• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

More liberal Intolerance on Display, actress called Slut, bitch, and slave

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
As soon as there are over 75 million separate people who post these type of things, then you can call out the liberals. Judging an entire set of people based on the comments of a few shows an extreme lack of intelligence.
Funny how the liberals are so eager to jump down the throat when a republican makes a similar type of statement.:colbert:

Or is it because the liberals consider themselves perfect that no mud can be thrown at them?:whiste:
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
So you admit the two are in fact, interchangeable in some situations, including the situation in which I used them. Fine.
Nowhere did I claim this wasn't the case. Guess you are a dense individual after all.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,292
6,389
136
Funny how the liberals are so eager to jump down the throat when a republican makes a similar type of statement.:colbert:

Or is it because the liberals consider themselves perfect that no mud can be thrown at them?:whiste:
Go to any yahoo news story about obama and see if you can find one without any racist posts in the comments. If we started a thread about every one of those comments there would be hundreds of new threads, and that's just yahoo. So please, tell me again how liberals are so eager to rail against these types of comments from the right.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,292
6,389
136
Nowhere did I claim this wasn't the case. Guess you are a dense individual after all.
You are the one that brought up the issue. In the context of my post that you "called out" (lol) and the ones preceding it, "Republicans" and "conservatives" were interchangable. You have the nerve to call me dense?
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
You are the one that brought up the issue. In the context of my post that you "called out" (lol) and the ones preceding it, "Republicans" and "conservatives" were interchangable. You have the nerve to call me dense?
You have since qualified the original statement effectively correcting yourself. I did not counter your qualified statement or say it was incorrect in any way. So yes, you apparently are dense.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was talking about economic bubbles.
Also been happening for humdereds of years.

Panic of 1797
Just as a land speculation bubble was bursting, deflation from the Bank of England (which was facing insolvency because of the cost of Great Britain's involvement in the French Revolutionary Wars) crossed to North America and disrupted commercial and real estate markets in the United States and the Caribbean, and caused a major financial panic.[11] Prosperity continued in the south, but economic activity was stagnant in the north for three years. The young United States engaged in the Quasi-War with France

1825–1826 recession
The Panic of 1825, a stock crash following a bubble of speculative investments in Latin America led to a decline in business activity in the United States and England. The recession coincided with a major panic, the date of which may be more easily determined than general cycle changes associated with other recessions.[8]


June 1857–Dec 1858
Failure of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company burst a European speculative bubble in United States' railroads and caused a loss of confidence in American banks. Over 5,000 businesses failed within the first year of the Panic, and unemployment was accompanied by protest meetings in urban areas. This is the earliest recession to which the NBER assigns specific months (rather than years) for the peak and trough

Oct 1873 – Mar 1879
Economic problems in Europe prompted the failure of Jay Cooke & Company, the largest bank in the United States, which burst the post-Civil War speculative bubble. The Coinage Act of 1873 also contributed by immediately depressing the price of silver, which hurt North American mining interests.[18] The deflation and wage cuts of the era led to labor turmoil, such as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. In 1879, the United States returned to the gold standard with the Specie Payment Resumption Act. This is the longest period of economic contraction recognized by the NBER. The Long Depression is sometimes held to be the entire period from 1873–96.

Roariong 20's Stock Market Bubble
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties


July 1953 – May 1954
After a post-Korean War inflationary period, more funds were transferred to national security. In 1951, the Federal Reserve reasserted its independence from the U.S. Treasury and in 1952, the Federal Reserve changed monetary policy to be more restrictive because of fears of further inflation or of a bubble forming
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,292
6,389
136
Also been happening for humdereds of years.

Panic of 1797
Just as a land speculation bubble was bursting, deflation from the Bank of England (which was facing insolvency because of the cost of Great Britain's involvement in the French Revolutionary Wars) crossed to North America and disrupted commercial and real estate markets in the United States and the Caribbean, and caused a major financial panic.[11] Prosperity continued in the south, but economic activity was stagnant in the north for three years. The young United States engaged in the Quasi-War with France

1825–1826 recession
The Panic of 1825, a stock crash following a bubble of speculative investments in Latin America led to a decline in business activity in the United States and England. The recession coincided with a major panic, the date of which may be more easily determined than general cycle changes associated with other recessions.[8]


June 1857–Dec 1858
Failure of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company burst a European speculative bubble in United States' railroads and caused a loss of confidence in American banks. Over 5,000 businesses failed within the first year of the Panic, and unemployment was accompanied by protest meetings in urban areas. This is the earliest recession to which the NBER assigns specific months (rather than years) for the peak and trough

Oct 1873 – Mar 1879
Economic problems in Europe prompted the failure of Jay Cooke & Company, the largest bank in the United States, which burst the post-Civil War speculative bubble. The Coinage Act of 1873 also contributed by immediately depressing the price of silver, which hurt North American mining interests.[18] The deflation and wage cuts of the era led to labor turmoil, such as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. In 1879, the United States returned to the gold standard with the Specie Payment Resumption Act. This is the longest period of economic contraction recognized by the NBER. The Long Depression is sometimes held to be the entire period from 1873–96.

Roariong 20's Stock Market Bubble
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties


July 1953 – May 1954
After a post-Korean War inflationary period, more funds were transferred to national security. In 1951, the Federal Reserve reasserted its independence from the U.S. Treasury and in 1952, the Federal Reserve changed monetary policy to be more restrictive because of fears of further inflation or of a bubble forming
Read the last one again. They prevented a bubble. So that gives you 5 examples in the 200+ years before Reagan and 3 examples in the 22 years since.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,292
6,389
136
You have since qualified the original statement effectively correcting yourself. I did not counter your qualified statement or say it was incorrect in any way. So yes, you apparently are dense.
I didn't correct myself. Only a dense individual would think I did. I clarified for you something that I figure should be obvious.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
I didn't correct myself. Only a dense individual would think I did. I clarified for you something that I figure should be obvious.
Sure its obvious. But you didn't come out and say it that way in the beginning. That boat didn't float, good job trying though.

Now we see numerous posts where you are all butthurt because you got called on it. Rather than man up you are trying to pin the blame on someone else for misrepresenting what you were saying.

 

MixMasterTang

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,150
156
106
If dank69 and xBiffx truly believe each other is as dense as they say, why would you continue to argue? Isn't that like trying to win a debate with a rock?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,292
6,389
136
If dank69 and xBiffx truly believe each other is as dense as they say, why would you continue to argue? Isn't that like trying to win a debate with a rock?
No, there is hope for Biff. He isn't your typical run of the mill retarded conservative. He just gets caught up trying to defend an undefendable party which can be taxing on anyone. It forces you to try to bend reality which is not easy to do in an opaque manner.
 

MixMasterTang

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,150
156
106
Funny how the liberals are so eager to jump down the throat when a republican makes a similar type of statement.:colbert:

Or is it because the liberals consider themselves perfect that no mud can be thrown at them?:whiste:
I am sure 'some' liberals are eager to jump down throats and 'some' liberals probably do consider themselves perfect but out of the millions upon millions of liberals, I do not find this to be the norm. I also don't think conservatives as a whole are like this either, but I do think 'some' of them are.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
No, there is hope for Biff. He isn't your typical run of the mill retarded conservative. He just gets caught up trying to defend an undefendable party which can be taxing on anyone. It forces you to try to bend reality which is not easy to do in an opaque manner.
LOL. When have I defended the republican party? Now that shit is funny.

Calling for honestly and a little more truth is hardly a defense and neither is calling the democrats and liberals out for their shit.
 
Last edited:

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
Yet somehow Republican and conservative are interchangeable?
As far as the simple associations with liberalism vs. conservatism and the democratic vs republican parties go with the general public.

Republican party and conservative is interchangeable

as is

Democratic party and liberal.


As far as social issues go. On the surface it's simple and is fine for most discussions.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
Who is Stacy and why do I care if she gets brain dead twitter replies to her political stance?
Since when are the idiotic posts by morons on twitter the metric by which parties should be measured for anything?

Only in the mind of the OP.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,732
3,554
126
davmat: Try to imagine that not everyone is the same among those who identify themselves as conservative.

M: This would be as obvious for liberals as conservatives.

d: Where does the line start that makes one conservative and then immediately subject to all of the accusations we read about here?

M: Obviously not any one liberal or conservative would qualify for all accusations directed at either so I will speak only for those accusations which, by the way, I call factual descriptions of conservatives, factual, that is, because they have been statistically verified by scientific research into liberal conservative differences. In the notion of statistical truth we find your problem.

