The Oldiesfreak Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts III

[traininthedistance]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=175256.msg3771593
HockeyDudes posts in particular

Sexism is alive and well on Atlas, as usual.

I was being sexist?  How?  I made no gender distinctions.  Never heard the term "man whore" or seen the Rob Schneider movie?

More moralistic new left nonsense that can be safely ignored, don't worry.

So basic respect and thoughtfulness is "moralistic new left nonsense" now?  What?

[traininthedistance]

This will sound harsh but it's absolutely true and meant as a constructive criticism; the "a few families control all the" resources/banks/industries/media etc. line of rhetoric is essentially a dog-whistle for "Jews."  It's literally a sentence that could come right out of a KKK pamphlet circa 1920 (even back then such types often even used the "a few families" euphemism).

Now, I'm NOT accusing you of intentionally using dog-whistle language, just as most Republicans who talk about felons and welfare queens are truly not even aware that blacks might find that offensive.  Nevertheless, it's something I think a lot of left-wingers (and "populist" libertarians often even more so) do a little too often for comfort.

Similarly, why is it that Goldman Sachs is always the bank that is singled out for denunciation, even though it is one of the smallest of the major investment banks and had the least to do with the financial crisis?  Well, it's an appeal to the listener's subconscious biases.  If you mention the far larger and more culpable Citigroup or Bank of America, they might subconsciously wonder what you have against cities or America, whereas Goldman Sachs sure sounds like a coven of hook-nosed money-grubbers.

(Note: None of this is to imply I am a fan of Goldman Sachs or third-world corruption).

I hate to agree with wormy on anything... but he's actually quite correct here.  Talking about "a few families" controlling stuff is in fact a well-worn anti-Semitic dog-whistle, whether you can (or want to) hear it or not.  Sorry, bud.

[traininthedistance]

This will sound harsh but it's absolutely true and meant as a constructive criticism; the "a few families control all the" resources/banks/industries/media etc. line of rhetoric is essentially a dog-whistle for "Jews."  It's literally a sentence that could come right out of a KKK pamphlet circa 1920 (even back then such types often even used the "a few families" euphemism).

Now, I'm NOT accusing you of intentionally using dog-whistle language, just as most Republicans who talk about felons and welfare queens are truly not even aware that blacks might find that offensive.  Nevertheless, it's something I think a lot of left-wingers (and "populist" libertarians often even more so) do a little too often for comfort.

Similarly, why is it that Goldman Sachs is always the bank that is singled out for denunciation, even though it is one of the smallest of the major investment banks and had the least to do with the financial crisis?  Well, it's an appeal to the listener's subconscious biases.  If you mention the far larger and more culpable Citigroup or Bank of America, they might subconsciously wonder what you have against cities or America, whereas Goldman Sachs sure sounds like a coven of hook-nosed money-grubbers.

(Note: None of this is to imply I am a fan of Goldman Sachs or third-world corruption).

I hate to agree with wormy on anything... but he's actually quite correct here.  Talking about "a few families" controlling stuff is in fact a well-worn anti-Semitic dog-whistle, whether you can (or want to) hear it or not.  Sorry, bud.

So acknowledging wealth centralisation and its effects under capitalism is immediately filed under anti-Semitism because racists use it as an argument for something else? I suppose we can't acknowledge that our politicians are lobbied by powerful interests either, lest we wish to be compared to the jews-rule-the-world crew. Don't be absurd.

No, you just need to find phrasing that doesn't have that sort of ugly subtext and baggage.  It's not that hard, really.

[traininthedistance]

Yeah, this, too. (I admittedly don't care as much about #4 as many folks here, but I recognize that it is an inconsistency.  The best news on that particular front, sadly, has been sequestration.)  Point #3, in particular, is why I take more of a moderate hero position when it comes to many public sector labor issues- I would rather, just for example, the MTA do what's in the best interest of its millions upon millions of straphangers than do exactly what the TWU wants, which can at times be inefficient and misguided.  

Emphasis mine. Can't let those silly unions fight for the rights of what it is their members want/need. Better just to leave their care to the enlightened bureaucrats! UNLESS YOU HATE THE POOR THAT IS!!!1111one1

Nowhere did I say that they should not fight for their members; I fully support collective bargaining rights.  What I do not support is the idea of unconditional solidarity: there are some ideas that are just demonstrably terrible, and if implemented would absolutely hurt poor people- people who rely on public services to live their lives.  Your nuance-free temper tantrum here is a perfect example of what Averroes was talking about in that thread- there is a serious internal contradiction in your thinking, one that could be resolved by admitting even just a couple shades of gray.

