A rather important detail because it's meaningless without it.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:51 am UTC

Christ in a coffeecake, this thread moves fast. (Which is kind of why I haven't posted in it until now.)

Vellyr wrote:I'm not sure why you think making a law would be an effective way to deal with this problem. If the guy doesn't want to sell his home to a black guy he's not going to. He'll find some other reason, and then you're stuck probing his actions and guessing at his motives ...
Well, even though it shouldn't, legality often informs a people's morality. For example, marijuana: a lot of people are against simply *because* it's illegal. Racism is still largely a social problem, but making illegal any instances we can catalog helps by adding legal weight to already existing social pressures. Also, remember - it took legal force, and the readying and deploying of MILITARY force, to integrate schools in Alabama. We CAN'T wait for these problems to just fix themselves naturally - they won't.

What things do certain minorities get for whatever reason?
Well at this point it isn't a whole lot, but hate crime laws for one. I just want to see where the tea party has supported barriers to equality like DADT or the protection of marriage act or something rather than opposing affirmative action/reparations flavored legislation.
How are hate crime laws a "bonus" for minorities? They don't add benefit; they mitigate a negative. Rand Paul has repeatedly stated that he disagrees with Title X of the Civil Rights Act, and he is a Tea Party identifying candidate. And Joe Miller, the Tea Party candidate who lost the recent Senate election in Alaska, has stated on the record that he would support a marriage amendment that defines it as between a man and a woman. Those are just off the top of my head, but people aren't making up these viewpoints - actual candidates/legislators actually have them.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Vellyr
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:57 pm UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Vellyr » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:53 am UTC

The 14th Amendment, Republicans all the way up to McConnell have called for its repeal.


We're talking about the tea party, not republicans (although the difference seems to be lessening at an alarming rate). A simple google for "mcconnell tea party" shows that they're not exactly best buddies. I'm not seeing an overarching trend here, just a few isolated incidents.

I'm also not sure that they omniloathe the ADA, except maybe the anarcho-capitalist social darwinist ones. Of all the things that governments should do, I think you could get a lot of Libertarians to agree that protecting the rights of disadvantaged members of society is one of them.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby doogly » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:59 am UTC

Vellyr wrote: Of all the things that governments should do, I think you could get a lot of Libertarians to agree that protecting the rights of disadvantaged members of society is one of them.

Isn't that what we've been talking about though?
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby aleflamedyud » Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:00 am UTC

doogly wrote:
Dark567 wrote:Capitalist and mixed-capitalist economies have created the vast majority of the worlds economic value, it is pretty indisputable.

Capitalists exceed at the thing capitalists care about, measured the way they like? To be honest Dianne, I am surprised.

While in the Soviet Union and China, chocolate rations were often raised from 12 grams a day to 10 grams a day! I'm sorry, but there is a palpable benefit to an economic system that, rather than demanding that someone producing something go through an intermediary who will judge their contribution to society, spreads that judgmental role across the entire society.

By the way, guys, from the outside it looks like Steroid is a gigantic troll, and you've all fallen for it. I mean, he's just transparently wrong in a whole ton of ways, but he has managed to make you lot come out swinging with the crassest, most moralizing, most utterly hectoring "justifications" (an intelligent libertarian would have blown many of the posts here to bits!) for so-called "liberal" policies that you could have.

To start with, you have effectively all come out in favor of the government enforcing your personal or group moral systems on the whole of society, and you've flamed the hell out of him for his demand that government be amoral! So I'm going to reveal (what should have been) the obvious way out of the impasse: supreme executive power derives from the mandate of the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony! Let the people vote on what sort of morality we want the government implementing in public life, and preferably let the government stay out of legislating morality in private affairs.

Oy gevalt.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Belial » Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:06 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:By the way, guys, from the outside it looks like Steroid is a gigantic troll, and you've all fallen for it.


"No... this must be what going mad feels like. "

-Simon Tam
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:07 am UTC

Vellyr wrote: Of all the things that governments should do, I think you could get a lot of Libertarians to agree that protecting the rights of disadvantaged members of society is one of them.
Actually, Rand Paul would prefer that a business retain the right the right to turn away people in wheelchairs.

We have a lot of laws that dictate what businesses have to do to make themselves accessible to the disabled. And we do that because while it may suck for a business owner to pay for a wheelchair-accessible restroom, it sucks a lot more for the disabled if no one has bothered to pay for wheelchair-accessible public restrooms. Without the law, the business owner has freedom of choice ... and the disabled are limited to socializing at places that HAVE bothered to shell out for the wheelchair-accessible restrooms, which probably aren't many.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby aleflamedyud » Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:26 am UTC

Belial wrote:
aleflamedyud wrote:By the way, guys, from the outside it looks like Steroid is a gigantic troll, and you've all fallen for it.


"No... this must be what going mad feels like. "

-Simon Tam

The hilarious thing about this is that you think I'm a troll, when in fact I just disagree with you on a massive number of things, but you took Steroid seriously, when he was quite obviously a troll.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:36 am UTC

I've stopped giving a shit of late whether someone is a troll or not. It may very well be that Steroid IS a troll, but it doesn't matter - someone somewhere believes everything he's saying, so it's still worth responding to as level-headedly as possible.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Belial » Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:37 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:you took Steroid seriously


Strong accusation.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Garm » Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:08 am UTC

Steriod, your lesbian/white man scenario is fundamentally flawed as others have pointed out. Why talk in negatives. In order to bring your scenario more into balance, I propose that we pass a law that states that white, heterosexual men, cannot get health insurance from their wives. What do you think about that?
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Ortus
Fluffy
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 7:09 am UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Ortus » Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:10 am UTC

Belial wrote:
aleflamedyud wrote:you took Steroid seriously


Strong accusation.



I swear I'm not trying to be off-topic, but I love you Belial. I really, really do.
roband wrote:Face, yes. Chest, probably. Pubic area, maybe. Scrotum, not a fucking chance.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Jahoclave » Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:15 am UTC

Belial wrote:
aleflamedyud wrote:you took Steroid seriously


Strong accusation.

Besides, we really just want Steroid to come out of the closest and admit his homosexual love for his fellow man. I mean, if we're following Myer's Law and all. He'll be happier.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests