Support NeoGAF

[Vahagn]

I don't think paul is an overt racist and I wouldn't even call him a secret racist, I don't think he is. But his ideas, proposals, ideology is based in racist ideas and racist sterotypes, he even quoted one to support his ideas!

I don't think that most conservatives are overt racists. Openly admitting to racism leaves you justifiably marginalized in public life. They're too smart to admit that openly. I don't even think most are secret racists because racism in this country brings with it the ideas of the KKK and slavery and segregation and such that I'm sure many decent conservatives wouldn't want to associate with.


The point is that the way the white people feel about minorities is a huge, if not biggest indicating factor for why someone is a conservative or progressive. Every white progressive I've ever spoken with has had a similar sentiment towards minorities in this country. Every white conservative I've ever spoken with has had similar sentiments towards minorities in this country. That's the biggest determining factor I see. The rhetoric and the reasons are the same as they've been for 200 years. People who instituted Jim Crow didn't admit to being racist either. For that fact, neither did many slave owners or pro-slavery people. Neither did many Nazis.

It's important to understand that practically every single racist argument made is defended and rationalized and explained away. The people who make these arguments, whether they're arguing that white people are evil or that inner cities have generations of people who don't value work, always attempt to explain that argument using some factoid or statistic or rationality.


All the rationality in the world is irrelevant, even if facts are correct. For example, if it was true that asian people get into more car accidents per capita than non asian people, it would still be racist to say "asians are bad drivers".

So while it may be true that people in the inner city have less employment per capita, it's still racist to say "inner city people are lazy and don't want to work" - it's racist because we know inner city as code for black and brown.

 

[Aaron Strife]

New Quinnipiac poll of Iowa Senate, Bruce Braley is up -

42-30 vs. former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker (43-40)

42-29 vs. state Sen. Joni Ernst (44-38)

40-31 vs. businessman Mark Jacobs (46-37)

42-27 vs. radio host Sam Clovis (45-34)

His margins have improved pretty sharply though it's odd that there's more undecideds. Whatever.

 

[speculawyer]

Too easy. It's like standing directly in front of a dartboard and just sticking them all into the bullseye.

Well, it is not as easy as mocking the Michell Bachmanns & Louie Gohmerts.

The Libertarian conservatives are often viewed as the more intellectual conservatives (and they generally are) but many of them are still just blind-faith ideologues that will bend the facts to support their ideology. Like this clown did.

I loved the panel of professors that just slammed him.

 

[Vahagn]

Well, it is not as easy as mocking the Michell Bachmanns & Louie Gohmerts.

The Libertarian conservatives are often viewed as the more intellectual conservatives (and they generally are) but many of them are still just blind-faith ideologues that will bend the facts to support their ideology. Like this clown did.

I loved the panel of professors that just slammed him.

If I claimed his position was racist, just as a side note. Would you have agreed?

 

[Mario]

If I claimed his position was racist, just as a side note. Would you have agreed?

I've never seen him come across as overtly racist in the dozen or so interviews I have seen with him.

But his position is certainly one that appears to lack consideration and compassion for individuals though as seems to be the case for many libertarians in the sense that he recognizes and condemns the injustice, however considers continued injustice while waiting for "the market" to correct as unfortunate but appropriate collateral damage.

He happily dodged the question multiple times of what slaves were supposed to do while waiting the decades for slavery to fade naturally.

 

[Vahagn]

I've never seen him come across as overtly racist in the dozen or so interviews I have seen with him.

But his position is certainly one that appears to lack consideration and compassion for individuals though as seems to be the case for many libertarians in the sense that he recognizes and condemns the injustice, however considers continued injustice while waiting for "the market" to correct as unfortunate but appropriate collateral damage.

He happily dodged the question multiple times of what slaves were supposed to do while waiting the decades for slavery to fade naturally.

I don't think most conservatives are overtly racist. That will get you brandished as a fringe person with no credibility pretty fast these days.

It seems to me his major argument was that 750,000 Americans dying to end slavery for 3,950,000 people wasn't worth it (but the revolutionary war and those casualties were). There has to be a sort of de-valuing of black people to come to that conclusion.

60 million people died in WWII and most people think that it was worth fighting for to topple Nazi Germany and end the Holocaust. Most people also think the same thing of the Civil War.

To me, that's the line in the sand. If you support the Revolutionary War or Allies in WWII (assuming he supports the second one), than not supporting Lincoln suggests you have a sort of difference in value between black slaves vs. Colonial whites/Jewish people.

I don't think he's overtly racist, but I think that visceral difference in value has to be there to take that kind of contrarian view of Lincoln. Fighting a war to end oppression/enslavement/genocide is pretty universally accepted as "worth it"

 

[speculawyer]

If I claimed his position was racist, just as a side note. Would you have agreed?

I don't know if I'd say he was racist but he certainly didn't really seem to give a fuck about all those black slaves.


It might just be the "I got mine and don't give a fuck about you" greed.

 

[WayneMorse]

New Quinnipiac poll of Iowa Senate, Bruce Braley is up -


His margins have improved pretty sharply though it's odd that there's more undecideds. Whatever.

So much fucking doom I don't know if I can sleep tonight.

BTW the NY Times a while back did a prognosis on this year's Senate races and said Oregon was vulnerable. Obamacare has been a real issue there and it could seriously affect Merkley. His potential GOP opponent is a strong challenger as well and she's pretty much a Tea Party conservative. Could see it being much more competitive as the year goes on.

 

[KingK]

is Oregon the state that completely fucked up their website?

 

[PhoenixDark]

All I can find is audio http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/12/3394871/ryan-poverty-inner-city/


Where? His original comment made no mention of Rural Poverty. His follow up said this

I do think his rural poverty means white but can't you see the difference? When he talks about 'inner city' the people have no value of work its a culture problem, they're lazy. When he mentions rural poverty the problem is the lack of jobs, not culture that is the problem. They problems seem almost passive, poverty happens to them. Inter city people on the other hand contribute to their own poverty, the need to learn how to value work, stop being lazy, stop using welfare.

Whites: Deserving poor, we need to help get them jobs.
Blacks: Undeserving poor, we need to take away their help so they can help themselves.

I don't think paul is an overt racist and I wouldn't even call him a secret racist, I don't think he is. But his ideas, proposals, ideology is based in racist ideas and racist sterotypes, he even quoted one to support his ideas!

I could have sworn the original Think Progress story noted he mentioned rural communities.

I don't think he's racist or meant ill with his comments, and ultimately his argument is similar to Obama's. Weigel sums up some of my thoughts.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2..._suggesting_that_there_s_endemic_poverty.html

 

[Vahagn]

I don't know if I'd say he was racist but he certainly didn't really seem to give a fuck about all those black slaves.


It might just be the "I got mine and don't give a fuck about you" greed.

What is that then? I think there's definitely a difference of racism, and a lot of stuff is racial based oppression.

But if you support the Revolutionary War, and the Allies in WWII but not the Civil War...where's the difference?

If someone came out and said fighting Hitler wasn't worth it. Britain actually declared War (which they did) and they should have left him alone. 60 million casualties weren't worth it. Wouldn't there be an "umm I'm pretty sure there's an anti-semitic motivation in there somewhere" response?

 

[KingK]

What is that then? I think there's definitely a difference of racism, and a lot of stuff is racial based oppression.

But if you support the Revolutionary War, and the Allies in WWII but not the Civil War...where's the difference?

If someone came out and said fighting Hitler wasn't worth it. Britain actually declared War (which they did) and they should have left him alone. 60 million casualties weren't worth it. Wouldn't there be an "umm I'm pretty sure there's an anti-semitic motivation in there somewhere" response?

I agree with you, and Jon actually brought up his support for the Revolutionary War. I don't see how you square that with his reasoning for opposition to the Civil War without a difference in the perceived value of blacks to whites.

 

[Vahagn]

I could have sworn the original Think Progress story noted he mentioned rural communities.

I don't think he's racist or meant ill with his comments, and ultimately his argument is similar to Obama's. Weigel sums up some of my thoughts.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2..._suggesting_that_there_s_endemic_poverty.html

I listened to the entire thing, definitely no mention of rural communities. Only mentioned later as a PR response to the backlash. The people he quotes and books he reads all the way down to the way he thinks of inner cities shows me he's got a certain view of black people that I think most progressives don't have.

I also don't buy this "Obama said the same stuff narrative". - Simply mentioning personal responsibility which Obama has said doesn't mean you think people are takers who leech and don't value work as Ryan's said. That's why I talk about attitude towards minorities. It's clear what Obama's attitude is, and it's pretty clear what most Republicans' attitudes are. Ryan included.

I agree with you, and Jon actually brought up his support for the Revolutionary War. I don't see how you square that with his reasoning for opposition to the Civil War without a difference in the perceived value of blacks to whites.

Yeap.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Jason Carter is actually leading Nathan Deal 41-38 in a poll from Insider Advantages - unfortunately their track record is shit (Nate Silver put them near the bottom of his worst pollsters' list) but like the Ras poll with Walker tying Burke I still like seeing it.

 

[Gotchaye]

To me, that's the line in the sand. If you support the Revolutionary War or Allies in WWII (assuming he supports the second one), than not supporting Lincoln suggests you have a sort of difference in value between black slaves vs. Colonial whites/Jewish people.

I don't think he's overtly racist, but I think that visceral difference in value has to be there to take that kind of contrarian view of Lincoln. Fighting a war to end oppression/enslavement/genocide is pretty universally accepted as "worth it"

I don't think this is really where he's coming from. He's not weighing the case for the American Revolution and the case for the Civil War and the case for WW2; he's not starting out by deciding on a theory of just war and then going around applying it. He's just a conservative libertarian. Right now he wants the US federal government to not do very much and to leave a bunch of things up to the states, mostly because the states are likely to do less given the same responsibilities.

But the Civil War is a huge problem for this sort of federalist. The federalist is pretty committed to the proposition that the Confederacy was more-or-less in the right, procedurally, but slavery is a moral atrocity. Given the usual account of what happened, states' rights come out looking pretty terrible and a strong national government comes out looking pretty good. So the federalist has a lot of reason to seek out arguments that, really, things would have been much better with even more respect for states' rights, and actually the thing motivating the people yelling about states' rights at the time was tariffs, not slavery.

It's about discrediting the US government, not deciding whether slavery is worse than taxes. Edit: There's no motivation to similarly argue against the American Revolution or WW2, because those aren't commonly taken to demonstrate the need for a strong national government. The Revolution is easy to take the other way, so of course federalists are happy to endorse it - it's a story about people breaking away from an out-of-touch far-away government and doing things for themselves. WW2 is too much a story of good vs evil to draw relevant political lessons from, and it sets up for the Cold War where America the land of Capitalism and Freedom stands against the evil Communists.

 

[Vahagn]

I don't think this is really where he's coming from. He's not weighing the case for the American Revolution and the case for the Civil War and the case for WW2; he's not starting out by deciding on a theory of just war and then going around applying it. He's just a conservative libertarian. Right now he wants the US federal government to not do very much and to leave a bunch of things up to the states, mostly because the states are likely to do less given the same responsibilities.

But the Civil War is a huge problem for this sort of federalist. The federalist is pretty committed to the proposition that the Confederacy was more-or-less in the right, procedurally, but slavery is a moral atrocity. Given the usual account of what happened, states' rights come out looking pretty terrible and a strong national government comes out looking pretty good. So the federalist has a lot of reason to seek out arguments that, really, things would have been much better with even more respect for states' rights, and actually the thing motivating the people yelling about states' rights at the time was tariffs, not slavery.

It's about discrediting the US government, not deciding whether slavery is worse than taxes. Edit: There's no motivation to similarly argue against the American Revolution or WW2, because those aren't commonly taken to demonstrate the need for a strong national government. The Revolution is easy to take the other way, so of course federalists are happy to endorse it - it's a story about people breaking away from an out-of-touch far-away government and doing things for themselves. WW2 is too much a story of good vs evil to draw relevant political lessons from, and it sets up for the Cold War where America the land of Capitalism and Freedom stands against the evil Communists.

If that were true, then he must also oppose Brown Vs. Board of Education (the Supreme Court is also part of the Federal Govt), all Civil Rights Legislation, and all regulations at the Federal level that supersede any specific State right. Most Libertarians don't go that route, because they usually take socially progressive positions and thus support socially progressive legislation at the Federal level as more freedom rather than less. I don't know a single Libertarian that argues against Civil Rights or Women's Right to Vote at the Federal level.


The problem I have is that there's no consistency. Of course, the many historical good cases of the Federal Government stepping in to tell some States or the Private Sector "Alright, enough with this stupid shit" is why many Progressives are Progressive, but I guess I would like to see consistency.

It's why I asked for consistency regarding the wars. If you have a fundamentalist position that never changes than ok, I get that. But I'm not sure that's what is happening there in regard to the States Rights v Federal Govt sequences in our history.

I think it's pretty clear to find people's hidden motivations out when they talk about when they maintain an ideology and when they defer from it. If you're Libertarian but support a Federal Ban on Gay Marriage for example that says volumes about what your attitude is towards Gay people. And when you're Libertarian but don't support getting Liberty under any means necessary, that also says a lot about where you stand vis-a-vis the people who are oppressed.

 

[Gotchaye]

If that were true, then he must also oppose Brown Vs. Board of Education (the Supreme Court is also part of the Federal Govt), all Civil Rights Legislation, and all regulations at the Federal level that supersede any specific State right. Most Libertarians don't go that route, because they usually take socially progressive positions and thus support socially progressive legislation at the Federal level as more freedom rather than less. I don't know a single Libertarian that argues against Civil Rights or Women's Right to Vote at the Federal level.

The problem I have is that there's no consistency. Of course, the many historical good cases of the Federal Government stepping in to tell some States or the Private Sector "Alright, enough with this stupid shit" is why many Progressives are Progressive, but I guess I would like to see consistency.

It's why I asked for consistency regarding the wars. If you have a fundamentalist position that never changes than ok, I get that. But I'm not sure that's what is happening there in regard to the States Rights v Federal Govt sequences in our history.

You've never met a libertarian that argues against the Civil Rights Act? They do it all the time. Andrew Napolitano, at least, has said on several occasions that he thinks the CRA went too far in legislating about what business owners could do with their own businesses. It's a standard libertarian position that "the market" will naturally deal with discrimination. Libertarians don't think the government should go out and discriminate, but they'll generally say that it's not the government's place to interfere with private discrimination.

 

[Vahagn]

You've never met a libertarian that argues against the Civil Rights Act? They do it all the time. Andrew Napolitano, at least, has said on several occasions that he thinks the CRA went too far in legislating about what business owners could do with their own businesses. It's a standard libertarian position that "the market" will naturally deal with discrimination. Libertarians don't think the government should go out and discriminate, but they'll generally say that it's not the government's place to interfere with private discrimination.

Well that's just irrational bat shit craziness then lol. If he's consistent in arguing against all measures at the Federal Level then there's at least some credibility in terms of being consistent.

I do think a valid argument could be made that ANYONE who for any reason or justification opposes the Federal Government intervening in the name of abolition or integration while maintaining the bastion of Liberty is a little off to me if not full blown racist. I don't see how you square away those ideas. Unless someone is willing to become a slave and sell their descendants for 500 years into slavery with no legal or Federal Protection, they sound like a hypocrite.

"The Federal Government should allow people the freedom to oppress and discriminate in the name of liberty" is just filled with all sorts of cognitive dissonance.

 

[ViperVisor]

From the people who brought you "The Simpsons has never been a good show - ever"

Comes the Feel-Good Fuck-Wit sequel sure to make you facepalm all over again...

"I never ever ever told anyone they could just fucking take money from me. And I don't feel like the government is doing a goddamn thing for me with that money."

"The position of liberalism gets fucking laughable when you start talking about money. There's no example of a significant sizable socialist liberal-leaning country that's ever been successful ever. Not one example."

"Obama budget no one voted yes on it, no one. Cause everyone realized how fucking out of control this is."

 

[thepotatoman]

I could have sworn the original Think Progress story noted he mentioned rural communities.

I don't think he's racist or meant ill with his comments, and ultimately his argument is similar to Obama's. Weigel sums up some of my thoughts.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2..._suggesting_that_there_s_endemic_poverty.html

That doesn't answer the question of why he felt the need to talk about the inner city in paticular, and that doesn't answer the question of why he choose to cite Charles Murray.

Sure Charles Murray doesn't only talk about race in his social science books, but even writing just one chapter saying black people are poor because black people are inferior should be enough to ignore all of social science theories. And sure the inner city in particular leaves open some room for it being a problem elsewhere, but it also clearly means the inner city is where the problem is the biggest.

And finally Obama did get some blow back from civil rights groups about those statements as well, but at least it was framed in a way to say people without hope instead of people who don't "value" work.

And just for clarity, here is the full quote:

Bill Bennett: A boy has to see a man working doesn’t he?

Paul Ryan: Absolutely.

Bill Bennett: OK

Paul Ryan: That’s this tailspin or spiral that we’re looking at in our communities. Your buddy Charles Murray or Bob Putnam over at Harvard, those guys have written books on this. Which is, we have got this tailspin of culture in our inner cities in particular of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work. And so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with. Everybody’s gotta get involved. This is what we talk about when we talk about civil society. If you’re driving from the suburb to the sports arena downtown by these blighted neighborhoods you can’t just say I’m paying my taxes, government’s gonna fix that. You need to get involved. You need to get involved yourself whether it’s through a good mentoring program or some religious charity, whatever it is to make a difference. And that’s how we resuscitate our culture.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

From the people who brought you "The Simpsons has never been a good show - ever"

Comes the Feel-Good Fuck-Wit sequel sure to make you facepalm all over again...

"I never ever ever told anyone they could just fucking take money from me. And I don't feel like the government is doing a goddamn thing for me with that money."

"The position of liberalism gets fucking laughable when you start talking about money. There's no example of a significant sizable socialist liberal-leaning country that's ever been successful ever. Not one example."

Aren't those video game people? Why the hell are they talking about taxes. I thought Colin's twitter avatar was a joke whenever I see it on the gaming side.

On that topic that's just pure vile, misinformation and horrible economics coming out of his mouth. Dude doesn't understand money and has read one to many libertarian rants on reddit

 

[PhoenixDark]

I remember on election night 2008 Bill Bennett said Obama's victory meant there were "no more excuses" for young black youth in terms of achievement. Very O'Reilly-esque type mindset on group behavior.

 

[ViperVisor]

Aren't those video game people? Why the hell are they talking about taxes. I thought Colin's twitter avatar was a joke whenever I see it on the gaming side.

On that topic that's just pure vile, misinformation and horrible economics coming out of his mouth. Dude doesn't understand money and has read one to many libertarian rants on reddit

Ha! I just got to this part of the video after seeing your post. "The thing is no one wants to like give you the hard facts."

I happened upon his twitter the other day. I always remembered his name from the moronic Simpsons vs. Family Guy article. I saw the icon and thought maybe a parody but his actual account name and previous history confirmed his stupidity and ignorance.

 

[bonercop]

From the people who brought you "The Simpsons has never been a good show - ever"

Comes the Feel-Good Fuck-Wit sequel sure to make you facepalm all over again...

"I never ever ever told anyone they could just fucking take money from me. And I don't feel like the government is doing a goddamn thing for me with that money."

"The position of liberalism gets fucking laughable when you start talking about money. There's no example of a significant sizable socialist liberal-leaning country that's ever been successful ever. Not one example."

"Obama budget no one voted yes on it, no one. Cause everyone realized how fucking out of control this is."

this might be embarrassing enough to deserve its own thread.

 

[empty vessel]

Which is, we have got this tailspin of culture in our inner cities in particular of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work.

He is saying that black men do not want to work.

If you’re driving from the suburb to the sports arena downtown by these blighted neighborhoods you can’t just say I’m paying my taxes, government’s gonna fix that. You need to get involved. You need to get involved yourself whether it’s through a good mentoring program or some religious charity, whatever it is to make a difference.

