The Lief Reservoir of Simple Truths and Smart One-Liners

[YaBoyNY]

I've never quite understood why criticizing Christianity is often met with pictures/gifs of fat guys wearing fedoras.  But then I typically understand only 45% or so of internet memes.

i mean, there's a difference between "criticizing" christianity and calling it an "unfunny, played out joke". but of course you wouldn't understand that.

Describing, say, the Republican Party the same way around here might merit a repost in the Comedy Goldmine*, but mocking Christianity gets... a fat guy in a fedora?  The Atlas forum is an odd amalgamation of cynical bastards willing to make biting stabs at every facet of modern society, but take aim at this country's most sacred institution, and suddenly you're... a fat guy in a fedora, for some reason.  I guess I don't get it.


* might

It's because, across the internet, you'll find two types of Atheists. The reasonable, normal human beings who can understand that many people choose to have faith, respect that fact, and when debating a religious person, do so in a normal way.

Then there is the neckbeard fedora-tipper who typically uses arguments such as "religious people are indoctrinated slave sheeple" or "Why can't religious people learn to think for themselves and not follow some sky fairy? Let me cleverly use this Richard Dawkins quote that I always copy and paste in arguments like this so I can show those religious people how to think for themselves!"

The latter tend to be criticized because they almost always come off as worse than whatever they're criticizing.

[Alcon]

Yeah, it's a good thing that people don't constantly talk that way about political orientation, sports, and literally everything else that people disagree over.

Seriously, I'm with Joe.  It's such a weird attack to me, considering that Christians are frequently hugely dismissive of atheists and yet I generally don't see people presuming that pithy criticisms of atheism are try-hardism (or whatever the fedora thing is supposed to represent).  Is it because one behavior is more "socially weird"?  If so, that's a terrible reason.

It just seems self-evident that uncommon beliefs (<5% of the population), no matter how correct they may be, will be disproportionately held by kooks.  I don't get the point of mocking that.  Isn't it more of a problem when people with widespread beliefs behave dismissively like that?  If so, why is the presumption of try-hardism disproportionately levied at the uncommon beliefs?  Isn't dismissing people who express uncommon beliefs as kooks/try-hards is part of the reason why not many normal people express uncommon beliefs?

Sometimes this stuff seems especially vicious among online liberal types, almost as if they were going out of their way to prove that they're "not one of those people" -- even if means being dickish to people who aren't actually being kooks or try-hards.

I recognize that this is OT and I might even still technically moderate this subforum (idk) but I needed to rant.  I seriously don't get you sometimes, Internet.

[Panda Express]

lol. If you really think a simple, lazy zinger like that means neckbeard, then quite a lot of things will mean neckbeard to you. Go outside and get some perspective.

[Alcon]

lol. If you really think a simple, lazy zinger like that means neckbeard, then quite a lot of things will mean neckbeard to you. Go outside and get some perspective.

Are you addressing me or the person who actually used "neckbeard"?

anyway, I'm pretty sure that I just gave a pretty damn specific explanation of why I don't think that particular class of 'zing' makes sense.  Would you like to bring any of that perspective you're hyping to the table, or are you satisfied with being dumbly self-satisfied?

[Panda Express]

lol. If you really think a simple, lazy zinger like that means neckbeard, then quite a lot of things will mean neckbeard to you. Go outside and get some perspective.

Are you addressing me or the person who actually used "neckbeard"?

the one who posted the neckbeard image at me. I'm the one who made the (admittedly lazy) comment that Christianity is a played out joke that started this whole thing.  don't worry, you are in the clear.

[Figueira]

Post-identity politics?


Billionaire Trump is not supported by billionaires
(he has the middle class and working poor)

Hispanic Cruz/Rubio are not supported by Hispanics

Female Hillary is not supported by females

Jewish Bernie is not supported by Jews / Old Bernie is not supported by old people

African-American Carson is not supported by African-Americans

I wouldn't say post-identity, I think it's more that the identities of candidates don't necessarily line up with the identities of their supporters. There's still clear appeals to identities, just not the ones you'd think.

[Goldwater]

Is this like Torie's Hudson, NY threads? Or is there something I missed?

It's the only town of significant size in NH to vote against The Blessed One.

When you only made up your mind on this "Blessed One" like a week ago and now you want to burn his opponent's holdout to the ground, you are displaying immense mental weakness. You're like if a goldfish joined a cult.

[Badger]

lol. If you really think a simple, lazy zinger like that means neckbeard, then quite a lot of things will mean neckbeard to you. Go outside and get some perspective.

Well, in fairness that self-described lazy zinger sounds exactly like something posted by the neckbeard archtype NYM described in his second paragraph, so.....

[Türkisblau]

I'm a Bosnian Muslim by birth. My damn family has gone through genocide and I've experienced discrimination myself in this country. It defines my life no matter what I could do to stay away from it.

If you think you're doing your people a favor by the way you're acting, you're not. Take a breath, consider what others around you have to say, and grow up.

Yet you have Trump's logo on your username.... who cares what you think.

