Tea Party

[deadly7]

I hope that's not really your position.  I'm not a fan, and I make fun of my dad because he thinks she's totally hot. 

That said, two things about the statement are completely illogical:

1.) Associating one person's deficiencies to an entire group based on common beliefs is illogical.
2.) Hating someone with such passion (expressed by hyperbole like "anywhere near it") whom you've never met.  To quote Church from Red vs. Blue, "It's not about hating the guy on the other side because someone told you to. I mean, you should hate someone because they're an asshole or a pervert or a snob, or they're lazy or arrogant or an idiot or a know-it-all. Those are reasons to dislike somebody. You don't hate a person because someone told you to; you have to despise people on a personal level, not because they're red or because they're blue, but because you know them and you see them every single day, and you can't stand them because they're a complete and total fucking douchebag."

In some cases, I vehemently disagree with both statements. To invoke Godwin's law for the lulz, most Germans never met Hitler. But obviously some (such as Herr Schindler) hated what he was doing and tried to circumvent his killings.

I know you're a Republican, but I hope you're not delusional enough to think that Sarah Palin's increasingly extremist and idiotic viewpoints are doing this country any benefit. If she does, in deed, represent the views of the Tea Party, logically that means they agree with the majority of her stances on political issues. Therefore, if one disagrees with Palin, one can say that he or she will most definitely hate Tea Partiers.

Whether or not she represents Tea Partiers in actuality depends on whom you ask, though.

[MyndFyre]

In some cases, I vehemently disagree with both statements. To invoke Godwin's law for the lulz, most Germans never met Hitler. But obviously some (such as Herr Schindler) hated what he was doing and tried to circumvent his killings.

I know you're a Republican, but I hope you're not delusional enough to think that Sarah Palin's increasingly extremist and idiotic viewpoints are doing this country any benefit. If she does, in deed, represent the views of the Tea Party, logically that means they agree with the majority of her stances on political issues. Therefore, if one disagrees with Palin, one can say that he or she will most definitely hate Tea Partiers.

Whether or not she represents Tea Partiers in actuality depends on whom you ask, though.

I just don't understand the position "If [person A] is near [cause], then I won't be."

From the opposite opinion, I might then say, "If Bill Maher is supporting the Democrats, then I'll be as far away from them as I can."

Bill Maher recently gave this gem:

"Now I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing.  While you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them and smell like them, I think it's pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would've hated your guts.  And what's more, you would've hated them!  They were everything you despise.  They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit."

I disagree with Bill Maher.  I find his opinions to be quite offensive, and what's more, his approach to discourse to be completely hypocritical.  Yet, since he's calling out "teabaggers" and associating all of these particular traits with the founders (study of science, reading of Plato) as things that Tea Party members would abhor, it implies that he is in favor of those things.  Guess what, though: oh snap, I read through Republic last fall.  As a computer guy, I tend to generally classify myself as "within the engineering-ish/science-ish professions."  How do I ever justify this?!?

I don't buy the patently ridiculous "If [person A] is part of [cause], I'm going to be as far away from it as possible" position.  It's either short-sighted or a rhetorical and psychological trick of trying to polarize people into your side.  George W. Bush was equally guilty of it when he said "You're either with us or against us."  (Yes, that's right.  I've just equated Sidoh's logic to that of GWB's.  GG).

Pick your causes.  If you want to be on the side of statism, if you're happy with a relatively small percentage of elites controlling every facet of your life (those facets depending on their flavor of the day), then great.  If you want to be on the side of populism, with most people's lives being generally free (those things not being free depending on the populists' flavors of the day), then also great.  But at least have the intellectual honesty to understand that those are the ultimate choices.  I honestly don't give a shit about Republican or Democrat or Libertarian or Green or Tea or whatever.  I just want to live in a way that nobody's getting into my life because I'm not getting into theirs.  And so I tend to vote Republican because, while I believe that only about 30-45% of Republicans are true populists, maybe only 1-2% of Democrats are.  And like I said before, only the two predominant parties are viable for the time being.  God willing, we'll see a big divide in the Republicans and they can fade into the sunset where a truly populist party can take its place.  So please, don't color my opinion as "MyndFyre is a Republican."  I am registered that way.  But I don't think that any successful future of America can endure the Republican party lasting very much longer.