And this is saying government services will not help and that white people need to volunteer to help black people learn the value of work.

What's to debate?

 

[WayneMorse]

From the people who brought you "The Simpsons has never been a good show - ever"

Comes the Feel-Good Fuck-Wit sequel sure to make you facepalm all over again...

"I never ever ever told anyone they could just fucking take money from me. And I don't feel like the government is doing a goddamn thing for me with that money."

"The position of liberalism gets fucking laughable when you start talking about money. There's no example of a significant sizable socialist liberal-leaning country that's ever been successful ever. Not one example."

"Obama budget no one voted yes on it, no one. Cause everyone realized how fucking out of control this is."

You know that one way trip to Mars that people are signing up for? Can't we just send every libertarian on the planet? That would make things so much better.

Seth MacFarlane has more humor and talent in his left pinky finger than Matt Groening has in his entire body, plus the bodies of his nine cryogenically frozen clones he could afford to have created due to ridiculous DVD sales, syndication, and two decades of boring half of America with the same 390 episodes of crap. There's more variety in the episodes of Family Guy, more humor, insanity, cleverness, craziness and downright awesomeness, than there are in Simpsons episodes, and The Simpsons has over a decade of time and 300 episodes on its competitor.

okay it's time for this guy to kill himself.

 

[Oblivion]

From the people who brought you "The Simpsons has never been a good show - ever"

Comes the Feel-Good Fuck-Wit sequel sure to make you facepalm all over again...

"I never ever ever told anyone they could just fucking take money from me. And I don't feel like the government is doing a goddamn thing for me with that money."

"The position of liberalism gets fucking laughable when you start talking about money. There's no example of a significant sizable socialist liberal-leaning country that's ever been successful ever. Not one example."

"Obama budget no one voted yes on it, no one. Cause everyone realized how fucking out of control this is."

IGN sucks when it comes to gaming, so it should be no shock that they're just as bad when it comes to politics.

As the saying goes, "You can't spell ignorant without IGN".

 

[Aaron Strife]

You know that one way trip to Mars that people are signing up for? Can't we just send every libertarian on the planet? That would make things so much better.



okay it's time for this guy to kill himself.

Lol holy hell. Family Guy's best barely ranks above Simpsons' worst. And Family Guy's best might be a dozen episodes at most.

 

[Oblivion]

You know that one way trip to Mars that people are signing up for? Can't we just send every libertarian on the planet? That would make things so much better.



okay it's time for this guy to kill himself.

Dear god...saying Family Guy is good television is like the media version of Godwin's Law.

Are we sure this isn't a parody article?

 

[Lafiel]

From the people who brought you "The Simpsons has never been a good show - ever"

Comes the Feel-Good Fuck-Wit sequel sure to make you facepalm all over again...

"I never ever ever told anyone they could just fucking take money from me. And I don't feel like the government is doing a goddamn thing for me with that money."

"The position of liberalism gets fucking laughable when you start talking about money. There's no example of a significant sizable socialist liberal-leaning country that's ever been successful ever. Not one example."

"Obama budget no one voted yes on it, no one. Cause everyone realized how fucking out of control this is."

What's amusing is all of those guys literally look like the libertarians I met on campus last week from the libertarian club at my university..

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What's amusing is all of those guys literally look like the libertarians I met on campus last week from the libertarian club at my university..

They're (upper?) middle class white dudes who are technophiles that's like stock libertarian stuff. Now that I'm thinking about it, what did gaming think of bioshock?

Dear god...saying Family Guy is good television is like the media version of Godwin's Law.

Are we sure this isn't a parody article?

Hey I like family guy. I admit its not the greatest show, I just really enjoy it making me laugh for 20 minutes that really it. Its a bunch of loosely connected gags, that's it. Its nowhere near the Simpsons seasons 2-9ish. That is genuinely great television.

I do think American Dad is a much better show. There is some great writing hidden in there.

 

[Hop]

is Oregon the state that completely fucked up their website?

Yep. Latest reports put a ton of blame on Oracle, with Cover Oregon (the exchange itself) being blamed more for not dealing with how shitty Oracle was being.

