NationStates Jolt Archive

Ohio State University recently published a study (http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/212) on how political bias affects perception of the show The Colbert Report. The abstract for the study:

This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert’s political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism. Finally, a post hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert’s political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion.

I am still reading the complete study, but I found the conclusions described in the abstract to be hilarious. Is that why conservative Congressmen agree to be interviewed on the Colbert Report? Do they not realize they are the butt of Stephen Colbert's jokes?

*acts surprised*

*acts surprised*

This situation is both funny and depressing. Satire is supposed to shame and ridicule a target to make it change for the better, but if conservatives don't realize its a joke it ruins the whole purpose of satire. :(

I never have understood the Conservative lack of capacity for humor. I've almost given up sending jokes to one Conservative friend of mine because he constantly returns them with an in depth analysis of the truth contained in them attached.

Conservatives like this are very very smart.

Of course Conservatives lack satire. How else do you account for their continued existence?

I don't know, given how butthurt people get when I troll Obama forums, I find it hard to believe that the left is any less susceptible to satire than the right. Seriously, it's not even good trolling; you could just post a picture of Obama's head photoshopped on to a gorilla or Stalin (depending on your particular flavor) and get an 888 word wall of text bitching at you. I think these people really are all the same.

The only difference is that you're not going to find any conservative comedians or satrisits out there; truth is, a lot of them just aren't that funny. I mean, sure you can get in some barbs on economic issues but you're not going to amuse anyone...not many people find jokes about deficit spending all that amusing.

Well, the larger problem, in my opinion, is that people take themselves too damn seriously, regardless of their affiliations.

The Right Wing is incapable of pulling off satire.

Exhibit Z- The Half Hour News Hour

Well, the larger problem, in my opinion, is that people take themselves too damn seriously, regardless of their affiliations.

^^ This

Colbert wept - literally, wept - on The Daily Show when Bush was re-elected in '04. Anyone who thinks his satire is impartial is missing something basic in their brain. I don't mind him, but I don't ever expect neutrality from him.

The Right Wing is incapable of pulling off satire.

Exhibit Z- The Half Hour News Hour

Wasn't that cancelled?

He also wept when Obama was elected. Running mascara and all. :P

Well, the larger problem, in my opinion, is that people take themselves too damn seriously, regardless of their affiliations.

I was thinking something very similar, I would be surprised if a similar, though opposite studt yielded results unlike these.

I don't know, given how butthurt people get when I troll Obama forums, I find it hard to believe that the left is any less susceptible to satire than the right. Seriously, it's not even good trolling; you could just post a picture of Obama's head photoshopped on to a gorilla or Stalin (depending on your particular flavor) and get an 888 word wall of text bitching at you. I think these people really are all the same.

i think a poe's law variant probably applies

I was thinking something very similar, I would be surprised if a similar, though opposite studt yielded results unlike these.

I would actually be interested to see that - try and find some right-wing satire (there's got to be some out there) and see the reaction of the left-wing. My guess is that it is more related to who's point of view is having the piss taken out of it than anything else. It's a lot more difficult to laugh at yourself than at other people.

Of course Conservatives lack satire. How else do you account for their continued existence?

Exactly. If Conservatives were able to understand satire or irony, they would implode and the entire movement would collapse in upon itself in a wave of destructive self-awareness.

And we all knew that conservatives didn't understand Colbert is satire of neocon talking heads when he was invited to speak at a conservative function attended by the president and such several years ago.

Ohio State University recently published a study (http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/212) on how political bias affects perception of the show The Colbert Report. The abstract for the study:



I am still reading the complete study, but I found the conclusions described in the abstract to be hilarious. Is that why conservative Congressmen agree to be interviewed on the Colbert Report? Do they not realize they are the butt of Stephen Colbert's jokes?
Who paid the college to waste their time on this?

Who paid the college to waste their time on this?

Probably the same kind of people that waste their money funding glowing red dog research.

Who paid the college to waste their time on this?

Yeah, that conservatives lack the ability to understand satire is pretty obvious.

Who paid the college to waste their time on this?

Firstly - it's probably quite a cheap piece of research. Little needed in terms of materials and chances are a lot of data collection by research students (cheap labour) and the students took part for credit.

In turn we learn something interesting about both how our sense of humour may work and how much different social interactions and social perceptions may be influenced by pre-existing beliefs and political viewpoints. It's an interesting result, increases our knowledge of social psychology for very little cost.

Firstly - it's probably quite a cheap piece of research. Little needed in terms of materials and chances are a lot of data collection by research students (cheap labour) and the students took part for credit.

In turn we learn something interesting about both how our sense of humour may work and how much different social interactions and social perceptions may be influenced by pre-existing beliefs and political viewpoints. It's an interesting result, increases our knowledge of social psychology for very little cost.

B-b-b-but... if money is wasted whenever it's not used for building bombs to blow up brown people!

B-b-b-but... if money is wasted whenever it's not used for building bombs to blow up brown people!

Unfortunately us psychologists don't have the skills for that, so we must content ourselves with turning people into rampaging killing machines *nod* (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/16/scientology-tv-show.html)

Ohio State University recently published a study (http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/212) on how political bias affects perception of the show The Colbert Report. The abstract for the study:



I am still reading the complete study, but I found the conclusions described in the abstract to be hilarious. Is that why conservative Congressmen agree to be interviewed on the Colbert Report? Do they not realize they are the butt of Stephen Colbert's jokes?
Another possibility is that people just want to believe that anyone they see on TV shares their viewpoint. So conservatives see this mythical, Right-Wing Colbert who would love to go have a few beers with them and George Bush.
Unfortunately us psychologists don't have the skills for that, so we must content ourselves with turning people into rampaging killing machines *nod* (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/16/scientology-tv-show.html)
So you've got one success story? That's it?
Goddamn it, I demand more from the top-secret government brainwashing departments that I actually have nothing to do with! I want a legion of brainwashed super killers to be on my door step by next week! And I want them to be creepy girls between the ages of 10 and 14, because no one would expect to have their larynx torn out by a little girl.

So you've got one success story? That's it?
Goddamn it, I demand more from the top-secret government brainwashing departments that I actually have nothing to do with! I want a legion of brainwashed super killers to be on my door step by next week! And I want them to be creepy girls between the ages of 10 and 14, because no one would expect to have their larynx torn out by a little girl.

Hey, if we told people about the rest of the top-secret brainwashed super killers, then they wouldn't be secret would they :p

And I want them to be creepy girls between the ages of 10 and 14, because no one would expect to have their larynx torn out by a little girl.

If you want a fun two hours of 12 year olds tearing out larynxes, I recommend "Let the right one in (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICp4g9p_rgo)". Watch the scene at thirty-five seconds in. Ouch.

Unfortunately us psychologists don't have the skills for that, so we must content ourselves with turning people into rampaging killing machines *nod* (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/16/scientology-tv-show.html)

Incredible really, it begs the question, who trains the psychiatrists?

Incredible really, it begs the question, who trains the psychiatrists?

Well we could tell you that, but then we'd have to kill you

Well we could tell you that, but then we'd have to kill you

It's Xenu isn't it, it has to be, as though the world's script was written by Dan Brown.

It's Xenu isn't it, it has to be, as though the world's script was written by Dan Brown.

