Gbaji strikes me as someone who has either led a bizarrely sheltered life or else has tremendous abilities of self-delusion.
Remembering the "No one has heard of this black girl singing at the Super Bowl" thing, I'm actually willing to wager primarily on the former.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Heh, I won't lie, this is kind of nice.
Heh, I won't lie, this is kind of nice.Follow
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I was gonna say he's spent his entire life in a hippie commune with a private water supply consisting largely of Ecstasy.
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.
Smasharoo wrote:
I'll play along, since we all need the laugh...what does your make believe reading of it say?
In a nutshell? It says that people with more liberal views of gender roles were much more likely to associate race with welfare and much more likely to be angry at black people when they saw a white person on welfare. Which, I suppose, perfectly explains why Joph (and you) see this connection far differently than I do.
It's actually a pretty crappy push style study anyway (it makes numerous assumptions about how gender and race roles tie into welfare that I don't agree with and which completely affect the results of the data that is collected). But even then, it ultimately supports my point far far better than yours or Joph's (that his perception is more about his own projection than about the reality).
Obviously, the study didn't even remotely address the question of why people choose to leave welfare (or choose not to accept it in the first place), which IIRC was the whole point we were discussing.
Edited, Oct 3rd 2014 4:26pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
It says that people with more liberal views of gender roles were much more likely to associate race with welfare and much more likely to be angry at black people when they saw a white person on welfare.
What..what are you referencing? Because that makes no damned sense. AT. ALL.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Almalieque wrote:
That's why you are assuming hypocrisy when the vast majority of black people that I know (which I assume is more than you) have no issues with religion in society. You are speaking from a white person's point of view and assuming that every Democrat is the same. The black church has ALWAYS been a political factor and I don't recall any movement from the left to change that.
I agree. My point is that this is hypocritical because "the left" has argued vehemently against religious involvement in politics when it's not black churches doing it.
Quote:
So "ridiculously rare" that it made news last month of FOX news viewers assumed that a black woman having a third child was on food stamps from various men and playing the system?
I actually had no clue what you were talking about, and had to do some googling to figure it out. Um... You do understand that anyone can sign up to comment on a news article, not just "Fox News viewers", right? You also understand that "ridiculously rare" things can be focused on and highlighted, like in this case, right? How many people do you suppose watch Fox News (it's a couple million people a day, just in ratings, probably tens of millions who watch read "occasionally"). How many people posted racist things on the story? 10? 12? At what point do we conclude that this is "ridiculously rare"?
Quote:
This is nothing about race. You're just making it about race to play the race card. I actually saw the clip in question a few hours ago and race was one sentence in an entire segment talking about elderly, students and the poor. Somehow, you only heard that one sentence and made it seem like the entire segment was about race.
I never said it was "only about race". I talking about cases where they "insert race into a topic for no legitimate reason". There was no reason to make this about race, except to get people for whom things that are about race are important to fall into line.
Quote:
Why do you think in some places a NRA card is "legit" to vote with, but not a school ID? The answer is because of the demographics of who would more likely to vote for you. It's not about race/skin color, but about votes.
Sure. There's a potential for the motivations behind adjusting the polling places/times to be based on improving the odds that your "side" gets more votes as a result (except that in this case the recommendations were made by a non-partisan organization, but the potential is still certainly there). My point is about why Reid choose to include the racial angle in her story. And my argument is that she did this because most people likely wouldn't be sufficiently outraged about a decision to not have polls open on Sunday unless you made a point to claim that this would disenfranchise black voters somehow. Now, you push the race button and people will react.
That was my whole point. She assessed the issue of Sunday voting entirely through the lens of the effect it would have on some black voters. Maybe. Which I found strange because it assumes that no white people go to church or might vote if polls were open on Sunday. I don't know the relative stats. Do you? Does she?
Quote:
So, why not include the Sunday where many votes are cast?
Are many votes cast on Sunday though? Do you have numbers for this? Why leap to the conclusion that this must be racially motivated when it's far more likely that voter turnout on Sundays just isn't as high as it is on weekdays or Saturdays. It could very well just be a cost issue. They have to have the polls open on weekdays, and they have enough money to pay to have polls open on two weekend days leading up to the election. Do you open them on Saturday or Sunday? The fact that some black voters might go to the polls right after church on Sunday doesn't mean that they wont also vote on Saturday, or even if the number of people who don't vote within any given group will change based on whether they're open on either day. We simply have no data to tell us this.
How do you know that more blacks don't vote on Saturday? So if we opened it on Sunday instead it would actually reduce the total number of black votes by a greater amount? Again, I don't know. I don't have that data, and I'm assuming you don't either. I'll also go out on a limb and assume Reid didn't either. She was just stirring up controversy by introducing a racial element to a story. Good for ratings, I guess, but **** poor journalism.
Traditionally in our society (including black society within the US), if there's one day of the week we don't have things open on, it's Sunday, right? Kind of a stretch to leap to "OMG! This will prevent black people from attending church and then running off to vote" IMO. Do you suppose that banks are all racist because they aren't open on Sundays and thus black people can't do their banking after going to church? No? So why make that same mental connection with regard to voting? Makes no sense. It's a contrived connection designed to manufacture outrage.
Edited, Oct 3rd 2014 4:28pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It says that people with more liberal views of gender roles were much more likely to associate race with welfare and much more likely to be angry at black people when they saw a white person on welfare.
What..what are you referencing? Because that makes no damned sense. AT. ALL.
Read the study that Smash linked earlier.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
In a nutshell? It says that people with more liberal views of gender roles were much more likely to associate race with welfare and much more likely to be angry at black people when they saw a white person on welfare. Which, I suppose, perfectly explains why Joph (and you) see this connection far differently than I do.
It's actually a pretty crappy push style study anyway (it makes numerous assumptions about how gender and race roles tie into welfare that I don't agree with and which completely affect the results of the data that is collected). But even then, it ultimately supports my point far far better than yours or Joph's (that his perception is more about his own projection than about the reality).
