Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 73 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 >  Last ›
   7201. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 12, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4300617)
Every hippie liberal I know was watching FOX on November 7-9.
I'm actually hooked on it. I watched Shep Smith fairly regularly (which for me was about once a week, maybe twice), and nothing else on the network. Since the elections, I've been watching the morning shows all the way until after Smith. (Cavuto is still a bit much.) It's pretty spectacular stuff.
   7202. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 12, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4300619)
Isn't Fox the old people's network?

As of 2010, Fox News had the oldest audience of any channel on cable television; the average Fox viewer is over 65 years old. MSNBC averaged 59. Tthe youngest audience belonged to Oxygen (42). Spongebob must appeal to a lot of grandmas, because the average Nickelodeon watcher is almost 49.
   7203. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 12, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4300620)
This thread led me to switch over to Fox. It was pretty great, so thanks. But other than elections I just don't watch cable news.
   7204. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 12, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4300626)
Why hasn't the South hasn't become a straight contest between the Tea Party and the GOP,


If the Libertarianocrats focused on House and Senate seats in the South and Midwest they could build a significant third party presence in the Congress.


Funny you should mention the South....

Hard-Nosed Approach Wins Votes in the South, but Lacks Broader Appeal

It's truly a fun-filled article, especially when paired with this one....

GOP’s Red America forced to rethink what it knows about the country

And just in case Joe hasn't landed in an intervention....

Google or Gallup? Changes in Voters’ Habits Reshape Polling World
   7205. formerly dp Posted: November 12, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4300629)
   7206. A Fatty Cow That Need Two Seats Posted: November 12, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4300630)
Isn't Fox the old people's network?


I can't escape Fox News at my dentist's office (Borough Park). The commercials skew...a little old.
   7207. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 12, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4300631)
Wait'll you need a self-lubricated catheter, you'll be glad you were watching.
   7208. phredbird Posted: November 12, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4300632)
apropos of nothing ...

YR, just wanted to say i was sorry to see carmen basilio passed away last week.
   7209. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4300637)
phredbird, I'll miss the old Onion Farmer more than most - if boxing handled its history like baseball I'd place Basilio clearly at the top of his class in the Hall of Very Good. The guy was tough and shrugged off abuse incredibly well, and his fights with Gene Fullmer and Sugar Ray Robinson still hold up as some outstanding fighting today.

The sport of boxing itself is dying, of course, and I won't weep for that, but we lose a small sliver of American history every time one of the old-timers passes away.
   7210. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:14 PM (#4300640)
I'm no boxing historian, but Basilio and Sugar Ray were my two favorite fighters in the FNF era. Seemed like Basilio never had two open eyes by the end of the fifth round, but he never gave an inch, and it's a pity that Robinson never gave him a chance for a rubber match. Total heart, and I was sorry to see he passed.
   7211. The Good Face Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4300647)
Then why are private schools so expensive?


Signalling and sorting. Signals status and sorts out the underclasses so they won't confuse themselves with their betters.


This is generally correct, although the sorting is less about ensuring the underclass doesn't get airs and more about wealthy people not wanting their children to attend schools with too many scions of the underclass.

So were exactly did I call anyone who believed AA "worked"* racist?

* Worked is in scare quotes because a big part of the disconnect is what AA worked means. In the conservative point of view (what can be gathered from talking points) it working means those who take advantage of AA are promoted above what they deserve, while deserving white male candidates are left behind. Of course this is not at all what Liberals mean by worked. I can't speak for those that may be calling you racist, but I suspect it might start at your definition of worked.


I never said that you personally did, although people have done so in this thread. You did essentially state that people who oppose AA are racists who can't be trusted though. So that was classy of you. Anyway, you're confused with respect to "working" and I think you have a shaky grasp on what the other tribe believes. The functionality of AA is such that certain people will be favored over other people based on their race or gender. The resulting impact of that favoritism on the favored party isn't important for the purposes of this discussion, only that it occurred. If it occurred, than it "worked".
   7212. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4300648)
Seemed like Basilio never had two open eyes by the end of the fifth round, but he never gave an inch...Total heart, and I was sorry to see he passed.

So was Fox News; white men who retired in 1961 are their target audience.
   7213. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4300650)
Pew: "Winning the Media Campaign 2012"

These two paragraphs from that Pew study tell us pretty much all we need to know about the media "bias" that everyone complains about:

Throughout the eight-week period studied, a good deal of the difference in treatment of the two contenders is related to who was perceived to be ahead in the race. When horse-race stories-those focused on strategy, tactics and the polls-are taken out of the analysis, and one looks at those framed around the candidates' policy ideas, biographies and records, the distinctions in the tone of media coverage between the two nominees vanish.

With horse-race stories removed, 15% of campaign stories about Obama were positive, 32% were negative and 53% were mixed. For Romney it was 14% positive, 32% negative and 55% mixed.


The short version being "Kiss up and kick down, and when in doubt, kick".
   7214. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4300652)
Seemed like Basilio never had two open eyes by the end of the fifth round, but he never gave an inch, and it's a pity that Robinson never gave him a chance for a rubber match.


I'm glad a third fight never happened. Basilio, like all swarming fighters, was rapidly losing steam in his early-30s. Robinson had a heap more tread left on his tires despite being older, and was still a credible contender 5 years later.

Now a Tony Zale v. Marcel Cerdan rematch, that's one the world really needed to see. Cerdan was one of those fighters who never got his proper due from historians until recently when more footage became widely available. Guy was a angry little French whirlwind, great technique.

(yeah I know he was Algerian, just shaddup)
   7215. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:34 PM (#4300658)
You did essentially state that people who oppose AA are racists who can't be trusted though. So that was classy of you.