Dammit, how could you kn... I mean, whatever makes you say that? *places call to men in black as soon as Barringtonia's back in turned*

Dammit, how could you kn... I mean, whatever makes you say that? *places call to men in black as soon as Barringtonia's back in turned*

Wikipedia :)

Ohio State University recently published a study (http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/212) on how political bias affects perception of the show The Colbert Report. The abstract for the study:



I am still reading the complete study, but I found the conclusions described in the abstract to be hilarious. Is that why conservative Congressmen agree to be interviewed on the Colbert Report? Do they not realize they are the butt of Stephen Colbert's jokes?

This is because of the political perception that you have to be loved by the public, not that you impress them by doing a good job.

For an objective scientific experiment, I'd like to see the same study conducted on data used from the Rush Limbaugh Show. I imagine that liberals might find it overly satiric and mean.

This is because of the political perception that you have to be loved by the public, not that you impress them by doing a good job.

For an objective scientific experiment, I'd like to see the same study conducted on data used from the Rush Limbaugh Show. I imagine that liberals might find it overly satiric and mean.

The issue here is that Colbert is meant to be satire, Limbaugh isn't, therefor the comparison would hardly be valid. A more valid comparison would be with satire from a conservative source directed at liberals. I know Fox tried one of these a while back but I'm sure if you search you can find decent right-wing satire (you may need to look outside the US, which will bring in a whole host of other issues though).

Another interesting avenue of research however could be to look at Poe's law in action - in other words see how good people of different personality types and political persuasion are at distinguishing satire from real extreme rants on both sides of the political spectrum - though of course you'd have to use knowns on this one or text-based anonymised sources.

The issue here is that Colbert is meant to be satire, Limbaugh isn't, therefor the comparison would hardly be valid. A more valid comparison would be with satire from a conservative source directed at liberals. I know Fox tried one of these a while back but I'm sure if you search you can find decent right-wing satire (you may need to look outside the US, which will bring in a whole host of other issues though).

Another interesting avenue of research however could be to look at Poe's law in action - in other words see how good people of different personality types and political persuasion are at distinguishing satire from real extreme rants on both sides of the political spectrum - though of course you'd have to use knowns on this one or text-based anonymised sources.

And Colbert isn't at least left leaning? I'd still like to see the same study done with listening to Limbaugh AND the one that you've suggested.

Time to go to work. CUL8R

And Colbert isn't at least left leaning? I'd still like to see the same study done with listening to Limbaugh AND the one that you've suggested.


Ah, I think I get you - you mean using Rimbaugh, being one of the right-wing pundits Colbert is pretending to emulate, as a control condition. Ie seeing if it's a more generalised interpretation of hard right views as satire rather than specifically being about to distinguish satire from not. I'd go with that. Ideally you'd want someone in the same medium so Bill O'Reilly or Glen Beck, else you could argue differences due to lack of visual cues. To really cover it you'd also want the other way round, a hard left pundit and a right-wing satirist pretending to be a hard left punidit. But I suspect those may be more difficult.

I don't know, given how butthurt people get when I troll Obama forums, I find it hard to believe that the left is any less susceptible to satire than the right. Seriously, it's not even good trolling; you could just post a picture of Obama's head photoshopped on to a gorilla or Stalin (depending on your particular flavor) and get an 888 word wall of text bitching at you. I think these people really are all the same.

The only difference is that you're not going to find any conservative comedians or satrisits out there; truth is, a lot of them just aren't that funny. I mean, sure you can get in some barbs on economic issues but you're not going to amuse anyone...not many people find jokes about deficit spending all that amusing.
youre a troll on another forum? i never would have guessed that you have a secret net life.

Hey, if we told people about the rest of the top-secret brainwashed super killers, then they wouldn't be secret would they :p
Damn you and your logic!
If you want a fun two hours of 12 year olds tearing out larynxes, I recommend "Let the right one in (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICp4g9p_rgo)". Watch the scene at thirty-five seconds in. Ouch.
I was thinking more Gunslinger Girl, but that's a good reference too.
Incredible really, it begs the question, who trains the psychiatrists?
Psychiatrists are trained by a much older person of the same gender as them. This person simply appears one day, knowing a great deal about the soon-to-be psychiatrist and vanishes when training is complete.
Many years later, as the psychiatrist is approaching the end of his or her life, the Secret Order of Secret Societies Which Are Best Kept a Secret takes them to a hidden facility where the world's only time machine is kept. The psychiatrist is then sent back in time to spend their last months training themselves, creating a stable time loop.
If, however, a psychiatrist were ever to die before they had a chance to train their childhood selves, the resulting time paradox would cause all life on Earth to experience a vague itching sensation behind their eyeballs.

Psychiatrists are trained by a much older person of the same gender as them. This person simply appears one day, knowing a great deal about the soon-to-be psychiatrist and vanishes when training is complete.
Many years later, as the psychiatrist is approaching the end of his or her life, the Secret Order of Secret Societies Which Are Best Kept a Secret takes them to a hidden facility where the world's only time machine is kept. The psychiatrist is then sent back in time to spend their last months training themselves, creating a stable time loop.
If, however, a psychiatrist were ever to die before they had a chance to train their childhood selves, the resulting time paradox would cause all life on Earth to experience a vague itching sensation behind their eyeballs.

Dammit, how do you keep finding these things out. We must have a leak somewhere, a traitor to the cause of psychologist/psychiatrist world domination. I mean it was fine when only Co$ knew about it, no one takes them seriously. But this is going too far, we must step up plans!

I don't know, given how butthurt people get when I troll Obama forums, I find it hard to believe that the left is any less susceptible to satire than the right. Seriously, it's not even good trolling; you could just post a picture of Obama's head photoshopped on to a gorilla or Stalin (depending on your particular flavor) and get an 888 word wall of text bitching at you. I think these people really are all the same.
That's not satire. If you think it's satire that says more about you than them. In fact, it's not even a remotely analogous situation.

The Right Wing is incapable of pulling off satire.
South Park is quite a Conservative show.

Also, if we abstract from the momentary divides, Conservatives = realists, Liberals = idealists. And you can find quite a bit of realist satire.

South Park is quite a Conservative show.

Also, if we abstract from the momentary divides, Conservatives = realists, Liberals = idealists. And you can find quite a bit of realist satire.

Staunch conservatives are certainly realistic in some ways, but are highly idealistic in others, like trying to shove abstinence on teenagers when birth control is more effective.

Staunch conservatives are certainly realistic in some ways, but are highly idealistic in others, like trying to shove abstinence on teenagers when birth control is more effective.
The fucking birth control doesn't do fucking squat to stop them fucking, and the kids have no fucking business fucking.

The fucking birth control doesn't do fucking squat to stop them fucking, and the kids have no fucking business fucking.

See, that is an example of your failure in realism. You are trying prevent pubescent adolescents from having sex while their pregnancy rates rise. You are placing your personal moral feelings above the demands of reality.

That's not satire. If you think it's satire that says more about you than them. In fact, it's not even a remotely analogous situation.

Well, maybe if trolling consisted entirely of posting 42-point font rainbow text racial slurs, sure. A good troll really is satire; you have to be just reasonable enough to avoid immediate dismissal, but at the same time you have to make sure there are clues for the well-informed to immediately realize it's entirely satirical in intent.

Well, maybe if trolling consisted entirely of posting 42-point font rainbow text racial slurs, sure. A good troll really is satire; you have to be just reasonable enough to avoid immediate dismissal, but at the same time you have to make sure there are clues for the well-informed to immediately realize it's entirely satirical in intent.

