Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

RNC Chicago passes resolution regarding historyFollow

#27 Aug 23 2014 at 10:05 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Short version: Boy, the turn of the twentieth century sure made free market principles look like **** for most people. We should totally fight against that narrative though since those principles make up a good chunk of our ideology.

Actually the sophisticated Van Misses/Hayek wing of economics argument is that there was just too much regulation during the industrial revolution and that's what lead to monopolies and wild wealth disparity. Government intervention. I'm in no way joking. There are models that almost make that look plausible but they include assumptions that are about as likely as Andorra successfully invading the US. Mostly revolving around the working poor being self actualized ubermenchen who can unerringly determine the best personal outcome from every decision. Which would be awesome, but sadly they historically seem more like the sort of people who would buy the Brooklyn Bridge for it's obvious high toll income potential.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#28 Aug 24 2014 at 6:55 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
gbaji wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
His first 3 words are "that's historically true" so that should be the end of it, it's about history and what happened.


His issue isn't about whether something is true

Of course it is. You can't handle the truth?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#29 Aug 24 2014 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Smiley: glare


Edited, Aug 25th 2014 2:57am by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#30 Aug 25 2014 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
The truth is only important when it agrees with you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#31 Aug 25 2014 at 9:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,440 posts
gbaji wrote:
. And biased specifically to influence the students views of current political issues, under the guise of teaching and testing them about historical events.
It won't make a difference. Sure some of them might be hippies for the first couple of years out of college, but it won't last. They'll be screaming for freedom again by their 28th birthday.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#32 Aug 26 2014 at 10:18 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Once people are 28, they're taught the true history apparently. I think I missed that day, though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#33 Aug 26 2014 at 10:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,440 posts
I dunno, I think everyone just has kids and don't have time to save the whales anymore. Then some government thing wants you to take time to fill out a form or two and it's like "WTF I don't have time for this there's **** on the floor! Get the government off my back!" Then boom you have a suburban Republican.

Edit: **** **** **** poop is censored?

Everybody poops! Smiley: motz

Edited, Aug 26th 2014 9:25am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#34 Aug 26 2014 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Well, I'm a registered Republican. The only reason I seem liberal is because I believe hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure and not gay marriage.

Edited, Aug 26th 2014 12:25pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#35 Aug 26 2014 at 10:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,440 posts
Oh well in that case you have to give up and go Libertarian, or vote for someone you disagree with. You're not allowed to hate big government and Jesus and still be mainstream.

Edited, Aug 26th 2014 9:28am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#36 Aug 26 2014 at 10:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Well, I'm a registered Republican.

Do you send Gbaji PM's telling him that you secretly agree with him but are too afraid to say so?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Aug 26 2014 at 10:33 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
All the time. If you can't tell, I'm a very introverted and shy type of individual.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#38 Aug 26 2014 at 12:57 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Well, I'm a registered Republican. The only reason I seem liberal is because I believe hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure and not gay marriage.

Edited, Aug 26th 2014 12:25pm by lolgaxe


Which parts of their platform do you like?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#39 Aug 26 2014 at 2:57 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,383 posts
The part that keeps paying him to live off of government cheese.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#40 Aug 26 2014 at 4:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
No. It would indicate that the effect was the sole (or in this case "most direct") result. Remember we're asking for the effect "resulting" from the cause, not the cause "contributing" to the effect. The problem with the word contributed is that it's used backwards relative to the question.

Nope, it's worded perfectly.


Yes, it is. If your objective is to subtly introduce repetitive use of associative linguistics in order to foster an easier acceptance of social liberal ideology among the population, then it is worded perfectly. It's quite obviously the correct answer, but also happens to include a connotation which supports the idea that you can contribute to positive social policy by having conditions of poverty (or more correctly, since we're talking about an image the appearance of conditions of poverty). Members of society sufficiently exposed to these sorts of associations, are much more likely to adopt an approach to social methodology which includes the exaggeration of social ills in order to achieve the desired social policy action (ie: cart before the horse). People thus afflicted with this mindset will do things like take an officer involved shooting, assume that it must be both unwarranted and racially motivated, and steadfastly ignore any facts or data that might question that starting assumption. They will do this because they have been taught via repetition that you start with the desired social change and then find/fabricate/exaggerate conditions in society to convince people to accept said change.

It's about teaching kids to think backwards. As I said, the wording is backwards. And it's not accidentally so.

Quote:
Amazingly, a test written and reviewed by dozens of people with advanced degrees *somehow* managed to be more correct than your wild fucking guess.


