quote: "Even more disturbing was the participation and encouragement of elected officials in promoting the hateful protest rally. Villa Park Councilwoman, Deborah Pauly, while addressing the crowd at the rally, appeared to threaten Muslim event-goers. Congressman Ed Royce (R-40), in a troubling trend of disparaging Islam and its followers, added fuel to the fire by encouraging protesters to continue on with their hate-mongering. The attendance of Congressman Gary Miller (R-42) was a clear surprise, since he previously has engaged with all constituents, including Muslims, toward a better America.
[ March 03, 2011, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: SoaPiNuReYe ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:In the afternoon, the event had the atmosphere of a July 4 picnic. Many brought lawn chairs and blankets, sang patriotic songs and tied red, white and blue bandanas on their dogs.
That is very sad.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Well, screaming 'Go Home!' like a banshee at people quietly walking past is a fantastic way to prove that you're the sane party in this situation. Horrible. It's rubbish when people use symbols of national pride to try to legitimize their own personal, nutty cause. But this happens everywhere.
This is not a reason to be ashamed of your country or to stop flying the flag. More people need to reclaim this stuff, which represents community and acceptance, back from these bullies.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have, and there has been quite a bit of stuff that has saddened me as of late but this is a particular low-point. Before, when Tea Party members rallied and expressed opinions and viewpoints that I disagreed with, I shrugged it off and said that they were a vocal minority. And if a Congressman or two showed up at the rally to try to rake in votes, I was fine with it. Before, when I saw protesters shouting clear hate speech and bigoted remarks on television I was fine with it. 'Just a few quacks' I would say.
This is something different though. This rally's mission was to target an Islamic organizations fundraiser to help raise money and awareness for homeless people. People from across the country came. Two Californian Congressmen showed up and gave speeches targeting multiculturalism and disparaging minority ideologies. A local councilwoman gave a speech that bordered on 'incite to violence'. And none of that got any further than the 6 o'clock evening news... The youtube video had less that 100,000 views.
So yes, I would consider this something to be ashamed about. The fact that State Congressmen can give speeches at hate rallies such as these and still have careers, and that stories such as these don't break into the mainstream media, shows that stories like these are beginning to become routine. And that is pretty shameful folks.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:everal people said they had sent out thousands of e-mails about the ICNA Relief USA fundraiser and encouraged people to show up for a pro-America rally.
A pro-America rally would have been nice, if a bit oddly placed and timed. I think this was an anti-Islam rally.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't think I've ever been so ashamed of my country...
REMEMBER: no matter how much of this crap we watch, it must still somehow be unfair to say that the tea party is problematically racist and hateful adur dur dur
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:This Is Important, You Should Watch It of the Day: Last month, Tea Party members gathered outside an ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America)-sponsored charity event held to raise money for women’s shelters and hunger relief, and hurled racist epithets and bewildering ethnocentric remarks at the American-Muslim families entering the Yorba Linda Community Center. Several members of congress even showed up to express their support for the protesters and their message.
CAIR-California caught the whole nasty mess on tape, and uploaded the footage to YouTube.
Salon’s Glenn Greenwald comments:
I think what was most striking about that video is that the presence of small children didn’t give these anti-Muslim protesters even momentary pause; they just continued screeching their ugly invective while staring at 4-year-olds walking with their parents. People like that are so overflowing with hatred and resentments that the place where their humanity — their soul — is supposed to be has been drowned.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: REMEMBER: no matter how much of this crap we watch, it must still somehow be unfair to say that the tea party is problematically racist and hateful adur dur dur
Seems to me like this is similar to the attitude that the worst of the TP have. Replace "tea party" with "Islam Religion" and see what you get.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There is absolutely nothing wrong or unfair about pointing out that the tea party has a problem. This is reprehensible behavior that is part of a long established pattern, and I'd like to see people wave this off as an unrepresentative event which just happens to include congressmen weaved into the fray. That it's still somehow unfair to portray the tea party as having issues with anger, racism, and islamophobia.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Those kind of generalizations are exactly what those at that rally are guilty of.
"Some Muslims blew up the WTC" => "Muslims in general are bad"
"Some TPers are racist Islamophobes" => "TPers in general are bad"
You think your generalization is better researched, or based on better data? I'm sure they feel the same way. In fact, if both generalizations are based on news coverage, I think that would make theirs more "well founded".
Anyways, I'm done with that point. Believe what you will, just like those guys at that rally. :-)
---
The congressmen bit really bothers me, too. I think it's fair to say that those involved are bigots.
Now, in future elections for these guys, I'd be comfortable in saying that anyone who votes from them is AT LEAST not horrified by their behaviour.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
As a Christian conservative, I'm outraged by the actions of the people in this video.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
SwampJedi hit it right on the head. There are so many groups out there that get together and rally. They call themselves tea partiers, but the fact is that at most Tea Party rallies anyone spewing racism or holding up racist signs are pretty much shunned from the rest of the group.
Look at the Westboro Baptist church. I think they do horrible things. Do I judge every other Baptist congregation based on the actions of this particular group? I don't.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Yet, except for Foolish Took, who may not be a Tea Party person--but is a Christian Conservative, I don't see a lot of Tea Party people condemning these hate-mongering yelling and screaming fanatics.
Yet if you try to convince one of them that only a small fraction of Muslims are terrorists, they'll say "How come the supposedly moderate Muslims don't condemn the fanatics?"
The strength of the Tea Party is its big-tent open to interpretation, lack of formal leader structure. Yet it will be the racists, the corporate oligarchs, or the power-seekers who will fight to become that structure if those true Tea Party faithful don't fight them off.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
While I think under other circumstances attacking people who make blanket accusations against the Tea Party is justifiable, here I just don't think that kind of argument is applicable. The local Tea Party organized this 'rally'. Their stated goal was to protest against this fundraiser.
This isn't some crazy nutjob holding a sign, it's an organized hate demonstration carried out by the Tea Party. It was big enough that state Congressman felt compelled enough to show up to it, and even speak at it, despite its overtly bigoted mission goal. You saw the video. It wasn't just a few people who showed up, it was a couple hundred. I really feel like a line was crossed here.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
You said it - "local Tea Party". We really can't generalize that past the people who organized/attended the event.
We quickly get to No True Scotsman territory with this.
Perhaps I should state outright: I sympathize with a lot of the TP ideals of smaller government (though I wouldn't call myself a TP member). However, I am outraged at what this collection of people have done, and want to see this type of behaviour stamped out.
I'm interested to see what the "national" TP people (e.g., Palin) are saying about this, if anything.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: ... It was big enough that state Congressman felt compelled enough to show up to it, and even speak at it, despite its overtly bigoted mission goal.
That's the line for me. When your own elected representative, that is supposed to represent all his/her constituents is actively encouraging hate against you, that's a very bad sign. Time to get out of dodge.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
At the beginning it says that a Rabbi David Eliezrie of Chabad sponsored the protest, I dont want to believe that a man so narrowly removed from a majority antisemetic America could stomach that let alone endorse it. I genuinly do not want to believe it.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: ... It was big enough that state Congressman felt compelled enough to show up to it, and even speak at it, despite its overtly bigoted mission goal.
That's the line for me. When your own elected representative, that is supposed to represent all his/her constituents is actively encouraging hate against you, that's a very bad sign. Time to get out of dodge.
Segregation wether it be defacto or dejure only leads to more hate and violence.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: I'm interested to see what the "national" TP people (e.g., Palin) are saying about this, if anything.
Which sounds pretty important to me. If the "national" Tea Party people don't make efforts to correct this sort of behavior, or at least to disassociate the movement from it, then I think it fair to attribute it to Tea Party in general.
This also works for the comparison to Muslims, where there have been many efforts and statements to disassociate mainstream Muslims from the enemies of the US.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Segregation wether it be defacto or dejure only leads to more hate and violence.
I don't see it. What are they going to do? Throw shoes at your picture when you're gone? (Also, going to a place where this kind of thing doesn't happen != segregation, period)
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote: I'm interested to see what the "national" TP people (e.g., Palin) are saying about this, if anything.
Which sounds pretty important to me. If the "national" Tea Party people don't make efforts to correct this sort of behavior, or at least to disassociate the movement from it, then I think it fair to attribute it to Tea Party in general.
This also works for the comparison to Muslims, where there have been many efforts and statements to disassociate mainstream Muslims from the enemies of the US.
I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you. The decentralized nature of both groups makes it difficult, though.
Since Palin is such a remarkable, terrific orator, I'm going to assume that whatever she has to say about this will inspire all who hear.