Satire makes fun of hypocrisy--some trolling does this, most does not.

The thing is...it's not just mainstream Conservatives, it's the entirety of the mainstream itself. The majority of these people, Central-Left or Central-Right, cannot make these simple distinctions. I'll bet you'll get some similar stats from Conservatives doing reports on the left, like "all students are Ultra-Lefties, and if you aren't, then you are not too bright. If you're forty and you are still an Ultra-Leftie, then you still aren't too bright." Unfortunately it's the weight of the world. But I wouldn't doubt that this information about Conservatives would have truth to it.

This isn't surprising, but it's good to have empirical evidence of it.

youre a troll on another forum? i never would have guessed that you have a secret net life.The more of his posts you read, the more you realize he has a dirty, dirty mind. ;)

Satire makes fun of hypocrisy--some trolling does this, most does not.It can do that, yes. It could also take beliefs and provide a more extreme version of them - argument ad absurdum, if you will.

It's Xenu isn't it, it has to be, as though the world's script was written by Dan Brown.

Omfg, that's great haha

It can do that, yes. It could also take beliefs and provide a more extreme version of them - argument ad absurdum, if you will.

Well, yes. But he was putting a picture of Obama's face on Stalin to mock liberals. It would be more in the realm of satire if he did it to mock conservatives.

Sadly that rarely works. Hard to find well-informed audience at most forums that deserve trolling.

I have a couple "silver bullets" - well-tested short trolling texts, that in a few days produce 'friends-only' closure of blogs, '+v-only' closure of IRC channels, outrage at forums, people leaving for good after a small IM/PM conversation, and otherwise most severe damage possible. And I have yet to see a place not react to any of these or at least anyone to tell others they're being trolled.

Of course, that's exactly why they are so highly regarded. But still it's always a surprise. You get to know a few people, you get them to know your beliefs, you teach them how to deal with trolls, you start to think highly of their intelligence, and then, in some blog, channel or board, you shoot a copypasta that's everything against all your well-known beliefs, and these people just fall clueless prey to it.

South Park is quite a Conservative show.


I dont agree with this at all. South Park critiques most of the hot button conservative issues. Religion, racism, it specifically referred to Republicans as mouthpieces of Satan in the Terry Schivo/Playstation PSP episode and mocked the Republicans position on that, they mock the wealth distribution system and how its always the white people with the money and on and on and on...

I dont agree with this at all. South Park critiques most of the hot button conservative issues. Religion, racism, it specifically referred to Republicans as mouthpieces of Satan in the Terry Schivo/Playstation PSP episode and mocked the Republicans position on that, they mock the wealth distribution system and how its always the white people with the money and on and on and on...

Parker and Stone have pretty much said SP was about taking shots at ALL sides.

Religion, racism, it specifically referred to Republicans as mouthpieces of Satan in the Terry Schivo/Playstation PSP episode and mocked the Republicans position on that, they mock the wealth distribution system and how its always the white people with the money and on and on and on...
Yes. Because today the parties got to divide on principle - "We're against it because the Reps are for it". Case in point, gun rights, clearly part of civil rights, but opposed by the lefties.

The South Park mocks everyone. It's a proper comedy show, not a political soapbox disguised as a comedy like certain others.

But seriously, they describe themselves as libertarians, and we rather prefer to side with conservatives, for the conservatives may be often misguided, but they at least have good intentions, while the 'liberals' don't.

And you can't help but notice that, while mocking the silliness of both, ultimately the 'truth' turns out to be on the right side. Dangerous fun like fireworks and guns is still good, drugs are still bad, it's still more important to be honest than to be green, God still exists, 'equality' retardation is still bad, life is still about having fun rather than getting worked up about it.

Yes. Because today the parties got to divide on principle - "We're against it because the Reps are for it". Case in point, gun rights, clearly part of civil rights, but opposed by the lefties.

I am liberal; I support gun-rights.

But seriously, they describe themselves as libertarians, and we rather prefer to side with conservatives, for the conservatives may be often misguided, but they at least have good intentions, while the 'liberals' don't.

Source?

I am liberal and I support gun-rights.
Many people do, and many more would, if not for the two-party system artificially antagonizing people against each other.

Seriously, it doesn't make much sense to support some freedoms, but oppose the others. But people get divided into camps by the parties, so they get to adopt the groupthink alien to them.


Source?
http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/trey-parker.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_4_were_not_losing.html


“The label is really about rejecting the image of conservatives as uptight squares—crusty old men or nerdy kids in blue blazers. We might have long hair, smoke cigarettes, get drunk on weekends, have sex before marriage, watch R-rated movies, cuss like sailors—and also happen to be conservative, or at least libertarian.”

Many people do, and many more would, if not for the two-party system artificially antagonizing people against each other.

Seriously, it doesn't make much sense to support some freedoms, but oppose the others. But people get divided into camps by the parties, so they get to adopt the groupthink alien to them.

Damned conformists.

http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/trey-parker.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_4_were_not_losing.html


“The label is really about rejecting the image of conservatives as uptight squares—crusty old men or nerdy kids in blue blazers. We might have long hair, smoke cigarettes, get drunk on weekends, have sex before marriage, watch R-rated movies, cuss like sailors—and also happen to be conservative, or at least libertarian.”

I meant a source that liberals have bad intentions, while conservatives have good ones.

I meant a source that liberals have bad intentions, while conservatives have good ones.
That's not something that can be easily proven or not.

It just creates a fairly strong feeling, when listening to liberals, that they believe they're better than you, whoever you are. That they know better, and they're gonna set things right, and they won't stop until they set everything to their vision.

The conservatives rather are closer to the "live and let live" concept, they only try to protect the world they are in, and their bad steps are just knee-jerk instinctive reactions.


I'm myself a left-libertarian, but I still find the cons a lot better option. At least the conservatives do have the desire to accept people as they are. The 'liberals' (because they support anything but liberty) rather constantly try to bring everyone to their standards.

I dont agree with this at all. South Park critiques most of the hot button conservative issues. Religion, racism, it specifically referred to Republicans as mouthpieces of Satan in the Terry Schivo/Playstation PSP episode and mocked the Republicans position on that, they mock the wealth distribution system and how its always the white people with the money and on and on and on...

Apparently you missed the Hippie Drill (parody of Armageddon) episode, the Smug Pollution (mocking save-the-planet auto purchases), the I Hate the Rainforest episode, hell, even the Mormon Origins episode ends up in favor of people believing whatever they want without getting hassled for it. You're only seeing what you want to see, it seems. SP has skewered plenty of liberal icons (Rosie O'Donnell, Rob Reiner, most of Hollywood, Hillary Clinton), and liberal causes. Open your eyes.

That's not something that can be easily proven or not.

Then you might want to re-consider stating it as fact.

It just creates a fairly strong feeling, when listening to liberals, that they believe they're better than you, whoever you are. That they know better, and they're gonna set things right, and they won't stop until they set everything to their vision.

http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/3881/FE_DA_080305samesexmarriage.jpg

The conservatives rather are closer to the "live and let live" concept, they only try to protect the world they are in, and their bad steps are just knee-jerk instinctive reactions.