But of course everyone's going to point to it as proof that government can't do anything right...

 

[Oblivion]

Hey I like family guy. I admit its not the greatest show, I just really enjoy it making me laugh for 20 minutes that really it. Its a bunch of loosely connected gags, that's it. Its nowhere near the Simpsons seasons 2-9ish. That is genuinely great television.

I do think American Dad is a much better show. There is some great writing hidden in there.

Family Guy used to be pretty decent when it first came out. But when the show returned to Fox, the writing took a massive nosedive.

American Dad is pretty great, however.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Family Guy used to be pretty decent when it first came out. But when the show returned to Fox, the writing took a massive nosedive.

American Dad is pretty great, however.

I never noticed any difference besides the characters becoming one-dimensional. But I dig pop culture references and non sequiturs so the show pretty much is just joke after joke.

 

[bonercop]

They're (upper?) middle class white dudes who are technophiles that's like stock libertarian stuff. Now that I'm thinking about it, what did gaming think of bioshock?

People generally seem positive about it. And among the people who dislike it, I can't say I've seen a lot of libertarian whine coming from them.

and don't be too hard on tech guys -- I'm convinced(based entirely on anecdotal experience) that most of us are more left than libertarian.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

From the people who brought you "The Simpsons has never been a good show - ever"

Comes the Feel-Good Fuck-Wit sequel sure to make you facepalm all over again...

"I never ever ever told anyone they could just fucking take money from me. And I don't feel like the government is doing a goddamn thing for me with that money."

"The position of liberalism gets fucking laughable when you start talking about money. There's no example of a significant sizable socialist liberal-leaning country that's ever been successful ever. Not one example."

"Obama budget no one voted yes on it, no one. Cause everyone realized how fucking out of control this is."

Jesus H, this guy is like bizarro world me with his terrible opinions. Just vile filth coming from his mouth.

Edit: Holy shit, he says Denmark isn't a good example because it has fewer people than the US? Fuckin' proportions, how do they work?

And he talks about the debt in personal terms and proposes we pay a ton of taxes (thought he hated those) to pay down the debt immediately and then slash them down to nothing.

And then dismisses how much we pay on military and says it is our social services that are bankrupting us.

What a shitbag. Fuck this guy.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

People generally seem positive about it. And among the people who dislike it, I can't say I've seen a lot of libertarian whine coming from them.

and don't be too hard on tech guys -- I'm convinced(based entirely on anecdotal experience) that most of us are more left than libertarian.

It depends on the type. I just tend to see the more engineering types as libertarian because they think the world and society can be modeled and perfected. I guess it isn't really tech I just have seen a lot of libertarian stuff coming from that world.

 

[Oblivion]

I never noticed any difference besides the characters becoming one-dimensional. But I dig pop culture references and non sequiturs so the show pretty much is just joke after joke.

Really? You didn't notice the sudden, exponential increase in rape jokes, flashbacks that didn't have any point, stretched out gags, flashbacks that involved rape jokes, etc?

There was a real change in tone and style from the original run. It seems like they were trying to be way edgier and controversial when they came back.

It depends on the type. I just tend to see the more engineering types as libertarian because they think the world and society can be modeled and perfected. I guess it isn't really tech I just have seen a lot of libertarian stuff coming from that world.

John Carmack is unfortunately a massive tea bagger.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Really? You didn't notice the sudden, exponential increase in rape jokes, flashbacks that didn't have any point, stretched out gags, flashbacks that involved rape jokes, etc?

There was a real change in tone and style from the original run. It seems like they were trying to be way edgier and controversial when they came back.

I never watched it till it came back and was on Adult swim and TBS. I just never compared the two. I guess.


Off topic: PoliGAF calm my nerves for a job interview for tomorrow!

 

[bonercop]

It depends on the type. I just tend to see the more engineering types as libertarian because they think the world and society can be modeled and perfected. I guess it isn't really tech I just have seen a lot of libertarian stuff coming from that world.