Whether or not the "knuckle-dragger" TP image is true, I've long since decided to distance myself from the group. Perception is sometimes more important than reality.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
There are places in this country where it is still bad for your health to black, jewish, gay or any form of not white and christian. A large reason is because hate mongers were allowed little islands to raise more bigots until the whole town is built on hate, my mother just returned from a trip to Tennesee talking about a big KKK adorned flower pot and how the lady running the shop didnt understand why it never sells. Ignorance left to its own devices is never good and as long as these protesters are non-violent and these very tolerant and peaceful muslims endure the childish fits of fools than ignorance will not win.
Yes, dejure segregation does still exist and in many ways. In neighborhoods where it can be dangerous to be white and parents raise children to never trust the police, and pocket towns where license plates are announced on the local FM radio if parked outside a gay bar. We do it to ouselves and if these families run from the minor inconveniance of idiots acting like babboons then they will teach thier children to run from adversity instead of facing it and changing it.
[ March 04, 2011, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: You said it - "local Tea Party". We really can't generalize that past the people who organized/attended the event.
Even senators are present at this event and you still want to say that, eh? There's a severe limitation to what means are still available for the tea party to distance itself form these people.
You can't use True Scotsman. They're tea party members. And for how invariably shocked (shocked!) the larger populace of tea party reps are going to be, they are going to be forced to tread carefully, because the nature of their movement ensures that they don't want to protest too hard against islamophobics. Guess why.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Knock it off Samp. You can disagree with someone and question their statements without being a sneering jackass.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Knock it off Samp. You can disagree with someone and question their statements without being a sneering jackass.
Reported.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Could we dial back the outright aggression please? You can certainly call somebody out without resorting to name calling.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No, let's just end the calling-me-out thing with him until he stops being so bizarre towards me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Knock it off Samp. You can disagree with someone and question their statements without being a sneering jackass.
edit: Samp edited after my comment. Initially all he had was "Even senators are present at this event and you still want to say that, eh?"
I would not have reacted that way to what he wrote now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: You can't use True Scotsman. They're tea party members. And for how invariably shocked (shocked!) the larger populace of tea party reps are going to be, they are going to be forced to tread carefully, because the nature of their movement ensures that they don't want to protest too hard against islamophobics. Guess why.
I can actually imagine at least two reasons almost immediately without straining my imagination that don't include the TP at large being Islamaphobic as a whole, which appears to be the conclusion you're angling for.
Those reasons are bad reasons to be sure, but they're not as bad as 'Tea Party is Islamaphobic', either. No, what I would say, though, is that the Tea Party has a problem not manning up to American ideals by kicking these @#$*heads out the way they routinely and angrily demand other groups eject their 'fringe'...just like their opponents have a problem not, y'know, really sticking the Tea Party with this in an effective way.
There's really only one effective recipe for dealing with this kind of behavior, and that's not criticism from without: it's criticism from within. That is to say, y'all Christian Conservatives and Tea Party members (and those who sympathize and/or agree with some or most of the ideals, etc.) rather - to my mind - have an obligation to speak up, loudly, and denounce in unequivocal terms this kind of thing as shameful and unAmerican and not representative of you.
To kick `em straight out of the tent, in other words. Rather like the way the TP demands Muslims do all the time with regards to Islamic terrorists, in other words. Else be considered terrorists themselves. Before anyone misunderstands me, though, I'm not saying the TP are terrorists-what I am saying is that this whole 'we're decentralized, and look at what liberals are doing, and, and, and,' is worn out. Maybe that could fly when the TP was the upstart spunky new kid with bold new (well, not new really) ideas. But not anymore. We hear all about this mandate they've gotten, they helped Reps win the House, etc.
With that comes some responsibility, not, "Oh, that's not us." Not when the TP can use the same sort of tactics - attacking a 'fringe' and applying it to the whole - on other groups as a matter of course.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Knock it off Samp. You can disagree with someone and question their statements without being a sneering jackass.
edit: Samp edited after my comment. Initially all he had was "Even senators are present at this event and you still want to say that, eh?"
I would not have reacted that way to what he wrote now.
How do I edit after your comment and not leave an edit note on my post? You shouldn't have reacted that way for either post. Your estimation of what being a sneering jackass is wildly off. You can seriously quit with the calling out thing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I can actually imagine at least two reasons almost immediately without straining my imagination that don't include the TP at large being Islamaphobic as a whole, which appears to be the conclusion you're angling for.
Those reasons are bad reasons to be sure, but they're not as bad as 'Tea Party is Islamaphobic', either.
I don't think that the tea party is a fundamentally islamaphobic movement, just like I don't think it's a fundamentally racist movement. I just say it has a problem with racist and islamophobic members, which is true. And the people who direct this movement or represent it as elected officials certainly probably don't like this notoriety and definitely don't want the movement to collapse due to negative perception, but at the same time, when they don't speak out enough against this, I think it's usually tactical due to the prevalence of this view and the fears of what happens when you openly de-legitimize it to them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How do I edit after your comment and not leave an edit note on my post?
Seriously? You can edit a post for a period of time after it is posted (I think it's 10 minutes) without an edit tag showing up.
But, the thing I don't get is, you know what you posted. You know you went back later to edit it. I don't get why you are pretending that this didn't happen.
---
As I have said, the way you post here is a problem. There seemed to me to be a spill over from the way some people, yourself being a primary one, treated conservative trolls like malanthrop to other posters who disagreed with you, especially one's expressing conservative viewpoints. It may not be your intent or congruent with your experience here, but you often come off as a sneering jackass whose primary purpose of interaction here is to mock those people and viewpoints you disagree with and get a feeling of superiority. I'm far from the only person who has told you this, although, in most cases, as is usually the case for your type, you've dismissed this as their problem rather than yours.
This is especially damaging because I've seen other posters key in on this tone and the standard it sets as well as potentially valuable member of the community targets of yours and others' dismissive hostility either turn away from the site or take on a much more defensive or hostile style of interaction.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That was actually my point as well, in another thread. I don't want to get involved in the sneering jackass discussion, but tagging someone with the malanthrop card (even when they might not know who that is) isn't something that ought to be done quickly.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
AchillesHeel: I get where you're coming from. Considered in isolation, a place with more minorities should become tolerant faster than a place without. But the thing is, these places aren't really islands of hate that have recently grown into towns, rather they've probably been intolerant since the natives have been kicked out and have remained relatively intolerant while the zeitgeist drags them along, willingly or unwillingly. The War on Terror has brought the issue in focus, but this is only a stones-throw away from Japanese internment camp territory in geographic terms.
So considering a particular Muslim, they might tally up the risks (increasing hate crimes, chance of being stopped while driving brown, chance of systemic discrimination for jobs/children's schooling, change of being renditioned to a different country or Guantanimo for torture) against the benefits (moral high ground in educating people), and I would find it incredibly hard to blame them for not wanting to risk their family or themselves for the greater good of a particular region.
They might even be able to better influence the zeitgeist from somewhere else.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Seriously? You can edit a post for a period of time after it is posted (I think it's 10 minutes) without an edit tag showing up.
But, the thing I don't get is, you know what you posted. You know you went back later to edit it. I don't get why you are pretending that this didn't happen.
This is a perfect example why you should quit trying to call me out, since you can expertly read into things I'm not doing. The reason why you don't understand why I'm pretending that didn't happen is because I'm not pretending that didn't happen. I'm asking you how I can edit after your comment and not leave an edit note on my post. This is a genuine question because as far as I know you can't edit after someone else's post and not leave an edit tag.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also to note:
quote:This is especially damaging because I've seen other posters key in on this tone and the standard it sets as well as potentially valuable member of the community targets of yours and others' dismissive hostility either turn away from the site or take on a much more defensive or hostile style of interaction.
Bolding mine.
Do I have to say I'm sorry I'm damaging enough to have made you call me a sneering jackass?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:This is a genuine question because as far as I know you can't edit after someone else's post and not leave an edit tag.
The time stamps are close enough that he could have composed his reply while you were editing and posted it immediately after you posted your edit.
ETA: "Sneering jackass" is inappropriate in either case though. If you feel someone is acting out enough that you feel compelled to violate TOS in response then you should be whistling not posting.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't see that as a TOS violation. Could you explain why you disagree?
---
testing edit after Samp posted. Doesn't look like it works the way you thought.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's pretty blatantly a violation of the TOS. I have no idea how you're supposed to argue that it's not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
...it would help if you explained why you think it is a blatant violation of the TOS.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
test
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I summon Rivka and raise a Squickly
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also to note:
quote:This is especially damaging because I've seen other posters key in on this tone and the standard it sets as well as potentially valuable member of the community targets of yours and others' dismissive hostility either turn away from the site or take on a much more defensive or hostile style of interaction.
Bolding mine.
Do I have to say I'm sorry I'm damaging enough to have made you call me a sneering jackass?
Do you not get that this is part of what I'm talking about? I'm expressing a serious concern, which, again, I'm far from the only one to express to you. You may disagree with my perspective. We could discuss this productively or you may not feel like this would be worthwhile.
But what you are doing with it is trying to score points off of me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm asking you how I can edit after your comment and not leave an edit note on my post. This is a genuine question because as far as I know you can't edit after someone else's post and not leave an edit tag.
Edits less than 10 minutes after the initial post show no tags here; 10 or more and they do. The existence or lack or later posts is irrelevant.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But what you are doing with it is trying to score points off of me.
The point I score here is pointing out that you were uselessly, pointlessly antagonistic in response to my post, based on the way you interpreted it. Then, conveniently, there's this thing where what's wrong with the things that I post is that it results in the way in which you just acted. It's ridiculous. I'm going to point it out. You can assume I'm doing it to 'score points,' and even keep a tally for me or report on what my score is from week to week, because the whole 'scoring points' idea is so ridiculously irrelevant to me that I honestly don't care if it's your interpretation. I just assume it's a gooesy representation of trying to represent the fact that I indulge in disagreeing with people openly and undermining their arguments where and when I consider them weak, disagreeable, or even openly silly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm asking you how I can edit after your comment and not leave an edit note on my post. This is a genuine question because as far as I know you can't edit after someone else's post and not leave an edit tag.
Edits less than 10 minutes after the initial post show no tags here; 10 or more and they do. The existence or lack or later posts is irrelevant.
Ouch. That's amazing. And stupid!
I got to discover today yet another thing which amazes me about the fact that this easily hackable abandonware is still used for the forum architecture.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The point I score here is pointing out that you were uselessly, pointlessly antagonistic in response to my post, based on the way you interpreted it. Then, conveniently, there's this thing where what's wrong with the things that I post is that it results in the way in which you just acted. It's ridiculous. I'm going to point it out.
I'm having problems following your logic here. Are you saying that I am acknowledging that my response was "useless, pointlessly antagonistic" and was using that as evidence that your behavior was prompting these responses? That doesn't sound internally consistent to me.
I'm fine with my statement. And the negativity in it was not a hostile response to your behavior towards me, but rather due to me judging it a fair description of your behavior here.
quote:because the whole 'scoring points' idea is so ridiculously irrelevant to me that I honestly don't care if it's your interpretation. I just assume it's a gooesy representation of trying to represent the fact that I indulge in disagreeing with people openly and undermining their arguments where and when I consider them weak, disagreeable, or even openly silly.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I pretty sure that there are many people here whose impression of you is much closer to mine than to yours. It may be your honest belief that you really are doing the latter - for all I know, you are completely doing the latter. But, again, I'm far from the only person who has openly said that you come across as more like the former.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'll post as my respectable Rakeesh sockpuppet now
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You can assume I'm doing it to 'score points,' and even keep a tally for me or report on what my score is from week to week, because the whole 'scoring points' idea is so ridiculously irrelevant to me that I honestly don't care if it's your interpretation. I just assume it's a gooesy representation of trying to represent the fact that I indulge in disagreeing with people openly and undermining their arguments where and when I consider them weak, disagreeable, or even openly silly.
Samprimary, the 'jackass' part was obviously over the line. Pretty plain example of personally insulting name-calling. Open-and-shut.
But are you seriously going to dispute the 'sneering' part of it? I mean really? I suppose it's possible that you're not actually sneering, that there's not some variant of, "These people (in this case, the TP and to a lesser extent their associated support) are so stupid and/or odious I get to be a real schmuck about pointing it out, because they've got it coming," going on when you post about politics. Or about individuals in some cases.
But it just seems pretty unlikely. About as unlikely as you whistling someone for calling you a jackass, considering how much scorn you appear to enjoy casting about, but I was wrong about that too, so I guess I need to re-evaluate my perceptions. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're not actually sneering. I just know that when I post like you post, I'm sneering. I also know that when most people post like you post, they're sneering and will once things have calmed down cop to it.
I can't be certain but it seems to me that you post like that a lot. *shrug* For whatever it's worth.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: There's really only one effective recipe for dealing with this kind of behavior, and that's not criticism from without: it's criticism from within. That is to say, y'all Christian Conservatives and Tea Party members (and those who sympathize and/or agree with some or most of the ideals, etc.) rather - to my mind - have an obligation to speak up, loudly, and denounce in unequivocal terms this kind of thing as shameful and unAmerican and not representative of you.
To kick `em straight out of the tent, in other words. Rather like the way the TP demands Muslims do all the time with regards to Islamic terrorists, in other words. Else be considered terrorists themselves. Before anyone misunderstands me, though, I'm not saying the TP are terrorists-what I am saying is that this whole 'we're decentralized, and look at what liberals are doing, and, and, and,' is worn out. Maybe that could fly when the TP was the upstart spunky new kid with bold new (well, not new really) ideas. But not anymore. We hear all about this mandate they've gotten, they helped Reps win the House, etc.
With that comes some responsibility, not, "Oh, that's not us." Not when the TP can use the same sort of tactics - attacking a 'fringe' and applying it to the whole - on other groups as a matter of course.
Very well stated. How then, other than at an individual level, are we supposed to do this? Would it even make the news? I can't find anything from any "big names" in the TP, but my google skills suck a little.
At a more fundamental level, I am very angry that conservative and Christian has come to mean racist and uneducated. Even the idea of small government is becoming tainted by this mess.
I imagine those of you to the "left" of me feel the same way about how "liberal" or "progressive" have been twisted, both from within and without.
As to the other issue - I've lurked here regularly for almost a decade so I'm know what to expect from specific people. Remember, feeding the trolls rewards them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Pretty plain example of personally insulting name-calling. Open-and-shut.
Again, I dispute this, although looking at it, I can see where that impression came from.
My intent with that statement is to say that he was acting like a sneering jackass. I was describing behavior, not trying to be personally insulting. If that was taken as a personal insult, I apologize. This was not my intent. I still think it is a fair description of the behavior.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Even the idea of small government is becoming tainted by this mess.
I don't know that the idea of small government in America has ever not been tainted by a large section of the people who have held it, or at least claimed to.
Which is a shame, really, because there's a fair bit of valuable stuff there, when it's not being used to defend the entrenched positions of the advantaged, or as cover for corporate poor behavior in laisez fair capitalist system, or to support racists, etc.
Smaller, more localized government has a lot to say for it and it's problematic that it is generally advanced by people who have such debilitating flaws or nefarious purposes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Very well stated. How then, other than at an individual level, are we supposed to do this? Would it even make the news? I can't find anything from any "big names" in the TP, but my google skills suck a little.
Well, one way would be to stop saying you sympathize with Tea Party ideals. List, rather, the ideals you agree with-don't give the Tea Party 'ownership' of those things, even in language. It's politics, and they do get some power when they're associated with small government, even by people who go on to say, "But I can't stand them because of what some of their Senators do..."
Another way would be to write to these specific officials, espicially (most emphatically) if they're from places you vote in and express in the most unequivocal terms how upset you are at what they've done.
Just a few examples. Nothing huge, but the kind of thing that would have to be done by you x1,000,000,000 or so to start having an impact. Supporters without being actual members are a big part of any political movement's 'oomph', after all. They also serve as a sign of how strong it is, how far they can go, etc.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I suppose that any time you take a scoop of people you're bound to get some bad apples in the group. The larger the scoop, the more bad apples.
As an aside, somehow I'm both pro small government and anti big business. I'm unsure how that works.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The problem isn't the bad apples, the problem is the attitude of the bunch to the bad apples. Or in this extended agricultural metaphor, the attitude of the farmer to the bad apples and how many he's willing to tolerate in the bunch before throwing that particular barrel to the slops.
Every group has bad apples. Not every group's bad apples have national prominence as a mainstream (now) political party whose elected officials are present at hate rallies held in direct, undeniable rejection of American ideals.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
As pointed out, I don't think it's fair to say that this sort of thing should be considered as indicative of the Tea Party. But what does seem to be happening a lot is that these sort of things are occurring and the response from Tea Party people and organizations is usually apologetics or very slight disavowal.
If these people really represent a hijacking of the more pure Tea Party ideals to serve their racism, hatred, and fear, people, rightfully so, would expect a very strong response from the people who hold the pure ideals. One pretty obvious step would be for the other Tea Party groups to cut out this one and explain that they are not welcome in the Tea Party.
But it's like the problem with the anti-SSM people. There are people out there who are against SSM, but who aren't anti-gay bigots. However, the force of the movement comes from the bigots. If they abandoned and repudiated the bigots, the other people would have very little political clout. So, it seems like they try to minimize both the offenses and the significance of these people.
It seems to me that this is pretty much what happens with the Tea Party folk. I think people are trading putting up with and even going to bat for some pretty awful people and ideals in exchange for political power. And, not surprisingly, the "pure" ideals get awful dirty in the process.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That's amazing. And stupid!
It was changed that way, due to requests from members, several years back.
But hey, don't let me stop you from making more attacks on the software. You're really quite predictable on this one.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As an aside, somehow I'm both pro small government and anti big business.
I'm anti-big, in whichever form it presents itself. It doesn't fit to well into a rallying call, but basically I acknowledge that there are competing interests between size of government and size of businesses and that you're trying to get screwed as little as possible.
The really bad part for me is that one of the major reasons I'm anti-big is that I want people to have the greater say they have in smaller scale situation, but I'm also an anti-populist elitist in that I think many people often make very poor decisions. However, on a smaller scale, it's harder to avoid responsibility for those bad decisions. Although, without oversight, it's easier for the advantaged to foist the fallout onto the disadvantaged.
So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Ultimately, I don't believe in any doctrine as an end or solution in itself. The only way that we're going to get away from the problems of people is if people get better. Stuff that I want put in place are either checks against bad things happening or things that encourage and/or enable positive change in the nature of people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: It seems to me that this is pretty much what happens with the Tea Party folk. I think people are trading putting up with and even going to bat for some pretty awful people and ideals in exchange for political power. And, not surprisingly, the "pure" ideals get awful dirty in the process.
This is pretty much what I meant by the attitude towards the bad apples, more directly and elegantly stated. It bears out with a look at more mainstream politics, too. Any political party comes to power by getting the plurality of votes out there, but they get those votes by revving up their base. They don't get that plurality without priming the pump. The water in the TP pump is pretty...brackish.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: But hey, don't let me stop you from making more attacks on the software. You're really quite predictable on this one.
Of course I am. It's really not good architecture, or very secure, and hasn't even been supported in a while.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Pretty plain example of personally insulting name-calling. Open-and-shut.
Again, I dispute this, although looking at it, I can see where that impression came from.
Ok, just read the TOS. It's a direct insult, it's namecalling, it's 'vulgar,' whatever. There's multiple ways in which the text of the TOS makes your statement a clear violation of it. After reading it, do you still dispute that?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, of course I do. As I already explained, it's not a direct insult, it's not name calling. Also again, I apologize if you took it that way. Vulgar...the word itself is fine, I think. If someone said something like "Rush Limbaugh is acting like a real jackass." I don't see any censure coming for that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Samp, what purpose does repeatedly pointing out the software's flaws serve?
Other than entertaining you, I mean?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I suppose it's possible that someone, somewhere, will recognize that he's entirely right and do something about it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
What sort of expense could new software entail? Do you have any suggestions for new forum software?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The expense question really has to be answered by the site's webmaster, unfortunately, because it's likely that all these boards are UBB because that's the codebase he knows best. Any cost estimate I'd come up with would factor in my experience and skills, which wouldn't necessarily match his.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Probably someone mentioned this before, but it seems like anything that should really only be bringing the board down for ten minutes ends up stretching on and on for days. I have no clue if that's UBB classic or the webmaster(s) being flakes/rank amateurs, but for all the crap I give this (terrible) (unsupported) (obsolete) board architecture I don't know why it would be at fault for that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mucus, I'm not sure how to interpret the sockpuppet post. I think it might mean that I'm saying some of the same things you are (it's difficult to gauge possible teasing/sarcasm in text); if so, sorry about that. I don't mean to parrot you or disregard your posts, but when I post mobile I go in starts and stops, and don't always look at what other folks have said as thoroughly as I ought to. (I'm not the best at that even on the PC.)
It's also possible you meant something else entirely and it's whooshed completely over my head, in which case:
----------
As much as I agree that the site's software is out of date (and if even I can recognize that, it's probably pretty damn out of date), I have to wonder what anyone thinks the chances are of those ultimately responsible for making these decisions choosing to make the one being suggested, if the suggestion is done in such an openly scornful, amazed-it-hasn't-been-done way.