[traininthedistance]

Yeah, this, too. (I admittedly don't care as much about #4 as many folks here, but I recognize that it is an inconsistency.  The best news on that particular front, sadly, has been sequestration.)  Point #3, in particular, is why I take more of a moderate hero position when it comes to many public sector labor issues- I would rather, just for example, the MTA do what's in the best interest of its millions upon millions of straphangers than do exactly what the TWU wants, which can at times be inefficient and misguided.  

Emphasis mine. Can't let those silly unions fight for the rights of what it is their members want/need. Better just to leave their care to the enlightened bureaucrats! UNLESS YOU HATE THE POOR THAT IS!!!1111one1

Nowhere did I say that they should not fight for their members; I fully support collective bargaining rights.  What I do not support is the idea of unconditional solidarity: there are some ideas that are just demonstrably terrible, and if implemented would absolutely hurt poor people- people who rely on public services to live their lives.  Your nuance-free temper tantrum here is a perfect example of what Averroes was talking about in that thread- there is a serious internal contradiction in your thinking, one that could be resolved by admitting even just a couple shades of gray.

Conditional solidarity is not solidarity. It's as if you're telling your telling your husband or your wife that you'll stay true to them, unless of course they're just plain wrong about something. Good grief.

It's... not anything like that, at all.  Not least because it is possible, believe it or not, to disagree with someone you care about, and do so without abandoning them.  (And, of course, it needs to be possible to leave someone if they get bad enough- if I was Bernie Madoff's wife, I'd divorce him ASAP no matter what pledges I made in the past.  An extreme example, but surely you get the idea.)  And it is not just possible, but I would think required.  If you really love someone, then you need to be willing to call them out when they're making mistakes, and vice versa.

And, of course, there are also cases where unconditional solidarity is a logical impossibility.  To extend the family analogy, what if your wife makes one demand, and your parents make the exact opposite demand?  Who do you stand with?  Or, say, to bring this back to unions... let's say you have a Border Patrol union that demands no amnesty and an armed-to-the-teeth fence, while on the other hand you have a union of service workers that is heavily minority, and thus recognizes the interests of its own workers, and agitates for amnesty and a humane border regime?  No matter what position you take, it's impossible to stand with every union. 

[traininthedistance]

Context:

Somebody got talked smack to on the internet. Whatever.

[traininthedistance]

Now here's a REALLY bad one:

BREAKING: Southern Republicans still super racist.

Someone's never heard of Simpson's paradox.

You do realize that Northern Democrats were more likely to vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Northern Republicans, and that Southern Democrats voted for that same bill in greater ratios than Southern Republicans?

According to Wikipedia:

In the House, Southern Republicans were 100 percent against said bill, and Northern Democrats were 94 percent in favor.  Just sayin' (not that you'll listen).  And in the Senate, the only "Northern" Democrat to vote against was Robert Byrd, who I don't really think counts as Northern.

[traininthedistance]

Et tu, Nathan?

The one who's ideology doesn't involve killing me and my family for the sake of revolution.

You cannot say such horrible things of Groucho, the most influential thinker in History.

The fact that you think Karl Marx is the most influential thinker in historyis absurdity and ignorance in its own right.

You know perfectly that only Jesus Christ is comparable to Karl Groucho Marx in influence. Another question is if you are not willing to admit the simple fact.

Quite true.  Groucho Marx is quite obviously the one shining beacon by which all other great men of history are judged, and the fact that people are even debating this is a sad commentary on not just their judgment, but their very reading comprehension.

[traininthedistance]

Ugh. Is he really this desperate for attention?

Poor Manning. Poor America.

That's not even the worst thing in that thread, this is:

This might be just a ploy to try and serve out his sentence in a women's prison.

[traininthedistance]

Jesus Christ guys, I was not being serious with that post. Kind of a poor taste joke, sure, but I think the Bad Post/Absurd part was pronoun I used, which was unfortunate but entirely unintentional - I imagine it will take me a while to get used to referring to Manning as 'her' etc.

I've got very little respect for Manning in general, sure, but I'd like to think however bad my posts may be I'm not known for uniroincally posting bro-ish conspiracy theories about why people have gender identity issues.

Good to know. 

I should recalibrate my defective irony-meter- Poe's Law is a bitch sometimes.