Obviously, the study didn't even remotely address the question of why people choose to leave welfare, which IIRC was the whole point we were discussing.
Can you cite the specific issues you find with the methodology? I don't want to imply that you didn't read it and are just making vague guesses about what you think "problems with studies" are, but some people are saying you didn't read it all.
Thanks.
It's actually a pretty crappy push style study anyway (it makes numerous assumptions about how gender and race roles tie into welfare that I don't agree with and which completely affect the results of the data that is collected). But even then, it ultimately supports my point far far better than yours or Joph's (that his perception is more about his own projection than about the reality).
Obviously, the study didn't even remotely address the question of why people choose to leave welfare, which IIRC was the whole point we were discussing.
Can you cite the specific issues you find with the methodology? I don't want to imply that you didn't read it and are just making vague guesses about what you think "problems with studies" are, but some people are saying you didn't read it all.
Thanks.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
It's actually a pretty crappy push style study anyway (it makes numerous assumptions about how gender and race roles tie into welfare that I don't agree with and which completely affect the results of the data that is collected). But even then, it ultimately supports my point far far better than yours or Joph's (that his perception is more about his own projection than about the reality).
Can you cite the specific issues you find with the methodology?
Can you cite the specific issues you find with the methodology?
Not methodology specifically, but assumptions that were made. First one is here:
Quote:
My assumption going into this study was that the notion of the welfare queen had taken on the
status of common knowledge, or what is known as a "narrative script." The welfare queen script
has two key components welfare recipients are disproportionately women, and women on welfare
are disproportionately African-American.
status of common knowledge, or what is known as a "narrative script." The welfare queen script
has two key components welfare recipients are disproportionately women, and women on welfare
are disproportionately African-American.
I don't have direct access to the raw data of the study, but I'm betting that this assumption colors the resulting analysis of that data as presented in the abstract itself. No way to say for 100% sure, but I'm always leery of this sort of thing. He should not have any assumptions, but follow the data. If you assume, for example, that drivers of red cars drive faster than drivers of blue cars, you might analyze data showing that red cars are involved in more accidents than blue cars and conclude that those accidents were caused because of the assumed faster speed (and thus kinda circularly proving your own initial assumption). But you can't ignore the possibility that your initial assumption was wrong, and that the increased rates of accidents are because of something completely different, like a certain model of car is more likely to be red than blue, and that model has some control problem (bad wheels, steering, or whatever). Following your assumption, and crafting a study based on it, will likely cause you to fail to find the actual cause of your data.
Here's a set of criteria he uses that are easily subject to his own initial bias (again, I'd love to see the specifics of the questionnaire and how this was scored):
Quote:
Three different categories of attitudes were addressed. The first pertained to their attitudes about
the causes of and solutions to welfare. I was able to measure the number of people who believe
that individual failings were the cause of welfare. On their questionnaires, this group of viewers
indicated that they believe welfare recipients cheat and defraud the system, that they abuse the
system by staying on too long, that welfare undermines the work ethic, and that welfare
encourages teenagers to have kids out of wedlock. They also tend to indicate a high level of
opposition to various public assistance programs (e.g., AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing
and health care).
The second set of attitudes is related to racial beliefs. I was able to determine the percentage of
people who endorsed negative stereotypes about African-Americans. I did this by eliciting
responses about perceptions that African-Americans are lazy, sexually promiscuous, not law-
abiding and undisciplined. I also computed the percentage of participants whose views and
attitudes were described in more subtle terms. Included in this category were phrases such as
"blacks don't try hard enough," "they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps," and "there is
not much discrimination nowadays."
Finally, attitudes about gender were numerically measured by the percentage of people who
preferred women to play more "traditional" gender roles. These attitudes emerged from
responses to such statements as "the husband should be the achiever outside of the home,"
"working women do not have as close a bond with their children as mothers who stay at home,"
and "a preschool child is likely to suffer if mom works."
the causes of and solutions to welfare. I was able to measure the number of people who believe
that individual failings were the cause of welfare. On their questionnaires, this group of viewers
indicated that they believe welfare recipients cheat and defraud the system, that they abuse the
system by staying on too long, that welfare undermines the work ethic, and that welfare
encourages teenagers to have kids out of wedlock. They also tend to indicate a high level of
opposition to various public assistance programs (e.g., AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing
and health care).
The second set of attitudes is related to racial beliefs. I was able to determine the percentage of
people who endorsed negative stereotypes about African-Americans. I did this by eliciting
responses about perceptions that African-Americans are lazy, sexually promiscuous, not law-
abiding and undisciplined. I also computed the percentage of participants whose views and
attitudes were described in more subtle terms. Included in this category were phrases such as
"blacks don't try hard enough," "they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps," and "there is
not much discrimination nowadays."
Finally, attitudes about gender were numerically measured by the percentage of people who
preferred women to play more "traditional" gender roles. These attitudes emerged from
responses to such statements as "the husband should be the achiever outside of the home,"
"working women do not have as close a bond with their children as mothers who stay at home,"
and "a preschool child is likely to suffer if mom works."
There are a whole set of potentially questionable assumptions in there. So anyone who believes that there isn't much discrimination is identified as being "subtly racist"? And simply saying "they should pull themselves up by their bootstaps" is as well? Um... I'd say that about anyone, not just blacks. But of course (and this is another thing that isn't clear about he underlying methodology) if he only asked this about blacks and not whites, then he's creating the perception that this is some kind of special/bad treatment or view of blacks, when it may not have anything to do with race at all.
I'll also point out that someone might have a negative view of those who use welfare without having a negative view of blacks. This connection only exists *if* our analysis of the data assumes that people view welfare through the narratives of the "welfare queen" script. Which, as I pointed out above, is precisely what is going on with this study. Thus, as far as I can tell, he's concluding that anyone who has a negative view of welfare recipients has a negative view of African Americans. This is relevant later.