Essentially is doing a whole bunch of work here. I made fun of the arguments used here on BBTF against AA (gasp! let the pearl clutching begin - need a feinting couch?). I am pretty sure I have not called anyone a racist, though racism is in fact real. If you find a quote from me calling anyone here a racist let me know and I will apologize and (likely) retract the statment. I have no way of knowing who is and who is not a racist. I have no idea the why behind specific people not liking AA.

Some of the people against AA are racist. But not all. This is similar to the statement I made pages ago about gay marriage. Some of the people against gay marriage are bigoted, but bigotry is not the only reason to be against it.
   7216. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:34 PM (#4300659)
gonfalon

for the record though i was alive in 1961 i was not retired
   7217. Howie Menckel Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4300662)
"Every hippie liberal I know was watching FOX on November 7-9."

Fox was actually a disappointment in terms of schadenfreude, I thought, with one glorious exception, on Election Night. They were calling states for Obama before the other networks, as if to race ahead to the grieving process - or to just pull the damn Band-Aid off as quickly as possible.

MSNBC was more frenzied on Election Night 2010 (a top 5 is here, though I seem to recall even more self-loathing than this):
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/03/election-media-coverage-video-of-msnbcs-apocalyptic-night.html

BUT - wait. I thought the Karl Rove Election Night stuff topped anyone on either network in either year.

Rove reminded me of the Springsteen line from "Atlantic City" - "I got debts that no honest man can pay."

$100 million+ coaxed out of rich guy's pockets - and not a warm bucket of spit to show for it.

Unless you're a true diehard of the left or the right, just go with the channel whose team is 'losing' on Election Night, crack open a beer, whip up some popcorn, and enjoy the ride...


   7218. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4300663)
feinting couch?


Furniture for the lazy fencer.
   7219. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4300665)
howie

i enjoy channel hopping on election night.
   7220. Howie Menckel Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:45 PM (#4300669)
"i enjoy channel hopping on election night."

I do some of that, but for some reason teeth-gnashing has it all over smugness, for me.
:)

Plus the 'winners' always talk about the 'tidal shifts,' and wonder if those losers in the other party realized that their time in power is up for good. Have lost count of how many times that has been said - and believed - from each side...

   7221. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:46 PM (#4300670)
Essentially is doing a whole bunch of work here. I made fun of the arguments used here on BBTF against AA (gasp! let the pearl clutching begin - need a feinting couch?). I am pretty sure I have not called anyone a racist, though racism is in fact real. If you find a quote from me calling anyone here a racist let me know and I will apologize and (likely) retract the statment.


This is kind of funny in light of the fact that JoeK was accused of doing this kind of stuff a few pages back, i.e., strongly suggesting X without coming right out and saying X so that he could later say that he never said X.

Some of the people against AA are racist. But not all. This is similar to the statement I made pages ago about gay marriage. Some of the people against gay marriage are bigoted, but bigotry is not the only reason to be against it.


Same here.
   7222. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:53 PM (#4300673)
This is kind of funny in light of the fact that JoeK was accused of doing this kind of stuff a few pages back


Especially because I am pretty sure I didn't suggest that about Joe K and have likely been his biggest Liberal defender. I don't think he is a troll and think the site is better with him and you, Goodface and all the rest.

If you think I am suggesting something, but not stating it, feel free to ask me to clarify.
   7223. The Good Face Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:55 PM (#4300674)
This is kind of funny in light of the fact that JoeK was accused of doing this kind of stuff a few pages back, i.e., strongly suggesting X without coming right out and saying X so that he could later say that he never said X.


Yep. It was also one of those "X group believes Y detestable thing" constructions that RR is quick to jump on when directed against his side. I guess we should start berating and insulting BM the way most of the posters here like to insult Joe K. You want "Troll!" duty or a shift on "U SO STUPID!!!"?
   7224. JuanGone..except1game Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4300676)
i enjoy channel hopping on election night.


Same here. Personally for news value, I'd rank:

NBC (Chuck Todd is to me the leading "politico" by a lot)
PBS (Gwen and Judy kept things moving)
CNN (Wolf was better than usual)
FOX/FOX News (Usually would be lower, but they were entertaining and Megyn Kelly gave me starbursts)
MSNBC (Maddow was good but Al and Farmer Ed talked to much)
CBS (Shouldn't rate them as I watched all of about 3 minutes, but Ok)
ABC (Sawyer and George were both pretty bad)

Despite the you-tube mash-up, enough hasn't been said about how horrible Diane Sawyer was. Unless she has an illness that I'm not aware of, she should never see an election day again off of that performance.
   7225. Poulanc Posted: November 12, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4300677)
but bigotry is not the only reason to be against it.


This isn't meant to be snide, but what are those other reasons?
   7226. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:01 PM (#4300678)
I guess we should start berating and insulting BM the way most of the posters here like to insult Joe K.


Go for it. It would not be the first time. I still stand by what I said. And yes many people against AA are racist and many against gay marriage are bigoted. But not all, as there are other reasons to be against both. Why this is controversial I am not sure, but insult away.
   7227. spike Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:04 PM (#4300680)
Rove reminded me of the Springsteen line from "Atlantic City" - "I got debts that no honest man can pay."

Also used in Johnny 99 - one potential denouement of the Rove story.
   7228. JuanGone..except1game Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:05 PM (#4300682)
This isn't meant to be snide, but what are those other reasons?


As someone who is a recent convert to SSM equality, I do get the arguments for tradition. That's a slippery slope as a lot of terrible things have been defended by tradition, but I do think that you can make that case with and without bigotry. Marriage has been used in our society in one way for along time. I think that was the best part of SSM supporters strategy in forcing it in a few places, because once I began seeing it with my own two eyes, any defense on "traditional" grounds starting falling away as they made way for a new tradition.
   7229. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:11 PM (#4300685)
forcing it in a few places

The traditionalists believe that should only be 1 place.
   7230. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:13 PM (#4300687)
John King and his magic walls on CNN were great.
He really cut through a lot of the issues by going straight to the incomplete counties in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, and pointing out the large Democratic percentages still outstanding.

I think Rove's meltdown on FOX was easily the most dramatic thing on any network, but if somehow he had a chance to watch John King dissect Ohio like he did, he might have caved sooner.

That said, we would have missed Megyn's walk, and that would have been a shame.
   7231. Howie Menckel Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:14 PM (#4300689)
Sawyer's demeanor seemed to exactly mirror a 70-yr-old who just switched medications OR who took the usual medication and threw in a glass of wine to "relax" - bad combo at that age.

I like Todd as well.

Heck, I like Mathews - and I think he would have made Rove's petulance look like a minor snit compared to the Armageddon that Chris would have unleashed. He was pretty unhinged in the final weeks, even by his standards: I half-expected him to predict that Romney would declare martial law 24 hours after the polls closed. Hence the "I'm so glad we had that storm [Sandy] last week." He meant the timing and not the event, but he really WAS thrilled with the timing.

Frank Luntz, the creepy pollster on Fox, is a must-watch with Hannity. The latter sort of plays the role of the naive kid, asking Frank lots of questions. Luntz then wins Sean over with his buzzwords. I'll go no further with that analogy, lol.

Maddow lost her freshness years ago, alas. She's got about 100 IQ pts on Hannity, but it's obvious that she spends so much time in the left-wing blog cocoon that she's not much more than an aggregator. Saves people the trouble of visiting those sites, I suppose.

Krauthammer on Fox is good at trying but failing to hide his disdain for unappetizing results, much like John Sterling on Yankees radio when his lads choke a game away. That's always fun.

lol on "Farmer Ed." Unwatchable.

O'Donnell, also on MSNBC, good for his Congressional expertise - and too-rare rants that tell you that being his dog is the worst job in town on too many nights.

Agreed on CNN's King: it is a rare thing to see a guy explaining 15 or so minutes before anyone else that the math couldn't possibly add up for Obama in Ohio or Florida. Didn't feel like a partisan pitch, just cold hard logic. That was refreshing to see.

And Kelly - yeah, somebody we can all rally around. 41-yr-old mother of 2, and an attorney. Plus....
   7232. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:16 PM (#4300692)
Despite the you-tube mash-up, enough hasn't been said about how horrible Diane Sawyer was. Unless she has an illness that I'm not aware of, she should never see an election day again off of that performance.


Why? She treated the election with the lack of seriousness it deserved. The two major parties hijacked the election as usual, Obama was the favorite anyway, the popular vote was close meaning that the Democrats don't have the high ground that they bizarrely think they do, and the hilarity of Democrats thinking that their candidate was soooo much different than the Republican candidate is something that is only to be laughed at. (Same with the Republicans and their view of Romney vis a vis Obama.)
   7233. Lassus Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4300693)
Yep. It was also one of those "X group believes Y detestable thing" constructions that RR is quick to jump on when directed against his side. I guess we should start berating and insulting BM the way most of the posters here like to insult Joe K. You want "Troll!" duty or a shift on "U SO STUPID!!!"?

The self-awareness of Karl Rove. We should all be so lucky.


i enjoy channel hopping on election night.

I would consistently watch FOX for debate coverage because MSNBC seemed a lot worse, and I felt like I was being pandered to. The latter is often really really really hard to watch.
   7234. spike Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:18 PM (#4300694)
And Kelly - yeah, somebody we can all rally around. 41-yr-old mother of 2, and an attorney. Plus....

"Math That Republicans Do To Make Themselves Feel Better" is going to be around for a looong time. Thanks Meg!
   7235. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:19 PM (#4300696)
Rove reminded me of the Springsteen line from "Atlantic City" - "I got debts that no honest man can pay."

Or Burt Lancaster in the movie Atlantic City, reminiscing about the Atlantic Ocean in The Good Old Days:

"Yes, it used to be beautiful...Sometimes things would happen and I'd have to kill a few people. I'd feel bad for awhile but then I'd jump into the ocean, swim way out, and come back feeling nice and clean and start all over again...The Atlantic Ocean was something then....Yes, you should've seen the Atlantic Ocean in those days..."
   7236. spike Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:19 PM (#4300698)
Why? She treated the election with the lack of seriousness it deserved. The two major parties hijacked the election as usual, Obama was the favorite anyway, the popular vote was close meaning that the Democrats don't have the high ground that they bizarrely think they do, and the hilarity of Democrats thinking that their candidate was soooo much different than the Republican candidate is something that is only to be laughed at.

You left out the part about those grapes probably being sour anyway.
   7237. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4300700)
Why? She treated the election with the lack of seriousness it deserved. The two major parties hijacked the election as usual, Obama was the favorite anyway, the popular vote was close meaning that the Democrats don't have the high ground that they bizarrely think they do, and the hilarity of Democrats thinking that their candidate was soooo much different than the Republican candidate is something that is only to be laughed at.


Obama has as much of a mandate as Bush had in 2004. I'll rely on your intellectual honesty to remind me of how much of a mandate you thought Bush had in '04.
   7238. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4300701)
You left out the part about those grapes probably being sour anyway.


Not really. As those who dropped in here on election night know, I was in a perfectly jovial mood all day and throughout the night.
   7239. Steve Treder Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4300702)
She treated the election with the lack of seriousness it deserved. The two major parties hijacked the election as usual, Obama was the favorite anyway, the popular vote was close meaning that the Democrats don't have the high ground that they bizarrely think they do, and the hilarity of Democrats thinking that their candidate was soooo much different than the Republican candidate is something that is only to be laughed at. (Same with the Republicans and their view of Romney vis a vis Obama.)

Can I come visit you sometime on the summit of Mount Aboveitall? It must be wonderful up there, the air so fresh and clean, the view of truth that only you are able to see.
   7240. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4300705)
You left out the part about those grapes probably being sour anyway.