No, being anti-immigration, anti-same-sex marriage, anti-nudity, anti-marijuana, and anti-abortion is not a "live and let live" attitude.
I'm myself a left-libertarian, but I still find the cons a lot better option. At least the conservatives do have the desire to accept people as they are.

:tongue:

The 'liberals' (because they support anything but liberty)

Bull. I fully support liberty.

rather constantly try to bring everyone to their standards.

Pardon?

That's not something that can be easily proven or not.

It just creates a fairly strong feeling, when listening to liberals, that they believe they're better than you, whoever you are. That they know better, and they're gonna set things right, and they won't stop until they set everything to their vision.

The conservatives rather are closer to the "live and let live" concept, they only try to protect the world they are in, and their bad steps are just knee-jerk instinctive reactions.


I'm myself a left-libertarian, but I still find the cons a lot better option. At least the conservatives do have the desire to accept people as they are. The 'liberals' (because they support anything but liberty) rather constantly try to bring everyone to their standards.

That's the first time I've ever laugh-choked on just plain air.

So "the conservatives" -- en masse -- are cool with alternate sexualities, religions, absence of religion, alternate skin colors...stuff like that? What are you smoking?

Apparently you missed the Hippie Drill (parody of Armageddon) episode, the Smug Pollution (mocking save-the-planet auto purchases), the I Hate the Rainforest episode, hell, even the Mormon Origins episode ends up in favor of people believing whatever they want without getting hassled for it. You're only seeing what you want to see, it seems. SP has skewered plenty of liberal icons (Rosie O'Donnell, Rob Reiner, most of Hollywood, Hillary Clinton), and liberal causes. Open your eyes.

Yeah, for the most part, but I do have to point out that they did, as I recall, say that hybrids are a good thing, it's just that you shouldn't be a dick about it if you drive one and other people do not.

So "the conservatives" -- en masse -- are cool with alternate sexualities,
I said "people". Not everyone is certain on why would one be doing it wrong on purpose, and whether they can feel safe that it is not an indication of being not of us.

religions, absence of religion, [quote]
A bit on the side of "yes" as long as they don't feel their religion to be threatened by it.

[QUOTE=Intangelon;14747633]alternate skin colors...stuff like that?
Yes. How huge is the rock you've been hiding under since 1850?



[IMG]
Fringe groups.

No, being anti-immigration,
Freedom of immigration comes packaged with the freedom of agreeing on any wage you agree on and freedom from having to support the immigrants with your tax money. Otherwise it's leeching, not freedom.

anti-same-sex marriage,
Most cons have come to terms with accepting Civil Unions.

People who would rather have nothing and have their bros have nothing, than get the same rights, but under a name that doesn't infringe on an established trademark, are jerks and deserve neither.

anti-abortion
Many cons today are rather pro-choice. Also, the abortion issue for the cons hinges on exactly that - "let live" - the belief that the embryo becomes a person at conception.

My personal belief is based on more scientific facts concerning the development of neural networks. According to that, one only becomes a person at least a year after birth. Giving a safety reserve of 200%, I think for the first few months it should be legal to experiment on, use as required, or terminate the baby. It has a practical purpose, too, for it's much easier to actually test the baby's health and other factors required for the decision of keeping it or clicking "Reroll" shortly after birth than before it.

However, the liberals seem to be rather conservative on this.

Fringe groups.

I see them as only a little more extreme than Bush, Reagan, or Palin.

Freedom of immigration comes packaged with the freedom of agreeing on any wage you agree on and freedom from having to support the immigrants with your tax money. Otherwise it's leeching, not freedom.

You oppose minimum wage?

Also, you are turning the tables here: I said anti-immigration, which has nothing to do with one's welfare stance.


Most cons have come to terms with accepting Civil Unions.

Too...fucking...bad.

People who would rather have nothing and have their bros have nothing,
Um, who said they would rather have nothing?
than get the same rights, but under a name that doesn't infringe on an established trademark, are jerks and deserve neither.

Screw trademark. This civil-union nonsense is the same crap the pre-Revolution French government pulled on non-Catholics who wished to wed.

Many cons today are rather pro-choice.

Bush? Reagan? McCain? Palin?

Nope, nope, nope, don't think so.

Also, the abortion issue for the cons hinges on exactly that - "let live" - the belief that the embryo becomes a person at conception.

I consider my sperm to be a bodily fluid; if they try to control it, they are not for liberty.

My personal belief is based on more scientific facts concerning the development of neural networks. According to that, one only becomes a person at least a year after birth. Giving a safety reserve of 200%, I think for the first few months it should be legal to experiment on, use as required, or terminate the baby. It has a practical purpose, too, for it's much easier to actually test the baby's health and other factors required for the decision of keeping it or clicking "Reroll" shortly after birth than before it.

Source?

However, the liberals seem to be rather conservative on this.

And yet, more liberal than those you are willing to side with.

Yeah, for the most part, but I do have to point out that they did, as I recall, say that hybrids are a good thing, it's just that you shouldn't be a dick about it if you drive one and other people do not.

Okay, so they skewer a liberal issue and then present a moral. What's your point? IF was saying that they NEVER, EVER go after liberals or liberal issues. I mentioned four episodes off the top of my head that disprove his assertion.

Okay, so they skewer a liberal issue and then present a moral. What's your point? IF was saying that they NEVER, EVER go after liberals or liberal issues. I mentioned four episodes off the top of my head that disprove his assertion.

I also said that Parker and Stone made it clear that the show took bipartisan shots.

You oppose minimum wage?
You can't have both unlimited immigration and a minimum wage (and other welfare-like stuff). Pick one.


Too...fucking...bad.
Um, who said they would rather have nothing?
Sorry for you.
-
Because they demand it to be called "marriage", rather than ask for what is actually possible.


Screw trademark. This civil-union nonsense is
...A perfectly reasonable solution to the problem. A perfectly reasonable compromise that satisfies the needs of both sides.

But the lefties don't compromise. "Communism can only be for the whole planet!", as Lenin has said (or was it another one).


Bush? Reagan? McCain? Palin?
The public figures have to be extreme to be elected. That's why US fake democracy sucks.

I speak about your neighbours, or a student in your class, or another average guy that has voted Conservative last year.


I consider my sperm to be a bodily fluid; if they try to control it, they are not for liberty.
I consider a baby to be an advanced bodily fluid until it can at least pronounce its own name. If they try to control it, they are not for liberty.


Source?
Multiple.
First and foremost, the practice, however. A simple housecat has more intelligence and personality than a newborn baby.


And yet, more liberal than those you are willing to side with.
And yet, I find out that I don't really care about their "more-liberalness". I don't do last-trimester abortions, I don't go around fucking men in public, I don't do whatever else they're "more liberal" about.

They, however, intend to take away the things I care very much about, like my money and my arms. The conservatives don't.

I don't know, given how butthurt people get when I troll Obama forums, I find it hard to believe that the left is any less susceptible to satire than the right. Seriously, it's not even good trolling; you could just post a picture of Obama's head photoshopped on to a gorilla or Stalin (depending on your particular flavor) and get an 888 word wall of text bitching at you. I think these people really are all the same.

The only difference is that you're not going to find any conservative comedians or satrisits out there; truth is, a lot of them just aren't that funny. I mean, sure you can get in some barbs on economic issues but you're not going to amuse anyone...not many people find jokes about deficit spending all that amusing.

Ever hear of Larry the Cable Guy, et al. I am pretty sure that some of those guys vote Republican (fyi, this comes from a lefty). At least Ron White anyway...