I have similar reservations about the correlation between the questions asked about gender roles and the assignment of "traditional" and "liberal" views. Again though, still don't have enough data, but that's kind of the point. I can't really be sure if this guy is just spouting complete BS or not, but the squirrelly nature of the results tends to make me thing he is.
This one is just bad (and obviously biased) reporting of findings:
Quote:
The first finding is that the welfare queen script has assumed the status of common knowledge.
When white subjects were asked to recall what they had seen in the newscasts, nearly 80
percent of them accurately recalled the race of the African-American Rhonda. On the other hand,
less than 50 percent accurately recalled seeing the white Rhonda.
When white subjects were asked to recall what they had seen in the newscasts, nearly 80
percent of them accurately recalled the race of the African-American Rhonda. On the other hand,
less than 50 percent accurately recalled seeing the white Rhonda.
Ok. What about black subjects recalling white versus black "Rhondas"? Is this really about people associating "welfare==black", or possibly that people are more aware of a person of a different race on the screen versus someone of the same race? I can think of several possible explanations of this data that don't support the assumption he's giving. Of course, more complete data on the questionnaires would help clear this up.
This pattern of only looking at white responses continues through the entire results section. Which kinda automatically makes me suspicious that this "experiment" is less about finding facts and more about manipulating them to support a starting assumption.
Next:
Quote:
I also contrasted responses among subjects who viewed the welfare story and did not have a
visual cue and those who saw our welfare story featuring Rhonda Germaine (either a white or
African-American image of a woman). I expected that participants who saw a woman in the story
would be more likely to endorse traditional women's roles, oppose welfare spending, and cite
individual causal attributions.
Not only was my expectation wrong but two other results emerged. First, seeing a woman in the
news story actually decreased opposition to welfare spending. Second, exposure to a welfare
queen in the news significantly increased support for negative characterizations of African-
Americans by an average of 10 percent.
visual cue and those who saw our welfare story featuring Rhonda Germaine (either a white or
African-American image of a woman). I expected that participants who saw a woman in the story
would be more likely to endorse traditional women's roles, oppose welfare spending, and cite
individual causal attributions.
Not only was my expectation wrong but two other results emerged. First, seeing a woman in the
news story actually decreased opposition to welfare spending. Second, exposure to a welfare
queen in the news significantly increased support for negative characterizations of African-
Americans by an average of 10 percent.
He doesn't elaborate on exactly how he was wrong, but we can assume that this means that there was not the correlation between a traditional gender role viewpoint and the assumed negative welfare viewpoint (with it's assumed racial context). Um... Which is the point at which he should be saying "I guess I was just wrong and should start over".
I'll reiterate that based on the earlier stated assumptions, as far as I can tell the "negative characterization of African-Americans" he speaks of really just means "negative characterization of welfare recipients" (cause he's assuming people view them as the same, just as Joph's mother allegedly did). Actually, it not really clear from this sentence what his data actually showed. But I smell spin.
And finally:
Quote:
Finally, I examined the racial effects by comparing those white viewers who were exposed to the
white Rhonda and those who watched the welfare story featuring the black Rhonda. The general
expectation was that exposure to the quintessential welfare queen script (i.e. the black Rhonda)
would increase anti-black sentiments, heighten opposition to welfare spending, and lead more
people to cite individual failing as the cause of welfare.
The results were somewhat mixed. True to form, exposure to the full confirmation of the script
(i.e. black Rhonda) increased opposition to welfare spending by five percent and showed a 10
percent rise in an attribution of cause to individual failings. Likewise, white participants who
watched the welfare story with the black Rhonda were more likely to hold negative views of
African-Americans than those who did have a visual cue. Contrary to expectations, however,
exposure to the white Rhonda produced the biggest increase in anti-black sentiment. That is,
watching a story with the white Rhonda increased negative depictions of blacks by 12 percent
compared to the black Rhonda and by 23 percent over the story without a picture.
white Rhonda and those who watched the welfare story featuring the black Rhonda. The general
expectation was that exposure to the quintessential welfare queen script (i.e. the black Rhonda)
would increase anti-black sentiments, heighten opposition to welfare spending, and lead more
people to cite individual failing as the cause of welfare.
The results were somewhat mixed. True to form, exposure to the full confirmation of the script
(i.e. black Rhonda) increased opposition to welfare spending by five percent and showed a 10
percent rise in an attribution of cause to individual failings. Likewise, white participants who
watched the welfare story with the black Rhonda were more likely to hold negative views of
African-Americans than those who did have a visual cue. Contrary to expectations, however,
exposure to the white Rhonda produced the biggest increase in anti-black sentiment. That is,
watching a story with the white Rhonda increased negative depictions of blacks by 12 percent
compared to the black Rhonda and by 23 percent over the story without a picture.
I have a sneaking suspicion that a good portion oft he "mixed" and "contrary" results also derive from the bizarre assumptions he's making. If you drop the assumption of the welfare queen narrative, I suspect that the data here actually would make a lot more sense. For example, I'm going to speculate that the reason white exposure to a white rhonda produced the biggest increase in "anti-black sentiment" is because he's assuming that certain forms of anti-welfare sentiment are actually anti-black sentiment (just as Joph did). But if his starting assumption is wrong, then that's really just anti-welfare sentiment, and has nothing to do with race, and the correlation between higher opposition when someone you associate with more strongly (someone of the same race) is shown to be on welfare, makes complete sense.
This was the portion that really made me suspect that his starting assumption was not just wrong, but ******** with his results. Drop the assumption, and the result aren't nearly so mixed or contradictory.
Oh. And then there's this (which was admittedly just me poking a bit of fun at you guys):
Quote:
Most interestingly, people who espouse the most "liberal" views about gender roles turn out to be
the most hostile to blacks when they are exposed to the white Rhonda. Put differently, the most
gender-liberal white participants appear to be most likely to implicitly blame African-Americans for
the plight of their racial peers, and there is early evidence to suggest that this tendency is most
pronounced among women.
the most hostile to blacks when they are exposed to the white Rhonda. Put differently, the most
gender-liberal white participants appear to be most likely to implicitly blame African-Americans for
the plight of their racial peers, and there is early evidence to suggest that this tendency is most
pronounced among women.
Again, of course, if the correlation between "anti-welfare" and "anti-black" is carried through here, this ceases to be a funny racism counterbash at liberals, but actually makes a lot of sense. People who see women as being just as capable in the workplace as men, and who think careers should not be outweighed by child rearing (or homemaking) would logically be more upset about women on welfare than those for whom accepting the "welfare" of a husbands salary to stay home and raise the kids is more normal.
Given how much better the results seem to match up when one rejects the starting assumption, perhaps we should do that? Of course, that is precisely the same assumption that Joph was insisting was commonplace, wasn't it? This is why I said that this abstract didn't say what you seemed to think it did. If you read it and think about the results, if actually suggests that the welfare queen narrative model is wrong.
Quote:
I don't want to imply that you didn't read it and are just making vague guesses about what you think "problems with studies" are, but some people are saying you didn't read it all.
Actually, I was suggesting that you didn't read it. I'm hoping that my response proves that I did.
Quote:
Thanks.
You're welcome Smash! Keep up the good work. We're all counting on you.
Edited, Oct 3rd 2014 5:26pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I will continue to respond to the rest of this post, but this was too good to risk it being lost in text.
You obviously don't follow Fox news on Facebook. That is daily. Any news about a black person, President Obama, immigration, or basically anything, there will be racist/racial comments. The quote below was literally posted an hour ago on a story about a black brain dead child dying. What does this d-bag assume? She's on welfare... Too good of a coincidence. front page....It literally took me 30 seconds to find this. I would assume that something "ridiculously rare" would be harder to find.
Gbaji wrote:
I actually had no clue what you were talking about, and had to do some googling to figure it out. Um... You do understand that anyone can sign up to comment on a news article, not just "Fox News viewers", right? You also understand that "ridiculously rare" things can be focused on and highlighted, like in this case, right? How many people do you suppose watch Fox News (it's a couple million people a day, just in ratings, probably tens of millions who watch read "occasionally"). How many people posted racist things on the story? 10? 12? At what point do we conclude that this is "ridiculously rare"?
You obviously don't follow Fox news on Facebook. That is daily. Any news about a black person, President Obama, immigration, or basically anything, there will be racist/racial comments. The quote below was literally posted an hour ago on a story about a black brain dead child dying. What does this d-bag assume? She's on welfare... Too good of a coincidence. front page....It literally took me 30 seconds to find this. I would assume that something "ridiculously rare" would be harder to find.
"Welfare check musta dropped significantly without her around"
Almalieque wrote:
You obviously don't follow Fox news on Facebook. That is daily. Any news about a black person, President Obama, immigration, or basically anything, there will be racist/racial comments.
Ok. Go look up those same subjects on any other online news/blogs with open comment sections. Report back on your findings.
I'll give you a hint: Drop the "Fox News" part. This is just something that happens. Out of a nation of 300+ million people (and a whole bunch more around the world who may visit US sites), there are bound to be some racist idiots who will troll the web looking for anything that fits their racist narrative and making a racist comment on it. And that's not counting people who are literally just trolling and don't care one way or another, except to create an argument.
Quote:
The quote below was literally posted an hour ago on a story about a black brain dead child dying. What does this d-bag assume? She's on welfare... Too good of a coincidence. front page....It literally took me 30 seconds to find this. I would assume that something "ridiculously rare" would be harder to find.
Um... In a world with an internet and web postings, if you look for something, you can always find it. That does not mean that it's not "super rare".
How rare is contracting Ebola? How many postings and news stories do you think we could find today about Ebola? Please tell me you get how the interwebs works!
Oh. And let's also not forget that my "ridiculously rare" comment was about people who choose to refuse government assistance because they associate it with black people and don't want to be associated similarly. You've now expanded this to include any racist viewpoint. That's nice and all, but not remotely what I was talking about. Maybe try to stay on target here?
Edited, Oct 3rd 2014 5:45pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I don't have direct access to the raw data of the study, but I'm betting that this assumption colors the resulting analysis of that data as presented in the abstract itself.
It doesn't. Thanks for guessing, though.
There are a whole set of potentially questionable assumptions in there. So anyone who believes that there isn't much discrimination is identified as being "subtly racist"? And simply saying "they should pull themselves up by their bootstaps" is as well? Um... I'd say that about anyone, not just blacks
Sure, but you are obviously racist. Insisting that you aren't is sort of part of the whole deal.
Again, of course, if the correlation between "anti-welfare" and "anti-black" is carried through here, this ceases to be a funny racism counterbash at liberals, but actually makes a lot of sense. People who see women as being just as capable in the workplace as men, and who think careers should not be outweighed by child rearing (or homemaking) would logically be more upset about women on welfare than those for whom accepting the "welfare" of a husbands salary to stay home and raise the kids is more normal.
That's one flawed interpretation. What would make vastly more sense is that women are more likely to see women as capable, and attribute perceived failure of black women to being because they are black and not because they don't have a dong.
Edited, Oct 3rd 2014 8:48pm by Smasharoo
It doesn't. Thanks for guessing, though.
There are a whole set of potentially questionable assumptions in there. So anyone who believes that there isn't much discrimination is identified as being "subtly racist"? And simply saying "they should pull themselves up by their bootstaps" is as well? Um... I'd say that about anyone, not just blacks
Sure, but you are obviously racist. Insisting that you aren't is sort of part of the whole deal.
Again, of course, if the correlation between "anti-welfare" and "anti-black" is carried through here, this ceases to be a funny racism counterbash at liberals, but actually makes a lot of sense. People who see women as being just as capable in the workplace as men, and who think careers should not be outweighed by child rearing (or homemaking) would logically be more upset about women on welfare than those for whom accepting the "welfare" of a husbands salary to stay home and raise the kids is more normal.
