Sign In

Mrebo

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
20-Mar-2011
Last activity
19-Jun-2018
Posts
4245

Post History

Post
#1212895
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Two of the more painful to read passages as a Star Wars fan.:

Eventually, they passed a wonky economic thesis-sounding bill a Wookiee would know was dead on arrival in the Senate.

But if the GOP doesn’t offer voters “A New Hope” for their healthcare soon, they should heed the words Yoda told Luke Skywalker about being afraid of Darth Vader: “You will be. You will be.”

Post
#1212703
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

Jeebus said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

As for mrebo, no one is cutting off the right, they’re bigger than ever on Youtube and just want to play the victim like they always do.

Yes, people on the right are being cut off. It’s not “playing victim” when powerful media corporations shut out people based on their political views.

Except that’s not what’s happening, at least in Youtube’s case. Youtube is demonetizing a great many people, not all of them are conservative or even political commentators at all. Left-wing commentators, gun channels, “reaction” channels, gaming channels, it’s happening across the board.

I have a problem with youtube’s demonetizing in general. I am more familiar with people on the right being targeted (and I’d include gun channels in that), but I am also aware of youtube discriminating against reaction & gaming channels for swearing (or extreme antics). But I’m not just talking youtube.

Extreme antics is an interesting way to describe racial slurs, anti-semitic language, and making light of suicide (including footage of a dead body). Amongst other things.

Those are extreme examples but I didn’t intend my phrasing to be comprehensive in any event.

There’s an argument to be made too that Youtube is a private company and can decide who makes money on their site or not as they please.

You don’t see me advocating legislation. Doesn’t mean I need to accept whatever a private company does. In fact, I can go on a Star Wars fan site and gripe about it! When major corporations seek to enforce restrictions on speech that should be cause for concern.

Post
#1212687
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jeebus said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

As for mrebo, no one is cutting off the right, they’re bigger than ever on Youtube and just want to play the victim like they always do.

Yes, people on the right are being cut off. It’s not “playing victim” when powerful media corporations shut out people based on their political views.

Except that’s not what’s happening, at least in Youtube’s case. Youtube is demonetizing a great many people, not all of them are conservative or even political commentators at all. Left-wing commentators, gun channels, “reaction” channels, gaming channels, it’s happening across the board.

I have a problem with youtube’s demonetizing in general. I am more familiar with people on the right being targeted (and I’d include gun channels in that), but I am also aware of youtube discriminating against reaction & gaming channels for swearing (or extreme antics). But I’m not just talking youtube.

Post
#1212650
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

As for mrebo, no one is cutting off the right, they’re bigger than ever on Youtube and just want to play the victim like they always do.

Yes, people on the right are being cut off. It’s not “playing victim” when powerful media corporations shut out people based on their political views. Sometimes people are denied a platform (such as twitter shadow banning conservatives) and its also on revenue.

Youtube is censoring anyone that is a corporate outlet including many leftists.

Examples? And doesn’t that bother you?

I’ll give you another example of someone even shittier than Roseanne, Steven Crowder. Crowder made a disgusting video claiming that AIDS was never an epidemic and that research money is wasted because most people that die of AIDS are gay. Crowder is a disgusting pile of dishonest shit and I hate him, but I don’t want him to get removed from YouTube for not representing Youtube’s values. That’s a little different because Crowder’s show is a propaganda outlet and Roseanne’s was actually a real show and her offensive comments were made outside of the show, but again, these are just more examples of the media sucking and being terrible.

Well then we seem to agree.

People that are far dumber than Roseanne surround us already. They’re your neighbors, they’re your coworkers, they’re your family, although they actually have no redeeming qualities while Roseanne actually has at least one.

Did you give that speech at the last BBQ you attended?

So ultimately, I don’t care. Again, this is just going to lead to these dying TV corporations aligning with people that they suspect won’t do anything remotely offensive, and that’s going to lead to safer programming, and as we all know safe programming sucks horribly and is unwatchable dogshit.

I’ve been watching Blue Bloods, surprisingly watchable.

Post
#1212645
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

suspiciouscoffee said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It did actually. It defended him and showed the white-trash Roseanne character accepting him. Either way, I don’t care if a show is progressive or not. I’m opposed to cancelling them because of stupid shit said by the stupid people behind the show. I was even opposed to cancelling Laura Ingraham for the same reason. Even though she actually is a propaganda outlet, it sets a precedent that anything associated with anything offensive needs to get cancelled which can only lead to two outcomes: safer entertainment or entertainment produced by safer people, both of which suck shit.

I’ll try to get to your other stuff, but hey we agree on this. Increasingly there are stories of the major internet companies cutting off ad revenue to people (particularly on the right). It’s a dangerous level of sensitivity by people with enormous power.

These seem like two very different issues to me, but perhaps I misread.

I don’t think they’re that different. In any event, goes to mfm’s point about safer entertainment or entertainment produced by safer people.

I think ABC (and media outlets in general) shouldn’t be so sensitive and fearful. They can disavow Roseanne’s tweet and maintain a popular show providing employment to many people and presenting a unique perspective.

Maybe this will be confusing to some, but I’ve always hated that show, think Roseanne is terrible, and had morbid curiosity about the revival but not enough to watch.

Post
#1212628
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

It did actually. It defended him and showed the white-trash Roseanne character accepting him. Either way, I don’t care if a show is progressive or not. I’m opposed to cancelling them because of stupid shit said by the stupid people behind the show. I was even opposed to cancelling Laura Ingraham for the same reason. Even though she actually is a propaganda outlet, it sets a precedent that anything associated with anything offensive needs to get cancelled which can only lead to two outcomes: safer entertainment or entertainment produced by safer people, both of which suck shit.

I’ll try to get to your other stuff, but hey we agree on this. Increasingly there are stories of the major internet companies cutting off ad revenue to people (particularly on the right). It’s a dangerous level of sensitivity by people with enormous power.

Post
#1211464
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

I’m not sure the purpose of your proclamations, mfm. Your rampant generalizations make it difficult to respond.

I’m proclaiming my stance on things in a clear and obvious way.

Yes, like me declaring that Democrats are the worst because they don’t care about working class people because they oppose tax cuts. I just don’t see the purpose, as I said, of that kind of proclamation, stuffed with a generalization (that I wager you take issue with in a fundamental way).

They don’t oppose tax cuts. The tax cuts that benefit only the rich are a bipartisan affair and don’t do shit for the working class. Regarding the working class, Democrats are more in favor of some weak drug legalization as well as vague healthcare for all, which benefit the working class far more than what the Republicans are for. I take issue with your generalization because it’s inaccurate. If you wanted to generalize the Democrats as center-right corporate sell-outs with some mildly enlightened social values that they don’t actually care enough about to fight for, then I’d be right there with you in that generalization. My generalization that the Republican party is opposed to gay marriage and gay rights on the whole is actually an accurate generalization that I doubt even you would argue with. Oh wait, nevermind, you do.

Again, what is the purpose of such a generalization? Once you unpack it, of course you will find reasons to disagree. It would be an absurd pretense that such a statement would be unassailable: that was my point. You happen to think your gay rights example is incontrovertible, like most positions you proclaim on here. I think it difficult to engage in dialogue when you proceed in that way. As you well illustrate with your continued disbelief that anybody could dispute your position.

I agree that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the Dems or the GOP is worse on a given issue. But the reasonableness depends on the extent to which you’re informed on the actual positions of each party.

And any generalization of a party’s position doesn’t apply to every member of the party and doesn’t comprehensively describe a party’s position, parts of which actually may not be bad.

It does apply to the party’s general position, though. Are you seriously going to claim that the Republican is not worse on gay rights than the Democrats?

Your statement on civil liberties for gays is an obvious generalization but also a mischaracterization.

Prove me wrong. The Republican platform is “family values” which is another term for anti-gay.

I think most people say they believe in family values but we don’t need to be that vague when there are identifiable policy differences (feel free to identify!). I’m not denying that Republicans don’t generally oppose items usually associated with “gay rights” but I do deny that Republicans are “opposed to their civil liberties on the whole,” as you said previously.

Family values in the Republican sense is the “One man, one woman” bullshit that most of them don’t even live by. The civil liberties that they’re opposed to are the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, gay adoption, protection from zealots refusing to do their jobs (e.g. Kim Davis), and the list goes on and on. I don’t know if those are the things that you consider “gay rights” in quotation marks (is that supposed to imply that they aren’t real rights?).

I put “gay rights” in quotation marks in that instance (but not others) to highlight that the term doesn’t have a precise meaning and there is a philosophical dispute about what would be included. We can pretend this is all so simple and everything you would include is an undisputed right because “rights” is in the title, but that’s not correct.

The enforcement of anti-discrimination laws runs straight into the conservative (and libertarian) view that private actors should generally be permitted to discriminate as well as concerns for religious liberty. That philosophical view is not inherently anti-gay. And yet you lump it in as if it is necessarily so. Which brings me back to the unproductive nature of your generalized and imprecise declarations.

Post
#1211455
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

And give me some examples of the people that Obama “associated with” that were even remotely as dangerous as criminals like Alex Jones and Roy Moore? I’d be shocked if you could name one that’s even in the same league as those guys. J

This.

Maybe both parties used to be equally bad and I just agreed with the ideas on one side, but the Republican party has gone completely off the deep end and if you don’t see it I don’t know what to tell you.

Apparently there is a wiki for that.

I’ve been hearing that the GOP went off the deep end for as long as I can remember. Maybe after the Democrats crying wolf all these years you’re right. Then again, Trump will be gone in 2-6 years.

Post
#1211453
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

I’m not sure the purpose of your proclamations, mfm. Your rampant generalizations make it difficult to respond.

I’m proclaiming my stance on things in a clear and obvious way.

Yes, like me declaring that Democrats are the worst because they don’t care about working class people because they oppose tax cuts. I just don’t see the purpose, as I said, of that kind of proclamation, stuffed with a generalization (that I wager you take issue with in a fundamental way).

I agree that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the Dems or the GOP is worse on a given issue. But the reasonableness depends on the extent to which you’re informed on the actual positions of each party.