[traininthedistance]

Why must it become political issue though, if she doesn't want it to?

So annoying.

And yeah, I figured Oakvale was trying to make a joke.

Yes, but people 'spoke' first and thought second. I was worried he was going to end up getting lynched.

If you were actually reading this thread and not just falling back on a ridiculous victimization complex (which ironically the people who complain about "tumblr victimolgists" have far more than those they complain about), you'd notice that everyone who posted here was actually not angry at oakvale.

God you're insufferable. The person who posted it in this thread called it the 'worst thing in the thread' and it took Oakvale to come in here and set the record straight.

Yeah... sorry for being an idiot, everyone.  I don't think I'm normally that reading-comprehension-challenged.  Tho maybe I am, feel free to unload.

[traininthedistance]

I should also mention that a lot of ignorant/absurd/horrible things that get said are often the result of obliviousness or ignorance rather than active malice, and I do think it's best to assume a lack of active malice from most everyone, most of the time- and furthermore, to realize that defensiveness regarding one's not-very-deeply-considered beliefs is both very common and still not a marker of active malice.  Of course, said defensiveness should be pointed out and challenged- but perhaps in a way that does not attempt to automatically taint the entire person as an HP?

I should probably remember this more often, myself.

[traininthedistance]

Should we rig the forum up with virtual balloons and horns, and give General Mung Beens a check for finding the single most absurd, ignorant, and bad post ever?

At the very least we should name this thread after Cory.

[traininthedistance]

Anyway, I gather that the Pub nominee is the mayor of Bogota. It would be nice to have two Hispanic senators in my birth state.

[traininthedistance]

what is so bad about the "Bell Curve". It's not like they're using racial epithets or anything.

[traininthedistance]

Death to Chicago-style pizza.

Literally the worst post ever.

The only thing even remotely arguable about Scott's post is granting that... whatever it is... the unearned indulgence of the name "pizza".  Like I said, "misnamed tomato casserole" is the best title it deserves.

[traininthedistance]

What about a nice gluten-free LA-style pizza with low-fat part-skim cheese, no-sugar-added sauce, and a single basil leaf baked on the top?

Good sauce doesn't need sugar, and fresh basil leaves are always welcome, even if you have to be stingy with them.

But... gluten-free?  For pizza??!?

[traininthedistance]

Far too generous to the so called Israelis.

The bolded part is, of course, the problem here.  And hoo boy what a problem.

[traininthedistance]

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

Terrible parts in bold.

I'm aware that my specific proposal regarding the driving age is more idealistic than practical, and I'd be happy to have an open discussion about that- keeping in mind, of course, that "automobile ownership" and "mobility" are far from the same thing.  (I'm aware that this point is not obvious to many- and the fact that it is so obscured is the first problem we have to tackle.)

But it is an indisputable fact that cars are indeed deadly machinery (more deadly than firearms in fact), and thus need to be regulated and restricted to protect the life and limb of both its operators and victims.

[traininthedistance]

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

Terrible parts in bold.

I'm aware that my specific proposal regarding the driving age is more idealistic than practical, and I'd be happy to have an open discussion about that- keeping in mind, of course, that "automobile ownership" and "mobility" are far from the same thing.  (I'm aware that this point is not obvious to many- and the fact that it is so obscured is the first problem we have to tackle.)

But it is an indisputable fact that cars are indeed deadly machinery (more deadly than firearms in fact), and thus need to be regulated and restricted to protect the life and limb of both its operators and victims.

The main problem here is you are basically forcing people to live with their parents until 21 unless not in college, especially as a learner's permit is basically worthless unless you live with your parents. I'd have no choice but to go home every summer in college until I was 21.

Considering how interested in improving public transit traininthedistance is I think he's probably already contemplated that and has long-term solutions in mind, although if one raised the driving age first that would be the short-term result, yeah.

I'm aware that a number of long-term solutions would be necessary to improve mobility for teenagers and other classes of people that can't or won't drive (the disabled, the elderly, the poor, younger children, the conscientious objectors, etc. etc. etc.).  But- those solutions are already desperately necessary, and the short-term results alluded to here are vastly oversold in any case.  If history is any guide, any proposed restriction on driving (of any kind) tends to attract vehement, nasty, unhinged opposition and cries of doom... but when/if it goes through, nothing bad happens, and things are often better than before (very often even for drivers- which it must be emphasized again should not be identified with the populace as a whole).  So it's a bit of a Chicken Little attitude, as far as I'm concerned.