That's one flawed interpretation. What would make vastly more sense is that women are more likely to see women as capable, and attribute perceived failure of black women to being because they are black and not because they don't have a dong.
Edited, Oct 3rd 2014 8:48pm by Smasharoo
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
I don't have direct access to the raw data of the study, but I'm betting that this assumption colors the resulting analysis of that data as presented in the abstract itself.
It doesn't. Thanks for guessing, though.
It doesn't. Thanks for guessing, though.
The results presented in the abstract strongly suggest that it does. There's a significant number of results that he can't explain with his welfare queen model, but instead of modifying his starting assumption, he just goes on to recommend change without bothering to account for the discrepancy. I assume he expects that most people wont actually bother to read the abstract, much less apply any sort of critical analysis to it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Still responding to the other post, but would like to finish this first.
Ok. Go look up those same subjects on any other online news/blogs with open comment sections. Report back on your findings.
I'll give you a hint: Drop the "Fox News" part. This is just something that happens. Out of a nation of 300+ million people (and a whole bunch more around the world who may visit US sites), there are bound to be some racist idiots who will troll the web looking for anything that fits their racist narrative and making a racist comment on it. And that's not counting people who are literally just trolling and don't care one way or another, except to create an argument. I merely used Fox News as an example because that's what I see.
You're right, but the thing was, I wasn't "searching" for it. I didn't google "racist comments on welfare". I went to the FOX News Facebook page and clicked the most recent story and like 5 comments down. The story didn't even have anything to do with welfare. There is a difference between the two and anything "super rare" wouldn't be so easily found without effort.
Oh. And let's also not forget that my "ridiculously rare" comment was about people who choose to refuse government assistance because they associate it with black people and don't want to be associated similarly. You've now expanded this to include any racist viewpoint. That's nice and all, but not remotely what I was talking about. Maybe try to stay on target here?
I'm glad you want to stay on target, because I never argued that people refused government assistance because they associated it with black people. I sad it was sad that people associate government assistance with simply being black. So, to clarify your stance, you agree that there is a stigma about black people on welfare, regardless of any effect that it may have on personally receiving it?
Gbaji wrote:
Ok. Go look up those same subjects on any other online news/blogs with open comment sections. Report back on your findings.
I'll give you a hint: Drop the "Fox News" part. This is just something that happens. Out of a nation of 300+ million people (and a whole bunch more around the world who may visit US sites), there are bound to be some racist idiots who will troll the web looking for anything that fits their racist narrative and making a racist comment on it. And that's not counting people who are literally just trolling and don't care one way or another, except to create an argument.
Gbaji wrote:
Um... In a world with an internet and web postings, if you look for something, you can always find it. That does not mean that it's not "super rare".
How rare is contracting Ebola? How many postings and news stories do you think we could find today about Ebola? Please tell me you get how the interwebs works!
How rare is contracting Ebola? How many postings and news stories do you think we could find today about Ebola? Please tell me you get how the interwebs works!
Gbaji wrote:
Oh. And let's also not forget that my "ridiculously rare" comment was about people who choose to refuse government assistance because they associate it with black people and don't want to be associated similarly. You've now expanded this to include any racist viewpoint. That's nice and all, but not remotely what I was talking about. Maybe try to stay on target here?
Smasharoo wrote:
Again, of course, if the correlation between "anti-welfare" and "anti-black" is carried through here, this ceases to be a funny racism counterbash at liberals, but actually makes a lot of sense. People who see women as being just as capable in the workplace as men, and who think careers should not be outweighed by child rearing (or homemaking) would logically be more upset about women on welfare than those for whom accepting the "welfare" of a husbands salary to stay home and raise the kids is more normal.
That's one flawed interpretation. What would make vastly more sense is that women are more likely to see women as capable, and attribute perceived failure of black women to being because they are black and not because they don't have a dong.
That's one flawed interpretation. What would make vastly more sense is that women are more likely to see women as capable, and attribute perceived failure of black women to being because they are black and not because they don't have a dong.
That doesn't make any sense at all Smash. The result I was talking about was how women with more "liberal" views of gender roles (ie: those who thought women should be in the workplace rather than at home taking care of kids) were the most likely to express negative views towards blacks when they saw a white Rhonda. They weren't blaming the white woman for being black. They were (in his interpretation) blaming black people for the white woman being on welfare. This was surprising to him because it occurred more among the group he expected to have the least animosity towards blacks than among the group he expected to have the most. I made a joke about this earlier based on exactly this interpretation (that liberal women, and perhaps liberals in general, are more likely to be racist than conservatives), but that was just a joke.
My counter is that if he dropped the assumption that negative views towards welfare recipients equates to a negative view towards blacks (one of his assumptions btw, and the basis of the "welfare queen model" he's following), then the (presumed) absurdity of concluding that women with more "liberal" viewpoints are more racist goes away. Take away that assumption, and we just have women who most view women as being capable of supporting themselves being most upset when seeing a woman on welfare. Um... Which is pretty darn logical. But, it doesn't support the welfare queen narrative model he wants to warn everyone about, so he fails to make that connection (and fails to adjust his model).
Did you just miss what I was responding to there?
Edited, Oct 3rd 2014 7:41pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Almalieque wrote:
I'm glad you want to stay on target, because I never argued that people refused government assistance because they associated it with black people. I sad it was sad that people associate government assistance with simply being black.
Ah. Ok. I can accept that. I was coming from the mindset about why people make choices about government assistance, and that affected my interpretation of what you wrote. Unlike others on this forum, I'm perfectly willing to accept that I misunderstood what you wrote, and rather than insist that you defend that misinterpretation and accuse you of backpedaling if you don't, I'll shift to discussing your intended meaning. Because otherwise we're arguing over nothing at all.
Quote:
So, to clarify your stance, you agree that there is a stigma about black people on welfare, regardless of any effect that it may have on personally receiving it?
I'm sure there are racists out there who will make things about race no matter what, but for most people (and certainly most conservatives) it's not a racial stigma at work, but a stigma about being on welfare in general. I don't think that most white people view a black person on welfare any worse than a white person on welfare. If someone doesn't like welfare, they don't like welfare. If they don't like someone who is on welfare, or they denigrate that person, or call them lazy, or a freeloader, it's far more about the fact that they are on welfare than the skin color of the person receiving it.
I think there is a massive perception that race plays a large role in this, but I don't think that's actually the case. Statistically, African Americans are more likely to be recipients of some form of government assistance than whites. So African Americans are going to be the targets of anti-welfare vitriol at a greater relative rate than whites. But that vitriol isn't because the person is black, but because they are on welfare. I think that's an important distinction to make.
So no, I don't agree that there is a stigma about "black people on welfare". It's a stigma about "people on welfare". At least among the general population. I can't speak to how the media portrays people on welfare though, and I don't doubt that there is some skew there, but then you have to consider the source and ask whether this is because of the population itself having some kind of race based opposition to welfare (which is pretty bizarre if you really stop and think about it), or whether this is about many in the media (perhaps with some prodding from political folks) wanting to play up the racial connection for political reasons.
Let me give you an example of how this plays out. Let's say I'm a political operative for a party that honestly believes that government assistant programs are beneficial to those who receive them, and has "increase government assistance programs" in its platform. Let's assume that the opposing party honestly believes that government assistance programs, while occasionally useful in some forms, are broadly harmful to their recipients in the long run in many cases. Thus, they have "decrease government assistance programs" in their platform. I want to win on this issue. I could (and should) certainly engage in arguments about the positive effects of such programs in an attempt to win people over to my party's side on the issue. But, in addition to that, I could also create a racial association. Let's say that statistically, it happens that a minority group receives welfare assistance at a greater relative rate than the majority group (which is almost certainly going to be the case, regardless of what criteria defines that minority group). So, if I play up that relationship, I can create an association between assistance and the minority group. Then, I can paint those who oppose the assistance as opposing the minority group. This gives me a significant political advantage when debating this issue. So it absolutely behooves me to create the perception of this association because it's my "side" that gains from that association.
Seriously. Step back from the issue itself and look at it for a moment. Who really gains from the presumption of a stigma associating welfare with "lazy black people"? Those who support and defend welfare? Or those who oppose welfare? Why on earth would someone who wants us to reduce our welfare programs create such an association? It makes no sense. It's why, to give a specific example, Reagan went out of his way to avoid saying the race of the "welfare queen" he mentioned back in the day. He wasn't making a point about race and welfare, he was making an objective argument about the problems with the existing welfare system and how easily it could be abused. His political opponents made it about the race of the woman, not him. This ties back to my earlier point about identity politics. For the conservative, the skin color of the person isn't important. What she was doing was. But for the liberal, it was critically important to make sure everyone knew that we were talking about a black woman, and that this therefore constituted an attack, not on welfare, but on black people.
That's the narrative I disagree with. I think it's not terribly helpful, and also not terribly honest. We can and should discuss the facts related to race and poverty and how that affects the outcomes with regard to public assistance, but I think it's really foolish to dismiss or deride arguments about such assistance based primarily on the facts of those racial statistics. Doubly so if you accept even the possibility that conservatives might actually be right about their assessment of the harmful long term affects of those assistance programs.
Edited, Oct 3rd 2014 8:15pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
It's why, to give a specific example, Reagan went out of his way to avoid saying the race of the "welfare queen" he mentioned back in the day.
Lee Atwater, political adviser to Reagan wrote:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*gger, n*gger, n*gger.†By 1968 you can't say “n*gger†— that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,†is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*gger, n*gger.†So anyway you look at it, race is coming on the back burner.
Go on now... give your cute little story about how Lee Atwater was actually arguing against racism and the Southern Strategy never existed, That's always good for a few laughs.
Edited, Oct 3rd 2014 9:55pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's why, to give a specific example, Reagan went out of his way to avoid saying the race of the "welfare queen" he mentioned back in the day.
Lee Atwater, political adviser to Reagan wrote:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*gger, n*gger, n*gger.†By 1968 you can't say “n*gger†— that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,†is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a **** of a lot more abstract than “N*gger, n*gger.†So anyway you look at it, race is coming on the back burner.
Go on now... give your cute little story about how Lee Atwater was actually arguing against racism and the Southern Strategy never existed, That's always good for a few laughs.
I find it amusing that you keep bringing this one out of context quote while conveniently forgetting that it was the Democrats who created and perfected the race based "Southern Strategy" between the 40s and the 60s. But, because one guy (Harvy Dent IIRC) suggested it to Nixon one time (and it was rejected and not used), and one guy (Lee Atwater) said later than the Reagan administration also didn't use it, this somehow equates to a strategy we should be associating with the GOP? Wow. Talk about spin.
Lee Atwater was talking about how the Southern Strategy (as used by the Democrats btw) used racism to win the south, and how the GOP didn't need to use that to win votes in the south because the political climate had changed. I'm sure you've never bothered to listen to the audio recording, or even a transcript, so I'm sure you've never heard the part where he talks about how race isn't the issue in the south it used to be, and how the voting rights act hardly registers with white voters in the south. These are things you liberals are obsessed with, not us conservatives. One day, perhaps you'll join us in moving past race as a means to gain political power. But, as this very thread illustrates, using race (identity in general) in politics is still very much alive and well on the Left side of US politics.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I find it amusing that you keep bringing this one out of context quote
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Gbaji wrote:
Ah. Ok. I can accept that. I was coming from the mindset about why people make choices about government assistance, and that affected my interpretation of what you wrote. Unlike others on this forum, I'm perfectly willing to accept that I misunderstood what you wrote, and rather than insist that you defend that misinterpretation and accuse you of backpedaling if you don't, I'll shift to discussing your intended meaning. Because otherwise we're arguing over nothing at all.
Gbaji wrote:
I'm sure there are racists out there who will make things about race no matter what, but for most people (and certainly most conservatives) it's not a racial stigma at work, but a stigma about being on welfare in general. I don't think that most white people view a black person on welfare any worse than a white person on welfare. If someone doesn't like welfare, they don't like welfare. If they don't like someone who is on welfare, or they denigrate that person, or call them lazy, or a freeloader, it's far more about the fact that they are on welfare than the skin color of the person receiving it.
It's not mutually exclusive. Conservatives main dislike is government (assistance), regardless of race. However, just like the overweight white male with his buttocks showing is the plumber stereotype, the single black mother with a bunch of kids is often the food stamp stereotype.
Gbaji wrote:
I think there is a massive perception that race plays a large role in this, but I don't think that's actually the case. Statistically, African Americans are more likely to be recipients of some form of government assistance than whites. So African Americans are going to be the targets of anti-welfare vitriol at a greater relative rate than whites. But that vitriol isn't because the person is black, but because they are on welfare. I think that's an important distinction to make.
2. I'm making that distinction. My point isn't the conservative hatred toward government assistance, but specifically the stigma of blacks on welfare. Your choice to ignore its existence doesn't make it legit.
Gbaji wrote:
So no, I don't agree that there is a stigma about "black people on welfare". It's a stigma about "people on welfare". At least among the general population. I can't speak to how the media portrays people on welfare though, and I don't doubt that there is some skew there, but then you have to consider the source and ask whether this is because of the population itself having some kind of race based opposition to welfare (which is pretty bizarre if you really stop and think about it), or whether this is about many in the media (perhaps with some prodding from political folks) wanting to play up the racial connection for political reasons.
Let me give you an example of how this plays out. Let's say I'm a political operative for a party that honestly believes that government assistant programs are beneficial to those who receive them, and has "increase government assistance programs" in its platform. Let's assume that the opposing party honestly believes that government assistance programs, while occasionally useful in some forms, are broadly harmful to their recipients in the long run in many cases. Thus, they have "decrease government assistance programs" in their platform. I want to win on this issue. I could (and should) certainly engage in arguments about the positive effects of such programs in an attempt to win people over to my party's side on the issue. But, in addition to that, I could also create a racial association. Let's say that statistically, it happens that a minority group receives welfare assistance at a greater relative rate than the majority group (which is almost certainly going to be the case, regardless of what criteria defines that minority group). So, if I play up that relationship, I can create an association between assistance and the minority group. Then, I can paint those who oppose the assistance as opposing the minority group. This gives me a significant political advantage when debating this issue. So it absolutely behooves me to create the perception of this association because it's my "side" that gains from that association.
Seriously. Step back from the issue itself and look at it for a moment. Who really gains from the presumption of a stigma associating welfare with "lazy black people"? Those who support and defend welfare? Or those who oppose welfare? Why on earth would someone who wants us to reduce our welfare programs create such an association? It makes no sense. It's why, to give a specific example, Reagan went out of his way to avoid saying the race of the "welfare queen" he mentioned back in the day. He wasn't making a point about race and welfare, he was making an objective argument about the problems with the existing welfare system and how easily it could be abused. His political opponents made it about the race of the woman, not him. This ties back to my earlier point about identity politics. For the conservative, the skin color of the person isn't important. What she was doing was. But for the liberal, it was critically important to make sure everyone knew that we were talking about a black woman, and that this therefore constituted an attack, not on welfare, but on black people.
That's the narrative I disagree with. I think it's not terribly helpful, and also not terribly honest. We can and should discuss the facts related to race and poverty and how that affects the outcomes with regard to public assistance, but I think it's really foolish to dismiss or deride arguments about such assistance based primarily on the facts of those racial statistics. Doubly so if you accept even the possibility that conservatives might actually be right about their assessment of the harmful long term affects of those assistance programs.
Let me give you an example of how this plays out. Let's say I'm a political operative for a party that honestly believes that government assistant programs are beneficial to those who receive them, and has "increase government assistance programs" in its platform. Let's assume that the opposing party honestly believes that government assistance programs, while occasionally useful in some forms, are broadly harmful to their recipients in the long run in many cases. Thus, they have "decrease government assistance programs" in their platform. I want to win on this issue. I could (and should) certainly engage in arguments about the positive effects of such programs in an attempt to win people over to my party's side on the issue. But, in addition to that, I could also create a racial association. Let's say that statistically, it happens that a minority group receives welfare assistance at a greater relative rate than the majority group (which is almost certainly going to be the case, regardless of what criteria defines that minority group). So, if I play up that relationship, I can create an association between assistance and the minority group. Then, I can paint those who oppose the assistance as opposing the minority group. This gives me a significant political advantage when debating this issue. So it absolutely behooves me to create the perception of this association because it's my "side" that gains from that association.
Seriously. Step back from the issue itself and look at it for a moment. Who really gains from the presumption of a stigma associating welfare with "lazy black people"? Those who support and defend welfare? Or those who oppose welfare? Why on earth would someone who wants us to reduce our welfare programs create such an association? It makes no sense. It's why, to give a specific example, Reagan went out of his way to avoid saying the race of the "welfare queen" he mentioned back in the day. He wasn't making a point about race and welfare, he was making an objective argument about the problems with the existing welfare system and how easily it could be abused. His political opponents made it about the race of the woman, not him. This ties back to my earlier point about identity politics. For the conservative, the skin color of the person isn't important. What she was doing was. But for the liberal, it was critically important to make sure everyone knew that we were talking about a black woman, and that this therefore constituted an attack, not on welfare, but on black people.
That's the narrative I disagree with. I think it's not terribly helpful, and also not terribly honest. We can and should discuss the facts related to race and poverty and how that affects the outcomes with regard to public assistance, but I think it's really foolish to dismiss or deride arguments about such assistance based primarily on the facts of those racial statistics. Doubly so if you accept even the possibility that conservatives might actually be right about their assessment of the harmful long term affects of those assistance programs.
You're conflating several talking points into one argument. My point is specifically that people have a negative stereotype of black people and welfare, just like they do with Asians and math.