[Sidoh]

If Sarah Palin is anywhere near it, I won't be.

:)

I hope that's not really your position.  I'm not a fan, and I make fun of my dad because he thinks she's totally hot.  

That said, two things about the statement are completely illogical:

1.) Associating one person's deficiencies to an entire group based on common beliefs is illogical.
2.) Hating someone with such passion (expressed by hyperbole like "anywhere near it") whom you've never met.  To quote Church from Red vs. Blue, "It's not about hating the guy on the other side because someone told you to. I mean, you should hate someone because they're an asshole or a pervert or a snob, or they're lazy or arrogant or an idiot or a know-it-all. Those are reasons to dislike somebody. You don't hate a person because someone told you to; you have to despise people on a personal level, not because they're red or because they're blue, but because you know them and you see them every single day, and you can't stand them because they're a complete and total fucking douchebag."

It's not.  I said that in jest.  I'm actually mildly insulted that you took that seriously.

I don't like Sarah Palin.  She's way too stupid to earn my respect.  That said, guilt by association is stupid.  Honestly, I don't really know what the tea party stands for and honestly, I don't care.  Political parties are stupid.  Politics never fails to depress me.  I'd rather prove algebra theorems.  yeah.  it's that bad.

I just don't understand the position "If [person A] is near [cause], then I won't be."

From the opposite opinion, I might then say, "If Bill Maher is supporting the Democrats, then I'll be as far away from them as I can."

And no reasonable person would.  It's a completely fallacious argument.

Bill Maher recently gave this gem:

"Now I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing.  While you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them and smell like them, I think it's pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would've hated your guts.  And what's more, you would've hated them!  They were everything you despise.  They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit."

Ahahahahahaha.  That's awesome.  I don't think Bill Maher is an incredibly thoughtful person, but he's a delightful entertainer.

I disagree with Bill Maher.  I find his opinions to be quite offensive, and what's more, his approach to discourse to be completely hypocritical.  Yet, since he's calling out "teabaggers" and associating all of these particular traits with the founders (study of science, reading of Plato) as things that Tea Party members would abhor, it implies that he is in favor of those things.  Guess what, though: oh snap, I read through Republic last fall.  As a computer guy, I tend to generally classify myself as "within the engineering-ish/science-ish professions."  How do I ever justify this?!?

I'm not saying I agree with him on everything he said, but honestly I don't think it's so inaccurate as far as broad generalizations go.  Of course you'd be an exception if you're in support of the Tea Party, but it certainly seems like the limited encounters I've had with teabaggers live up to expectation.

Honestly, though, the average American could probably live up to said expectations.  I don't like stupid.  I think we should make everyone infertile at birth, and you should have to apply to reproduce.  That'd make the world a better place. :)

I don't buy the patently ridiculous "If [person A] is part of [cause], I'm going to be as far away from it as possible" position.  It's either short-sighted or a rhetorical and psychological trick of trying to polarize people into your side.  George W. Bush was equally guilty of it when he said "You're either with us or against us."  (Yes, that's right.  I've just equated Sidoh's logic to that of GWB's.  GG).

Now I'm actually insulted.  You're clearly rolling with the assumption that I was seriously making that argument.  I'm a more thoughtful person than that -- I assure you.

[Armin]

Political parties are stupid.  Politics never fails to depress me.  I'd rather prove algebra theorems.  yeah.  it's that bad.

agreed 100%. funny considering how much I used to be caught up in this all.

[nslay]

The Tea Party people are republicans.

The Tea Party people are like an infection to the Republicans. Well, this is the vibe I get from Republican officials on the news ...

[MyndFyre]

It's not.  I said that in jest.  I'm actually mildly insulted that you took that seriously.

I'm very relieved.  Really.

[Rule]

"Now I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing.  While you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them and smell like them, I think it's pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would've hated your guts.  And what's more, you would've hated them!  They were everything you despise.  They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit."

Well the statement about the founding fathers is accurate, and the statement about the tea baggers seems like a fairly accurate generalisation.  They are not intellectuals -- or at least their movement is not intellectual -- and they seem xenophobic.  

He's not talking about someone like Francis Collins, who is a Christian but who is also a scientist.  I doubt we would find him at a Tea Party rally.

[MyndFyre]

"Now I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing.  While you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them and smell like them, I think it's pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would've hated your guts.  And what's more, you would've hated them!  They were everything you despise.  They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit."

Well the statement about the founding fathers is accurate, and the statement about the tea baggers seems like a fairly accurate generalisation.  They are not intellectuals -- or at least their movement is not intellectual -- and they seem xenophobic.  

He's not talking about someone like Francis Collins, who is a Christian but who is also a scientist.  I doubt we would find him at a Tea Party rally.

Really, Rule?  Are you really being intellectually honest in that statement, or are you making an unfair generalization?

Do I seem particularly xenophobic to you?  Do I get grouped into being a "tea bagger?"

[Rule]

"Now I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing.  While you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them and smell like them, I think it's pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would've hated your guts.  And what's more, you would've hated them!  They were everything you despise.  They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit."

Well the statement about the founding fathers is accurate, and the statement about the tea baggers seems like a fairly accurate generalisation.  They are not intellectuals -- or at least their movement is not intellectual -- and they seem xenophobic.  

He's not talking about someone like Francis Collins, who is a Christian but who is also a scientist.  I doubt we would find him at a Tea Party rally.

Really, Rule?  Are you really being intellectually honest in that statement, or are you making an unfair generalization?

Do I seem particularly xenophobic to you?  Do I get grouped into being a "tea bagger?"

You don't fit my image of a typical tea bagger.  Do you go to tea party rallies?

[Sidoh]

I like some of what the Tea Party stands for, but I don't think I could associate myself with it.

Speaking of the Tea Party, this video is funny.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhMepzqJvIw

[while1]

I'd tap Sarah Palin.  An orgy with her and her daughters would be about as much as I'd want to associate myself with her though.

[Sidoh]

I'd tap Sarah Palin.  An orgy with her and her daughters would be about as much as I'd want to associate myself with her though.

Creepy Mike livin' up to his creepy standards. :D

[while1]

I'd tap Sarah Palin.  An orgy with her and her daughters would be about as much as I'd want to associate myself with her though.

Creepy Mike livin' up to his creepy standards. :D

Honesty is the best policy!

[nslay]

I'd tap Sarah Palin.  An orgy with her and her daughters would be about as much as I'd want to associate myself with her though.

Creepy Mike livin' up to his creepy standards. :D

Honesty is the best policy!

Nothing wrong with being human (like, a real human, not someone's 2000 year old idea of how a human should be). A lot of men find those two attractive.

It's only creepy because the older generations haven't died off yet. As science continues to describe more and more about our psychology and physiology, taboos become increasingly irrelevant. There's nothing to hide when you understand what is really considered normal ... because odds are, you'll be of the 95%+ who are normal.

Not to go off topic too much ... but I remember reading somewhere several years ago, that 90% of Catholic men admitted to masturbating and some 60% of Catholic women having admitted to masturbating on a survey (I think I read this from a Catholic Church study or in a 20 year old Catechism). The point is, the Church's model of a human does not accurately describe a human. Instead, it describes wishful thinking of how a human ought to be.

[Rule]

OT but (:P), Bristol is sort of attractive, but I never found Sarah attractive at all...