Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Fair enough. I watch it as its easier to keep up with the DU mindset by watching TV than by reading postings. Also, they banned my isp address.




A little, yes, although coupled with all of his other quirks there is a lot disturbing going on there. In a good way. No offence.

I recommend fucking with people on DailyKos for a laugh. I did a bit of it, along with some research on them, a couple years ago to drum up material for something I never finalized. It was amusing, and depressing.

You don't tweak with them by being a right winger. You do so by asking polite non-partisan questions that point out holes in the orthodoxies. They hate moderates, can't dela with people who don't wear positions on their sleeves and really - I mean, really - loathe moral relativists. They're almost identical to right wing nuts in the desire to:

1. Feel morally superior; and
2. Attack anything that could create fissures of disagreement between them.

It was quite eye-opening, and saddening. These zealots really are desperate to believe there's a formula, a point, a light at the end of the tunnel... and that they're on the right track toward it. That there's a reachable "just" society (of some amorphous structure they can no better describe than their tea party brethren). Truest proof I've ever seen that where there is populist angst mixed with heartfelt indignation, intelligence and reason are almost always on holiday.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I recommend fucking with people on DailyKos for a laugh. I did a bit of it, along with some research on them, a couple years ago to drum up material for something I never finalized. It was amusing, and depressing.

You don't tweak with them by being a right winger. You do so by asking polite non-partisan questions that point out holes in the orthodoxies. They hate moderates, can't dela with people who don't wear positions on their sleeves and really - I mean, really - loathe moral relativists. They're almost identical to right wing nuts in the desire to:

1. Feel morally superior; and
2. Attack anything that could create fissures of disagreement between them.

It was quite eye-opening, and saddening. These zealots really are desperate to believe there's a formula, a point, a light at the end of the tunnel... and that they're on the right track toward it. That there's a reachable "just" society (of some amorphous structure they can no better describe than their tea party brethren). Truest proof I've ever seen that where there is populist angst mixed with heartfelt indignation, intelligence and reason are almost always on holiday.

so what would you do, ask "what support do you have for ____?" and you say they'd just start insulting you?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

so what would you do, ask "what support do you have for ____?" and you say they'd just start insulting you?

I'm under the impression (thx to P) that that sort of incivility is deleted at teh DU.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

so what would you do, ask "what support do you have for ____?" and you say they'd just start insulting you?

I'm not wading into the battle here. Do I think there's some echo-chamberness here? Of course I do. But that's human nature. You'll get it everywhere and, frankly, I'm more interested in what causes it than railing against it. Perhaps I'm turning a new leaf, but I'm beginning to think it's better to learn why people tribalize, and find ways to lead them to consider the flaws and insecurities that lead us to congeal behind things and parrot one another as we do, than bluntly yell at people for being, well, people.

To borrow from Ronnie James Dio, "If you listen to fools... (where's Less or Slave to fill in the rest?)" But that doesn't mean it can't be fun to watch, or engage.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not wading into the battle here. Do I think there's some echo-chamberness here? Of course I do. But that's human nature. You'll get it everywhere and, frankly, I'm more interested in what causes it than railing against it. Perhaps I'm turning a new leaf, but I'm beginning to think it's better to learn why people tribalize, and find ways to lead them to consider the flaws and insecurities that lead us to congeal behind things and parrot one another as we do, than bluntly yell at people for being, well, people.

To borrow from Ronnie James Dio, "If you listen to fools... (where's Less or Slave to fill in the rest?)" But that doesn't mean it can't be fun to watch, or engage.

Fuck that: "you're not punk and I'm telling everyone. Save your breath I never was one."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Secret_Agent_Man

If you want friends, you have to be friendly.

S_A_M

The same applies if you want money. I agree... Yes. I can do that. Totally. Indeed. I agree with your position.

Translation: Give me the fucking check. I couldn't care if you were hit by a bus leaving the office. In fact, this being a non-refundable retainer, that'd be preferred.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I recommend fucking with people on DailyKos for a laugh. I did a bit of it, along with some research on them, a couple years ago to drum up material for something I never finalized. It was amusing, and depressing.

You don't tweak with them by being a right winger. You do so by asking polite non-partisan questions that point out holes in the orthodoxies. They hate moderates, can't dela with people who don't wear positions on their sleeves and really - I mean, really - loathe moral relativists. They're almost identical to right wing nuts in the desire to:

1. Feel morally superior; and
2. Attack anything that could create fissures of disagreement between them.

It was quite eye-opening, and saddening. These zealots really are desperate to believe there's a formula, a point, a light at the end of the tunnel... and that they're on the right track toward it. That there's a reachable "just" society (of some amorphous structure they can no better describe than their tea party brethren). Truest proof I've ever seen that where there is populist angst mixed with heartfelt indignation, intelligence and reason are almost always on holiday.

Do you try to engage them on something intellectual, or just throw out Tea Party talking points and pretend that it's an honest question that you weren't capable of googling yourself?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

So which Republican Congressman gets to read the Sixteenth Amendment, and do they immediately get a primary challenger for 2012?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Do you try to engage them on something intellectual, or just throw out Tea Party talking points and pretend that it's an honest question that you weren't capable of googling yourself?

I sided with them gently, but would shift slowly toward a libertarian arguments. I recall citing non-partisan economic reasons to support Dems, and saying I liked Clinton. Clinton seems to piss a lot them off.

They're emotional, like Tea Baggers. The driver behind all movement minds, I think, is a need to see one's own form of justice enshrined broadly.

Thank God my parents were cynics. The sole idealism I hold is a vain, ludicrous belief people can brought to think for themselves more, and that movements and ideologies and things like religion and strident party affiliation can be broken down and not so rotely observed by so many. In that, I guess I'd be what... An absurdist?

Chris Rock had a great bit on tribal thinkers. Fucking brilliant. I'm going to go find that. Had me laughing my ass off the other night. It was from a special that had one of the sharpest lines I've ever heard a comedian utter: (On opportunities for minorities in America) "If you're Black, America's like your uncle who pays your way through college... But also molests you."

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So which Republican Congressman gets to read the Sixteenth Amendment, and do they immediately get a primary challenger for 2012?

None, because it was never ratified and is thus not part of the Constitution. Duh.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

None, because it was never ratified and is thus not part of the Constitution. Duh.

Cecil Adams to the rescue.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So which Republican Congressman gets to read the Sixteenth Amendment, and do they immediately get a primary challenger for 2012?

Are they actually going to have members read it? Why?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Are they actually going to have members read it? Why?

To appease the base.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

To appease the base.

I had only heard that they were going to have it read, not that they would read it. Have you seen otherwise? Both you and rt seem to suggest Thr member would read it themselves.

Eta. I guess the post says they will do the reading. Wonder if they have reconsidered.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

so what would you do, ask "what support do you have for ____?" and you say they'd just start insulting you?

time's up. I'm counting this one-

589-18