Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 10:47 PM
Wed Dec 9
57 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/09/09
I prefer to think of it as thick ass-featuring mag King, thank you.
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
I love black music. Let that be widely known. You see, I bestowed a lot of musical talent on the Africans. And since I run a true meritocracy up here with none of the soft bigotry of low expectations, I do have a couple Korean archangels. Despite what they did at Pearl Harbor and Vietnam, they're hard workers, those people. And also, they have solid family values. Now I do have one black angel somewhere up in here. Smart fellow, that one. But he gets a little arrogant sometimes and forgets to stay humble.
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
More than one cop I have listened to this weekend has said they should have shot him.
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
You get these fringe people who want to insist that the only way to view events is through a very jaundiced lens.
In my opinion, there is little to be gained by simply refuting the fringe. Progress can be made though, by reframing those events in ways that reasonable people can understand. That pulls the spotlight away from the fringe groups' seductive extremism, and points to more productive and thoughtful responses to these very real cultural dichotomies.
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
I might suggest that the Left's equivalent of the Right's debased stay-out-of-my-life ideology might be a version of "All authority is corrupt" or something comparable, thus allowing individual rights to be deployed as a convenient crowbar to vandalize the greater good.
But I have a tough time tying that type of Lefty extremism to nuts whom I actually encounter in real life (never even heard of the "Black Bloc" -- and I live in one of the most liberal jurisdictions in North America). Meanwhile, every day I run into people who think Limbaugh is the only truth-teller there is. So I suggest there's something to skt.smth's thesis that certain ideas are foregrounded by the Right precisely because they entice the kooks so well -- they're ideas designed for kooks.
This constantly puts a thinking conservative in danger of thinking up rational justifications for ideas whose only actual raison d'etre is their appeal to kooks, reactionaries, rejectionists, etc. We on the Left know that feeling too, Chill...but we tend to apply it to products of consumer culture rather than politics. (The Dark Knight, anyone? Camille Paglia on Madonna? Every criticial theorist on the Matrix trilogy?)
07/27/09
@skahammer: I think your right. In rereading the skt. smith's comment, he may have been talking about the type of moron that the Republican Party attracts as opposed to making it seem that the RIght has a monopoly on extremist morons. The Black Bloc isn't so much an actual organization as a name given to the people that show up at massive protests with the specific purpose of engaging in criminal activity. What separates them from the rest of the crowd is that they usually dress in black, wear masks, bring weapons and other means of destruction, etc.
In this case, Wikipedia's explanation will suffice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bloc
07/27/09
That's how I read your post. Isn't there a proverb about lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas? Still, I admire your resistance to rethinking your philosophy in view of the fact that it's shared by "lunatic extremists." Nothing says "born conservative" like a stubborn refusal to question one's own immutable convictions in the face of all reason and empirical evidence. This is why liberals still lose despite being in the numerical majority in this country: Their too-rational willingness to consider alternate viewpoints to their own. Conservatives waste no time with that wimpy, elitist self-doubt, and that's why I expect us to be living under the Palin administration in 2012 ... and then, god help us all, every one (even the conservatives) (see, there I go again with my liberal wimpiness!).
07/27/09
You can interpret my post anyway you like, but if you're going to make statements inferring that I am for policies that promote racial purity, I'd at least like an example thrown in with all of your noise. I'm sure you're already aware of this, but it's a little hard to find a boutique party that matches every one of my beliefs. Even if something like this did exist, I doubt that it would wield any power in our form of representative government. For almost every issue that we discuss there are two major schools of thought. The assholes of this country are going to line up on one side or the other. For instance, if I believe in the right for citizens to have guns under certain circumstances, I am going to have the people who believe that every person in the country has a God given right to arm themselves with Stinger missiles lining up on my side, even though that's a very distant extreme from my position. Consequently, if you believe that we should curb emissions to stop global warming, you are going to have people that think that it's all right to blow up an Exxon to push that agenda lining up on your side. However, if you ever catch me saying that I support an agenda of racial purity anywhere, I will post an apology and terminate my account on this site.
I normally wouldn't encourage your rhetoric, but since your twisted reasoning was a direct attack on me, I thought that it was best that I should respond.
As far as the other idiot who responded to this thread, I will not approve his comment. Someone else can if they want, but I am curious as to why anyone would want to punch CajunBoy in the nuts? I can understand it in my case.
07/27/09
I'll put down $600 on the-field-minus-Palin, and give you 3-to-1 odds. Do you feel strongly enough about your views to bet $200 on a Palin Administration taking office in January 2013?
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
@antisocialite:
07/27/09
Who do you think would be more fun to party with--the xtreme right wing nutters or the ELF freaks?
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
I believe you when you say that you don't personally support any program of racial purity. But I think you're fooling yourself if you think you can ally yourself with the current conservative movement and not be associated with racism, homophobia, and a general murderous and violent hatred of all who are not "right living" and "right thinking," as defined by the narrowest and most ignorant of straight, white Christian principles, because whether you like it or not, that is what American conservatism has become.
07/27/09
07/27/09
Calling Repubs "racist" and "Nazis" is very misguided. Anyone with the intelligence and maturity level of an adult rather than a third grader would know that very bad people exist on both sides. Being a racist has nothing to do with politics - it just gives a lunatic a platform to align themselves with, regardless of how false that is.
I don't align myself with either party anymore - I fall to the liberal side on some issues, and to the conservative side on others. That doesn't make me a nazi or a racist, that just makes me an informed voter when I do ultimately cast my vote.
07/27/09
Just like Johnny Thunders, dears.
07/27/09
Okay, kidding. But let me be presidentially clear about this: Tarring Chillbear for the sins of Limbaugh, Savage, Buchanan et al is a catastrophic logic fail. As long as you accept that folks possess some level of individuality, then you have to engage with the ideas that they actually espouse -- not the ideas of folks they might occasionally get direct mail solicitations from.
I don't make the rules, but I do try to follow them and this is one of the keys. Chill ain't David Duke. I suspect he's more Milton Friedman than anything.
07/27/09
07/27/09
Sorry, but no. I choose not to engage in the ideas they espouse. I'm tired of giving people a pass. Conservatism is a philosophy grounded entirely in selfishness, and entirely NOT in trying to make the country a better place for all. What you're basically saying is, "This guy isn't as selfish as some conservatives, so give him a break."
But the thing is, I say no. No more breaks. Sorry. I have no more room in my heart for forgiveness of conservative principles. That's my position, and if Chillbear or any other "light Republican" wants to blame someone for it, let them blame the racists, homophobes, etc. who have turned the republican party into a hate group, and in doing so have forced me to oppose them absolutely. (Which is too bad, because despite what you may think of my comments, I'm not actually a knee-jerk liberal. For example, I think Prof. Gates is probably mostly to blame for this whole sordid incident, for committing the rookie mistake of mouthing off to the cops. Which is something everyone should know not to do, regardless of the righteousness of their position.)
07/27/09
You keep promoting the kind of fallacies you can drive a Panzer division through.
Just in case you can't tell, the Nazis rose to power (on unrigged popular vote) in PRECISE OPPOSITION to the German "conservative parties" of the time. They were the motherbleeping reactionary, revolution, here we come! party.
To compare the ideology of the Reps, with its emphasis on "pull yourself by the bootstraps" and individual enterprise to that of the Nazi party--which had a SOCIALIST platform, ie, the Vaterland will take care of y'all who were brutally beat down and humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles post WWI, and as a consequence, thoroughly economically FUCKED through the 20s/30s--is absurd.
Then and now, it's always been "the economy, stupid!"
07/27/09
@antisocialite: "I believe, fully and completely, that if given the opportunity, the conservative party in this country would not hesitate to re-introduce chattel slavery for African-Americans, deny women the right to vote or own property, make profits off child labor, deny workers the right to organize for better wages, and yes, even conduct mass murder of undesirables, whether gays, drug users, or even Jews." Then instead of being just not-funny, you're insane. Parties and people evolve. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but he was not a conservative in his time.
In reference to my lying in bed with homophobes, etc. I support gay marriage. Actually, I really support the elimination of government involvement in the institution of marriage. However, social issues are not the only thing that I factor into my party affiliation. For instance, we passed an $800 billion spending package six months ago, spent less than 25% and now the liberals are suggesting that we need another one. The liberals are in a rush to jam through a healthcare bill that the American people haven't even gotten a glimpse of. The Democratic house and administration passed the one trillion dollar deficit mark faster than at any other period in our history. You don't get to tell me which issues I get to put at the top of my priority list. I just don't believe that everyone will be comforted if we are all sitting in the dark fighting over food, but anyone can get married or legally obtain an abortion.
Incidentally, I'm not asking for your forgiveness. In fact, I don't place nearly as much importance on your opinion ad you do. You get one vote just like I do. I'm going to work on trying to get candidates in my party who are concerned about the things on which I focus. By the way, I might have voted for a Democrat this campaign had you not foisted two extreme liberals upon us. I have crossed party lines before. As it turns out you didn't need my vote, but I can tell you that I know moderates who voted for Obama that aren't happy about a lot of what he is doing.
@skahammer: I appreciate that you are one of those people who see something other than the letter attached to their name. Milton Friedman? Bad ass!
07/27/09
07/27/09
Do you really think Dick Cheney wouldn't be happy if he could ban nonwhites from running for office? I actually have never really viewed Cheney as a racist. I know that he does support same sex marriages. This could be because his daughter is a lesbian, but I have never known him to be outwardly racist.
Do you really think that not a single Southern Republican voter has ever expressed a nostalgic regret for the lost days of slavery? As a Southern Republican voter I can assure you that I don't think that there is anything nostalgic about slavery. I actually am proud that the country elected an African American President. I'm not thrilled with his policies, but that aspect of the election was inspiring to me.
07/27/09
The ELF freaks take themselves far too seriously, while the extreme right - takes partying far too seriously. That's why they lost in 2006 & 2008.
*punch* *punch* *punch* *punch*
07/28/09
The bottom line is that the fringe of the left-wing is actually a fringe. They don't take part in the mainstream debate, and they have essentially no voice in it (whether that is a good thing or not is an entirely different topic). Unfortunately, the right-wing's lunatics are and have been given a voice, most recently with this whole "tea party" BS that was planned and advocated for by a good number of mainstream conservatives, many of whom are actually elected politicians. Next time you see Obama stumping for an anarchist rally, you can play the "both sides are the same" card, but until then, you need to put that one back in your pocket.
07/28/09
07/28/09
Wasn't one of the main scholarly explanations of why America voted Bush 2 into office the second time around, the fact that he seemed just so.. much more fun than John Kerry?
Here's Kerry with his blameless record, and reasonable rhetoric, grafted onto a stick-in-the-mud attitude. And there's Bush, with his frat-boy chuckle, retarded jokes, AA-rehabbed persona and obvious disdain for anything intellectual or highfalutin'. (Even though he was technically American royalty! Distantly related to the Windsors, no less! This guy was/is no more of a Texas hick than I am, as an Eastern Euro, related to Elizabeth Báthory.)