I'm put in mind of The West Wing in an episode where Sam Seaborn is having a meeting with some politicians, campaigners, speechwriters for some Democrats from...the Midwest, maybe? I forget where exactly. Anyway, the people he was meeting with wanted lines included in an upcoming speech about Republicans supporting tax cuts so that the uber-rich could buy Lear Jets and bigger swimming pools in their vacation houses (something along those lines). It was really over-the-top language that however much the people writing it may have felt it was true, obviously wasn't going to persuade anyone who didn't already agree with them of anything.
Similarly I suspect saying (repeatedly), "Hey, it's stupid that we've still got this terrible, outdated, ridiculous system," probably isn't going to persuade someone to actually adopt the change that you want made. I have a pretty hard time imagining, Samprimary and Tom, that the two of you are such poor persuaders as to be unaware of this, either. Why? Because I've seen the two of you write persuasively before, so I know you're not so bad at persuading people of things to think that has a real shot at working.
There are other possible explanations, but 'because it might encourage them to adopt the change for the better' isn't really one of them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Similarly I suspect saying (repeatedly), "Hey, it's stupid that we've still got this terrible, outdated, ridiculous system," probably isn't going to persuade someone to actually adopt the change that you want made.
I've mentioned it maybe once for every year I've been here. It warrants at least that much curiosity, especially given how insecure it is. AS for persuading vs. probably not persuading, I don't think this impels change any less than just not talking about it.
quote:What sort of expense could new software entail? Do you have any suggestions for new forum software?
MyBB would be a significant improvement at no cost. The best commercial upgrade would probably be vBulletin, in my opinion. A permanent license would be 195, of which I'd easily put 20 down for.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I've mentioned it maybe once for every year I've been here. It warrants at least that much curiosity, especially given how insecure it is. AS for persuading vs. probably not persuading, I don't think this impels change any less than just not talking about it.
*shrug* I don't have statistics on your posting patterns on the topic. I know you've mentioned it enough and in a sufficiently reliable fashion that the general content and tone will be very predictable.
As for impelling change any less, two things: are you taking this approach because it just doesn't do any worse than saying nothing-in other words, because from a practical (what gets the change accomplished) standpoint, you can get away with it? The other thing being do you generally find that calling a person's decisions stupid and sneering at them has a neutral or positive impact on them doing what you want them to do? Or a negative impact?
I know what my experience is, but perhaps yours is different.
ETA: I don't think money in amounts of $200 is really much of a factor for this problem (actually lending support to the idea that the intangibles such as emotion and 'face' carry more weight, such as callin' somethin' stupid), but even if it did, I think solicitations ought to be anonymous.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm calling this thread on March 5th, 2011.
R.I.P.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'll post as my respectable Rakeesh sockpuppet now
Did somebody call for a sockpuppet? Can I become predictable too?
Your forum is weird. Maybe you can mention the software sucks because the software sucks.
The way you have to "quote" people makes it worth switching. All by itself.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Wow... how did we go from Muslim protests to "The forum sucks"?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think I was involved somehow. I wasn't drunk. Should I have been drunk? Apparently, I sneer a lot. Sneering at everyone and everything. Judging. With those judging eyes. Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Wow... how did we go from Muslim protests to "The forum sucks"?
I dunno, I came back from a night of heavy drinking to this. It was quite disconcerting. Someone called someone else a jackass and then the lid just blew off everything.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Knock it off Samp. You can disagree with someone and question their statements without being a sneering jackass.
edit: Samp edited after my comment. Initially all he had was "Even senators are present at this event and you still want to say that, eh?"
I would not have reacted that way to what he wrote now.
How do I edit after your comment and not leave an edit note on my post? You shouldn't have reacted that way for either post. Your estimation of what being a sneering jackass is wildly off. You can seriously quit with the calling out thing.
If you edit within a min or two it doesn't show that tag, Samp. Not saying I agree with the name calling, just sayin.....
edit: I just did it here, for example, and added the word edit myself. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's also possible you meant something else entirely and it's whooshed completely over my head, in which case:
It just means you were the only person that posted within ten minutes of my post and I felt like playing on occasional meme on Hatrack that poster X *is really* poster Y. No worries
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
so I'm know what to expect from specific people. Remember, feeding the trolls rewards them.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)