Libertarianism certainly seems more prevalent among tech people, not going to deny that -- rather, I think if you're a tech person you're probably either a lefty or a libertarian. I think conservatism is the big loser when it comes to this crowd.

Off topic: PoliGAF calm my nerves for a job interview for tomorrow!

strike down the capitalist pig and take rightful control over the workplace!

 

[Oblivion]

Off topic: PoliGAF calm my nerves for a job interview for tomorrow!

Feh. Some liberal you are!

Spoiler

What job is it?

 

[Sibylus]

Maybe the libertarian gamers figured Ryan had it coming after intervening in Rapture's clearly self-sustaining economy.

 

[Karakand]

From the people who brought you "The Simpsons has never been a good show - ever"

Comes the Feel-Good Fuck-Wit sequel sure to make you facepalm all over again...

"I never ever ever told anyone they could just fucking take money from me. And I don't feel like the government is doing a goddamn thing for me with that money."

"The position of liberalism gets fucking laughable when you start talking about money. There's no example of a significant sizable socialist liberal-leaning country that's ever been successful ever. Not one example."

"Obama budget no one voted yes on it, no one. Cause everyone realized how fucking out of control this is."

As someone who's spent most of his working life in taxation I am STOKED to listen to IGN shitbirds talk about taxes.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Feh. Some liberal you are!

Spoiler

What job is it?

Edit: pm'ed

strike down the capitalist pig and take rightful control over the workplace!

Probably not gonna be doing that.

 

[Lowmelody]

From the people who brought you "The Simpsons has never been a good show - ever"

Comes the Feel-Good Fuck-Wit sequel sure to make you facepalm all over again...

"I never ever ever told anyone they could just fucking take money from me. And I don't feel like the government is doing a goddamn thing for me with that money."

"The position of liberalism gets fucking laughable when you start talking about money. There's no example of a significant sizable socialist liberal-leaning country that's ever been successful ever. Not one example."

"Obama budget no one voted yes on it, no one. Cause everyone realized how fucking out of control this is."

Fuck I wish I could view world as a big Best Buy card. Techno twat

 

[Armoured Priest]

looks like some movement on extending unemployment in the Senate:

https://news.yahoo.com/senators-reach-deal-extending-jobless-benefits-201736306--politics.html

 

[RustyNails]

John Carmack is unfortunately a massive tea bagger.

NOOOoooo John Carmack
I still admire the guy. His programming skills which lead to the innovation of FPS genre are legendary. John Romero on the other hand probably is a bleeding heart commie.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

John Carmack is unfortunately a massive tea bagger.

Well, he's from Kansas so that shouldn't be a surprise.

 

[thcsquad]

It depends on the type. I just tend to see the more engineering types as libertarian because they think the world and society can be modeled and perfected. I guess it isn't really tech I just have seen a lot of libertarian stuff coming from that world.

The reasoning seems a bit off. Libertarianism is giving up on modeling and perfecting and just saying 'let the market take care of it'.

I think engineers can have a libertarian lean because, being very successful, regulation tends to constrain profits and 'innovation' to them as opposed to protecting them. In other words, regulation in part protects other people from being steamrolled by them, and a lot of population groups tend to view that as constricting.

Not to stereotype all engineers, of course. I am an engineer and total bleeding heart liberal, working with other bleeding heart liberal engineers, but I have observed this lean elsewhere. If you go to Silicon Valley it's probably worse than other places. So much tech money and venture capital is concentrated there, and as a result a lot of the self-absorbed libertarian-leaning techies end up getting pulled there via gravity. Of course, the really successful ones who actually did build mega companies from scratch and attracted all the money to SV in the first place, are all lefties.

 

[The Technomancer]

It depends on the type. I just tend to see the more engineering types as libertarian because they think the world and society can be modeled and perfected. I guess it isn't really tech I just have seen a lot of libertarian stuff coming from that world.

Yeah, as thcsquad touched on, I'm an engineer and I think part of that informs my more liberal sentiments because it does give me an attitude of approaching things in terms of systems to be optimized and understood. Libertarianism seems to be at odds with that perspective, libertarians don't seem interested in treating things as systems at all, just letting large scale behaviors emerge from small scale interactions