Well, to be fair, when the single biggest victory for your side on election night is Megyn Kelly's legs...
   7241. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4300706)
Why? She treated the election with the lack of seriousness it deserved. The two major parties hijacked the election as usual, Obama was the favorite anyway, the popular vote was close meaning that the Democrats don't have the high ground that they bizarrely think they do, and the hilarity of Democrats thinking that their candidate was soooo much different than the Republican candidate is something that is only to be laughed at.


You left out the part about those grapes probably being sour anyway.

Never having watched Diane Sawyer for more than 10 minutes in my life prior to seeing the clip of her 3:00 AM magic moment, is she supposed to be a Republican or a Democrat? I thought she was actually kind of cute and adorable the way she was during those couple of minutes, far more human than the average TV announcer. After all these months of Earnestness, I kind of liked the sight of someone letting her hair down.
   7242. JuanGone..except1game Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4300708)
Agreed on CNN's King: it is a rare thing to see a guy explaining 15 or so minutes before anyone else that the math couldn't possibly add up for Obama in Ohio or Florida. Didn't feel like a partisan pitch, just cold hard logic. That was refreshing to see.


Agreed on King. I'm not a fan, but he put in a really good performance with that magic wall. Not quite Todd, but close enough.

Heck, I like Mathews - and I think he would have made Rove's petulance look like a minor snit compared to the Armageddon that Chris would have unleashed.


Completely agree. It's funny that Matthews didn't talk about race that much before, but something really set him off this year. There was some definite race-baiting going on from the Sununu's and such, but he got really personal and made him just look crazy at times. Not that he isn't crazy, but he was definitely crazier. My guess is that Hannity showed up to his house in blackface on Halloween.
   7243. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4300709)
Obama has as much of a mandate as Bush had in 2004. I'll rely on your intellectual honesty to remind me of how much of a mandate you thought Bush had in '04.

And if he won't, Krauthammer sure will, as Gonfalon reminded us a few pages back in one of those quotes for the ages.
   7244. spike Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4300710)
Never having watched Diane Sawyer for more than 10 minutes in my life prior to seeing the clip of her 3:00 AM magic moment, is she supposed to be a Republican or a Democrat?

The sour grapes was directed at the author of the statement, not the subject.
   7245. esseff Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4300713)
I gotta say, I was underwhelmed by the Rove "meltdown" when I tracked it down the morning after. I guess I was hoping for something akin to the YouTube lady. Plus, I've been there myself, hoping against hope while the returns were still close that my candidate hadn't really lost. Heck, we've seen states projected and unprojected. In 1960 and 2000, for two.

Of course, what took the Rove moment beyond the pale and will make it forever memorable was the Fox news people -- who unlike Rove aren't labeled as partisan, wink-wink -- calling out their projection experts to defend themselves. But that's on Fox News and not on Rove.
   7246. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4300716)

GOP’s Red America forced to rethink what it knows about the country


Wow. Yeah, a woman should know "the natural order of the household" and not let her *teenage* daughters read Harry Potter and Twilight.

The more and sooner we move away from a world like that, the better.
   7247. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4300717)
Never having watched Diane Sawyer for more than 10 minutes in my life prior to seeing the clip of her 3:00 AM magic moment, is she supposed to be a Republican or a Democrat?

The sour grapes was directed at the author of the statement, not the subject.


Okay, I thought I might have been missing something about Diane Sawyer that I was supposed to have known.

If only Rove had been on MSNBC, I would've loved to have seen Maddow let him run on for five minutes, and then just tell him to shut up and peel her a grape.
   7248. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4300718)
Wow. Yeah, a woman should know "the natural order of the household" and not let her *teenage* daughters read Harry Potter and Twilight.

The more and sooner we move away from a world like that, the better.


And yet if you read further into the article, she was actually one of the moderate ones. She got the part about reaching out to Latinos and other minorities a lot more than our boy Joe.
   7249. The Good Face Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4300719)
Yep. It was also one of those "X group believes Y detestable thing" constructions that RR is quick to jump on when directed against his side. I guess we should start berating and insulting BM the way most of the posters here like to insult Joe K. You want "Troll!" duty or a shift on "U SO STUPID!!!"?

The self-awareness of Karl Rove. We should all be so lucky.


Huh?

Lassus, if you're trying to deploy an insult, you need to tailor it to your recipient. I'm guessing you were trying to say I'm like Karl Rove, in that I'm really, really wrong and don't realize how wrong I am? The trouble here is BM really did deploy a "X group believes Y detestable thing" construction, RR (among others) really does like to jump on those when used against his side, and tons of posters here apparently feel perfectly free to viciously insult Joe K., justifying their abuse by citing the behaviors BM just recently engaged in.

Also, I won a goodly bit of money betting on Obama to win the election! Between the pants-pissing liberals and the refuses-to-accept-reality conservatives, it was a target rich environment.
   7250. I am going to be Frank Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4300720)
Never having watched Diane Sawyer for more than 10 minutes in my life prior to seeing the clip of her 3:00 AM magic moment, is she supposed to be a Republican or a Democrat?


Having watched Frost/Nixon she was apparently a press aide to Nixon. I assume she was a Republican at that point.
   7251. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4300722)
And yet if you read further into the article, she was actually one of the moderate ones. She got the part about reaching out to Latinos and other minorities a lot more than our boy Joe.


I did, yeah - crazy. Thanks for the link, Andy.
   7252. DA Baracus Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4300725)
Diane Sawyer worked for Ron Zeigler, Nixon's press secretary.
   7253. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4300728)
You left out the part about those grapes probably being sour anyway.

Not really. As those who dropped in here on election night know, I was in a perfectly jovial mood all day and throughout the night.


Naturally. Everybody knows that Election Day is just an overhyped exhibition, and that only the primary results are worth counting.
   7254. Lassus Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4300732)
I'm guessing you were trying to say I'm like Karl Rove, in that I'm really, really wrong and don't realize how wrong I am? The trouble here is BM really did deploy a "X group believes Y detestable thing" construction, RR (among others) really does like to jump on those when used against his side, and tons of posters here apparently feel perfectly free to viciously insult Joe K., justifying their abuse by citing the behaviors BM just recently engaged in.