Huh? That doesn't even make sense. There's no right or wrong here. It's a matter of whether the word choice in the question/answer is designed to promote a specific view on social policy in addition to testing the students knowledge. It most definitely does. And yes, it takes people with advanced degrees to understand how to frame questions on tests to do this.

Quote:
Amazing.


Yes, it is.

Edited, Aug 26th 2014 3:52pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Aug 26 2014 at 5:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
They will do this because they have been taught via repetition that you start with the desired social change and then find/fabricate/exaggerate conditions in society to convince people to accept said change.

It's about teaching kids to think backwards. As I said, the wording is backwards. And it's not accidentally so.

For example, you might be told something by a political party like "Gay marriage is wrong" and then you'll blindly accept this and start retroactively trying to build a framework for WHY it's wrong with hilariously poor results.

Is this really what you want your kids doing, Smash?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Aug 26 2014 at 5:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji can't make the distinction between "unrestrained capitalism can improve the life of the working class" and "unrestrained capitalism will improve the life of the working class".


Yes, and who chose the answer in the multiple choice list? Why not include the first statement instead of the second (they used "would", but close enough).

If I wanted to discourage people from eating vegetables, I might ask the following question:

True or False: Eating the recommended amount of vegetables will prevent you from ever getting sick.

Clearly, the answer is false, right? Now, how does it affect people's perception of vegetables if I ask this question instead:

True or False: Eating the recommended amount of vegetables will make you less likely to get sick.

Assuming that people who eat the right amount of vegetables will be more healthy than those who don't, the answer is "true", right? Do you see how by deliberately framing the question about something we dislike in such an absolute manner, we can force people to answer negatively about that thing? Do you see how if the subject was something less commonly understood and discussed (like say capitalism compared to eating vegetables), that students, perhaps never knowing anything more about capitalism than the references in various tests and textbooks, might be inclined to adopt the assumption that capitalism is "bad" simply because of the wording of the question (or others similarly worded that they've encountered).

How you use words affects how people view the things the words represent. Even when not talking about that thing at all, you can create a perception of something just by how you use it in a sentence.


Quote:
And of course gbaji completely ignores "unrestrained capitalism can result in the working class being treated as virtual slaves". He seem blissfully unaware that that is the situation depicted in the picture.


That's great and all. I'd absolutely love it if we actually had education that taught kids the actual pros and cons of capitalism rather than having them pick up bits and pieces of subjective associative language along the way. But that's not really the point here. The point is that in a question where the correct answer was "Government should act to eliminate the worst abuses of industrial society", one of the incorrect answers was "Capitalism free of government regulation would improve social conditions”. This was clearly designed to create a very simplistic association: Government is good, Capitalism is bad.

The question isn't even relevant here. Only that the correct answer be about the positive nature of government regulation and the inclusion of a "wrong" answer including capitalism. This forces the student to choose government regulation and reject capitalism. Which is exactly the point. Do this sort of thing enough times and you'll find a greater percentage of your population viewing government regulation more positively than they would otherwise, and capitalism more negatively than otherwise.

Again, the question is just the medium by which the message is sent.


I'll also point out (in response to your point about can versus will), that the correct answer also didn't leave any room for failure. It could have included the word "attempt" in there, but didn't. The clear assumption being fostered here is that government is the means to solve social problems. ****. There's so many layers of progressive assumption in that question it's almost laughable. The part about "Advocates for individuals" has a connotation as well (which I already discussed). It's also not really asking for a factual historical answer (ie: "As a result of conditions shown in this image, the following occurred:", with the answer being about government reforms). That's a fact based question. But this test asked about what sorts of things advocates of the people in the photo would have agreed with. This is therefore much more about teaching kids about associations between advocates for victims and social policy than about historical actions.


You've got to be pretty blind (Yeah, not even going there) not to see how massively biased this test is. It's laughably so. Like if I got 50 liberal experts in social theory and linguistics together in a room and said "I want you to write an AP History test that looks on the surface like a legitimate test, but requires students to positively reinforce liberal social ideas in order to answer the questions", this is what they would come up with.

Edited, Aug 26th 2014 4:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Aug 26 2014 at 5:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm friends with fifty liberal experts in social theory and they all disagreed with you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Aug 26 2014 at 5:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They will do this because they have been taught via repetition that you start with the desired social change and then find/fabricate/exaggerate conditions in society to convince people to accept said change.

It's about teaching kids to think backwards. As I said, the wording is backwards. And it's not accidentally so.

For example, you might be told something by a political party like "Gay marriage is wrong" and then you'll blindly accept this and start retroactively trying to build a framework for WHY it's wrong with hilariously poor results.


Interesting example. Backwards, of course. But interesting.

It's more like teaching your kids to start with an understanding of liberalism and how it applies to government power, then having them reject a proposal to expand state marriage benefits to homosexual couples on the grounds that this violates the correct application of said power.

On the flip side (and this is where your example is excellent) is teaching kids that "*** marriage is good (ie: a right)", and getting them to blindly accept this and retroactively construct ridiculous arguments as to why anyone who disagrees is a bad person and must be bigoted or too religious, or any reason at all other than the actual reasons they use.

It's funny because it's the left that does this Joph. You're the guys who start with "we must expand marriage to include homosexuals" and then constructs an argument and rationale to support it. Because there's no way to start with a set of principles and governing "rules" based on those principles and arrive at "we should provide a slew of benefits to \*** couples who enter into a marriage contract". You just can't. It's completely illogical. You can only arrive there if you work backwards from the end point.

Great example. Wish I'd thought of it!

Quote:
Is this really what you want your kids doing, Smash?


I'm reasonably certain that Smash is teaching his kids how to use all the liberal rhetoric out there for positive personal gain. Just a guess.


EDIT: Seriously? "***" is filtered. Well, there goes the Flintstones theme song!

Edited, Aug 26th 2014 4:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Aug 26 2014 at 5:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trust me, I don't expect you to acknowledge what you actually do.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Aug 26 2014 at 5:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Also, Zam censors the colloquial term for homosexuality because it's terrible and shameful and no one should have to hear about it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Aug 26 2014 at 5:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Trust me, I don't expect you to acknowledge what you actually do.


Huh? No clue what you're referring to.

Seriously though. Here's a challenge for you: Start with a set of social principles (not end positions like "*** marriage should be legal", but basic principles like "people should enjoy maximum freedom"). Based on these principles build a set of rules for governing a society that will best incorporate those principles (we can assume this is some form of liberalism, but you're free to experiment with others if you want). Then, step by step derive a rational for creating a government status which rewards same *** couples who enter into a marriage contract.

I'm honestly curious to see what sort of starting point you can concoct and what steps you could follow from that starting point to arrive at the proposed end point. Personally, I don't think it's possible. But I'm sure you'll describe some kind of underpants gnome like process to get there and insist it's perfect.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Aug 26 2014 at 5:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Also, Zam censors the colloquial term for homosexuality because it's terrible and shameful and no one should have to hear about it.


So why aren't the LGBTA folks marching on Google HQ as we speak? I mean, I'm just saying that if they choose to contractually bind themselves to a life partner, the government doesn't have to reward them. Google is actively seeking to erase them from our language! This must be stopped, right? Right!?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 Aug 26 2014 at 5:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Huh? No clue what you're referring to.

I'm saying that trying to get you to admit to the flaws in your "reasoning" is pointless since you would never, ever do so. Therefore, I have no interest in playing "Gbaji's Thought Experiments" or whatever. I posted what I did to give Smash a chuckle. You go ahead and carry on as you were. Heck, maybe even try to imply that I'm too scared or incapable of matching your challenges or say "But consider this..." and type a little screed about how you've solved the liberal indoctrination mind puzzle. It'll make you feel better and Smash will still get his chuckle. Win-Win.

gbaji wrote:
So why aren't the LGBTA folks marching on Google HQ as we speak?

They're stuck in traffic behind the pussies and the damned.

Edited, Aug 26th 2014 6:54pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Aug 26 2014 at 6:26 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Trust me, I don't expect you to acknowledge what you actually do.


Huh? No clue what you're referring to.

Seriously though. Here's a challenge for you: Start with a set of social principles (not end positions like "*** marriage should be legal", but basic principles like "people should enjoy maximum freedom"). Based on these principles build a set of rules for governing a society that will best incorporate those principles (we can assume this is some form of liberalism, but you're free to experiment with others if you want). Then, step by step derive a rational for creating a government status which rewards same **** couples who enter into a marriage contract.

I'm honestly curious to see what sort of starting point you can concoct and what steps you could follow from that starting point to arrive at the proposed end point. Personally, I don't think it's possible. But I'm sure you'll describe some kind of underpants gnome like process to get there and insist it's perfect.

How about "Homosexuals should not be treated as second and third class citizens, therefore they should be allowed to marry and receive the same rights and benefits as heteros". With the current state of marriage and divorces, along with foster, adoptive and surrogate parenting, there really is no reason *not* to allow it. Except for personal or religious grounds. Which should be entirely irrelevant.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#51 Aug 26 2014 at 6:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 64 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (64)