[traininthedistance]

I still have yet to hear how it'd be possible for me to live away from home during the summers until I was 21 though

Well, depends where you live.  I know there are places where people manage it; I'll grant that we need to do more to improve mobility in areas where that's not the case.

or how I could learn how to drive living so far away from my parents with a learner's permit even if I got such a job.

While it's certainly easier and more convenient to learn driving from one's parents, it doesn't follow that having to learn on one's own is impossible, or that there wouldn't be ample resources for doing so wherever you lived- especially if you're in an area where cars are more necessary.  Otherwise nobody whose parents didn't drive would ever have picked it up.

Or how I'd be able to travel to Minneapolis and Sioux Falls while in college to go to all the shows I did.

[traininthedistance]

The black community has turned a disgusting word with a horrid past that was used to demean them into a word of strange pride and unity amongst a certain segment of the population. I see no problem with this.

Name another group of people in America that constantly refers to other people of that group in racial terms, forget the racial epithet part.  We don't have Chinese people saying, "Hello my Chinese-American friend," to each other all the time.  It's just weird to constantly reference race and turn the normal descriptive word for a person into a very loaded, racial descriptor.  I think that promotes a worldview that puts black folks as separate from the rest of society and distinctly inferior and degraded.  

And, yeah, I realize I'm automatically racist for having opinions about a group of people I don't belong to.

There's obviously no comparison in severity... but many folks where I grew up were proud to self-identify as "guidos", but don't you dare call them that yourself unless you're a friend.

Marginalized out-groups have reclaimed slurs against them since time immemorial, it's a natural coping mechanism and, no, I don't personally feel it's right to police that coming from a position of privilege.  "Another group of people" would be, I assume, most of them.

ETA: What's your opinion of gay men using the f-word to refer to each other?

[traininthedistance]

The guido thing is neither here nor there for me.  It's not really a similar word, but if people used it in the same way, I would have similar problems.  For me, the more similar situation is gay people and the word f****t.  Some gay people will use f****t similarly to the n-word, in the sense of reclaiming it.  I find that similarly problematic.   

And, again, I don't buy into the racial boundary here.  Some people like using that word and they have some valid reasons I'm sure.  Let them defend their use of language on its own terms.  I think language matters and it's something we all ought to think about and consider for ourselves. 

Well, I don't really agree but I'm glad you're consistent at least.

[traininthedistance]

Not to pull the black friend card, but we're all part of a multitude of communities.  I have black coworkers, friends, acquaintances, neighbors and members of my family.  I don't fully understand the black experience, as they don't fully understand mine.  But, white and black people share families, cities, neighborhoods and the world.  That being the case, we need to be able to share opinions and worldviews as well.  The "blacks' own good" is absolutely my business as the "whites' own good" is theirs.  I'm sorry if that sounds racist, because I'm pretty sure it isn't.

I understand where people are coming from with the pro-racial boundary, pro- n-word camp.  This type of conversation can turn into this one-way dialogue lecturing black people about bad they are, like it does on Fox News.  I'm sensitive to that and how unhelpful it can be.  But, I think I'm making a valid point and I'm not making it as an attack on black people.  I honestly find  the leftist attempt to protect the black community from anything that seems like criticism to be unhelpful and patronizing.

I don't think that any community or culture should consider itself immune from criticism... but this particular criticism is, I think, off-base and unwarranted.

It's great that you have black friends. So do I. You do share a lot of things with them; what you don't share is being defined by your race.

If we can borrow a term from linguistics, whiteness is unmarked; it's the default, and so it's not significant to a white person's identity. Because of that, being white is not analogous to being black, and the parallels you try to draw between not fully understanding the black experience and black people not understanding yours don't work. There is no white experience for black people to understand; white people have no distinct common culture or identity. That's why there's no white equivalent to the N-word; you can pass judgment on black people for using it, but black people can't pass judgment on you, because you're not a member of a marginalized group that would possess such a word.

IIRC bedstuy is gay and so there is an equivalent he would be able to use if he so chooses (the f-word), but which he disapproves of from the "inside".  I know that this probably sounds a little too much like diversity bingo- but hearing that he disapproves of his own group's slur does give me some measure of confidence that he's at least arguing in good faith, even if I don't agree.

[traininthedistance]

Wow:

Yet another "white people are pure evil" movie made by Jewish Hollywood.