| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What the hell? Was a reason given?
It's a CoC game -- everyone playing obviously supports fascism because they're HPL fans.
Scott Betts wrote:
What the hell? Was a reason given?
---
Um, not really. I got the impression from the rest of the game, though, that he felt that a commie wouldn't have fit in with a bunch of orphaned, but very, very rich siblings meeting together to decide the fate of the family estate. Lack of imagination on his part?
Whatever, it was fine.
I got my revenge by:
a) being a Fascist, as I said;
b) shiznitting over everybody else's pathetic attempts to make allusions to Jazz Age literature and;
c) escaping from the Call of Cthulu-esque shenanigans and riding away on a bicycle to alert the local constabulary.
I was thrown in a lunatic asylum for a little while and was almost assassinated by the remaining Bad Guy Cult Members, but I later go initiated into the Esoteric Order of Catholics (despite my initial Lovecraftian race hate), so I figured I won at Call of Cthulu.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole room freaked out and the DM was like, "No, no, no, you can't be a communist! Blah, blah, blah, I appreciate the creativity, but you can't."What the hell? Was a reason given?
Probably because the policy of whipping the Communist Party up into the premier bogeyman of the 20th century was a virtually unqualified success in the US. It seems to be worse than calling someone a Fascist or Nazi in the general public eye.
Well, now that I think of it, and to be fair, there was a well-attended table for Paranoia throughout the weekend.
Which I have never played but have only heard good things about.
Well, to be fair, it was an assertion by Scott--one of many, that wasn't backed up,I backed it up with a website filled with links to published, peer-reviewed articles supporting that assertion (which Irontruth has, helpfully, added to). You (predictably) pulled the equivalent of, "Those damned liberal academics and their 'facts', if they were real scientists they would have agreed with my views!"
Nyoooo...I did not. I said I read the first published article, questioned its limitations (which I explained), noted the article's own caveat, and then questioned your inference from it. It did not make me uncomfortable; it made me laugh, like when reading the science of phrenology (perhaps, a too-loud laugh with tears of salty terror pouring from my blinkered--yet shockingly beautiful--eyes).
Your response was an appeal to authority. I suggested you question authority (my response ostensibly makes me a conservative: which you define as someone who would embrace the status quo, which speaks to the quality of your definitions).
The assertion referred to...your example of how the 'evil' conservatives appeal to their 'dumb' (and fearful?) conservative counterparts. It was that conservatives have been warning that:
For example: "Gay people want to turn our children gay,"
I asked you to back that up, by asking:
Who is more likely to latch onto that assertion, pro- or con-? Who would deploy it to bolster their 'side?' Who has deployed this sort of nonsense here? What would a Google search show? Would a sample size of the internet yield this 'conservative argument' as a typical SEO'd argument by conservatives to their easily-manipulated base, and their base repeating it?
Which you still haven't done. And won't. 'Cause you can't.
But it sounded like BS (actually it sounded like "wishful thinking"), which should be red-flag, even if one is sympathetic.
What part of it sounded like BS, and why?
The part I responded to, quoting you, then explained why.
But a summary of it is: because it was incandescently sloppy and transparently self-serving, and I should hope that such sloppy methods don't creep into structural systems because I like things not to fall over.
So I think it would be helpful for you to examine why you saw this as BS. It wasn't, obviously. Was it because it said something that made you uncomfortable, rather than something that struck you as unlikely? Because, let's be honest, a link between conservatism and fear shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. And if it made you uncomfortable, [i]why is that? What are you concerned that it says about you and your beliefs? Does it make you question how many of your beliefs are grounded in rational thought versus how many are motivated by easily manipulated fear? I don't really want to hear your answers to these (and, besides, I can guess at what they'd be if you typed them out now); I'm more...
I'm more than happy leave it up to anyone interested (undoubtedly millions, or perhaps a handful of really bored people) to read my direct responses to you and let them determine whether these are an example of fear or a disturbing lack of introspection or knowledge of the human character (well, I am arguing on the internet...).
I did make one big assertion (not addressed other than to declare it uncivil) that I think is salient:
I couldn't tell you the differences between dubious categories of people by vision, ideals, or otherwise with a sample size of 10,000 much less half a busload. I couldn't tell you who is better or worse by category. It is vain and arrogant (something aptly demonstrated above) to presume you have that ability.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True Story: The first printing of the first edition of Call of Cthulu included a rule requiring every player to donate $10 or more to the local facist/skinhead party or organization prior to play, with additional sanity points awarded for each person contributing $100 or more.
Since you seem unable to let it go (and because you seem to think that it wins you all the points), let's take a look at this.
Who is more likely to latch onto that assertion, pro- or con-? Who would deploy it to bolster their 'side?' Who has deployed this sort of nonsense here? What would a Google search show? Would a sample size of the internet yield this 'conservative argument' as a typical SEO'd argument by conservatives to their easily-manipulated base, and their base repeating it?
Actually, it doesn't show up on the internet very much, either way. A few similar searches turn up pages containing a lot of those terms, but as a coherent argument, it's rarely voiced online (except in rambling forum screeds). Where it is voiced is on talk radio, and in conversations with those who actually believe it.
LGBT rights groups didn't just make up the idea that some people actually thought gay people would turn their children gay. That was something crazy conservatives actually believed (and many still do!). Yes, now it's probably used more often as an example of exactly how insane those people sound, or to lampoon their thought process, but you seem to want to pretend that no one actually believes it!
So yes, it's more likely that the LGBT-rights crowd would "latch onto" a claim like "Gay people want to turn our kids gay!" because it's just that insane. Unfortunately, it's also something that some anti-LGBT groups actually believe. You might remember this kid, who made headlines for a) being a 14 year-old conservative talk show host, and b) for blaming Obama for turning kids gay. (Unfortunately, merely blaming Obama for turning kids gay doesn't make national headlines - it's just too run-of-the-mill.) Now, mind you, Obama isn't gay himself. But does, "The President is turning our children gay!" sound any less insane and paranoid to you than, "Gay people are turning our children gay!"? Or what about this piece of work, of the oh-so-appropriately-named Citizens for Community Values, who is convinced that gay people recruit kids into their lifestyle? James Dobson, of Focus on the Family infamy, is on record as having stated that gay people are indoctrinating children through public education! (Mad points for that particular conservative heart attack combo of children, gay people, and public education.) Talk show hosts, elected representatives, and political advocacy groups - these are the heads of the anti-gay movement, and plenty of them have tried to push the "Gay people want to turn our kids gay!" message over the past decade. Who do you think they're talking to, exactly, if not the conservative base?
So go ahead. Tell me that the gay rights movement manufactured that particular pile of crap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, now that I think of it, and to be fair, there was a well-attended table for Paranoia throughout the weekend.
Which I have never played but have only heard good things about.
Paranoia is awesome, it combines the worst parts of Capitalism, Communism and Fascism into a setting. My favorite is when the GM has piles of forms for you to fill out, including the Form Request Form.
Well, now that I think of it, and to be fair, there was a well-attended table for Paranoia throughout the weekend.
Which I have never played but have only heard good things about.
Only a commie, mutant traitor would like Paranoia, citizen.
Only a commie, mutant traitor would like Paranoia, citizen.Well, now that I think of it, and to be fair, there was a well-attended table for Paranoia throughout the weekend.
Which I have never played but have only heard good things about.
But of course.
But would you like pamphlet detailing glorious proletariat revolution, comrade? **reaches under her fuzzy hat, exposing a third eye**
Since you seem unable to let it go (and because you seem to think that it wins you all the points), let's take a look at this.
Thanks for responding. It was an interesting explanation you made, and was submitted as evidence to your assertion that the 'evil' conservatives manipulated their brethren...by saying their kids would become gay.
...and to think I found that absurd.
If I 'win,' can I get Electronic Battleship, by Milton Bradley? Never had that.
Actually, it doesn't show up on the internet very much, either way. A few similar searches turn up pages containing a lot of those terms, but as a coherent argument, it's rarely voiced online (except in rambling forum screeds).
Thank you for noting that rather salient point.
Might I suggest that it doesn't show up on conservative sites (or practically any sites at all) because it isn't a compelling argument, and it isn't a common argument.Therefore, it is not an "example" that the evil conservatives are manipulating the dumb base with it, and that their base loves to be manipulated, and that there is no point in civility, because conservatives don't respond to civility, seeing it as weakness, and it would be more helpful to approach them like one would the Ku Klux Klan.
Yes, you've made one hulluva string of assertions, you nut you *cheek pinch*
Where it is voiced is on talk radio, and in conversations with those who actually believe it.
Ah...well, I cannot capture 'conversations,' so maybe the board game is yours.
I do recall that talk radio has several committed watchdogs whose purpose is to publicize such things (on media channels such as the internet). I'll get back to that...
LGBT rights groups didn't just make up the idea that some people actually thought gay people would turn their children gay.
Well, I didn't say they did. I did say that it wasn't an argument that conservatives would likely make to whip up their base. I didn't buy what you were selling, the premise or the conclusion.
I did suspect that if someone on earth did say such a thing (such as this 14-year old boy that you link to), it could be used as a substitute for argument by their opponents, and could be used to justify all sorts of wild accusations (see above).
That was something crazy conservatives actually believed (and many still do!).
Oy vey.
Yes, now it's probably used more often as an example of exactly how insane those people sound, or to lampoon their thought process, but you seem to want to pretend that no one actually believes it! So yes, it's more likely that the LGBT-rights crowd would "latch onto" a claim like "Gay people want to turn our kids gay!" because it's just that insane. Unfortunately, it's also something that some anti-LGBT groups actually believe. You might remember this kid, who made headlines for a) being a 14 year-old conservative talk show host, and b) for blaming Obama for turning kids gay. (Unfortunately, merely blaming Obama for turning kids gay doesn't make national headlines - it's just too run-of-the-mill.) Now, mind you, Obama isn't gay himself. But does, "The President is turning our children gay!" sound any less insane and paranoid to you than, "Gay people are turning our children gay!"? Or...
I don't remember it, honestly. I mean, why would I? There were no headlines, really (or else they would be on the internet).
Talk show hosts, elected representatives, and political advocacy groups - these are the heads of the anti-gay movement, and plenty of them have tried to push the "Gay people want to turn our kids gay!" message over the past decade. Who do you think they're talking to, exactly, if not the conservative base?
Strange, if, over 10 years, talk radio hosts, elected representatives, and advocacy groups were pushing that argument (or even mentioning it as insightful), it would be all over the internet. I mean, not just from 'liberal' sites, but from libertarian and conservative and frankly non-aligned sites. It would be free entertainment! Agree?
Honestly, I think it's wishful thinking. And what a strange thing to wish for. I mean, it's good news that it isn't being used, over the last decade, by any said groups. Let's not hemorrhage over good news.
So go ahead. Tell me that the gay rights movement manufactured that particular pile of crap.
No need. I'll let the 14-year old speak for himself (go to 1 minute in), and people can independently determine whether he (perhaps, imagine an adult saying the same thing) is compelling, and then determine whether he is one of the aforementioned conservatives successfully manipulating his base.
I think you've done well demolishing an argument here, it's just a matter of which one.
All over the internet? Let's try.
I've googled "gay people want to turn your kids gay" and the first hit I got was:
A pretty nasty statement I won't repeat here
Moral majority and GOP supporter trying to warn people away from "gay" bands that will turn your kids gay. This schmuck even calls homosexuality a disease. Wow. That sure wasn't hard.
"You have a teacher talking about his gayness. (The elementary school student) goes home then and says “Mom! What’s gayness? We had a teacher talking about this today.” The mother says “Well, that’s when a man likes other men, and they don’t like girls.” The boy’s eight. He’s thinking, “Hmm. I don’t like girls. I like boys. Maybe I’m gay.” And you think, “Oh, that’s, that’s way out there. The kid isn’t gonna think that.” Are you kidding? That happens all the time. You don’t think that this is intentional, the message that’s being given to these kids? That’s child abuse.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.
“This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, on the gay community and same-sex marriage, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.
“Our children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal and natural and that perhaps they should try it, and that’ll be very soon in our public schools all across the state, beginning in kindergarten.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.
You wanted some quotes Rankovich...here you go. Three from Michelle Bachmann.
-MD
PS: Is this really the hill you want to die on? Seriously...move on
I don't remember it, honestly. I mean, why would I? There were no headlines, really (or else they would be on the internet).
I mean, come on, you really could have Googled that one.
It's a little weird that you missed conservative fear-baiting over gays and children time after time after time. How did you miss this? Where do you source your news from, that you never saw this come up once? Were you maybe in a different country during the last election cycle? I'm really just looking for some kind of explanation here as to how you managed to create a mental impression of the conservative anti-gay movement that doesn't include insane fear-mongering.
All over the internet? Let's try.
I've googled "gay people want to turn your kids gay" and the first hit I got was:A pretty nasty statement I won't repeat here
Moral majority and GOP supporter trying to warn people away from "gay" bands that will turn your kids gay. This schmuck even calls homosexuality a disease. Wow. That sure wasn't hard.