Gbaji wrote:
I agree. My point is that this is hypocritical because "the left" has argued vehemently against religious involvement in politics when it's not black churches doing it.
I'll say it again, the preachers in the black church aren't telling people who to vote for or how to vote, but to simply vote. That is not the same as the "religious right" imposing their views into laws. That's apples and shoes you're referring to.
Gbaji wrote:
I never said it was "only about race". I talking about cases where they "insert race into a topic for no legitimate reason". There was no reason to make this about race, except to get people for whom things that are about race are important to fall into line.
Gbaji wrote:
Sure. There's a potential for the motivations behind adjusting the polling places/times to be based on improving the odds that your "side" gets more votes as a result (except that in this case the recommendations were made by a non-partisan organization, but the potential is still certainly there). My point is about why Reid choose to include the racial angle in her story. And my argument is that she did this because most people likely wouldn't be sufficiently outraged about a decision to not have polls open on Sunday unless you made a point to claim that this would disenfranchise black voters somehow. Now, you push the race button and people will react.
That was my whole point. She assessed the issue of Sunday voting entirely through the lens of the effect it would have on some black voters.
That was my whole point. She assessed the issue of Sunday voting entirely through the lens of the effect it would have on some black voters.
Gaji wrote:
Maybe. Which I found strange because it assumes that no white people go to church or might vote if polls were open on Sunday. I don't know the relative stats. Do you? Does she?
Gbaji wrote:
Are many votes cast on Sunday though? Do you have numbers for this? Why leap to the conclusion that this must be racially motivated when it's far more likely that voter turnout on Sundays just isn't as high as it is on weekdays or Saturdays. It could very well just be a cost issue. They have to have the polls open on weekdays, and they have enough money to pay to have polls open on two weekend days leading up to the election. Do you open them on Saturday or Sunday? The fact that some black voters might go to the polls right after church on Sunday doesn't mean that they wont also vote on Saturday, or even if the number of people who don't vote within any given group will change based on whether they're open on either day. We simply have no data to tell us this.
How do you know that more blacks don't vote on Saturday? So if we opened it on Sunday instead it would actually reduce the total number of black votes by a greater amount? Again, I don't know. I don't have that data, and I'm assuming you don't either. I'll also go out on a limb and assume Reid didn't either. She was just stirring up controversy by introducing a racial element to a story. Good for ratings, I guess, but **** poor journalism.
Traditionally in our society (including black society within the US), if there's one day of the week we don't have things open on, it's Sunday, right? Kind of a stretch to leap to "OMG! This will prevent black people from attending church and then running off to vote" IMO. Do you suppose that banks are all racist because they aren't open on Sundays and thus black people can't do their banking after going to church? No? So why make that same mental connection with regard to voting? Makes no sense. It's a contrived connection designed to manufacture outrage.
How do you know that more blacks don't vote on Saturday? So if we opened it on Sunday instead it would actually reduce the total number of black votes by a greater amount? Again, I don't know. I don't have that data, and I'm assuming you don't either. I'll also go out on a limb and assume Reid didn't either. She was just stirring up controversy by introducing a racial element to a story. Good for ratings, I guess, but **** poor journalism.
Traditionally in our society (including black society within the US), if there's one day of the week we don't have things open on, it's Sunday, right? Kind of a stretch to leap to "OMG! This will prevent black people from attending church and then running off to vote" IMO. Do you suppose that banks are all racist because they aren't open on Sundays and thus black people can't do their banking after going to church? No? So why make that same mental connection with regard to voting? Makes no sense. It's a contrived connection designed to manufacture outrage.
This is the type of stuff that I don't like googling, because you could always find studies to show the opposite, but I will do so.
http://nova-ohio.org/Racial%20and%20ethnic%20proportions%20of%20early%20in-person%20voting.pdf
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jun/22/corrine-brown/souls-polls-sunday-drew-more-african-american-and-/ wrote:
"Statistics show that in the 2008 general election in Florida, 33.2 percent of those who voted early on the last Sunday before Election Day were African-American, while 23.6 percent were Hispanic,
It's why, to give a specific example, Reagan went out of his way to avoid saying the race of the "welfare queen" he mentioned back in the day.
One, he never used the language "Welfare queen." Two, he did avoid talking about her race...because she was white, or possibly, of mixed race, but listed as "white" on her census data and certainly not "black enough" to make a good photo op for racist scumbag voters. Sorry, I meant "the GOP" there.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/12/20/255819681/the-truth-behind-the-lies-of-the-original-welfare-queen
If she had looked like Mrs. Willie Horton, her pictures would be an iconic part of history.
Edited, Oct 4th 2014 9:27am by Smasharoo
One, he never used the language "Welfare queen." Two, he did avoid talking about her race...because she was white, or possibly, of mixed race, but listed as "white" on her census data and certainly not "black enough" to make a good photo op for racist scumbag voters. Sorry, I meant "the GOP" there.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/12/20/255819681/the-truth-behind-the-lies-of-the-original-welfare-queen
If she had looked like Mrs. Willie Horton, her pictures would be an iconic part of history.
Edited, Oct 4th 2014 9:27am by Smasharoo
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
That's a pretty amazing story. Con artists are fascinating.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
That's a pretty amazing story. Con artists are fascinating.
They really are.
I had caught the tail end of some movie last week that was about a guy posing as a psychiatrist. In the end he was found out, but still got the girl and the locals still came to him for advice.
I was thinking what it might take to pass myself off as a veterinarian?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I find it amusing that you keep bringing this one out of context quote
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
I was thinking what it might take to pass myself off as a veterinarin?
I passed myself off as an unassuming video game message board poster who TOTALLY wasn't a sociopathic narcissist just to engineer meeting Nexa years later.
And reader, I married her!
I passed myself off as an unassuming video game message board poster who TOTALLY wasn't a sociopathic narcissist just to engineer meeting Nexa years later.
And reader, I married her!
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 518
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (518)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Heh, I won't lie, this is kind of nice.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC