Posted by orangeblobman:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by orangeblobman:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by orangeblobman:

No no, not at all. But lets use our common sense. No one would hold that sign up and expect it to be interpreted in a positive way. I am not for playing games and setting traps. Like I said, common sense would dictate that that kid on the bike meant it in a bad way. I am not saying the parties were good or bad, I was not involved and am not very political in nature, but really, what is the use of making that sign?

Well I agree that it is generally bad when any group does not have diversity. I'm a psychology professor and I teach a course on stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, actually, and enjoy this topic a lot. Prejudice can occur at many levels of conscious awareness. I don't think many of these people are intentionally or consciously racist or prejudiced. Some may be but I suspect most are not and are generally good people who have just developed very different attitudes than I have and than most of our country right now. "Less conscious" prejudice (which we call implicit prejudice) is a much more complicated topic.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-18-2009 12:17 PM]

Why is it bad when a group does not have diversity? It is worse, I feel, when diversity is thrust upon a population that is, was, doing fine without it. So, as a psychology professor, do you think that forcing diversity on a population might have something to do with these 'less conscious' prejudices?

You'll have to explain what you mean by "forcing diversity" if you want me to answer the question. If you're talking about affirmative action, then my answer is no, prejudice was around way before affirmative action and will continue regardless of what happens with affirmative action. Based on my own readings of the literature, I believe prejudice, or at least a preference for those most similar to us and a bias against those dissimilar, is an inherent component of human existence. The best we can do, in my opinion, is to try to reduce it and have programs that compensate for it in areas where scientific studies show that prejudice is abundant.

RE: Diversity: There's a lot of evidence that groups of people with diverse opinions and experiences tend to make better decisions than homogeneous groups. I'm not going to go into it in detail but suffice it to say this was one of the many reasons the (mostly Republican-appointed, btw) US Supreme Court ruled a few years ago in favor of affirmative action programs.

So, you believe that a preference for those most similar to us is an inherent component of human existence, and yet your opinion is that we should reduce it? Eat and breathing is an inherent component of human existence as well, should we try to reduce this?

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by nykshaknbake:

Bip you aren't going to win this one. It's pretty much you're with us or against us in politics these days. If someone whom we disagree it is treated poorly, they deserve it because they are dumb, hateful extremists(right or left). If you don't glow over someone on our side you're part of the enemy and deserve to be mocked and scorned.

Posted by Bippity10:

I don't even think I disagreed with anyone on this thread. I just tried to talk about media coverage and somehow got thrust into a conversation about Bush, and Klansmen and white people being pissed at black presidents, "angry conservatives" and Obama haters. I now remember why I joke around on this site so much.

I've said it time and time again, but the party structure has drawn such a line in the sand that it's ruined politics in this country.

Agreed. It's like a sporting event now. Each person just taking a side and whatever their side does, is right. Everyone else is stupid.........By the way did anyone ever respond to the original post?

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by nykshaknbake:

Bip you aren't going to win this one. It's pretty much you're with us or against us in politics these days. If someone whom we disagree it is treated poorly, they deserve it because they are dumb, hateful extremists(right or left). If you don't glow over someone on our side you're part of the enemy and deserve to be mocked and scorned.

Posted by Bippity10:

I don't even think I disagreed with anyone on this thread. I just tried to talk about media coverage and somehow got thrust into a conversation about Bush, and Klansmen and white people being pissed at black presidents, "angry conservatives" and Obama haters. I now remember why I joke around on this site so much.

I've said it time and time again, but the party structure has drawn such a line in the sand that it's ruined politics in this country.

Agreed. It's like a sporting event now. Each person just taking a side and whatever their side does, is right. Everyone else is stupid.........By the way did anyone ever respond to the original post?

Political arguments are fine as long as everyone involved is giving informed opinions becaus if people are going to just reguergate misinformation then no that opinion is not going to given the same amount of respect as one that involves those pesky things such as facts. Simply if you know very little about a subject and don't really care to learn more about it then don't even discuss it or try to debate it unless you have an incredibly thick skin. For example if I state that I strongly disagree with our POTUS because because he received advice from a Racist who hates America should I really be taken seriously?


I think your statement only further exemplifies who very little you do know about those concerned about politics. Most Democratics particularly Liberals (which I would consider myself) have been disappointed with some of this Administrations policies. So no most of us who truly care about what's going on in our government do not treat politics as sporting event maybe if more people took politics as seriously as they do they their sports teams we would more effective leadership in our Government.

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by nykshaknbake:

Bip you aren't going to win this one. It's pretty much you're with us or against us in politics these days. If someone whom we disagree it is treated poorly, they deserve it because they are dumb, hateful extremists(right or left). If you don't glow over someone on our side you're part of the enemy and deserve to be mocked and scorned.

Posted by Bippity10:

I don't even think I disagreed with anyone on this thread. I just tried to talk about media coverage and somehow got thrust into a conversation about Bush, and Klansmen and white people being pissed at black presidents, "angry conservatives" and Obama haters. I now remember why I joke around on this site so much.

