Slashdot Mirror

One problem is that it's not at all clear what "stick to Constitutional powers" means, it is something that people can validly disagree about. However many of the loudest Tea Partiers, at least the ones that most people manage to hear, believe that it is all obvious and there's no need for debate. Some may even propose unconstitutional actions (defaulting on the debt which seems on the surface to be against the 4th clause of 14th amendment).

The other problem is "spending more money than it has". This is a great principle. But it has to be achieved in a rational manner. That means not cutting it off cold turkey. We actually managed to slow this down and flatten the growth of the debt during the Clinton era (with lots of Republican help of course). However there does seem to be a big desire to do more than just keeping the spending in limit, but to actually reduce the spending even after there is no debt. Plus the idea of using taxes to eliminate the debt is anathema to most tea partiers.

As you state the two principles above, there are probably many liberals who would agree with those statements but who would be unwelcome in the Tea Party movement. That's because there's also a very strong conservative and libertarian leaning there. So while there many be many who say they are only basing their views on those two principles only, they also have very specific ideas about the corollaries they derive from those principles.

The thing is, the tea party stereotype is not so much built on "partisan caricature" but rather based on the people they elect. Michele Bachmann ? Need I say more ?

Both Republicans and Democrats have officeholders who conform to the caricatures of the other side. Both also have officeholders who don't fit the caricatures. It all depends on how even-handed you want to be. If you think "Michelle Bachman, Ha Ha Ha!" is a fair way of dismissing the concerns of the Tea Party and/or Republicans, you can't object when someone dismisses progressives and/or Democrats with "Hank Johnson, Ha Ha Ha!" (Johnson is the Congressman who asked, at a House hearing, if stationing more troops on Guam might cause the island to "tip over and capsize."

The thing is, the tea party stereotype is not so much built on "partisan caricature" but rather based on the people they elect. Michele Bachmann ? Need I say more ?

Arguing that the federal government should not spend more money than it has in the depths of a recession is remarkably ignorant.

Just to add a bit to this, most of our perception of political entities we are not directly involved with are largely shaped by the wording others use to define and deal with them. In the recent shutdown episode, some of the conservative commentators have compared tactics by the president and democrats with Saul D. Alinsky's rules for radicals and found most of them to be in use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

I will highlight a few that specifically intend to instil a picture of a group that is not consistent with reality.

âoeRidicule is manâ(TM)s most potent weapon.â
âoeThe threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.â
âoeIf you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.â
âoePick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.â

If in fact these tactics are in use, it is no wonder people find out what they think about the other guy is often wrong or vastly over inflated.

Nobody is saying they ALL are, but their vocal majority is pretty awful, so guess what? If your vocal majority and the ones in control are batshit crazy and off the wall kooky especially when it comes to civil rights, climaye science, public education, taxes, and immigration, you MIGHT get lumped in their with them. I'm sorry, the Tea Party has made it pretty clear that they have gone off the deep end?

What it means is that the propaganda artists are doing a great job internationally. None of what you said is real, it's a caricature (an incorrect one) that is being used to make people dislike those groups who would shake loose the shackle of lies that have infiltrated governments the whole world over.

I figured out in college that there were smart and dumb people (and informed and ignorant and good and evil ones) on all sides of pretty much any political question. That left emotions as the key issue, and it has never ceased to amaze and depress me how many people think of politics in the the most primitive, emotional ways: name-calling, tribalization, and tons of logical fallacies, all in the service of flinging feces at the Evil Others Who Don't Vote The Right Way.

The Tea Party is an interesting case in point. Their views, boiled down, amount to 1) the federal government should stick to its Constitutional powers, and 2) not spend more money than it has. Those are hardly extreme notions, but you'd never know it from the vicious attacks on them. This is not to say that every Tea Partier is correct on everything, or that their aren't nuts and unsavory types among them, but any political division that encompasses roughly 25-30% of the population will have some nuts and unsavory types.

So I don't find this result terribly surprising, but the people who think Tea Partiers are all ignorant racist/sexist/fascist/homophobes will certainly be surprised.

Final note: anyone interested in the psychology of political belief should check out the work of Jonathan Haidt, particularly his work on moral foundations theory. No matter what you believe politically, it will help you understand why the people who disagree with you think the way they do.

tl;dr you're confusing 'democrats' as in the citizenry who support that side with the way the current elected leaders are behaving

So why would I want to show them I approve of their actions and vote more of them into office? My vote is for a representative to fill a public office, not for which 'team' I think is the coolest.

I'll agree that most people who self-identify as Democrats are perfectly reasonable people. You may be surprised to find out that most people who self-identify as Republicans are also perfectly reasonable people. Don't be fooled by the caricatures that the extreme members of either party paint. Barring the few, highly emotionally charged, issues that are used to divide and rule and distract the citizens, most people are willing to compromise and get along just fine.

Almost all of the career politicians in Washington are not like the "good guys" or the people that the parties claim to represent. They may claim to represent your view on one of the distraction issues, but they are solidly working against you in almost every other way. The wars, the Patriot Act (the original and the recent extension), and this NSA spying business are all good examples of this. No matter how good of a guy the Democratic party member on the street is, the ones in DC are not good guys. The folks in DC (R or D) have more in common with each other than you and they are not on your side.

tl;dr The scoundrels in DC are not at all like the ordinary members of political parties. Voting for an R or a D is (probably) voting for a scoundrel, not a "good guy".

Incidentally, I have never met, never read, never spoken to, never even heard (in recent times) of a feminist who hates men. I don't even know a single one that dislikes men. I don't even know any who disapprove of sex! With men, even! You might be interested in the tvtropes page on "straw feminism", and the damage it does to demonize a huge, legitimate movement with outrageous caricatures. Or if you'd rather not, might I recommend Rush Limbaugh? I mean, the man who coined the term "feminazi" knows a little something about crazy man-hating women telling everyone what to do. I'm sure he can sympathize.

(There is in fact a reason many current feminists dislike porn, and it's a problem written porn doesn't share: the modern day porn industry is extremely, completely, utterly fucked up. To see the feminist solution, google "feminist porn" -- the idea is to make porn with people who weren't coerced into participating in it.)

:::Richard Stallman has absolutely no problem with people making money with software, provided their business model doesn't involve keeping the source to themselves. That is his view. Why is he more correct than those who have a 180 degree opposing view? :::You'd think that Slashdot posters would have a better understanding of the man than this ignorant caricature. Part of the problem is that Stalman is to a degree, has a very alienating personality that has not endeared him to many people. Right or wrong, that is the reality.

Richard Stallman has absolutely no problem with people making money with software, provided their business model doesn't involve keeping the source to themselves. You'd think that Slashdot posters would have a better understanding of the man than this ignorant caricature.

What would your policy prescription be after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks?

1) Armor the cockpit bulkheads. 2) create separate door for pilot entry. 3) no connection to passenger space. 4) only communication from passenger space is a large red button marked "pressing this button requests pilots to land at nearest medical facility."

That's it. No need to screw US civil rights or plane travel or write a PATRIOT act or anything. The PROBLEM was terrorists -- organized criminals -- using aircraft as directed kinetic energy weapons. That problem could have been 100% solved by the above.

As it was, we spent a huge amount of money and lost a huge number of US soldiers, and hosed travel and stomped on our own civil rights. Monumentally stupid. We should have spent that money making our infrastructure better, highways safer, healthcare better, etc. Instead, we used it to support the military industrial complex at ZERO benefit to ourselves (excepting the fat cats who own said MIC.)

WRT anthrax attacks -- normal legal procedures were sufficient for them too, although perhaps some automatic gear to detect bio and chem agents in the post and package services would have been appropriate. We'll always have wackos. It's not worthwhile to turn our country into a caricature of the soviets at their worst because someone, somewhere, has lost their marbles. Freedom comes with risk. You eliminate the risk, you've eliminated freedom. That shouldn't be acceptable to anyone but the purest cowards.

And they din't use the sonic screwdriver as a deux es machina to get out of any tricky situation, rather than the Doctor using his intelligence and wits. Today, the screwdriver is a euphemism for lazy, sloppy writing. No wonder John Nathan-Turner got rid of it in 1982!

Indeed a good point. If I remember right it wasn't even introduced until episode 42 (Fury From the Deep) and used quite sparingly for the most part. Of course, since the Doctor has now transformed into Magical Space Jesus, he doesn't even need his now ridiculously powerful and versatile sonic screwdriver to work miracles. He can just stand up on a rooftop or a rock and tell a whole alien battle fleet to run away, and instead of him being immediately reduced to a pile of smoking ashes the powerful aliens actually run away! Isn't that great?

Aaaaand that pretty much sums up why I can no longer watch any new Doctor Who. Or Bond films, for that matter. Same phenomenon. So many things these days have become caricatures of themselves with no substance beneath the immaculate surface.

While I can basically agree about what you are saying, I think you are missing out on the new bond films. Danial Craig is a more realistic James Bond then any ever before and the movies seem to capture a more truer essense of what it would be like spying, then the bond movies with cheese galore before him.

You swine. You vulgar little maggot. Don't you know that you are pathetic? You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas, I'll bet you couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You are a canker. A sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you.

You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I despise everything about you. You are a bloody nardless newbie twit protohominid chromosomally aberrant caricature of a coprophagic cloacal parasitic pond scum and I wish you would go away.

You're a putrescence mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.

You are a bleating fool, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you smell?

If you aren't an idiot, you made a world-class effort at simulating one. Try to edit your writing of unnecessary material before attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it more rapidly.

You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.

You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot.

And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?

You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease, you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.

On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go.

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original

And they din't use the sonic screwdriver as a deux es machina to get out of any tricky situation, rather than the Doctor using his intelligence and wits. Today, the screwdriver is a euphemism for lazy, sloppy writing. No wonder John Nathan-Turner got rid of it in 1982!

Indeed a good point. If I remember right it wasn't even introduced until episode 42 (Fury From the Deep) and used quite sparingly for the most part. Of course, since the Doctor has now transformed into Magical Space Jesus, he doesn't even need his now ridiculously powerful and versatile sonic screwdriver to work miracles. He can just stand up on a rooftop or a rock and tell a whole alien battle fleet to run away, and instead of him being immediately reduced to a pile of smoking ashes the powerful aliens actually run away! Isn't that great?

Aaaaand that pretty much sums up why I can no longer watch any new Doctor Who. Or Bond films, for that matter. Same phenomenon. So many things these days have become caricatures of themselves with no substance beneath the immaculate surface.

I'm a dude. Without targeted ads, I would get ads about tampons. Now I get ads on video games (which I like) and tech stuff (which I like). This is better.

It is better if you are just a stereotype. What if you are a dude but also the purchasing manager for an office that provides female specific items? You don't want to know if you can take advantage of a deal that is happening outside of your usual supply chain? What if you are a dude who doesn't like video games? Or what if you do like video games all right, but would be much happier spending your time on something that lazy, unimaginative advertisers haven't pitched to you yet?

Not everyone wants to live in their own feedback loop, slowly becoming a narrow caricature of themselves.

Sometimes it is useful to follow something other than the path of least resistance.

Hate to admit it, but I'm a VP (ie. Manager) of a technical team. I was a programmer for a lot of my life, and have been in management twice now. First time I wanted it SOOOO BAD. Thought being a manager was the best thing that could have happened to me. Then I ended up working for a boss who wouldn't let me run my team. He was the guy everyone is talking about. He had authority, but showed no leadership. At one point, he asked me what a leader meant to me. I told him a leader was someone people follow. He blew a gasket at that one. I was impeaching his authority, and saying, in effect, I'm a leader and you're not. After that I decided that management wasn't what I wanted, and went back to the tech side. Stayed that way for another 10 years.

I got to my current job not because I wanted to be a manager, but because that was what the company I work for needed me to do. I was under no illusions. For those of you who are not managers, you have your own problems. When you are a manager, EVERYONE's problems are your problems. Even so, I took the position and have been largely happy with my decision. I still get to do architecture. And I get to influence a lot of people I could not influence if I was strictly an architect or coder. My coding skills have languished, but my architecture skills have matured.

And for those of you reading this that are going to turn me into a caricature of the Dilbert pointy haired boss, I consistently get outstanding feedback from those that work for me. I've gotten personal letters from consultants who left saying I was the best boss ever. I won't continue to brag about it, but suffice it to say that you CAN move into management, AND add value to your organization, AND treat your reports well, AND keep their respect, all while maximizing you and your team's value to the organization.

I mean that because neuroscience has extensively focused on neurons, we know very little about glial cells experimentally. So indeed we cannot really study them in simulations because we have no experimental data to base these simulations on. I caricature a bit but that is the idea.

I disagree with girlintraining, just on principle. That will get me modded up.

This post has no useful content, so it will be modded down.

It is, however, very informative as to what kind of useless content it has, so it will be modded up.

None of this has anything to do with the hivemind effect the article's discussing, so I will be modded down.

The writing style, however, illustrates an indecisive caricature which some mod may find funny, so it will be modded up.

That's three up mods and only two down for an otherwise uninteresting post, so it will be considered overrated, and modded down.

I predict this post will be forgotten quickly and accomplish nothing... much like our Congress!

Political joke... it'll be modded up.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect! Luckily, I've spent the last decade building up a resistance to Slashdot ramblings....

(Princess Bride reference yet again... what will happen?)