Poe's Law, I'm afraid. That's a parody site created by an actor. (Of course, it works so well as a parody because it's essentially a more straightforward distillation of everything conservatives have said on the issue for years - it's believable because we've heard things like it so many times that it no longer surprises us.)
Which explains why it comes right out and says gay people are turning kids gay. Most of the time they jazz it up at least a little bit (see: Bachmann) to make it sound slightly less incredibly stupid. Though she manages to elevate it to a whole new level of disgusting by trying to call it child abuse.
But I kind of like this. I want to see more of Rankovich defending (or denying!) conservative fear-mongering and manipulation!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole room freaked out and the DM was like, "No, no, no, you can't be a communist! Blah, blah, blah, I appreciate the creativity, but you can't."What the hell? Was a reason given?
Wow, there were a lot of very well off sons and daughters, of the upper classes that joined the Communist party in the 20s and 30s.
Heh I have even been dismissively refered to as a Chardonnay Socialist, because my family are comfortable.
I corrected them of course I prefer a Gewurztraminer ;-)
I'd talk subversive literature with you Goblin, but unfortunately you are significantly better read than I am.
I've played at least one formerly wealthy bomb-throwing anarchist in a Cthulhu game.
Vive le Galt!
were a lot of very well off sons and daughters, of the upper classes that joined the Communist party in the 20s and 30s.
Yes, that's why I thought it would be fun. But I wasn't going to push it. I'd never played CoC before, and, also, I wasn't even signed up for the event.
I was signed up for a game of Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerers of Hyperborea, but I was the only player who showed up, so the DM gave me his CoC ticket he had been holding, just in case, and then muscled himself into the game anyway.
And, as I said, it turned out to be great anyway. Who knew being a Fascist was so much fun?
I'd talk subversive literature with you Goblin, but unfortunately you are significantly better read than I am.
Dude start a subversive literature thread, most of my reading has been in the Classics but I will chime in on occasion.
I'd talk subversive literature with you Goblin, but unfortunately you are significantly better read than I am.
Only because you were, for professional reasons, stuck re-reading Blackstone's Commentaries over and over again!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The more I read about Mussolini, the bigger the inept, vain, megalomaniac, he appears to be.
But he (didn't) make the trains run on time!
More importantly, I played in 4 games over the course of the con, and I came to the realization that I am easily a better DM than half of the guys I played under, and could probably have given the other two a decent run for their money.
Next year, I decided I am going to DM one event a day and skip the $50 registration fee.
Well, now that I think of it, and to be fair, there was a well-attended table for Paranoia throughout the weekend.
Which I have never played but have only heard good things about.
You'd like it. In Paranoia, everyone's a communist.
And, as I said, it turned out to be great anyway. Who knew being a Fascist was so much fun?
Everyone. Everyone knows being a Fascist is great! That's why it's so popular (and why Fascism needs to be taken in moderation. Like a bedtime snack. Too much Fascism is bad for your teeth.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, as I said, it turned out to be great anyway. Who knew being a Fascist was so much fun?Everyone. Everyone knows being a Fascist is great!
Yes. In retrospect, that was a pretty stupid rhetorical question.
I don't remember it, honestly. I mean, why would I? There were no headlines, really (or else they would be on the internet).I mean, come on, you really could have Googled that one.
It's a little weird that you missed conservative fear-baiting over gays and children time after time after time. How did you miss this? Where do you source your news from, that you never saw this come up once? Were you maybe in a different country during the last election cycle? I'm really just looking for some kind of explanation here as to how you managed to create a mental impression of the conservative anti-gay movement that doesn't include insane fear-mongering.
Don't need to, since I never suggested that it was impossible, only that your example was not one of these, and therefore not evidence of Insane! Fear! Mongering! nor a good-faith justification for the character flaws dressed up as ideals that you express. You appear (now) to want to argue your own psychodrama, with heroes and villains...it sounds exciting, at least superficially.
I apparently missed the headlines at TMZ (you link to TMZ and then ask me where I get my news from?), at Gawker, at HuffPo's forum, and WaPo opinions. So, um, yeah, missed it. But, to restate what I wrote, if a 14 year old can Make Headlines at the above, imagine how easy it be to find senators, entire associations, making the charge, which is what you wrote, in order to prove the prior assertions to justify your prior slurs.
Might I suggest the dog-whistle assertion after this. It would be the predictable ad-hoc assertion to shore up the other assertions, to maintain the previous assertions, to justify the prior call to incivility. Make it appear that it's in a special code that conservatives (and you) hear.
One thing, though. I would warn you not to drink your own Kool-Aid. I mean, wild accusations aside, don't actually believe it or you'll make foolish choices based on spectral input and end up being the guy muttering at fruit at the grocery store. Seriously, if you look at people as categories (notably as self-serving categories), you'll not only miss some special moments in life, but you'll make some big mistakes, too.
Which makes me think of the video you linked to of that boy. It's sad to see this kid struggle, not to put together a coherent argument but to construct any sentence whatsoever. Well, if history is any indicator, people change over time. Maybe he'll hold the same opinions at 40 than he did at 14, but I doubt it, and that's good news, too.
Anybody ever notice how the goblin looks like a freaky smurf? And we all know how the Smurfs were really communists. I guess I don't find the similarity all that surprising.
Don't need to, since I never suggested that it was impossible, only that your example was not one of these, and therefore not evidence of Insane! Fear! Mongering! nor a good-faith justification for the character flaws dressed up as ideals that you express. You appear (now) to want to argue your own psychodrama, with heroes and villains...it sounds exciting, at least superficially.
I apparently missed the headlines at TMZ (you link to TMZ and then ask me where I get my news from?), at Gawker, at HuffPo's forum, and WaPo opinions. So, um, yeah, missed it. But, to restate what I wrote, if a 14 year old can Make Headlines at the above, imagine how easy it be to find senators, entire associations, making the charge, which is what you wrote, in order to prove the prior assertions to justify your prior slurs.
It's almost surprising that people haven't done that in this very thread, only a few posts earlier!
Might I suggest the dog-whistle assertion after this. It would be the predictable ad-hoc assertion to shore up the other assertions, to maintain the previous assertions, to justify the prior call to incivility. Make it appear that it's in a special code that conservatives (and you) hear.
I don't think you know how "dog-whistle" rhetoric actually works. It's not a "secret code" so they can pass information without anyone finding out. It's selective language used to maintain plausible deniability while motivating your base. "Dog-whistle" is actually a pretty poor term, but unfortunately it's stuck. Everyone can hear it, and (nearly) everyone knows what it actually means, but the way our political ecosystem works allows implications of incendiary language to be shrugged off when handled properly. (For instance, "states' rights" is a pretty typical dog-whistle phrase; it can plausibly be said to refer to a state's power to govern itself, but its functional use in politics is typically to motivate a racist base - and everyone knows it.)
Regardless, when conservative figures are quoted as saying, "Homosexuals want to recruit our children into their agenda," it's not much of a dog whistle. You don't need any special interpretation to find the mentality behind that offensive.
Though the fact that you have that particular volley at the ready tells me that you've done this before, many times. Is defending insane conservatives a hobby of yours? If so, why?
Look, I'm not going to argue this with you. That's over and done with. You're basically the only person in this thread who has managed to convince himself that prominent conservatives don't employ fear-laden rhetoric to motivate their base, despite a bunch of different people giving you half a dozen studies and upwards of ten different examples illustrating exactly that.
So we're finished with this argument. We can move onto something more interesting than another conservative trying to deny something staring him in the face (which, mind you, was actually interesting for the first thirty or so posts, but it's tired now), or you can pat yourself on the back for having managed to convince us all that conservatives and fear-mongering are "just friends". I don't much care which.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
H.P. Lovecraft's influence on RPGs: It even made Comrade Anklebiter a fascist!
Good surrender post, rate it a 7.2 vs your usual 6.1 - bonus points for form and clarity.
Thanks! I thought maybe I'd hit an 8.0 this time, but the constructive criticism is appreciated!
Liberals use fear-mongering also.
Also have a mindset that avoids change until it has been proven "acceptable" is not necessarily ruled by fear. Using the word fear to describe that is stretching the idea to fear to a useless meaning. A company that doesn't employ a new machine and spend the cost of changing their entire production line because it hasn't proven beyond a certain level of confidence it is better than what they currently have, is not making that decision based on "fear". They are deciding it is better to avoid a Type 1 Error (IIRC).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also have a mindset that avoids change until it has been proven "acceptable" is not necessarily ruled by fear.
Most definitely -- there's a whole field of knowledge called "management of change" that's based on that concept. But one of the lessons learned is that if "proven acceptable" is an unreachable goal, you get left in the dust and soundly out-competed.
The big problem with many so-called "conservative" ideals is that they're based on a nostalgic version of a glorious, perfect past that never actually existed, so that nothing in the present can possibly measure up as "acceptable" in comparison.
Someone wise once said that the only difference between "conservative" or "progressive" is which direction in time gets more obscured by your rose-colored blinders.
That sounds Kirth-y.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone wise once said that the only difference between "conservative" or "progressive" is which direction in time gets more obscured by your rose-colored blinders.
Somewhere between 'all change is bad! obstruct everything!' and 'all change is good! full speed ahead/ramming speed!' probably lies a truth.
And yet a lot of progressives are all about restricting unrestrained growth and expansion, dedicated to slamming the brakes on some sorts of 'progress,' and pro-big-government neo-conservatives who worked so hard to vastly increase the size and power of big government through the Patriot Act / Homeland Security stuff.
There are a few big boxes, and a whole lotta people who don't really fit that well into them.
I am with Illuminati on this. The definition of a liberal is someone who is opposed to conservatives. A conservative is someone who is opposed to liberals.
I am with Illuminati on this. The definition of a liberal is someone who is opposed to conservatives. A conservative is someone who is opposed to liberals.
Just to confuse everything the name of the conservative party in Australia is the Liberal Party..... Their idea of liberalism is the freedom of business to trade with minimal government interference i.e. the screw the workers and consumers party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big problem with many so-called "conservative" ideals is that they're based on a nostalgic version of a glorious, perfect past that never actually existed, so that nothing in the present can possibly measure up as "acceptable" in comparison.
"It is difficult to live in the present, pointless to live in the future and impossible to live in the past."
-Leto Atreides II
I am with Illuminati on this. The definition of a liberal is someone who is opposed to conservatives. A conservative is someone who is opposed to liberals.Just to confuse everything the name of the conservative party in Australia is the Liberal Party..... Their idea of liberalism is the freedom of business to trade with minimal government interference i.e. the screw the workers and consumers party.
That's because, like so much else ( ;-) ), the Americans have polluted the language from its original meaning.
Liberalism (capital L) is indeed the whole "free market," "minimal government" etc. ideology. So the US Libertarians are, in a lot of aspects, closer to the traditional Liberals.While some Democrats and other progressives are indeed quite socially Liberal (lesser regulations in some social areas - or equal rights for all) it seems quite funny (from a historical perspective) that they have had the word "liberal" (and usually with a negative connotation) tacked unto them.
Of course, Liberalism is indeed also different from Conservatism, but when it comes to economics they can usually find some common ground.
Good surrender post, rate it a 7.2 vs your usual 6.1 - bonus points for form and clarity.
Surrender post? Wow, there's a reality distortion of Steve Jobs-ian magnitude. Apple might have a job for you... :P
That's because, like so much else ( ;-) ), the Americans have polluted the language from its original meaning.
Liberalism (capital L) is indeed the whole "free market," "minimal government" etc. ideology. So the US Libertarians are, in a lot of aspects, closer to the traditional Liberals.
While some Democrats and other progressives are indeed quite socially Liberal (lesser regulations in some social areas - or equal rights for all) it seems quite funny (from a historical perspective) that they have had the word "liberal" (and usually with a negative connotation) tacked unto them.
That makes much more sense -- though someone is going to have to let Anne Coulter in on the fact that it is progressives, rather than liberals, who hate 'Merica.
That's because, like so much else ( ;-) ), the Americans have polluted the language from its original meaning.
It's not just in America. Britain's been cocking it up for decades too.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
And yet a lot of progressives are all about restricting unrestrained growth and expansion, dedicated to slamming the brakes on some sorts of 'progress,' and pro-big-government neo-conservatives who worked so hard to vastly increase the size and power of big government through the Patriot Act / Homeland Security stuff.
The thing that really blows my mind is that most of the same folks who were screaming about it 8 years ago are all for it now, the only difference being that it is a (D) next to the name of the surveillance/police state totalitarians rather than an (R). A statist by any other name....
The thing that really blows my mind is that most of the same folks who were screaming about it 8 years ago are all for it now, the only difference being that it is a (D) next to the name of the surveillance/police state totalitarians rather than an (R). A statist by any other name....
As far as the general public goes, I'm not seeing that. The critics I saw for the original passing are pretty much still critics. And on the politician side, Russ Feingold is still opposed.