I don't give a crap about the little "IT'S FUNNY HOW" hypocrite accusation fart volley you guys are so fond of.

In regards to THIS discrete event, I haven't gone back but if I had to parse it out linguistically, my guess is that BM's tone, construction, and (lack of endless) repetition bears almost zero resemblance to what irritates so many about Joe's barrage. I freely admit, I haven't really given it a literary deconstructionist analysis. As you seem to have little interest giving any credence to the idea that life is actively slanted and Affirmative Action is an attempt to compensate rather than settle into your own "hey, shithappens, bro" conclusion, I can understand why you're so keen on "OHO, LOOK, BUT YOU SAID" instead.
   7255. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:56 PM (#4300733)
I gotta say, I was underwhelmed by the Rove "meltdown" when I tracked it down the morning after. I guess I was hoping for something akin to the YouTube lady.


I imagine the ranting/raving was happening off screen when he was communicating with the Romney camp and their "polling experts" who hung him out to dry.

"Meltdown" is probably not the right word. It was the futility of his argument against reality. I was reminded of GOB throwing the letter into the ocean from Arrested Development. When Megyn Kelly dropped that "republican math" quote, it was the death blow for the evening for him.

   7256. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:56 PM (#4300734)
@7197/Tripon:


Most states still use a straight primary system, and not a jungle primary system where they send the top two regardless of party affiliation. So all the fights just happen in the primary, and the two big parties can still promise money and influence for the general election and when you're in congress. There's no reason for a 3rd party to exist when the two main parties have traditionally been flexible enough to welcome multiple wings.


Hrm. This makes sense. CA + WA just moved towards open primaries, so I suppose that could aid in breaking the duopoly, no?

It is interesting how both major parties have (at least) two wings which would pretty obviously be different parties under a PR system - the "establishment" GOP and the Tea Party, and then the Progressive/mainstream Democrat split.

@7200/Sam

If the Libertarianocrats focused on House and Senate seats in the South and Midwest they could build a significant third party presence in the Congress.


This strikes me as a surprisingly viable strategy to pursue, and the Ron Paul-types probably could work the ground game well enough to steal a seat or three. I wonder how the New Hampshire Libertarian Project is going?
   7257. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 12, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4300735)
Some of the people against gay marriage are bigoted, but bigotry is not the only reason to be against it.

What are the other reasons?
   7258. Tripon Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4300740)
That government has no business in recognizing any sort of marriage status in the first place.

A bit abstract, a lot of Libertarian ideas is abstract and doesn't apply to reality.
   7259. The Good Face Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4300741)
I don't give a crap about the little "IT'S FUNNY HOW" hypocrite fart volley you guys are so fond of.

In regards to THIS discrete event, I haven't gone back but if I had to parse it out linguistically, my guess is that BM's tone, construction, and (lack of endless) repetition bears almost zero resemblance to what irritates so many about Joe's barrage. I freely admit, I haven't really given it a literary deconstructist analysis. As you seem to have little interest giving any credence to the idea that life is actively slanted and Affirmative Action is an attempt to compensate rather than settle into your own "hey, shithappens, bro" conclusion, I can understand why you're so keen on "OHO, LOOK, BUT YOU SAID" instead.


None of this is responsive to either the AA discussion or the BM-channeling-Joe K. discussion. Or to put it another way...


U MAD BRO?
   7260. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4300742)
That government has no business in recognizing any sort of marriage status in the first place.

Then those people should start a gigantic campaign to get rid of government sanctioned marriage, instead of being bigots.

   7261. GregD Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4300743)
On aff action, there's several principled viewpoints. Here's some I see:

1) current system is flawed but better than alternatives

2) current system addressed some problems in the 60s and 70s but has not kept up with new world so has unintended consequences--largest beneficiary is white women, lots of help now goes to very privileged international students, fewer Af-Am students are receiving help now than in the 60s and 70s in many institutions.

3) every system is unfair and I don't get worked up about this one's unfairness or other system's unfairness

4) aff action is well intentioned but has worse consequences than gains

5) the world is full of all kinds of unfair advantages and all of them--af action and other ones--should be eliminated

6) affirmative action was flawed because it grouped together unlike groups in something called "minorities" and turned our attention from systematic legal exclusion practiced against blacks to various forms of nebulous prejudice or lack of diversity, so blacks receive the bulk of the blame for affirmative action but a tiny tiny portion of the benefit.

etc.


what isn't principled is:
every other form of built-in advantage is okay with me (legacy, athletics) and every person who succeeded in single-sex single-race systems deserved his success despite not competing against the whole field but this one particular form of advantage is an outrage and scourge of the earth and people who succeed through that need to be called out all the time.

Again if you hate the idea of Justice Kennedy as much as Justice Sotomayor, that's coherent. But if Justice Kennedy "deserved" his seat, ain't no way in hell you can make a clear argument against Sotomayor.
   7262. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4300747)
This isn't meant to be snide, but what are those other reasons?


I was in a meeting, and look it came around again.

Hypothetical Conservative Mouse:
Marriage has had a definition in America since its founding. A very clear definition of one male and one female. As an example Mormons were pushed on until they complied with that definition. Changing that definition, just because one group wants to be included, is wrong. There are legal ways that most of the benefits of marriage can be conferred on a gay "spouse" and those should be utilized.

If we as a society want to confer easier access to those benefits or access to those benefits that can't be currently accessed we should explicitly do this by changing those laws to allow access to unmarried partners, rather than by redefining something (in this case marriage) that has had meaning in our nation for as long as it has been around.

Shorter Version: Change, especially reckless, unchecked and unfettered change, rampaging through our society is bad. We should "slow the roll" down and consiously make the change we want deliberatley.

(End Hypothetical Conservative Mouse)

To be clear I don't agree with the view above, and the view above could easily support (for example) civil unions. But I don't think it is a bigoted view, just one I don't agree with.
   7263. Howie Menckel Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4300748)

"I gotta say, I was underwhelmed by the Rove "meltdown" when I tracked it down the morning after."

I can see that: the beauty of it was indeed in real time, as the world was realizing that it was a "done deal" - all except for Rove. If you saw King lay out the uncounted counties on CNN live, then went to Rove 10-15 minutes later, it was gripping theater.

Did the clip you saw have the part where Michael Barone comes in to sit with Rove, kind of an intervention? The only thing Barone loves more than Republicans winning is the history of Congressional districts, so he knew he'd have months of numbers-crunching either way. He was at peace, and was sent to bring Karl "home."

Unfortunately just as it was about to get REALLY good, Rove started yielding ground like the Saints defense, but it was a fun few moments....
   7264. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:16 PM (#4300751)
Naturally. Everybody knows that Election Day is just an overhyped exhibition, and that only the primary results are worth counting.
Outstanding.
   7265. Poulanc Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4300752)
To be clear I don't agree with the view above, and the view above could easily support (for example) civil unions. But I don't think it is a bigoted view, just one I don't agree with.


So the argument is voting against the use of the word 'marriage'?

That really just sounds like an excuse, doesn't it?
   7266. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4300756)
So the argument is voting against the use of the word 'marriage'?


The argument is two fold.

1) Change is bad. This is kind of a staple of conservative thought.
2) Marriage has a defined meaning - one man, one woman. Changing that definition is bad.

Neither of those have anything to do with bigotry against anyone.

Bigot:
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

   7267. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4300757)
Marriage has had a definition in America since its founding. A very clear definition of one male and one female.


of the same race for most of the country's existence.
   7268. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4300758)
Some of the people against gay marriage are bigoted, but bigotry is not the only reason to be against it.

What are the other reasons?


This is just a guess, but: non-bigotry?
   7269. hokieneer Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:28 PM (#4300759)
That government has no business in recognizing any sort of marriage status in the first place.

Then those people should start a gigantic campaign to get rid of government sanctioned marriage, instead of being bigots.


1) I don't think the government should recognize marriages, at least not in the traditional sense of the word.

2) Since the government is in the business of allowing marriages for the benefit of pooling income, assets, property, and for estate/tax purposes; then there is no logical reason to not allow freedom of association for any two people, regardless of any qualifiers, to be legally married.

3) "Gigantic campaign" and "libertarian" are never said in the same sentence. You are confusing libertarians with more traditional conservatives, which have the ability to run gigantic anti-SSM campaigns.
   7270. Danny Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:28 PM (#4300760)
Some of the people against gay marriage are bigoted, but bigotry is not the only reason to be against it.

I think this Gallup poll from May is instructive: 50% of people think gay marriage should be legal, 54% think gay sex is "morally acceptable," and just 63% think gay sex should be legal. The vast majority of non-bigots have come to support gay marriage, as they've realized there is no threat to "traditional marriage" since gay marriage has no effect on "traditional marriage."
   7271. Tripon Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4300763)

Marriage has had a definition in America since its founding. A very clear definition of one male and one female.


So its okay for somebody from a different culture who has a different definition of marriage to practice that?
   7272. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4300765)
So its okay for somebody from a different culture who has a different definition of marriage to practice that?


Just so we are all clear - you are arguing with a hypothetical Mouse. Real me is in favor of gay marriage. I just am willing to allow that not all of the opponents are bigots.

But Conservative Mouse would again point to the Mormons. They had a different definition and were (essentially) told to join the US they had to change their definition. And (for the most part) they did.

EDIT: On a fundemntal level I don't believe that ~50% of the US is bigoted, or that the rate of bigotry is dropping by ~1% per year. That seems contrary to the definition of bigoted I am going with and also my thoughts on the US.
   7273. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4300767)
well i have been a fiscally conservative republican for longer than most of you have been talking and the argument against gay marriage never made any logical sense to unless the opposition was trying to help gays avoid the 'marriage penalty' in the tax code

individuals making personal commitments to one another is a positive for society. it is. to claim anything else is to ignore several thousand years of evidence. oaths, promises, however you term it, they 'mean' something.

i lost this battle 15 years ago when the arguments began breaking out but i won the war in being proven 'right' so i am content

gay marriage is the stupidest godd8mn fight the party has picked in the last 30 years. it was a born loser of an issue. born loser from day 1.

short term gain in return for long term humiliation. yeah, that's a tradeoff (that's sarcasm for the slow on the uptake)
   7274. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4300769)
and just 63% think gay sex should be legal.


!
   7275. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4300770)
gay marriage is the stupidest godd8mn fight the party has picked in the last 30 years. it was a born loser of an issue. born loser from day 1.


HW and I agree on this. When you know, are 100% certain, that the tides of history are against you ...
   7276. zonk Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4300772)
A bit abstract, a lot of Libertarian ideas is abstract and doesn't apply to reality.


Speaking of -- and I guess I have no idea if McAfee is a libertarian, liberal, or somewhere in between -- but working in IT, he perfectly fits the bill of the sort of libertarian IT folks I know... some of them are objectivist types; others are the exact opposite (and at least at some level, that seems to be McAfee) -- but they all share this sort of dogged belief that "they know better".

John McAfee is wanted in Belize for murder today -- Gizmodo had a rather... interesting... profile on him just last week.
   7277. Poulanc Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4300775)
Bigot:a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance


I think I would argue that anyone who is stubbornly refusing to accept the change in definition to the term 'marriage' as it applies to government to the point that they don't think a group of people can marry the person they want to fits into the definition for bigot that you posted.

   7278. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4300778)
I think I would argue that anyone who is stubbornly refusing to accept the change in definition to the term 'marriage' as it applies to government to the point that they don't think a group of people can marry the person they want to fits into the definition for bigot that you posted.


I disagree. I think resistence to the change rooted in adverse feelings towards gays is bigoted. Resistence to change based on resistence to change is not bigoted (not matter how stubborn or who gets "hurt" by that resistence) - but I doubt we are going to change each others minds.
   7279. Steve Treder Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4300779)
I think I would argue that anyone who is stubbornly refusing to accept the change in definition to the term 'marriage' as it applies to government to the point that they don't think a group of people can marry the person they want to fits into the definition for bigot that you posted.

Big time, especially when there is no effect of SSM on any straight marriage. So there isn't even a plausible self-protection angle. It's just for the sake of being inflexible and insensitive and closed-minded.
   7280. Poulanc Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4300783)
I disagree. I think resistence to the change rooted in adverse feelings towards gays is bigoted. Resistence to change based on resistence to change is not bigoted (not matter how stubborn or who gets "hurt" by that resistence) - but I doubt we are going to change each others minds.


As Misirlou pointed out earlier, the definition of marriage has already changed. Would you consider someone who thinks that interracial couples should not be allowed to marry a bigot?

   7281. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4300786)
As Misirlou pointed out earlier, the definition of marriage has already changed. Would you consider someone who thinks that interracial couples should not be allowed to marry a bigot?


So you really think that 50% of the US is bigoted? That bigotry is changing by 1% per year? if everyone is a bigot than no one is.

To answer your questions ... just because the definition changed before doesn't mean every future change has to be accepted fully and immediately.

Also the definition of marriage has not changed since the US began. Marriage was defined as a man and a woman. It was illegal in some places for mixed races, but that did not mean it was not marriage - just that type of marriage was illegal. There are legal and illegal recreational drugs, but both alcohol and cocaine are recreational drugs.

But seriously though why are you so eager to point at people and assign them the title of bigot? They are already on the losing side of history. I have already said some are bigots, but that is not enough for some reason you feel they all, every one, needs to be a bigot. Sorry, but I don't agree.
   7282. Steve Treder Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4300787)
No, it isn't the Onion:

Eric Hartsburg caught some attention in the weeks leading up to the election for having the Romney campaign’s logo tattooed on his face.

Suffice to say, he’s not happy with Tuesday’s results.

“Totally disappointed, man,” Hartsburg told POLITICO. “I’m the guy who has egg all over his face, but instead of egg, it’s a big Romney/Ryan tattoo. It’s there for life.”

Hartsburg’s tattoo covers a 5-by-2 inch space on the side of his face, and he did it after raising $5,000 on eBay for the effort. He didn’t even tell his wife he planned to get the tattoo until about an hour before.

“Right away, she was taken aback,” Hartsburg said, adding that his wife is also a Romney/Ryan supporter.

... perhaps there’s a silver lining for Hartsburg.

“I’m hoping this opens some other doors in the entertainment business,” he said.



   7283. Jay Z Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4300789)
That government has no business in recognizing any sort of marriage status in the first place.

A bit abstract, a lot of Libertarian ideas is abstract and doesn't apply to reality.


Marriage is a contract, and even libertarians might argue that enforcing contracts is a legitimate government function.
   7284. Steve Treder Posted: November 12, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4300790)
So you really think that 50% of the US is bigoted? That bigotry is changing by 1% per year? if everyone is a bigot than no one is.

Baloney. There is nothing at all in the intersection between the definition of bigotry and, well, human history that indicates that there exists a small percentage upper limit of the population that may be bigoted on a particular issue.
   7285. Steve Treder Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4300794)
Marriage was defined as a man and a woman. It was illegal in some places for mixed races, but that did not mean it was not marriage - just that type of marriage was illegal.

This would be your basic distinction without a difference.
   7286. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4300795)
Baloney.


So you think 50% of the US is bigoted and it is changing by 1% per year?

That is OK, but I don't believe it to be true. Bigotry is much more entrenched than that. It exists and is real, and by calling every single person who does not agree with you a bigot you do them a disservice.

   7287. Jay Z Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4300796)
re: 7282 - yeah, nothing holds its Q rating like a failed political campaign. Maybe he can cover it with a tattoo of a snake or something. That would be an improvement.
   7288. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4300797)
This would be your basic distinction without a difference.


Without a difference to you and me. But the definition of marriage as a man and a woman does mean something to some people.
   7289. Poulanc Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4300799)
But seriously though why are you so eager to point at people and assign them the title of bigot? They are already on the losing side of history. I have already said some are bigots, but that is not enough for some reason you feel they all, every one, needs to be a bigot. Sorry, but I don't agree.


Because I don't think there should be any wiggle room for folks who want to try and rationalize away their feelings towards gays and lesbians. If you don't think they should marry because they are homosexuals, say so. But that's bigotry, isn't it?

If they don't want to be a bigot, don't oppose same sex marriage on the silly grounds that 'it's always been this way.'


EDIT : Perhaps 'bigot' is too harsh of a word. Would prejudiced be a better word to use?
   7290. Steve Treder Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4300800)
So you think 50% of the US is bigoted and it is changing by 1% per year?

I don't know what the percentage is. But whatever percentage it is whose behavior regarding the rights of and respect for gay people can be characterized as, "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance" is bigoted. Whatever the percentage is, I'm certain it isn't vanishingly small.
   7291. Steve Treder Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4300801)
But the definition of marriage as a man and a woman does mean something to some people.

Yes, and what sort of people might they be?
   7292. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4300803)
Also the definition of marriage has not changed since the US began. Marriage was defined as a man and a woman. It was illegal in some places for mixed races, but that did not mean it was not marriage - just that type of marriage was illegal.

I know you are taking a stance for argument's sake, but you are really twisting semantics to claim the interracial change did not redefine marriage.

   7293. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4300804)
I'm not sure it's possible to distinguish "bigoted" from "non-bigoted" reasons to oppose gay marriage, any more than it was possible to tell "bigoted" from "non-bigoted" opposition to civil rights laws.

But why does the motivation particularly matter to begin with? "Oh, don't mind my foot in your face---it's nothing personal!" doesn't strike me as all that compelling an excuse for denying rights to an entire group of people.
   7294. Steve Treder Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4300805)
twisting semantics

Indeed, AKA a distinction without a difference.
   7295. Steve Treder Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4300807)
But why does the motivation particularly matter to begin with? "Oh, don't mind my foot in your face---it's nothing personal!" doesn't strike me as all that compelling an excuse for denying rights to an entire group of people.

Exactly. "My standing here on your face would be wrong if I was a bigot. But since I'm not, hey, it's all good."
   7296. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4300811)
Because I don't think there should be any wiggle room for folks who want to try and rationalize away their feelings towards gays and lesbians. If you don't think they should marry because they are homosexuals, say so. But that's bigotry, isn't it?

If they don't want to be a bigot, don't oppose same sex marriage on the silly grounds that 'it's always been this way.'


Some people don't like change. They don't like speed limit changes. They don't like taking lead out of gasoline. They don't like the DH. Some people are against change because they are against change. The good thing is once gay marriage is legal the new normal will establish itself. And then those people will be against the next change.

Yes, and what sort of people might they be?


Some bigots and some people who don't like change. It was good enough for my dad, good enough for me, and it is good enough for my children - not everything is a reflection of your beliefs. People are complex and weird. Calling a whole class of people who disagree with you on something bigots is ... well kind of bigoted in its intolerance.

Change is happening. Our side is winning.
   7297. Lassus Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4300813)
None of this is responsive to either the AA discussion...

Except this part: "As you seem to have little interest giving any credence to the idea that life is actively slanted and Affirmative Action is an attempt to compensate rather than settle into your own "hey, shithappens, bro" conclusion"


or the BM-channeling-Joe K. discussion...

Except this part: "In regards to THIS discrete event, I haven't gone back but if I had to parse it out linguistically, my guess is that BM's tone, construction, and (lack of endless) repetition bears almost zero resemblance to what irritates so many about Joe's barrage. I freely admit, I haven't really given it a literary deconstructist analysis."


Honestly, even if you quibble - possibly rightly - to the tone of the AA part, how in the WORLD is what I wrote not responsive to the Joek = BM part? That doesn't even make sense, it's directly responsive.
   7298. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4300816)
But why does the motivation particularly matter to begin with?


Because it trivializes true bigotry. It demonizes people who think differently than we do. It is acting just like they do, and we are better than they are darn it.

No one is denying bogitry exists. I am not even putting numbers on it. But broad brush claiming everyone who thinks X is necessarily a bigot is just plain wrong in my opinion.

And now I am off to drive my boy to his apt.
   7299. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:19 PM (#4300817)
But why does the motivation particularly matter to begin with? "Oh, don't mind my foot in your face---it's nothing personal!" doesn't strike me as all that compelling an excuse for denying rights to an entire group of people.

Exactly. "My standing here on your face would be wrong if I was a bigot. But since I'm not, hey, it's all good."


It's the same sort of BS we used to hear in the early 60's from many opponents of the civil rights bill: "We don't have anything against Negroes, we just think it's proper to leave it to the states."** That was one hell of a consolation to a black family that had to drive hundreds of miles just to find a place to stay for the night. It was all about "states' rights".

**like Barnett's Mississippi, Wallace's Alabama, Thurmond's South Carolina, etc., etc.
   7300. Steve Treder Posted: November 12, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4300820)
Some people don't like change. They don't like speed limit changes. They don't like taking lead out of gasoline. They don't like the DH. Some people are against change because they are against change.

And, the fundamental rights of fellow citizens are a lot like speed limit changes, and lead in gasoline, and the DH. All opinions are equally sound!

Calling a whole class of people who disagree with you on something bigots is ... well kind of bigoted in its intolerance.

This issue isn't "something." It's very actual and specific and particular. And what it is is the very manifestation of intolerance. It's Rovian to attempt to boomerang the stain of bigotry and intolerance back against those who call it what it is.
Page 73 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogSpector: Stats incredible! Numbers from the 2014 MLB season will amaze you
(7 - 5:54pm, Sep 30)
Last: Scott Ross

NewsblogThe Economist: The new market inefficiencies
(9 - 5:52pm, Sep 30)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBrown: Winners And Losers: MLB Attendance In 2014, Nearly 74 Million Through The Gate
(26 - 5:51pm, Sep 30)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(4068 - 5:49pm, Sep 30)
Last: Joey B. "disrespects the A"

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(266 - 5:47pm, Sep 30)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-30-2014
(16 - 5:47pm, Sep 30)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogMadden: How dare the sabermetrics crowd and others try to diminish Derek Jeter’s greatness
(179 - 5:46pm, Sep 30)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8170 - 5:46pm, Sep 30)
Last: Kurt

NewsblogMLB’s Biggest Star Is 40 (And He Just Retired). That Could Be A Problem.
(70 - 5:39pm, Sep 30)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(454 - 5:37pm, Sep 30)
Last: ursus arctos

NewsblogAL WILD CARD GAME 2014 OMNICHATTER
(102 - 5:32pm, Sep 30)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogThe Calm-Before-The-Storm and Postseason Prediction OMNICHATTER, 2014
(102 - 5:15pm, Sep 30)
Last: cardsfanboy

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Discussion
(3 - 5:12pm, Sep 30)
Last: EricC

NewsblogFangraphs/Cistulli: Post-trade WAR for deadline trades
(14 - 5:11pm, Sep 30)
Last: Ulysses S. Fairsmith

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1958 Ballot
(12 - 2:55pm, Sep 30)
Last: Mark Armour

Page rendered in 0.8743 seconds
52 querie(s) executed