If the TRUMP banner annoys histrionic c**nts, that's okay with me.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Quite amazing how Trump was able to take on the Bush family machine and destroy it within the Republican party. Jeb Bush was even bringing out all of the stops towards the end (Bringing in Barbara and George W. Bush for example)

If you don't think he is capable of doing the same thing to Hillary Clinton, you are delusional.

[Kingpoleon]

This thread's very state of existence combined with the existential fact that other human beings have posted here is so relatively saddening that I find it advisable for Atlas to bury this thread and never mention it again, so as to prevent a major consequential response.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Quite amazing how Trump was able to take on the Bush family machine and destroy it within the Republican party. Jeb Bush was even bringing out all of the stops towards the end (Bringing in Barbara and George W. Bush for example)

If you don't think he is capable of doing the same thing to Hillary Clinton, you are delusional.

Indeed, which is why we need to support Bernie in the primary.

[Joe Republic]

^ Yeah, Donald Trump would go easy on Bernie Sanders.

[Antonio the Sixth]

^ Yeah, Donald Trump would go easy on Bernie Sanders.

No, Bernie is just the only candidate who can credibly take him up on the populist anti-establishment message.

[afleitch]

^ Yeah, Donald Trump would go easy on Bernie Sanders.

No, Bernie is just the only candidate who can credibly take him up on the populist anti-establishment message.

Because all of America is anti-establishment? Because you know the majority are not. You do realise that Trump will tack right back to the centre. This is a game for him.

[Joe Republic]

^ Yeah, Donald Trump would go easy on Bernie Sanders.

No, Bernie is just the only candidate who can credibly take him up on the populist anti-establishment message.

Is that all you think this campaign, and Donald Trump's campaign in particular, is about?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

^ Yeah, Donald Trump would go easy on Bernie Sanders.

No, Bernie is just the only candidate who can credibly take him up on the populist anti-establishment message.

Indeed. Trump is better positioned to take on a conventional politician with a lot baggage like Hillary, especially among blue collar voters.

[Antonio the Sixth]

^ Yeah, Donald Trump would go easy on Bernie Sanders.

No, Bernie is just the only candidate who can credibly take him up on the populist anti-establishment message.

Because all of America is anti-establishment? Because you know the majority are not. You do realise that Trump will tack right back to the centre. This is a game for him.

If he does that, will anyone actually believe anything he says? I mean, he's already contradicted himself dozens of times on issues, but at least he's been coherent on the message. If the day after the convention he turns into Jeb Bush, I really can't see who will vote for him.

As for Bernie, he can do well in constituencies that have drifted away from the Democrats. There's some evidence that, just like Trump, he has cross-cutting appeal. Hillary would just be a generic D and could be vulnerable to populist attacks.

[afleitch]

There's some evidence that, just like Trump, he has cross-cutting appeal. Hillary would just be a generic D and could be vulnerable to populist attacks.

No there isn't. He has Obama's youth base but without the blacks and latinos. He has angry young white liberals. Just like McGovern. It will carry him nowhere.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

There's some evidence that, just like Trump, he has cross-cutting appeal. Hillary would just be a generic D and could be vulnerable to populist attacks.

No there isn't. He has Obama's youth base but without the blacks and latinos. He has angry young white liberals. Just like McGovern. It will carry him nowhere.

Not necessarily. Primary base is not the same as GE base. We've seen this in two last elections.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Clinton would perhaps be worse than a generic D. Its kind of shocking that she's having to fend off Bernie Sanders in the first place.

[afleitch]

Clinton would perhaps be worse than a generic D. Its kind of shocking that she's having to fend off Bernie Sanders in the first place.

Given that she's had to fend off...well everyone since 1992, maybe she's seen as a legitimate threat so some hegemonic part of America.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Clinton would perhaps be worse than a generic D. Its kind of shocking that she's having to fend off Bernie Sanders in the first place.

Given that she's had to fend off...well everyone since 1992, maybe she's seen as a legitimate threat so some hegemonic part of America.

Or maybe she's just a poor politician?

But no, of course it can't be so simple... Makes more sense to believe that everybody has an irrational hatred of her for some reason.

[Figueira]

Clinton would perhaps be worse than a generic D. Its kind of shocking that she's having to fend off Bernie Sanders in the first place.

I think that shows Sanders's strength more than Clinton's weakness. He appeals to a certain percentage of the Democratic primary electorate who would never have Clinton as their first choice no matter how good of a politician she is.

[Lief 🗽]

Clinton would perhaps be worse than a generic D. Its kind of shocking that she's having to fend off Bernie Sanders in the first place.

Given that she's had to fend off...well everyone since 1992, maybe she's seen as a legitimate threat so some hegemonic part of America.

Or maybe she's just a poor politician?

But no, of course it can't be so simple... Makes more sense to believe that everybody has an irrational hatred of her for some reason.

That "some reason" is of course rampant and systemic sexism, but I wouldn't expect the guy that wants the state to tell women who they are and are not allowed to have sex with to know anything about that.