You want to focus on and defend the anomaly. I want to express what is statistically different, and further, why it is not only different but dangerous.

d: Why do you think just because one is to the right of you, they have a mental illness?

M: When I see a group of people who identify themselves as Republican faced with say, a pending ecological disaster called Global Warming, stick their heads in the sand and show the world their assholes, I don't call them mentally ill, I call them insane. They inhabit a self created and self reinforced altered reality that does not exist, and because they have and want more and more political power, I see the extinction of everything of value and the deaths of millions and billions of future children. I hold such folk in complete, total, and utter contempt. For the sake of their ego gratification and emotional security, they will commit mass murder and genocide and deny it all the way.

There are a lot of people to the right of me who would not do this. And I am not engaged in a war between left and right. I am engaged right now with what is the real enemy, Republican denial of reality. The only reason to support liberal politicians is that they are more amenable to scientific data. No matter how deluded a liberal, statistically speaking, is, facts can change his or her mind. Factual data cannot affect the kinds of Republicans of which I speak. Are you one of those?

d: It just does not add up so easily. You seem to take the worst among the right, and apply that to everyone, which then provides your brain an easy and comfortable way to dismiss anything they say.

M: Statistically proven to be impervious to reality, sorry.

d: You are protecting some emotion inside yourself if you need such a crutch to handle so many tens of millions of people who happen to have a different world view, yet if you were to sit down and meet one or two of them, you would surely think they are very much like you with the same wants and needs in life.

M: I have said as much many many times. People project when they are not aware of what they are feeling, when what they really feel runs counter to their egotistically constructed self image, when they live in a state of repression and the feelings they deny seem to motivate other people they see. You may be doing this but I would bet I have been places in my unconscious that you can't imagine. I don't want to make that an absolute, and I'm indifferent to the truth of it because what I know was a gift for which I can take no personal credit. Let's just say I know what it is to uncork rage. Hehehehehe Very cathartic, I assure you, makes you giggle.

d: The struggle for these wants and needs and its commonality among the right and left is greater than any differences, wouldn't you agree?

M: The whole point is that is no longer true. The scientific evidence says otherwise. This is the cliffs of the story:

Conservatives practice 5 or 6 moral tonalities with only two in common with liberals. The two they share are individualistic the odd ones out are about in group stability and reinforcement. In short, conservatives have morality that make them powerful team players, with all the evolutionary benefits that implies, and conservatives and liberals work well together when faced with external threat, like the cold war. But without an external threat, this team mentality turns against liberals. The other half of the league of Americans becomes the enemy. This is madness and suicide.

d: If you were to take a typical liberal and a typical conservative and visit some tribe in Africa for a week, what differences do you think the tribe would find between the two?

M: They would send the liberal packing and eat the conservative.

d: And as always, I imagine you sometimes make the easy, and quite understandable, mistake of thinking the Republicans you see on TV or read about online are in any significant way representative of true conservatism.

M: No I read the scientific literature on brain differences between people who self report as conservative and liberal. I make the assumption that what a person says he or she is is what he or she is, that liberal and conservative are self definitions and that folk who self identify differently are in fact different according to the scientific data.

d: They are not, having whored themselves to the religious right. True conservatives don't even want religion in the same paragraph, let alone sentence, as religion.

M: Pardon me if I do not take my definition of conservative from just one conservative who wants to tell me what a conservative really is.

d: Of course I could be wrong, I don't pretend to know someone to such a high degree just because I read some of their posts online and thus think I am qualified to psychoanalyze an entire political leaning that comprises tens of millions of people. Now THAT... would be crazy and a sign of mental defect.

M: Indeed it would. But we are not talking about psychoanalysis, we are talking about neurological research that has been checked and verified. You can look at the brains of self reported conservatives and liberals and see the physical difference and note that where those differences lie, the function of the parts of the brain that are different, have implications that show up in questionnaires about how each group thinks. A simple example is that the right amigdala of conservatives in larger than in liberals and that is the part of the brain that generates fear. If you test liberals and conservatives with photographs of beauty and horror, the conservatives will spend more time examining the photos of horror. Coincidence? I think not.

d: In short, we are much more alike than different, way more than you would probably be comfortable admitting to.

M: What poster on this forum says over and over that we are all the same?

d: And I think if people could be honest about this, we could put aside this stupid sport of partisan bullshit and turn our eyes back to where they should be.... Washington DC.

M: No that is not where the problem is. The problem is that Republicans are destroying the nation because they are engaged in in-group building the Republican team by demonizing all who don't support their in-team thinking. Modern day Republicans have become dangerous to the nation and it is their demonization of others that is the problem. Lacking an external threat to focus their attention on, they have become monsters.

So while you are different from the total loons in your party, you are still not up to speed on the problem.

I would be most happy to discuss the issue rationally but at the moment I see no hope. The altered reality that is the present Republican party can't be penetrated by reason. The only solution that I can see is a stronger dose of the same medicine they dish, complete and utter contempt so long as they demonize others. The modern day Republican is a disease. You have to fight fire with fire and most liberals are fucking worthless at it. But since I'm a severely conservative liberal, it's easy for me. Liberals are revolted by the conservative morality but not me. I vow to save all conservative beings. Contempt for personal irresponsibility and tough love are my middle name, but you can call me Daddy.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,732
3,554
126
Why are liberals so big on evolution yet can't stand natural selection to take its course among humans (welfare, equal opportunity, and associated BS), thus preventing evolution itself? :colbert:

Ever think about that? Put that in your pipe and smoke it! :biggrin:
In the first place you have just dropped yourself into the middle of typical conservative thinking, a documented moral certainty among conservatives that individual effort creates privilege and that irresponsible folk don't succeed because they don't deserve to, that some folk are worthless because they are poor and poor because they are worthless.

Secondly, as a conservative you are attempting to use science when conservative altered reality denies any reality that conflicts with that altered state. In short, conservatives misapply science because they can't reason rationally and that's exactly what you have done here.

You believe you understand evolution, natural selections, and what prevents evolution from taking its course. This is what we could call social Darwinism, a complete and total pile of rubbish.

Consider John Stuart Mill in Nature, the Utility of Religion, and Theism:

"… Nature cannot be a proper model for us to imitate. Either it is right that we should kill because nature kills; torture because nature tortures; ruin and devastate because nature does the like; or we ought not to consider what nature does, but what it is good to do."

Human beings aren't physically strong. They don't have fangs or claws. Human beings only survived and evolved because they cooperate. Humans compete with other human groups and other animals and they survive that competition only by in group cooperation. And now that we are the top of the food chain we have nobody to compete with but ourselves and the stupid among us want to compete with nuclear weapons. The only hope that humanity has is the evolution of understanding, the realization that we are all the same, that to demonize one group among us is to destroy ourselves. Humanity instinctively knows what justice is and constantly seeks the light and what we can see more and more is that the demonization of others is suicide.

Human nature turns away from what is utterly repulsive, and what people see as revulsive depends on intelligence. Social Darwinism and karmic thinking are utterly revulsive.

There's something you can put in your pipe and smoke.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
11,852
3,079
136
Methinks the celebrity uses her political leanings the same way she uses her physical attributes. IMO she is alluding (to herself mostly) that she is not a peasant (anymore) and that she is not of the social strata that she came from (The Bronx). Assuming all actors are image-conscious and are aware that every word they say is fodder for the media, my guess is she thinks her appearing as a Repub is good for her career. Nothing wrong with that.

Although her acting career consists of small parts and failed tv series, it's sensible to assume that she, like any aspiring actor, wants to be showered with fame and fortune. Good for her. If she can use her political stance to further her somewhat lackluster acting career, then good on her too.

However, she's a small little guppy in a pool full of megastar sharks. I can't see how in any way shape or form her being nagged on by irate fans that disagree with her politicizing her persona or detractors that pounce on her every word is anywhere near supportive of the overly broad claims the OP is making in this thread.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I can't speak for anyone else, but to me the comments were so self-evidently wrong that it didn't seem necessary to point it out. Of course they're awful. I can't imagine any civil adult believing otherwise. They were also from Twitter, which (again IMHO) can be dismissed out of hand, and is therefore a non-story. One expects to see asinine and inappropriate comments on unmoderated social media; only a shameless partisan hack tries to declare it a story.
When you think about it, it isn't all that different from comments made on both sides of the fence in P&N threads, and just about as newsworthy. You think in other forums, they start threads about what someone said here, and generalize it to "the left" or "the right?" It's an amusing thought, but really isn't all that different from what is going on in this thread.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY