Sensible Erection | Young Cons

Saturday, 30 May 2009

quote [ In a technological era driven fiercely by the main stream media, those who taut the true conservative message of individual responsibility, moral absolutes, and small government are slanted as intolerant, racist, "bible and gun clinging", corporate fat cats who could not care less about the environment nor the well being of their fellow man. ]

I'm 83% sure they aren't kidding.

the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8

[music] [by Lord of the Barnyard@1:43amGMT] [-2 Overrated]

Comments

theolypse said @ 2:07am GMT on 30th May
Why can't I brainwash people to act against their self-interest and in mine? Am I not pretty enough?

At124 said @ 2:15am GMT on 30th May
Picture please. If female, nude preferably.

theolypse said @ 2:17am GMT on 30th May
There's a picture of my bare chest in one of the mafia posts. I think one of the Sensible Omens ones.

Sarahbear said @ 2:21am GMT on 30th May

hoboninja said @ 4:36am GMT on 30th May
You're just begging for attention now, aren't you?

Sarahbear said @ 9:27am GMT on 30th May
hmm maybe ill post random pix of guy friends. then it wont be attention seeking.

Silent said @ 9:48am GMT on 30th May
Far be it for us to complain, there's a lot of attention in SE to spare.

lilmookieesquire said @ 10:20am GMT on 30th May
Hush you~

Silent said @ 4:44pm GMT on 30th May
Oh mookie, don't be that way, you'll always be special.. <3

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:05am GMT on 31st May
You don't have to say anything~ <3

Sarahbear said @ 8:15pm GMT on 30th May
oh im sure there is.... plus ill do whatever i want. I really can't waste time wondering how things might be taken bc i have tits. If anything I may just taunt people since I know they'll be brought up, however indirectly. :P

Stratafyre said @ 11:10pm GMT on 30th May [Score:1 Insightful]
I couldn't care less about your tits, but the use of "bc" instead of "Because" is horrendous.

Sarahbear said @ 8:58am GMT on 31st May [Score:1 Funny]
bc bc bc the wonderful things he does

Stratafyre said @ 1:17pm GMT on 31st May
The Wizard does not use netspeak .-.

Silent said @ 1:34am GMT on 31st May
Everyone is a winner.

Sarahbear said @ 8:59am GMT on 31st May
thats why i'm so proud to be number 7! (Or whatevr the number of females is.... I'm the last one.)

Nihil said @ 3:59pm GMT on 30th May
Ms. Governor?

Sarahbear said @ 2:19am GMT on 30th May [Score:2]

Sarahbear said @ 3:35am GMT on 30th May [Score:1 Underrated]
I maded thiz for yew.

warmseat said @ 6:28am GMT on 30th May [Score:2]
Okay, I'm going to say what everybody is thinking:
Photochop shootout.
One mud filled pool, tamp and Sarahbear enter, only one leaves.

uncletim said @ 6:31am GMT on 30th May
I moderate this positively.
My heart is with sarahbear, but my money's on tamp.

Sarahbear said @ 9:29am GMT on 30th May
PLZ EXPLAIN?

the intarwebs ware i cm frm don't have photochop shootout

theolypse said @ 6:07pm GMT on 30th May
Just keep an eye out for "tamp". It will become clear; I promise you.

Periander said @ 2:21am GMT on 30th May [Score:2 Funny]
Why the thumb of Rand? Whatever your opinion of her, she was not a conservative.

Krutz said @ 2:25am GMT on 30th May [Score:5 Underrated]
Claiming "oh, I'm a Libertarian" while scraping that Bush/Cheney bumper sticker off the Hummer is a time-honored tradition when a GOP president screws the pooch.

arctan said @ 5:15am GMT on 30th May
Rand hated the term "libertarian" and frequently mocked/attacked people who used it for themselves (this was part of the big Rand/Rothbard feud that characterized reactionary anti-hippie politics in the '70s).

If you forced her to pick a term other than her own term "objectivist" for what she was, she'd probably say she was a "conservative" and then throw out her own annoying definition of "conservative" (i.e. saying she was being true to the rational, realistic, pro-human pro-mind values that have kept civilization running since Socrates and Aristotle).

Krutz said @ 5:17am GMT on 30th May
That sounds a lot like how various Protestant denominations (especially Baptists) will somehow string together the certainty that Jesus was actually of their flavor of faith all along, and that whole Holy Roman Empire thing was just a misinterpretation.

willrogers said @ 9:03am GMT on 30th May
Yeah, I'm constantly annoyed at how conservative Christians try to twist or ignore the parts of the Bible they don't like while claiming to be devout.

I seem to remember Jesus not liking rich people at all (him going after the money lenders, that stuff about the camel and the eye of a needle, etc.) but many conservative Christians are only too happy to complain about the government taking their money or about welfare queens, etc.

Sarahbear said @ 8:11pm GMT on 30th May [Score:1 Informative]
Prolly gonna get me shit for admitting this but i actually consider myself christian.... i am just probably among the most 'liberal' types of them. I guess an easy way of putting it is i am sorta the 'hippie' of christians... try to love everyone, do good, think of others, etc.

I get really annoyed with those other types that ignore parts too. In my case i recognize that alot of the bible is outdated or irrelevant (imo, old testament). It was written by men after hundreds of years of retelling. Play telephone and you'll see why following the book to the t seems retarded. Theres an obvious slant in the old stories. Most of the old testament doesn't make sense now that slavery is abolished, and women and minorities supposedly are treated with equality.

The biggest bothers are how people like to target homosexuality! I really don't remember jesus ever saying anything about it in the new testament. even if he did and I missed it, he also talks about loving others and not judging. People need to get off their high horse. Since the old testament also says you should stone a kid for not being respectful to their parents, and has all those crazy jewish laws about purifying women and food customs, I think it should just be regarded as a history now. Interpret it literally or just as a history of old christian beliefs. Christ modified the old ways, and the Jews who don't believe in him sure as hell need to slaughter a million calves to make up for lost time!

I think the teachings of christ (new testament) are the important part, whether you think he is a God or not. I don't think all the mumbo jumbo about divine birth, stars in the sky, miracles really matters if it is true. The ideas are really what I try to embrace... I am pretty bad at alot of parts, but I'm getting better so I think of them as goals. Even if God doesn't exist in the end I won't feel like I wasted my time either.... I'll be dead!

Anyways thats a brief summary of some of my beliefs... think I'm stupid if you want; bring on the taunts.

foobar said @ 11:17pm GMT on 30th May
Sounds to me like you're more of an agnostic than a Christian.

Care for a shrimp cocktail?

willrogers said @ 11:55pm GMT on 30th May
It sounds more like he cares more about what Jesus said, did and meant than what other people, including god did.

I think he's less of an agnostic and probably more of a Christian that would use the Jefferson Bible as his holy text.

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:14am GMT on 31st May
FUCK! I knew she couldn't be a real girl.

Sarahbear said @ 8:57am GMT on 31st May
Yah that was so cute, I was taken as a boy.

I do always tell my friends that since I'm not ready to grow up yet, I'm living my second childhood as a gay little boy. I still like tiaras, hello kitty and pink, but I'm also into tractors, robots and transformers.

Oh wait... I liked those things as a kid too. Damn.

willrogers said @ 10:18am GMT on 31st May
Liking robots and transformers doesn't make you a boy or less feminine, but it does ironically mean you have a heart.

theolypse said @ 4:04pm GMT on 31st May
But not a soul.

willrogers said @ 7:53pm GMT on 31st May
But at least a spark.

Sarahbear said @ 12:32am GMT on 1st Jun [Score:1 Hot Pr0n]
Yea I was kidding. I was a tomboy as a kid though... my dad raised me until I was schoolaged.

And I still <3 transformers... I have a gold Sebring convertible named Bumblebee.

Sarahbear said @ 8:55am GMT on 31st May
Well I actually believe in heaven and hell, I am bipolar myself and when I look around I see certain things that appear black and white enough that I can attribute them as good or evil. I believe in Jesus and God so I don't think that classifies as agnostic. I just doubt the validity of Jewish customs (part of old test) and the necessity of a divine birth and miracles to jusitfy the ideals. Other parts I am still trying to figure out... it's a very old book and I'm not satisfied with just beleiving with how others have told me it should be interpreted. I even plan on reading the books taken out, so I can get a better understanding of all the sides.

I just think it's ridiculous for people to get really worked up over the 'fantastical' parts of any religion, whether its in doubt or belief of them being real. I think the core beliefs are what should be the focus. Its pathetic if people need all these large scale miracles to believe in something when existance of life itself is a pretty damn amazing miracle to me.

willrogers said @ 10:27am GMT on 31st May
Interesting.

Which books "taken out" are you referring to?

Are you talking about the gnostic gospels like Philip and Mary?

Depending on the denomination those books are still canonical like the four that are in the Bible, they just aren't in the Bible itself.

That said, they do paint a different picture of Jesus and of Jesus and Mary's relationship.

I'm a little confused as to how you being bipolar makes you see the world in a dichotomous fashion, i.e. good and evil. Dichotomous thinking isn't a characteristic of bipolar disorder, it's actually a common misattribution by laymen.

Such "splitting" and dichotomous thinking is actually one of the hallmarks of borderline personality disorder.

Sarahbear said @ 12:23am GMT on 1st Jun
Yes sir the gnostic ones. I think the catholics still have some of them in their holy book but alot of the other types of churches I have been to (church of christ, methodist, nondenom.) don't even aknowledge they exist.

Well I feel most things are in the grey area and especially in my first-hand experience I don't think I have ever met or witnessed anything that was pure good or pure evil. My bipolar is not that severe but occasionally I have periods where I have felt wholly immersed in a single mood. I think this is the only time in my life where my thinking truly is linear. Basically everything will seem all negative or all postive to the point that other feelings seem unreal. Trying to make sense of that certainty between such opposite thoughts and emotions only results in doublethink later.

Yea I have mutiple bipolar relatives and have studied BPD before so I know about their similarities and differences. I rarely ever think in split terms and my moods have stabilized (unmedicated) for the most part now I am in my twenties.

foobar said @ 8:42pm GMT on 31st May
Wouldn't heaven, hell and god be 'fantastical'? Are they really necessary to prop up a moral message?

Sarahbear said @ 12:30am GMT on 1st Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Exactly. I don't think they are necessary for me to try and follow some of the moral guidelines. Also, If i ever decide God, heaven/hell aren't real, I will still try to maintain morals because I believe in them.

Now, I happen to believe in them because the idea of a creator makes sense to me. (though where a creator came from or where there was anything to create anything... that boggles the mind!) Now God does seem alot like a kid who kept getting mad and smiting the world with his cosmic magnifying glass in the old testament though. He was kinda an ass back then so Jesus coming would be a nice gift for all of that, hmm?

Naruki said @ 1:15am GMT on 1st Jun
Yeah, that makes sense. An omniscient and omnipotent being -- who created everything that is and will ever be -- was an ass until a couple thousand years ago. Then, in his midlife crisis, he fucked some virgin and gave birth to his non-ass self because he suddenly regretted being such an omniscient omnipresent omnipotent ass who only cared about a single tribe of a single life form on a single planet in a single solar system in a single galaxy in a single Universe.

Completely reasonable when you put it like that.

foobar said @ 3:08am GMT on 1st Jun
How constructive of you.

Naruki said @ 3:42am GMT on 1st Jun
You take that back or I'm telling God on you!

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:12am GMT on 31st May
BURN HER! BURN HER!!

Oh wait. Actually that sounds quite reasonable.

You may pass.

Watch out for "kick me" signs.

Shirobake said @ 10:49am GMT on 30th May [Score:1 Insightful]
Actually, it sounds a lot like you like to lump different ideologies you don't agree with together just to make it easier for you to dump on. If you don't know the difference between libertarianism and conservatism- let alone what Rand believed in, you shouldn't be having the conversation.

GordonGuano said @ 2:20pm GMT on 30th May
Libertarianism=red ants

Conservatism=black ants

What Rand believed in=see Calvinball, rules of

Does anybody have still have that chart of the Dungeons and Dragons alignments with the respective philosophers that embodied them? I remember Rand was lawful evil*, and the tagline was something like, "Evil can be boring, too". I think John Stuart Mill might have been lawful good, but after that, my memory fails me.

*I would say neutral evil, but I wasn't the one making the chart

Nihil said @ 4:05pm GMT on 30th May [Score:1 Informative]
Enjoy.

Bonus found while Googling.

Krutz said @ 3:47pm GMT on 30th May
"Libertarianism" is whatever the person claiming to be one says it is. It is open to interpretation, just like any ideology. It's also more ridiculous the more rigid said person's view on it is. I know many self-identified Libertarians who have many glaring hypocrisies when it comes to their own "theology":

- Government spending is bad... unless it's on defense, then the sky's the limit.
- The use of force is bad... unless we're bombing another country.
- Taxes are bad... except for things like roads (which, they say, shouldn't have speed limits).
- The Invisible Hand of the Market should be allowed to determine the success or failure of companies... except in the case of companies like Microsoft (like true Libertarians, they all use Linux) which should be bombed into oblivion.
- The Invisible Hand will somehow magically inform consumers about bad companies, will unveil which products are unsafe, and said consumers will shun companies (and even politicians) who do shady things... like Microsoft...

And I'm sure you'll now say "well, yes, but those aren't true ~~Christians~~ Libertarians, they've misinterpreted ~~the Bibile~~ Rand's works." Have fun with that, true believer.

Nihil said @ 3:58pm GMT on 30th May
How exactly is that different from the way sensible progressive reject the Longhair-ish retards?

Krutz said @ 4:12pm GMT on 30th May
I don't meet too many militant "prograssives" who have a book or ideologue they're constantly harping on about following their way or you're not a true whatever-ian.

And all political movements have their share of nuts. It's just that lately Libertarians have been noted around here for (1) trying to claim that if we'd listened to them, the markets wouldn't have collapsed and (2) a lot of people who used to be Republicans now fitting themselves with "We Love Rand Paul" buttons.

lilmookieesquire said @ 9:43am GMT on 30th May
Rand reminds me of L.Ron.
Both are hack writers. Both have a semi-religious following based off nonsence and poor aguments.
Both attract people I want minimal interaction with.
She seems to use humanism to justify elitism.
I fancy she'd have made a lovely young nazi.

Nihil said @ 2:01pm GMT on 30th May
1) Ayn Rand (most likely) actually believed in what she preached
2) Ayn Rand didn't steal millions of dollars from her followers
3) Ayn Rand's theories may not synch up with human nature, but they're not nearly as massively idiotic as Scientology. I would never put "To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem." and "75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes."

Although, to be fair,

A six-foot floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign was placed near her casket.

this was pretty creepy.

Nihil said @ 2:02pm GMT on 30th May
(first paragraph should end with: "on the same level")

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:46pm GMT on 30th May
I'll give you that.

arctan said @ 4:41pm GMT on 1st Jun
Enh. Rand wasn't as crazy as L. Ron but that's damning with faint praise. She was pretty goddamn crazy, and her personal ideology, as she actually practiced it, was riddled with idiosyncrasy and hypocrisy. She was notorious for her little fling with Nathaniel Branden, where she totally fucked over her husband and encouraged Branden to fuck over his wife because the two of them hooking up was the "rational" thing to do and to oppose it would be "anti-human".

Then when she found out Branden cheated on HER she excommunicated him from the movement, excommunicated anyone who tried to defend him, and stated that his actions made him an Enemy of Reason.

This is just the high-profile shit. She had all kinds of creepy little psychotic outbursts about what it really meant to be "rational", making it clear that agreeing with her about everything was what "rational" meant and disagreeing with her about anything was "irrational" -- I guess this is the inevitable result of declaring that there's one absolutely knowable truth about everything that can be derived from pure reason with no margin for error.

I mean, this:

To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem.

*sounds* good, but all philosophies sound good when you read their meaningless vague boilerplate, just like Scientology starts out sounding like a special kind of therapy where you work out issues from your childhood and only later piles on the legend of Xenu and the volcano hypnosis chambers.

When you actually get into how Rand practiced Objectivism, you find out that she liked to do things like kick you out of her inner circle if you professed a love for Charles Dickens, proclaim that tofu was an "anti-human" food and rice an "anti-human" crop and demand that they never be eaten (cue complex rationalization about how inherently superior Western society was partly due to their agricultural practices), and that all women want to be raped (and that a real man knows when a woman wants to rape her).

Naruki said @ 2:35pm GMT on 30th May
Rand loathed Libertarians. This is grand irony.

foobar said @ 11:17pm GMT on 30th May
Rand, like most libertarians, was a misanthrope. She loathed everybody.

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:09am GMT on 31st May
Why you gotta go bringing misanthrope into this?

Naruki said @ 10:19am GMT on 31st May [Score:1 Insightful]
Apparently he spawned Libertarianism.

papango said @ 2:51am GMT on 30th May [Score:1 Insightful]
She's mentioned in their stupid song.

Krutz said @ 2:24am GMT on 30th May [Score:5 Underrated]
They're surprised that conservatives have this negative image and don't acknowledge that it comes from other conservatives behaving in the exact manner they claim to decry?

And the "real conservative" line has been beaten to death. You supported the fat cats, the Bushies, Reaganomics, etc. and now it's all come crashing down around your ears. You can't escape it, you backed the losing team, and claiming that "they" weren't the true players in your ideological World Series doesn't wash. Take a little of that personal responsibility you keep harping on about and eat that truckload of crow you keep pretending doesn't exist.

willrogers said @ 8:52am GMT on 30th May
Exactly.

For the past 8 years all these conservatives were only too glad to champion these conservatives in power like Bush and his ilk but now that they are out of power and most people hate them they pull a no true Scotsman.

They want it both ways. They want to be able to take credit for the "triumphs" of "conservatives/conservatism" but reject its failures.

ScoobySnacks said @ 3:06am GMT on 30th May

uncletim said @ 6:36am GMT on 30th May
Interpreting the bible literally is just silly, in the most Monty Pythonesque of ways.

willrogers said @ 9:06am GMT on 30th May
But then whose interpretation is right?

How symbolic is it or are some parts more literal than others?

Most Christians do not use social, historical, etc. context to inform their interpretations so I don't even think those interpretations are really correct either.

uncletim said @ 6:10pm GMT on 30th May
I don't think most x-tians interpretations are informed by any context I understand.

I'm not sure there is a correct interpretation.

leswilkerson said @ 11:34pm GMT on 30th May
"x-tian"

Uber-cool atheist alert. Duly noted.

Seriously, man. Say your piece, but lose the idiotic hipster crap. You just make yourself look like an idiot. I say that with love.

Krutz said @ 1:59am GMT on 31st May
X represents the Greek letter "Chi," which then came to be shorthand for "Christ." When fused with the letter "rho," you get the Labarum, a standard used by the Christian Emperor, Constantine.

So using "X" in the manner you think as "hip" has been around for over 1600 years.

Glad I could educate you about what I presume is your own religion.

leswilkerson said @ 2:04am GMT on 31st May
Comb through the threads, and check out the common usage of "x-tian", then get back to me. I'm right. The average internet thread denizen isn't using it because they're familiar with the ancient etymology. They're using it because they'd rather say "x-tian" than dare type the word "Christian". Makes 'em look cool and all that.

brat#3 said @ 2:11am GMT on 31st May
Interesting wiki link, but it doesn't indicate that either x/chi or chi-ro is quite synonymous with 'Christ', either.

Show me a book from 1600 years ago that says 'x-tians' and we'll talk more, otherwise I tend to side with les that it's a way of denigrating the religion by not bothering to spell it properly.

Krutz said @ 2:38am GMT on 31st May
How about the OED which cites usage of "Xmas" in the English language as far back as the 1600's?

This article even cites Gutenberg using the abbreviation when setting type. It also notes not to get ones knickers in a twist over it.

And I'm sorry that a friggin' Emperor using it as his standard and the Catholic Church putting it all over their architecture doesn't satisfy you.

But if you still want to go and be all offended, knock yourself out.

leswilkerson said @ 3:03am GMT on 31st May
No, stop putting words in our mouths. Who said we're offended? See my comment up ^there^.

Naruki said @ 4:00am GMT on 31st May
Well, rather than deciding you were offended, he could have just said you were an insulting assumptive idiot. That much is fact, at least.

It may be "uber-cool internet chic" to declare anyone who uses Xtian is "afraid" to type Christian, but that doesn't hold a lot of weight with reality.

I don't know of anyone who types Xtian just to appear cool. No, let me rephrase that: I don't know of anyone who thinks doing so will up their cool points in any way.

I do it to piss off those Xtians who keep telling me I'm warring on their religion. I don't give two shits about whether that makes me look cool or like an ass. But you seem to think you know my motivations better than I do. Ergo, insulting assumptive idiot.

But I'm not offended. More like bemused.

leswilkerson said @ 4:40am GMT on 31st May
Anyone who has spent 5 minutes on SE knows your motivations, Naruki. I'm an "assumptive idiot", and you're a trolling douchebag who gets his war on over semantic trivialities just to get his nut off.

And I could give exactly the same two shits as you whether YOU are offended OR bemused.

Naruki said @ 9:49am GMT on 31st May
Responding to an issue I have a genuine interest in is not trolling. And you are the one who started arguing "semantic trivialities" in this thread, so that accusation is a bit of a two-edged sword.

You made several statements and I made three specific assertions related to that.

1) insulting. Do you really need me to prove this one? You called him an idiot.

2) assumptive. Already explained this a bit, but more clarity could help. You assumed uncletim was trying to be an "Uber-cool atheist" because of his use of a particular word. Not because of a weak argument or anything else that he said, but simply because he used a word you don't like. This is a bad assumption.

3) idiot. Okay, this was a bit stronger than is really warranted, even though you used it yourself in your equally unwarranted attack. But the fact is you used bad logic to attack uncletim, and then again when attacking Krutz (and re-attacking uncletim).

And if you don't care about giving/receiving offense, why did you get offended at Krutz saying brat#3 was offended?

I don't know if you are religious, but if you are, that would explain why my words were so offensive to you. I have great disdain for religion, loathing at times, because of the evil it causes. That said, I am more than happy to tolerate religions that don't try to interfere in other's lives.

leswilkerson said @ 2:48pm GMT on 31st May
Jumping into this conversation is not trolling, you are correct. But trolling is your M.O. Just saying.

And I usually don't do the semantic trivialities thing myself, whereas with you it's high art.

Anyway...

1.) I didn't call him an idiot. I said that use of the term makes him look idiotic. There's your little semantic difference. Go ahead, fire away.

2.) I assume anyone who uses the word "X-tian" is an atheist who wants to make damned sure everybody knows it, because it's just oh so cool. You do it to "piss off X-tians" in internet fights. If you're posting to comment threads on 700Club.com, I can understand your motivation-- but throw the term around on SE, and I assume you're doing it to look cool for the rest of the kids. Assumptive? Yes. Right? Maybe.

3.) "And if you don't care about giving/receiving offense, why did you get offended at Krutz saying brat#3 was offended?"

Uh... Really, man? Here's my comment again. Read it and tell me how it's not EXACTLY the opposite of what you just said.

"No, stop putting words in our mouths. Who said we're offended? See my comment up ^there^."

Your words didn't offend me at all. It's just any time you reply to any comment I make, I INSTANTLY know that you're going to be coming at me head-on from the opposite direction. Which is why if I ever meet you in person, I plan to kick you in the balls.

uncletim said @ 11:53pm GMT on 31st May
Wow.
I used shorthand because it is just that, shorthand.
(I've had my right hand in a splint for 5 weeks, which makes typing a little tougher. And I'm a slow an lousy typist in the first place.)

Naruki said @ 1:03am GMT on 1st Jun
Oh stop covering up for your ubercoolness, dude. We know you are afraid to type it out! You probably say "Xmas", too, you freak!

uncletim said @ 4:19am GMT on 1st Jun
Alright, I'm uber, you got me.

Naruki said @ 1:12am GMT on 1st Jun

1.) I didn't call him an idiot. I said that use of the term makes him look idiotic. There's your little semantic difference. Go ahead, fire away.

Fair point. I thought about stating that more precisely, but figured what the hell.

You implied he was an idiot by stating he looks like an idiot for using that term.

This is a severe overreaction to a shorthand word, and it's very reminiscent of the Bill O'Reilly manufactured outrage about X-mas. And it is THAT attitude that has encouraged me to use it more than I normally would.

I have always used it, but never because I thought it made me appear cool in any way. I never used it antagonistically, however, until some of the finer examples of evil Christians made me aware that it could be used in such a manner. Now, however, when I do use it, I am aware of that fact and am quite happy to let them be pissed off by it.

But I still spell the word out, too. Does that make me an Ubercool Christian hipster?

Dude, it's a fucking word. You put way too much importance on it. Christians invented the shorthand form, so don't accept Bill O'Reilly's bullshit hatemongering as justification for attacking those who use it. It's not an inherent insult.

leswilkerson said @ 4:43am GMT on 1st Jun [Score:1 Good]
"Dude, it's a fucking word. You put way too much importance on it. "

Oh my fucking God. Really, Naruki? Coming from you? REALLY?

I'm done here.

Naruki said @ 2:16pm GMT on 1st Jun
He he, good point.

Rammek said @ 3:07pm GMT on 1st Jun [Score:-1 Troll]
Please note the time and date at which Naruki gracefully backed down from a flamewar he tried to start.

I think our little boy is growing up! *sniff*

Naruki said @ 3:45am GMT on 2nd Jun
Please note that Rammek, wrong as usual, is also trolling as usual.

I think that little boy is retarded.

arctan said @ 4:44pm GMT on 1st Jun
Using a specific nonstandard term just to piss people off is not quite the same as doing it to be "cool", but it's not particularly more laudable. (I react the same way to the trollish use of lowercase-g "god", which doesn't even make sense by atheists' own logic -- if God is equivalent to Santa Claus, is that a reason to write it "santa claus"?)

Also, the word "assumptive" does not mean what you think it does.

f00m@nB@r said @ 3:15am GMT on 30th May [Score:1 Informative]
Taut?

Viking_Biochemist said @ 7:57am GMT on 30th May
Damn, wrong mod.

sanepride said @ 3:26am GMT on 30th May
real conservatives such as Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King Jr., and arguably Jesus are the flag-bearers of the true conservative movement.

I wonder how Dr. King and 'arguably Jesus' would feel about being included in this movement.

Krutz said @ 4:11am GMT on 30th May
I'm guessing they'd die of embarrassment.

Wait...

arctan said @ 5:16am GMT on 30th May
If any Republican had gone around saying MLK was a "true conservative" during MLK's actual lifetime, *everyone* would've died from shock, including most of the Republicans.

willrogers said @ 8:56am GMT on 30th May
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it wasn't the liberals that were in favor of keeping segregation in place or continuing the Vietnam War.

MLK may have been religious but he was pretty "liberal" by a "conservative" perspective.

Frankly, I think MLK was actually just being a "better" Christian and following Jesus more closely than 99% of Republicans and conservatives.

hackiavelli said @ 10:26am GMT on 30th May
You're gonna have a tough time explaining LBJ.

willrogers said @ 10:49am GMT on 30th May
How so?

He was against racism and segregation and really wanted to focus more on his Great Society plan than fight in Vietnam.

arctan said @ 4:48pm GMT on 1st Jun
That's a really oversimplified way of putting it. At some point in time he probably thought simply "staying the course" in 'Nam was the politically safe alternative that would give him leeway to pursue the Great Society, but as time went on he dug in his heels harder and harder to keep the war in 'Nam alive. It obsessed him to the degree that he destroyed his own presidency and the Great Society over it. He was the one responsible for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, remember.

Politically there weren't any "good choices", sure -- letting us "lose" the war would've fed a conservative feeding frenzy against him in the press, yes. But you can't say he was ambivalent about the war or just let it happen; he got so invested in the idea that victory was the only option that he violated all his principles, including eventually becoming an outspoken enemy of the hippies he originally tried to extend a hand of friendship to, just to keep the war going.

Nihil said @ 2:04pm GMT on 30th May
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it wasn't the liberals that were in favor of keeping segregation in place or continuing the Vietnam War.

Not all of them, but you forget the Dixiecrats.

MLK may have been religious but he was pretty "liberal" by a "conservative" perspective.

MLK was continually accused of being a Commie. To the conservatives of the time, he was far worse than a "liberal".

sanepride said @ 2:21pm GMT on 30th May
The Dixiecrats were not liberals. Their party affiliation was a holdover from resentments of post-Civil War/ Reconstruction politics. When the Democrats embraced civil rights the Dixiecrats went Republican, where the white South remains overwhelmingly to this day.

willrogers said @ 7:41pm GMT on 30th May
Exactly, which is why I used "liberal" and "conservative" instead of democrat and republican.

arctan said @ 4:57pm GMT on 1st Jun
MLK was a fucking commie, dude. The government at the time hated and feared him. The Right talked about him like he was Osama bin Laden. He helped *start* the modern leftie protest culture with marches and signs. And he did indeed speak out in favor of socialism and wealth redistribution as well as ending the war.

There are so many things wrong with saying that he was ever considered a "conservative" or fits the mold of a "conservative" now that it's hard to know where to start. The *only* thing you can say is that he was a minister and a religious person, and the fact that conservatives have to some degree successfully created the definition "religious = conservative" is offensive and idiotic in and of itself. (FFS European socialist movements *started* in religious Christian communities -- Marx's life work was trying to convince hardcore socialists to be modern scientific atheists as much as it was trying to convince modern scientific atheists to be hardcore socialists.)

Sarahbear said @ 11:56pm GMT on 1st Jun
Hmm what you said about MLK Jr. reminded me of how Jesus is usually politically tied with conservatives, which is ironic since back when he lived he was really radical. (This applies whether you think he is the Lord or just some guy.)

For all the philanthropy Jesus was attributed to, he was rejected and doubted even by his own followers because his teachings weren't what the people wanted. Most people expected the Messiah to be this Warrior who would lead the chosen people to become a great Nation on Earth. Instead he preached "turn the other cheek," "blessed are the meek," etc. Obviously he didn't live up to the expectation of modern Jews since they're still waiting for their Savior. This reminds me how some groups of advocating Black Power really wanted MLK Jr. to fight fire with fire and instead he preached endurance and pacifism (among many other things).

The Clergy at the time, the Pharisees also thought Jesus' ideas were so out there that they called him blasphemous and constantly tried to find some thing he did that was inconsistent with the Bible. They even tried to say that healing a man on the Sabboth was against God (Luke 6:7). He did away with many of the Jewish customs, like Kosher food, saying they were "but rules taught by men" (Matt 15). Not very revolutionary by Modern standards but back then it seemed nuts to the Jews that they guy claiming to be Christ was telling them that their customs were crap. To me this is akin to the criticism King received by not being as extreme in his call for change as Malcom X, who seemed to see whites as the enemy and basically opposed integration at all.

Anyways I just wanted to comment on the similarities I saw bc I never even thought about Jesus being on the religious "wild side," but then I thought about how I'd have felt if I was a Jew back then and he really would have seemed rebellious to traditional ways.

Hemiii said @ 4:12am GMT on 30th May [Score:1 Funny]
"Young Cons is not attempting to force their religious beliefs onto anyone, but rather encourage discussion among the American youth."

"Their goal is not to pursue a rap career, but rather get young Americans involved in politics."

The grammar here are bad. I worry about these country.

Krutz said @ 4:54am GMT on 30th May
...but if they don't turn out Christian and "our kind of" conservative, we'll call the NSA and claim they're terrorists.

uncletim said @ 6:37am GMT on 30th May
Dunrite, speltrong.

eddiebax said @ 8:15am GMT on 30th May
Those two Dartmouth "rappers" both embarrass me and make me glad I never contribute to the Alumni Fund.

I should have gone to Amherst (it's closer to Mt. Holyoke and Smith).

willrogers said @ 9:00am GMT on 30th May
I like how conservatives are oblivious to the origins and themes behind rap and hip hop.

Many of the most influential early rappers were pretty big social critics (NWA, Public Enemy, Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five's "The Message") and talked about the plight of urban Blacks, not about being white or conservative.

It's just another example of conservatives trying to coopt culture and music for propaganda.

Remember when rock was the "music of the devil" to Christians?

arctan said @ 5:03pm GMT on 1st Jun
They're not oblivious. Conservatives use this as a reason to decry and attack hip-hop culture and rap music all the time. These dudes are clearly intentionally trying to appropriate rap music and *change* it into a pro-establishment art form, just like Christian rock was an intentional act of appropriation.

And as with most Christian rock, these guys are doing an incredibly piss-poor job of it. I don't think they even really get the idea that one reason rap is compelling is that it's a highly improvisational, personal, idiosyncratic and narrative form of expression -- that is "socially conscious" rappers succeed by talking about their lives and their feelings in a way that feels authentic, like they just sat down and started opening their heart to you, and these guys feel like they sat down and painstakingly shoved every last Republican talking point they could into one song.

I can actually imagine "conservative rap" -- hell, I've heard some rap that I would classify as being, according to my personal scale, conservative. A real heartfelt barrage against the government fucking with us and taking away our religion and our God and becoming a soulless hypocritical establishment teaching bloodless virtues of institutionalized compassion and impersonal empathy -- that could work, that I could get behind. I would disagree with the ideology but agree it was a work of art.

This shit, OTOH, is just embarrassing. It's actually symbolic of the total failure of the Republican brand that rappers (and artists in general) who *do* hold the feelings I describe above are not going to express that message in terms of being a "conservative" and identifying with the American GOP, because the American GOP is doing such a horrifyingly shitty job of expressing the values it claims to hold dear.

willrogers said @ 9:09am GMT on 30th May
Wow.

Now I know why Nas said hip hop was dead.

papango said @ 9:30am GMT on 30th May
I hope it's dead. Nobody wants to see this sort of abomination inflicted on a living entity.

willrogers said @ 9:48am GMT on 30th May
I'm hoping for a zombie resurrection where all the great rappers of the past come back and eat the brains of these awful rappers but then spit them out for being so awful.

Then they'd make more awesome music.

And then Flava Flav would be too busy eating brains and making music to be on TV making a fool of himself.

t_naifeh said @ 6:09pm GMT on 30th May
I"m pretty sure Flava Flav already IS a zombie.