And any generalization of a party’s position doesn’t apply to every member of the party and doesn’t comprehensively describe a party’s position, parts of which actually may not be bad.

It does apply to the party’s general position, though. Are you seriously going to claim that the Republican is not worse on gay rights than the Democrats?

Your statement on civil liberties for gays is an obvious generalization but also a mischaracterization.

Prove me wrong. The Republican platform is “family values” which is another term for anti-gay.

I think most people say they believe in family values but we don’t need to be that vague when there are identifiable policy differences (feel free to identify!). I’m not denying that Republicans don’t generally oppose items usually associated with “gay rights” but I do deny that Republicans are “opposed to their civil liberties on the whole,” as you said previously.

Post
#1211417
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alex-jones-the-boy-scouts-of-america-is-a-pedophile-induction-center/

Note: Alex Jones was an ardent defender of alt-reich mouthpiece Milo Y when the latter condoned the statutory rape of minors by adults and also admitted to knowing of active childraping priests and other abusers that he refused to name. Jones also defended Republican pedophile and child-molester Roy Moore. Ironically, Alex Jones is the real supporter of pedophilia, not the BSA.

Again with the boogeymen!

All those people are nutbars. I know they find some quarter among people who call themselves conservatives but no party is free from having stupid, dangerous, and crazy people supposedly on their side.

A boogeyman with the President’s ear and an audience of millions.

Does he really have the President’s ear? Though I think it’s overblown, I’m not saying there isn’t some legitimate concern. During Obama’s time we heard about the bad people who had his ear and who were responsible for his rise. That was legitimate too. But the line of argument isn’t terribly strong. Some of it is really weak guilt by association type stuff. Trump and many other Republicans opposed Moore. So much for Alex Jones having Trump’s ear. Milo (and his former patron Bannon) have been largely banished.

It’s eye-rolling stuff to the great many conservatives/Republicans who don’t follow, like, or care about those people.

Post
#1211316
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alex-jones-the-boy-scouts-of-america-is-a-pedophile-induction-center/

Note: Alex Jones was an ardent defender of alt-reich mouthpiece Milo Y when the latter condoned the statutory rape of minors by adults and also admitted to knowing of active childraping priests and other abusers that he refused to name. Jones also defended Republican pedophile and child-molester Roy Moore. Ironically, Alex Jones is the real supporter of pedophilia, not the BSA.

Again with the boogeymen!

All those people are nutbars. I know they find some quarter among people who call themselves conservatives but no party is free from having stupid, dangerous, and crazy people supposedly on their side.

Post
#1211315
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

I’m not sure the purpose of your proclamations, mfm. Your rampant generalizations make it difficult to respond.

I agree that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the Dems or the GOP is worse on a given issue. But the reasonableness depends on the extent to which you’re informed on the actual positions of each party.

And any generalization of a party’s position doesn’t apply to every member of the party and doesn’t comprehensively describe a party’s position, parts of which actually may not be bad.

Your statement on civil liberties for gays is an obvious generalization but also a mischaracterization.

Post
#1211211
Topic
Current Events. No debates! Light political discussion allowed, but if it turns into a debate, take it to the politics thread and include a link here.
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

As of right now it essentially allows for some states to be far better than others, which is unfortunate for the people living in the worst states. I think it’s important for states to have their own governments run by people that actually know what life is like in those states, but certain things (e.g. gay rights, abortion, marijuana) need to be legalized everywhere and all Americans’ rights to those things need to be uniformly protected. Unfortunately, the states rights platform is basically just an anti-civil liberties platform.

Totally disagree but this isn’t the debate thread.

Post
#1211076
Topic
Current Events. No debates! Light political discussion allowed, but if it turns into a debate, take it to the politics thread and include a link here.
Time

I think we’d see a similar result in the US if we held a referendum. The Irish restrictions to be implemented appear a bit more restrictive than the laws in the UK, but altogether there are more reasonable laws on abortion in Europe than the US.

Post
#1210206
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

NeverarGreat said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Until they actually meet, NK has done nothing different than they’ve done a bunch of times before. The only difference so far is that the President said yes.

You mean aside from dismantling a nuclear test site, which satellite imagery shows they’re doing?

Yeah, this was a site that had already collapsed and killed over two hundred NK citizens.
Kim is just trying to make a concession that had already been conceded.

There were questions about parts of the facility still being operable. And questions whether the demolition of the site was effective or just show. It was a lot of show, but that isn’t meaningless in setting the stage for actually disarming. Now that Trump has canceled, Kim’s “concession” will be pointless unless Kim shows his belly.

Post
#1210161
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

All this is predicated on the notion that Donald Trump has any idea what he’s doing. He’s made clear time and time again that he does not understand any of the issues that he tweets about. I guarantee he couldn’t even name all three dictators that North Korea has had in its existence, or the terms of the ceasefire, etc. etc.

To be clear when I said this is the first thing he’s done correctly, that’s based on the assumption that someone else will actually be in charge of the negotiation and he’ll be playing golf with porn stars while it’s happening.

I hope golf isn’t a euphemism.