I've said it time and time again, but the party structure has drawn such a line in the sand that it's ruined politics in this country.

Agreed. It's like a sporting event now. Each person just taking a side and whatever their side does, is right. Everyone else is stupid.........By the way did anyone ever respond to the original post?

Political arguments are fine as long as everyone involved is giving informed opinions becaus if people are going to just reguergate misinformation then no that opinion is not going to given the same amount of respect as one that involves those pesky things such as facts. Simply if you know very little about a subject and don't really care to learn more about it then don't even discuss it or try to debate it unless you have an incredibly thick skin. For example if I state that I strongly disagree with our POTUS because because he received advice from a Racist who hates America should I really be taken seriously?


I think your statement only further exemplifies who very little you do know about those concerned about politics. Most Democratics particularly Liberals (which I would consider myself) have been disappointed with some of this Administrations policies. So no most of us who truly care about what's going on in our government do not treat politics as sporting event maybe if more people took politics as seriously as they do they their sports teams we would more effective leadership in our Government.

I need to meet you in person to discover if you are as wonderful in person as you are on this website.

"more people took politics as seriously as they do they their sports teams we would more effective leadership in our Government."

I agree. I also think that if more people took the time to listen to the opinion of someone they disagree with instead of insulting, putting down intelligence levels we would probably have a more informed public. Information is more than reading in books and studying "facts"(most of the times the facts are actually theories and studies that aren't actually facts), it's about listening. It's about understanding that all people have different experiences that mold their belief systems. What may be fact for me, is not a fact for someone else. A liberal policy that makes perfect sense for me in the city of Boston would not work for someone in Wyoming or Montana or Alabama or Iraq or Japan. What may be reality for me when I was making $3/hr is not reality for someone making 25 million. And there is no shame in either of us thinking differently. We don't take the time to listen and discuss anymore. We scream, put down, insult, label without getting to know, and fall into the Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow style of "discussion". It's a sport, it's not actually a conversation


[Edited by - bippity10 on 21-04-2009 5:52 PM]

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by orangeblobman:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by orangeblobman:

No no, not at all. But lets use our common sense. No one would hold that sign up and expect it to be interpreted in a positive way. I am not for playing games and setting traps. Like I said, common sense would dictate that that kid on the bike meant it in a bad way. I am not saying the parties were good or bad, I was not involved and am not very political in nature, but really, what is the use of making that sign?

Well I agree that it is generally bad when any group does not have diversity. I'm a psychology professor and I teach a course on stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, actually, and enjoy this topic a lot. Prejudice can occur at many levels of conscious awareness. I don't think many of these people are intentionally or consciously racist or prejudiced. Some may be but I suspect most are not and are generally good people who have just developed very different attitudes than I have and than most of our country right now. "Less conscious" prejudice (which we call implicit prejudice) is a much more complicated topic.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-18-2009 12:17 PM]

Why is it bad when a group does not have diversity? It is worse, I feel, when diversity is thrust upon a population that is, was, doing fine without it. So, as a psychology professor, do you think that forcing diversity on a population might have something to do with these 'less conscious' prejudices?

You'll have to explain what you mean by "forcing diversity" if you want me to answer the question. If you're talking about affirmative action, then my answer is no, prejudice was around way before affirmative action and will continue regardless of what happens with affirmative action. Based on my own readings of the literature, I believe prejudice, or at least a preference for those most similar to us and a bias against those dissimilar, is an inherent component of human existence. The best we can do, in my opinion, is to try to reduce it and have programs that compensate for it in areas where scientific studies show that prejudice is abundant.

RE: Diversity: There's a lot of evidence that groups of people with diverse opinions and experiences tend to make better decisions than homogeneous groups. I'm not going to go into it in detail but suffice it to say this was one of the many reasons the (mostly Republican-appointed, btw) US Supreme Court ruled a few years ago in favor of affirmative action programs.

Posted by sebstar:

[To Bip]

Bro, nobody is attacking you. At least I'm not. Calm down with the persecution complex. Their positions were marginalized because their stance is laughable. Does that not count for something, or should the media have just given them a complete pass because they are "protesters"? Doesnt sound right.

I think the reason the disparity between Fox and MSNBC looked so bad was because this protest was because Fox had a huge hand in organizing and certainly promoting the teabaggers. How is a news channel going to be, essentially, a lobbying entity in an "organic movement" is beyond me. They had a vested interest in this as their coverage was obviously agenda filled. MSNBC and the like pushed back for sure. Thats not to say, however, that the protesters werent acting like complete idiots.

For example this guy murdered the whole "movement" in one minute....

All duke did was spit a few facts that are readily apparent to anybody with a brain. Just really sad how stupid these people are and how they are being so blatantly manipulated by muliti-national corporations.