I said "people".

No, you said "the conservatives". That's why I put it in quotes. Here's the post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14747611&postcount=57

Here's the relevant content, emphasis mine:

I'm myself a left-libertarian, but I still find the cons a lot better option. At least the conservatives do have the desire to accept people as they are. The 'liberals' (because they support anything but liberty) rather constantly try to bring everyone to their standards.

Care to try and misrepresent yourself again? Never mind, 'cause you followed that with this:

Not everyone is certain on why would one be doing it wrong on purpose, and whether they can feel safe that it is not an indication of being not of us.

What the hell does that mean? Doing what wrong? I claimed you're off your nut saying "conservatives accept people as they are" and mentioned alternate sexualities -- homosexuals, transgender, bisexuals, etc. -- and what you typed makes no sense in that context.

Whether "they" can feel safe about "it"? Are you so paranoid that you can't use nouns to make your posts clearer? What are you talking about?

A bit on the side of "yes" as long as they don't feel their religion to be threatened by it.

Conservatives have embraced atheists. Okay. More hookah here, please, I'm not high enough to believe this bullshit. So if I am saying the Pledge of Allegiance in a conservative crowd, and they hear me pasue while they say "Under God" (or hear me say "under dog" when I'm feeling particularly spunky) they're not immediately going to round on me and treat me differently? I know the answer, 'cause it's happened to me, but I want to hear yours. What if I decided to bring out a smudge stick and use the smoke to cleanse my seat of negative energy at the next town hall meeting instead of joining in the prayer? None of those things "threaten" the majority religion.

Yes. How huge is the rock you've been hiding under since 1850?

Okay. Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. Remember, conservatives brought us longer sentences for crimes committed overwhelmingly by minorities (drug crimes, most notably the crack laws in 1985), are against any kind of urban renewal, and sought to eliminate funding for those programs that actually help at risk students of any race stay out of trouble after school (midnight basketball and the like). They even tried to wheedle out of adequately funding the school lunch program by insisting that ketchup, the condiment, is a vegetable, and should count as one.

I also said that Parker and Stone made it clear that the show took bipartisan shots.

I know. My original dissent was agains Intestinal Fluids. Hence the IF in my second reply.

You can't have both unlimited immigration and a minimum wage (and other welfare-like stuff). Pick one.

Um...why not? Do those with brown skin not deserve a minimum wage?



Sorry for you.
-
Because they demand it to be called "marriage", rather than ask for what is actually possible.


"Actually possible"? A few states have already legalized same-sex marriage.

...A perfectly reasonable solution to the problem. A perfectly reasonable compromise that satisfies the needs of both sides.


Sorry, I do not support "separate but equal" ideas.

But the lefties don't compromise. "Communism can only be for the whole planet!", as Lenin has said (or was it another one).

What the fuck? Are you equating liberalism with communism? Because if you are, I will equate conservativism with Nazism.

The public figures have to be extreme to be elected. That's why US fake democracy sucks.

Neither Clinton nor Nixon was extreme.

I speak about your neighbours, or a student in your class, or another average guy that has voted Conservative last year.

They are not the ones that are running.

I consider a baby to be an advanced bodily fluid until it can at least pronounce its own name. If they try to control it, they are not for liberty.

It can feel pain at a certain point.

Multiple.
First and foremost, the practice, however. A simple housecat has more intelligence and personality than a newborn baby.

Well, guess what? I do not support experimentation on live house cats!

And yet, I find out that I don't really care about their "more-liberalness". I don't do last-trimester abortions, I don't go around fucking men in public, I don't do whatever else they're "more liberal" about.

What the--"fucking men in public"? Is that seriously your idea of liberal?

They, however, intend to take away the things I care very much about, like my money and my arms. The conservatives don't.

You seem to care an awful lot more about your money and your guns than do about women's or homosexuals' rights, so I have difficulty respecting you. If you do not like taxes, then you should not have voted for Reagan and Bush, who are, together, responsible for 3/4 of the nation's debt; that debt has to be paid-off.

Okay. Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. Remember, conservatives brought us longer sentences for crimes committed overwhelmingly by minorities (drug crimes, most notably the crack laws in 1985), are against any kind of urban renewal, and sought to eliminate funding for those programs that actually help at risk students of any race stay out of trouble after school (midnight basketball and the like). They even tried to wheedle out of adequately funding the school lunch program by insisting that ketchup, the condiment, is a vegetable, and should count as one.

And let us not forget dear old Reagan, the model of modern conservatism, who opposed integration of schools.

Maybe the solution to the gay marriage problem would be to take the legal contract out of marriage. That way it is only a symbolic thing that the church does. If anyone wants to be married they can go to a church and do that. But if they want all the legal rights that go with a marriage they should go over to the courthouse or wherever and get a union. It's just a theory.

You can't have both unlimited immigration and a minimum wage (and other welfare-like stuff). Pick one.

First, who wants "unlimited immigration"? Second, who benefits from low-wage workers more? Conservatives. Try again.

Sorry for you.
-
Because they demand it to be called "marriage", rather than ask for what is actually possible.

The state calls it marriage. Try again.

...A perfectly reasonable solution to the problem. A perfectly reasonable compromise that satisfies the needs of both sides.

But the lefties don't compromise. "Communism can only be for the whole planet!", as Lenin has said (or was it another one).

Yes, because all lefties are communists. Do you ever read what you type? You don't want to be lumped in with anyone, yet consistently lump everyone else as you see fit. In your own words, "pick one".

The public figures have to be extreme to be elected. That's why US fake democracy sucks.

That's the first thing you've said that I agree with.

I consider a baby to be an advanced bodily fluid until it can at least pronounce its own name. If they try to control it, they are not for liberty.

:rolleyes:

Wow. Conservatives really don't understand satire or irony, do they? That post was so completely made of fail.

And yet, I find out that I don't really care about their "more-liberalness". I don't do last-trimester abortions, I don't go around fucking men in public, I don't do whatever else they're "more liberal" about.

The fact that last-trimester abortions may be medically necessary (the record on such late-term abortions being elective is almost impossible to determine, but likely to be much less than "low") means they need to be legal and regulated.

I don't care WHO you fuck. THAT's one main difference that favors liberals. Conservatives are all about getting government off your back, but into your sex life, your literature, your movies, your TV and anywhere else they believe what you're doing is somehow sinful.

They, however, intend to take away the things I care very much about, like my money and my arms. The conservatives don't.

Conservatives don't want your money? Since when? Who did you imagine was going to pay for all the war and the prescription drug coverage under the last administration? Fairies? The only money conservatives don't want is corporate money and that belonging to the wealthiest 1%. This despite the utter failure of Reaganomics.

If "your arms" includes stuff only the military needs and not legitimate hunting, self-defense or other recreational arms, then your "arms" are safe. Your kind of paranoid propagandism is embarrassing to your cause.

What the--"fucking men in public"? Is that seriously your idea of liberal?

It's only liberal if they express mutual affection and care for each other. "Conservatives" are ashamed of it and do it in secret... like at airport bathroom stalls.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JfdauCEODEg/RtlcrmfVvbI/AAAAAAAAANc/j2kNNQpzZ94/s320/1_62_craig_larry_frontmug.jpg

And let us not forget dear old Reagan, the model of modern conservatism, who opposed integration of schools.

And spent money like it grew on trees.

And spent money like it grew on trees.

Tri-tri-tr-triple the debt combo breaker! Then his supporters whine about taxes!

Care to try and misrepresent yourself again?
I'm not misrepresenting anything. Please, read with a bit more attention.

What the hell does that mean? Doing what wrong?
Doing it wrong. We know what "it" means, don't we? It involves one woman and one man.


I claimed you're off your nut saying "conservatives accept people as they are" and mentioned alternate sexualities -- homosexuals, transgender, bisexuals, etc. -- and what you typed makes no sense in that context.
Yes. We just need to establish if they still are what the conservatives accept as they are.
Or at least that's a conservative explanation.


Conservatives have embraced atheists. Okay.
Not embraced maybe. But there's a lot of atheist Conservatives today.

Remember, conservatives brought us longer sentences for crimes committed overwhelmingly by minorities [...]
and sought to eliminate funding for those programs that actually help at risk students of any race stay out of trouble after school
Were it up to me, I'd eliminate all the tax funding for things that aren't essential. Taxes are an evil, and you need a very, very strong reason to apply them.

Don't get it wrong. I couldn't care less about race. And this time I'm absolutely honest, I really don't care. But please - don't use race as an excuse. If you come to my country, please conform to the same standards as everybody else has to. That and just that, and no other limitations to immigration. If you can't... I think this time there is one good use of tax money - we should provide one-way tickets out of the country for free.

Because they demand it to be called "marriage", rather than ask for what is actually possible.
Same-sex marriage is possible.
...A perfectly reasonable solution to the problem. A perfectly reasonable compromise that satisfies the needs of both sides.
Except its not a compromise.
"Lefty"=All people should have equal rights, including being able to marry who they want, regardless of sexuality.
Conservative=Nope, marriage is 1 man & 1 woman.
"Lefty"=Separate but equal isn't equal.
Conservative=You won't give me what I want! You're unwilling to compromise.


The public figures have to be extreme to be elected. That's why US fake democracy sucks.

I speak about your neighbours, or a student in your class, or another average guy that has voted Conservative last year.
My experience is that they parrot the party line

They, however, intend to take away the things I care very much about, like my money and my arms. The conservatives don't.
The conservatives were taking your money as well.

Were it up to me, I'd eliminate all the tax funding for things that aren't essential. Taxes are an evil, and you need a very, very strong reason to apply them.

You could start with the military budget.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/discretionaryfy05b.gif

I just posted one of the greatest thoughts I ever had on the last page and it totally got ignored. :(

I just posted one of the greatest thoughts I ever had on the last page and it totally got ignored. :(

Does anyone else hear static? :p

Does anyone else hear static? :p

I guess you weren't joking when you said you were offended by my post. That made me temporarily forget my swine flu fears tho. Nicely said.

Except its not a compromise.
"Lefty"=All people should have equal rights, including being able to marry who they want, regardless of sexuality.
Conservative=Nope, marriage is 1 man & 1 woman.
"Lefty"=Separate but equal isn't equal.
Conservative=You won't give me what I want! You're unwilling to compromise.
No.
What the conservatives want is for the homosexuality to be cured, and engaging in gay sex to be a crime like it used to.
What the liberals want is for two men pounding each other's butt to get the same privileges as a healthy family, even though they clearly aren't, and though a child requires parents of both genders to grow up properly.

Civil union, then, is more than a generous compromise on the conservatives' part, as it's exactly what the liberals want, only with another name, so that it can at least look like a compromise.

Decriminalizing homosexuality - that was a fair compromise.

Maybe the solution to the gay marriage problem would be to take the legal contract out of marriage. That way it is only a symbolic thing that the church does. If anyone wants to be married they can go to a church and do that. But if they want all the legal rights that go with a marriage they should go over to the courthouse or wherever and get a union. It's just a theory.

I think this person may have gotten it right.

Maybe the solution to the gay marriage problem would be to take the legal contract out of marriage. That way it is only a symbolic thing that the church does. If anyone wants to be married they can go to a church and do that. But if they want all the legal rights that go with a marriage they should go over to the courthouse or wherever and get a union. It's just a theory.

I had that idea long ago. For the most part, it seems that both liberals and conservatives want marriage to remain a legal term.

Boring troll is boring. Honestly, V10, don't you ever get tired of posting nonsense just to annoy people?

You could start with the military budget.

Yes. Defense - that's what is most essential. Science, education, veteran support, highly justified.

BTW your chart is discretionary budget. That is, spending that the gov't considers optional and non-essential. In the total federal budget, defense is a mere 20%, despite being the only good reason for having a federal government rather than 50 independent countries.

No.
What the conservatives want is for the homosexuality to be cured, and engaging in gay sex to be a crime like it used to.

Ya see? They ain't "fringe groups" like you said.

Boring troll is boring. Honestly, V10, don't you ever get tired of posting nonsense just to annoy people?

Aw damn and I thought you were going to rip the post to pieces. What a let down.

Yes. Defense - that's what is most essential. Science, education, veteran support, highly justified.

BTW your chart is discretionary budget. That is, spending that the gov't considers optional and non-essential. In the total federal budget, defense is a mere 20%, despite being the only good reason for having a federal government rather than 50 independent countries.

Actually, it is 37.6%, if we count Social Security (which is just a Government-run insurance program).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

I had that idea long ago. For the most part, it seems that both liberals and conservatives want marriage to remain a legal term.

Really. Is that all that is holding back this solution? Why do you want to keep marriage a legal term when it is religous? Isn't that not seperating church and state?

Boring troll is boring. Honestly, V10, don't you ever get tired of posting nonsense just to annoy people?

Well, Poli, there are plenty of persons in U.S. who hold his opinions. I think he is what is generally called a "centralist".

Really. Is that all that is holding back this solution? Why do you want to keep marriage a legal term when it is religous? Isn't that not seperating church and state?

I made a thread about that a long time ago: they do not want it. A fine idea, but unsupported by the majority, though a few like it (greed and death, for example).

I'm not misrepresenting anything. Please, read with a bit more attention.

Wow. I quoted you DIRECTLY, and you still deny what you, yourself, typed. I give you points for chutzpah, I guess.

Doing it wrong. We know what "it" means, don't we? It involves one woman and one man.

What? Dancing? Playing tennis? You're already on record as thinking homosexuality can be cured. Your post still made no sense. Keep trying, though, it's amusing. Knid of.

Not embraced maybe. But there's a lot of atheist Conservatives today.

Oh really? Show me some. Stand behind that assertion. If you can.

Were it up to me, I'd eliminate all the tax funding for things that aren't essential. Taxes are an evil, and you need a very, very strong reason to apply them.

I don't think we need to know what you'd do "if it were up to you", 'cause you'd start with eliminating fags, you're clear about that. We don't need to hear what's next.

Don't get it wrong. I couldn't care less about race. And this time I'm absolutely honest, I really don't care. But please - don't use race as an excuse. If you come to my country, please conform to the same standards as everybody else has to. That and just that, and no other limitations to immigration. If you can't... I think this time there is one good use of tax money - we should provide one-way tickets out of the country for free.

I see, so it's conform completely or GTFO. Yup, that's a "melting pot" alright. You don't need me, pal, you're sinking yourself.

Well, Poli, there are plenty of persons in U.S. who hold his opinions. I think he is what is generally called a "centralist".

Hey I take offense to that. I don't believe in that and I am a political moderate.

Really. Is that all that is holding back this solution? Why do you want to keep marriage a legal term when it is religous?

Because it's not.

Because it's not.

Really? wow did not know that.

Hey I take offense to that. I don't believe in that and I am a political moderate.

A moderate by your definition, maybe, but not by general consensus. Moderates tend to be for civil unions, but are against same-sex marriage; for legal abortion only when the woman's life is at stake; anti-immigration...or so I read in Reader's Digest.

Um...why not? Do those with brown skin not deserve a minimum wage?
Nobody "deserves" a minimum wage. People earn their wage or not earn it. It doesn't matter what color they are. If they can provide for themselves, they may enter. If they can't, they should leave.


Sorry, I do not support "separate but equal" ideas.
"Separate but equal" is such a hypocrite term.

It tries to compare things with segregation that clearly aren't anything like it.
Segregation was a form of racism, by intending to force blacks into reservations.

Civil union concept is nothing like that.
Let's take a look.
1. One man, one woman.
2. Two men.
Are these different things? Yes. Inherently different? Yes. Functionally different? Yes, men can't give birth. So why shouldn't we have two different terms to tell one from another?


It can feel pain at a certain point.
So can a calf. Yet it's legal to slaughter and eat it.


You seem to care an awful lot more about your money and your guns than do about women's or homosexuals' rights,
Don't see what this has to do with women.

Yes, I most certainly do care way more about the right to my guns, which is an actual right, that I actually execute, and that actually affects my life, than I care about the homosexuals having to just use a new legal term for their couples.

Really? wow did not know that.

Marriage existed long before any of the major world religions did. The fact that religions choose to use the term too doesn't mean it belongs to them - that honestly makes about as much sense as declaring that because wine is an element of Christian ritual, wine is now inherently Christian and alcoholic beverages made from distilled grapes NOT being served in a church should be referred to as "civil boozes."

A moderate by your definition, maybe, but not by general consensus. Moderates tend to be for civil unions, but are against same-sex marriage; for legal abortion only when the woman's life is at stake; anti-immigration...or so I read in Reader's Digest.

Well alot of those issues I sit on the fence because I have no idea what is right but I think illegal immagrints are great for the economy.

Reader's Digest is a good magazine.

Nobody "deserves" a minimum wage. People earn their wage or not earn it. It doesn't matter what color they are. If they can provide for themselves, they may enter. If they can't, they should leave.

Industrial Revolution FTW?

"Separate but equal" is such a hypocrite term.

It tries to compare things with segregation that clearly aren't anything like it.
Segregation was a form of racism, by intending to force blacks into reservations.

Civil union concept is nothing like that.
Let's take a look.
1. One man, one woman.
2. Two men.
Are these different things? Yes. Inherently different? Yes. Functionally different? Yes, men can't give birth. So why shouldn't we have two different terms to tell one from another?

Should sterile women not be allowed to marry men?

So can a calf. Yet it's legal to slaughter and eat it.

You are losing me, Pal: I am vegetarian.

If you think infants have no reasonable consciousness, then why are you against late-term abortions?

Don't see what this has to do with women.

Ya support politicians who are anti-women's rights (Reagan).

Yes, I most certainly do care way more about the right to my guns, which is an actual right, that I actually execute, and that actually affects my life, than I care about the homosexuals having to just use a new legal term for their couples.

See, I actually do support your right to bear arms, whereas you do not appear to care a fig for homosexuals. I am liberal, you are not, and I personally think you give a bad name to all Libertarians.

Marriage existed long before any of the major world religions did.

Yes, but more as a form of slavery, except with some precious few peoples (some Native American tribes).

With the control that Unions have I don't see why minimum wage can't be reduced/abolished.

as much sense as declaring that because wine is an element of Christian ritual, wine is now inherently Christian and alcoholic beverages made from distilled grapes NOT being served in a church should be referred to as "civil boozes."
Yes, but calling that stuff "civil boozes" isn't a big deal either. A much lesser deal than say a ban on alcohol sale during night hours. I'll take the former over the latter any time of the day, any minute of the hour.


A moderate by your definition, maybe, but not by general consensus. Moderates tend to be for civil unions, but are against same-sex marriage; for legal abortion only when the woman's life is at stake; anti-immigration...or so I read in Reader's Digest.
Actually, I'm for same-sex, or interspecies, or other marriage. And for calling it what you like. And I'm actually for abortion, including early post-birth termination. And for marijuana. And for a lot of other stuff.

It's just that I'm for it on a much lower level than I am for rights that actually matter, like that to self-defense. I can easily live without buttcocks, unprotected sex and pot. Probably longer, too. Not so much without my guns and my money.

Industrial Revolution FTW?
Yes, FTW. So?


Should sterile women not be allowed to marry men?
If they don't have a vagina, or the tits, and aren't even women at all anyway, and they're still allowed to marry men or women or bulls, but have to call it "cherriage", I have no problem with it.


If you think infants have no reasonable consciousness, then why are you against late-term abortions?
I'm not, I'm for them actually. Well, not as in for them, but for having them permitted.


See, I actually do support your right to bear arms, whereas you do not appear to care a fig for homosexuals. I am liberal, you are not, and I personally think you give a bad name to all Libertarians.
No, I care for them, a bit. It's just that my life is more important to me than the vocabulary of all homosexuals combined by a factor of infinity. Therefore, I'll apply a relative weighing factor of infinity to one when choosing between keeping my guns and having homosexuals call their coupling "marriage".

Really? wow did not know that.

Captain Obvious invades the thread.

Captain Obvious invades the thread.

Who me? Why does everyone I know keep calling me that... :p

And Colbert isn't at least left leaning? I'd still like to see the same study done with listening to Limbaugh AND the one that you've suggested.

Time to go to work. CUL8R

Limbaugh is not usually being satirical. He means all the batshit crazy stuff he says so the study would not be examining equals.

The fucking birth control doesn't do fucking squat to stop them fucking, and the kids have no fucking business fucking.

Neither does the ramming abstinence down their throats. Actually, the rates show that sexual activity is higher when abstinence only programs are in place. If you can't stop them from fucking (and you won't) why not make it less likely for them to get diseases or have pregnancy occur. So unless this is a joke you just proved the point.

Neither does the ramming abstinence down their throats. Actually, the rates show that sexual activity is higher when abstinence only programs are in place. If you can't stop them from fucking (and you won't) why not make it less likely for them to get diseases or have pregnancy occur. So unless this is a joke you just proved the point.
This f. one was a f. joke as f. evidenced by the f. prevalence of the f. word "f."

This f. one was a f. joke as f. evidenced by the f. prevalence of the f. word "f."

Fucking wonderful then! :)

Well, Poli, there are plenty of persons in U.S. who hold his opinions. I think he is what is generally called a "centralist".

They're not self-admitted trolls.

I never have understood the Conservative lack of capacity for humor. I've almost given up sending jokes to one Conservative friend of mine because he constantly returns them with an in depth analysis of the truth contained in them attached.

Have you ever heard the phrase "it's funny because it's true?"

Well, to get a joke it has to appeal to something that you recognize as true. If you think that scientists are the sort of people that don't have common sense, and only know things that they learn out of a spec manual, then you're going to think that the "why don't they make the whole plane out of the black box?" joke is funny because it demonstrates the superiority of the uneducated over the educated. If you're not an idiot and you think that the comedian is being sincere then you're not going to think its funny because it doesn't appeal to what you know is true. If you think that the comedian is being ironic then you may find it funny because then he's mocking the idea of the uneducated being wiser than the educated.

Also, humor works by changing what you're thinking. Conservatives can't change what they're thinking. This means that any joke that requires you to shift perspectives is completely beyond them and why conservative humor consists mostly of saying nasty things about people they don't like (like aeronautics engineers and other people who think that knowledge comes from reality not faith).

Take this scene from Coupling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S7EnTOK4Ro) for example. To get the humor of this show you have to be able to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time. The young guy is talking about masturbating. The old couple is talking about whistling. If you insist on thinking that this is a conversation about whistling, then you're going to think that the young guy is an idiot.

That's why conservatives don't get jokes and they don't get life. They can only see things from their own point of view. It's why they constantly accuse other people of doing things that they themselves are doing. They can't accept the idea that for a lot of things it's not about who's right and who's wrong. For a lot of things there is no right and wrong. Life can be confusing, and you just have to learn to be OK with that and play it for laughs.

They're not self-admitted trolls.

We have had some good ones over the years.

The Right Wing is incapable of pulling off satire.

Huh? I thought Fox News was doing a dahm good job at it ...

Huh? I thought Fox News was doing a dahm good job at it ...

When it comes to unintentional irony, they are masters.

When they attempt satire you get this abomination (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCl_--E3T2c).

When it comes to unintentional irony, they are masters.

When they attempt satire you get this abomination (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCl_--E3T2c).

That was actually somewhat better than it looked like it would be.

When it comes to unintentional irony, they are masters.

When they attempt satire you get this abomination (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCl_--E3T2c).

Oh Lord. I needed to be reminded of that like I need a chyme and tonic.

Ohio State University recently published a study (http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/212) on how political bias affects perception of the show The Colbert Report. The abstract for the study:



I am still reading the complete study, but I found the conclusions described in the abstract to be hilarious. Is that why conservative Congressmen agree to be interviewed on the Colbert Report? Do they not realize they are the butt of Stephen Colbert's jokes?

As a conservative that actually is aware of the world around him, I knew from the beginning that Colbert was satirizing conservatives (and, admittedly, he does it extremely well. I don't care if someone makes fun of conservatives as long as it's funny.) due to his previous work with the Daily Show, which tends to have a left-leaning bent.

This makes me embarassed for my fellow conservatives.

*snip

"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye."

Civil union, then, is more than a generous compromise on the conservatives' part, as it's exactly what the liberals want, only with another name, so that it can at least look like a compromise.


You know what, I want to put this too the test. I want someone to put forward a bill offering federally mandated civil partnerships on the same terms as happened in a lot of Europe when they came out - ie identical rights, including adoption, partental responsibility, immigration, insurance, the whole lot. Basically copy/paste of the marriage legislation with the word Marriage replaced with Civil Partnership. Then I want to see how many conservatives actually support this.

My bet is not very many, they'll um and ah and make up some excuse but the vaste majority won't want this because it still legitimised gay relationships and they know that within a few years everyone will be calling it marriage despite whatever it actually says on the certificate.

With the control that Unions have I don't see why minimum wage can't be reduced/abolished.

Yet it seems to me the Unions in the US are quite dichotomous, some industries, places they do have complete control, in others there effectively are no unions. Trouble is the workplaces with no unions, and there are a lot (hell a lot of places you can get fired for even joining one), are the ones that really need the minimum wage laws. So no, I wouldn't leave it to the Unions unless Union regulations are drastically reviewed.

Limbaugh is not usually being satirical. He means all the batshit crazy stuff he says so the study would not be examining equals.

Makes a good 'control' case though - can you actually tell when someone is being seriously batshit crazy or do you automatically think that that much crazy must be satire.

Makes a good 'control' case though - can you actually tell when someone is being seriously batshit crazy or do you automatically think that that much crazy must be satire.
Even if Limbaugh was being satirical, he knows that his listeners believe the batshit crazy stuff he says so he never drops the satire. At which point it would stop being satire and would be him being batshit insane.

Even if Limbaugh was being satirical, he knows that his listeners believe the batshit crazy stuff he says so he never drops the satire. At which point it would stop being satire and would be him being batshit insane.

This is the trouble - Limbaugh is too well know (tbh I would have thought Colbert was, but there you go). Still using someone like him is useful - you always need to have a control case. In this case it would be comparing perceptions of genuine satire against non-satire of similar political extremity. In other words testing Poe's law.

You know what, I want to put this too the test. I want someone to put forward a bill offering federally mandated civil partnerships on the same terms as happened in a lot of Europe when they came out - ie identical rights, including adoption, partental responsibility, immigration, insurance, the whole lot. Basically copy/paste of the marriage legislation with the word Marriage replaced with Civil Partnership. Then I want to see how many conservatives actually support this.

My bet is not very many, they'll um and ah and make up some excuse but the vaste majority won't want this because it still legitimised gay relationships and they know that within a few years everyone will be calling it marriage despite whatever it actually says on the certificate.
Exactly. That's why civil unions are a compromise. They're far from "what the conservatives want" (as one poster said), and close to a dignified surrender for the Reps.

Getting worked up about the official use of the term "marriage" is silly.
Marriage, garriage, larriage, carriage... what's in the name.

Exactly. That's why civil unions are a compromise. They're far from "what the conservatives want" (as one poster said), and close to a dignified surrender for the Reps.

Getting worked up about the official use of the term "marriage" is silly.
Marriage, garriage, larriage, carriage... what's in the name.

By that token, why worry about what gays call it, then? It's a coin. Two sides.

Sadly that rarely works. Hard to find well-informed audience at most forums that deserve trolling.

I have a couple "silver bullets" - well-tested short trolling texts, that in a few days produce 'friends-only' closure of blogs, '+v-only' closure of IRC channels, outrage at forums, people leaving for good after a small IM/PM conversation, and otherwise most severe damage possible. And I have yet to see a place not react to any of these or at least anyone to tell others they're being trolled.

Of course, that's exactly why they are so highly regarded. But still it's always a surprise. You get to know a few people, you get them to know your beliefs, you teach them how to deal with trolls, you start to think highly of their intelligence, and then, in some blog, channel or board, you shoot a copypasta that's everything against all your well-known beliefs, and these people just fall clueless prey to it.

TG me some. I'd be interested to see these "silver bullets".

By that token, why worry about what gays call it, then? It's a coin. Two sides.

Maybe we should abolish the word marriage and then follow my previous suggestion.

I guess you weren't joking when you said you were offended by my post. That made me temporarily forget my swine flu fears tho. Nicely said.
Actually I was just giving you a hard time, I honestly don't recall what you are referring to...

No.
What the conservatives want is for the homosexuality to be cured, and engaging in gay sex to be a crime like it used to.
Well, then Conservatives want something that isn't possible, since Homosexuality is not a disease.
What the liberals want is for two men pounding each other's butt to get the same privileges as a healthy family, even though they clearly aren't, and though a child requires parents of both genders to grow up properly.
Care to provide proof of either one of these claims?
Civil union, then, is more than a generous compromise on the conservatives' part, as it's exactly what the liberals want, only with another name, so that it can at least look like a compromise.
No, actually it's not the same thing.
Decriminalizing homosexuality - that was a fair compromise.
Hardly