[Edited by - sebstar on 04-21-2009 5:53 PM]

I think the reason the disparity between Fox and MSNBC looked so bad was because this protest was because Fox had a huge hand in organizing and certainly promoting the teabaggers. How is a news channel going to be, essentially, a lobbying entity in an "organic movement" is beyond me. They had a vested interest in this as their coverage was obviously agenda filled. MSNBC and the like pushed back for sure.

Posted by nykshaknbake:

They made that name in reference to an important event in history not sucking someone's c ock. That's the difference.

Posted by sebstar:

[quote]Posted by nykshaknbake:

Wow. So making sexual jokes in regards to protestors, even if they are wrong is fair and to not think so demonstrates alot of ignorance. I bet Bip takes politics as seriously as you or I. And I follow it alot. All you've shown is that you read the DailyKos and Huffington Post.

The protesters made the jokes when they decided to call themselves "teabaggers."

If I started a movement called the "Asslickers" to promote awareness about Donkey saliva, what is going to be the national response?

Well if we want to get technical, these geniuses completely mangled the original tea party movement message, but we wont even get into that kind of stuff.

But if you are going to name your movement after a very well known sexual act, and not expect to get a response in vein..well, I dont know what to say. They could have easily gotten by without calling themselves "teabaggers"

Posted by sebstar:

Furthermore, I dont remember such an influential "news" organization like Fox being such an active participant in a protest against our Government. I dont remember NBC practically co-signing any Anti-Bush protests like Fox did against Obama. And the man has only been in office for a few days!

Amazing!

create a "they're attacking us because we are conservative' narrative.

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by nykshaknbake:

Bip you aren't going to win this one. It's pretty much you're with us or against us in politics these days. If someone whom we disagree it is treated poorly, they deserve it because they are dumb, hateful extremists(right or left). If you don't glow over someone on our side you're part of the enemy and deserve to be mocked and scorned.

Posted by Bippity10:

I don't even think I disagreed with anyone on this thread. I just tried to talk about media coverage and somehow got thrust into a conversation about Bush, and Klansmen and white people being pissed at black presidents, "angry conservatives" and Obama haters. I now remember why I joke around on this site so much.

I've said it time and time again, but the party structure has drawn such a line in the sand that it's ruined politics in this country.

Agreed. It's like a sporting event now. Each person just taking a side and whatever their side does, is right. Everyone else is stupid.........By the way did anyone ever respond to the original post?

Political arguments are fine as long as everyone involved is giving informed opinions becaus if people are going to just reguergate misinformation then no that opinion is not going to given the same amount of respect as one that involves those pesky things such as facts. Simply if you know very little about a subject and don't really care to learn more about it then don't even discuss it or try to debate it unless you have an incredibly thick skin. For example if I state that I strongly disagree with our POTUS because because he received advice from a Racist who hates America should I really be taken seriously?


I think your statement only further exemplifies who very little you do know about those concerned about politics. Most Democratics particularly Liberals (which I would consider myself) have been disappointed with some of this Administrations policies. So no most of us who truly care about what's going on in our government do not treat politics as sporting event maybe if more people took politics as seriously as they do they their sports teams we would more effective leadership in our Government.

I need to meet you in person to discover if you are as wonderful in person as you are on this website.

"more people took politics as seriously as they do they their sports teams we would more effective leadership in our Government."

I agree. I also think that if more people took the time to listen to the opinion of someone they disagree with instead of insulting, putting down intelligence levels we would probably have a more informed public. Information is more than reading in books and studying "facts"(most of the times the facts are actually theories and studies that aren't actually facts), it's about listening. It's about understanding that all people have different experiences that mold their belief systems. What may be fact for me, is not a fact for someone else. A liberal policy that makes perfect sense for me in the city of Boston would not work for someone in Wyoming or Montana or Alabama or Iraq or Japan. What may be reality for me when I was making $3/hr is not reality for someone making 25 million. And there is no shame in either of us thinking differently. We don't take the time to listen and discuss anymore. We scream, put down, insult, label without getting to know, and fall into the Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow style of "discussion". It's a sport, it's not actually a conversation


[Edited by - bippity10 on 21-04-2009 5:52 PM]

You need to tone down your sensitivity level. It seems that you equate disagreement with personal insults. If it's like that for you; it's best that you don't involve yourself with these types of conversations. Political discord is one of the best things this country can offer but ignorance is also far too prevalent and not challenged enough. The Iraq War is a perfect example of what happens when we don't have honest and factual conversations about government actions or policies.

I am going to hate on you for this statement but the fact that you would put Rachel Maddow in the same category as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh shows how very little you know about the media's political pundits and I am not talking about just their opinions. It's almost as though you assume because they happen to have opinions when in reality political punditry is a bit more nuanced. Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann okay but Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh are you serious.

So you want to talk politics I welcome it but not disingenuous debates filled with half-truths, misconceptions, and out-right lies in some cases (not saying your statements including any of these) but they do happen. I'm not particularly smart but if something impacts my life I'm going to take time out to educate myself about it.