Slashdot Mirror
Onion Story Gets Blown Out of Proportion
A 3-year-old Onion video titled "Martial Law Plans Revealed?" has swept across the internet recently, and taken the gullible along with it. The video has some preaching from the highest mountain top about the evils of a government turning fascist, and an equal number explaining until red in the face what The Onion is.
I think this is the very definition of a Slow News Day.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
There should be a law. If you're to fucking stupid to realize what The Onion is, or that something came from The Onion, you don't get to comment about politics. Ever.
You mean "blue in the face". Red would imply embarrassment. Those would be the other folks, not the ones getting blue in the face.
I believe they mispronounced the french when naming their news channel but you get the idea.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
I think we ignore The Onion as a serious news source at our peril, especially now that mainstream media has all but abandoned serious reporting themselves. Imagine what could have been avoided if people had listened in 2001. It's like their reporters had used a fricking time machine!
...remember what they said about Gillette in February 2004? And then what happened in September, 2005?
(Now let's watch as The Onion replaces the writings of Nostradamus as the road map to an apocalyptic future.)
Try citing The Onion AV Club as a source on Wikipedia. No one will believe you. Condescendingly, they'll explain that The Onion is satire.
is here.
First against the wall when the revolution comes
Moving on, our next topics are Santa Clause, Jesus, the Tooth Fairy, and honesty in government.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
It's War of the Worlds 2010.
And I've wondeded whether the reaction to the War of the Worlds broadcast made people in the US, at the time, more skeptical of radio broadcasts, thus less susceptable to broadcast propaganda than those in other countries (or audiences), and thus led to the US neutrality in WW II until the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
One thing the reaction to this item shows: The current government has some people prepared to believe that martial law and fascism are on their agenda.
Not sure if the rumor is a good or bad thing. On one hand it will make people more skeptical again. On the other, like the parable of the kid who cried "Wolf!", it could delay or abort public opposition if the real thing does come along. (How convenient for any hypothetical neofascists.)
The last thing I want to see is the idea planted in the heads of ANY US administration that they COULD get away with it. B-(
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Poe's Law points out that it is hard to tell parodies of fundamentalism (or, more generally, any crackpot theory) from the real thing, since they both seem equally insane. Conversely, real fundamentalism can easily be mistaken for a parody of fundamentalism.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law
...That you can find here.
"The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
I attend political debates, couple of times a month with different audiences and I have yet to meet a single person from the left mistake Onion with real news. I have also very rarely seen people from the right make that mistake. However, people who attend these talks are most likely better educated.
Back on topic, regarding general public this was released three years ago and at the time the left didn't come out and mistake this with real news. From looking at Facebook and Twitter, it seems like a whole lot of people on the right have been duped.
The difference, of course, is that your right wing friends won't believe you.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Onion news ISN'T REAL!? This sets me back on some things I believe to be fact... oh dear...
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
After all, in 2001, they had Bush's inaugural address as "Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Over"...
Test your net with Netalyzr
Is it just me, or does that sound like an awesome description of Z-Day?
Conspiracy nutjobs exist on both sides of the spectrum. For every idiot republican who thinks that Obama is a secret Muslim Kenyan terrist who wants to make them get gay married, there's an idiot democrat who is certain that 9/11 was an inside job.
...is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill
-slam the right. It's practically a new passtime to slashdot.
They invite it, though, with right wing politicians calling Obama a socialist, a 'secret Muslim', not born in the U.S., talking about death panels in the healthcare bill, etc. And that's in the GOP itself, not just in the TEA Party.
That is a false equivalency, very few in the left wing believe 9/11 was an inside job, and they are roundly denounced by the rest of us. The right wing, however, holds some very crazy beliefs very strongly.
# 39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.
# 36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.
# 31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.
# 63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not
Story continues below
# 24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.
# 21 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the 2008 election, 55 percent are not sure, 24 percent said the community organizing group did not steal the election.
# 23 percent of Republicans believe that their state should secede from the United States, 19 percent aren't sure, 58 percent said no.
# 53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Doh.
Meant to include that both idiots will ignore facts when they conflict with the elaborate conspiracies that they have concocted in their heads.
Didn't I just see an article somewhere (maybe here) in the last week or two which stated that real, actual, honest-to-goodness facts can often cause horribly misinformed people who believe something that is totally incorrect to to feel even more strongly that their misinformed belief is right?
I can't seem to find a link to it in my browser history but I'm certain I saw it.
To be fair, online gullibility and hysteria does tend towards a right wing bent.
One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, just for this month alone. The left is not immune to the chain-email urban legend phenomenon (e.g. talk of the draft a few years back) but it is the right, especially the religious right, that excels at propogating misinformation.
Whoa! You're friends with Bush?
I believe this was the article you refer to.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Citation needed.
Facts have a liberal bias.
This is utterly true, not only about 9/11, but also about martial law. You wouldn't believe how many of my liberal friends thought Bush would cancel the elections and call martial law before Obama could get elected. It was really depressing because they were mostly well-educated and should have known better. Here is an example of one guy defending his position, in case you want to see what it looks like.
I don't think it actually shows Americans are crazy, I think it reflects the deep-set distrust Americans have of their government. And this is something that extends from the left to the right. And it's probably a good thing.
Qxe4
No, those aren't Democrats, they usually register Green or Indie, if they
register at all.
Both major parties are considered mainstream, and so they must be part of
the the big conspiracy. Voting for any candidate that actually has a chance
of winning seems to be an anathema to them. Some actually outright call
voting an act of endorsing "the system" as if there is some all powerful
international karma genie keeping track and ready to kick out the government
if voter enrollment fell too far.
(Not that I don't like the Green party on principle, they have a better platform
than the Dems, but it seems to have the liability of being a magnet for
despondent borderline nutjobs, and in certain states, a takeover target for
wannabe communists. Which is a drag on the other states where the adults
are in charge of it.)
Someone had to do it.
Hahaha! That's a good one! "Executive experience"! She ran a backwater Alaskan town into the ground, crippling it with millions of dollars of debt, then stepped down before completing her first term as Governor amid accusations of abuse of power stemming from 'troopergate' and the bribes, excuse me, I mean "Free Home Improvements" she accepted while in office. I wouldn't trust her to run my convenience store, much less my government.
Really? This poll was all over the news two months ago, everyone was commenting on it. Google 'poll of right wing beliefs' if you need a citation, this isn't wikipedia and I'm not your research assistant.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
OK, it's just intellectually dishonest of you to use the results of that poll once it was shown that the numbers were made up. It's one thing if you want to push your Democratic agenda, but you better be using real data if you don't want to be compared to the scum of the earth. And by the scum of the earth, of course, I mean......marketers.
Seriously, that just made you look really bad. Learn to find good information.
Qxe4
No no no no no. You have obviously never been a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. 9/11 Truthers are invariably libertarians of the Alex Jones flavor. I'd wager that the percentage of 9/11 Truthers who are democrats is VASTLY lower than the number who would define themselves as either libertarian or paleoconservative. I can vouch for this as a former truther.
Well, then you can use an addon to block content from there, or reroute it to 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 via /etc/hosts or c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
I'm sorry, but 'knew about 9/11 in advance' is not '9/11 was an inside job.' Thirty five percent is a minority, and 'not sure' means 'not sure,' so I'm in the majority.
Please report to remedial English, and after that, remedial math, m'kay?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
And as pointed out below the 'polling' company who put forward those results has been caught cooking the books. They were so bad even most liberal sites have been trying to disassociate themselves from their findings.
Using Reasearch2000 as an accurate polling source is akin to using Tiger Woods as a source for marriage advice.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
I don't think it actually shows Americans are crazy, I think it reflects the deep-set distrust Americans have of their government. And this is something that extends from the left to the right. And it's probably a good thing.
It would be a good thing if it was a distrust of government in general. But as it is, it's the distrust of the government so long as your party is not in charge.
... Or the fact that hes called a Communist and a Nazi at the same time. When the idiots don't realize the Communists fought against the Nazis.
Bullshit. She was explaining how she overcame her racial biases and helped the farmer after the white lawyer she sent him to screwed up. The farmer's wife even went on air to defend the lady.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
the right, especially the religious right, that excels at propogating misinformation.
Perhaps because religion left or right excels at propagating misinformation?
There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.
In this pool the question is somewhat unclear.
The question could go either: Did Bush have the intelligence warning that there is going to be an imminent attack on US but didn't do anything about it? (my answer is Yes, just google 'Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US') OR Did US government orchestrated the destruction of WTC? (Then my answer is a definite no.)
Anyway I don't think that the belief that US government might be behind 9/11, given that how the administration lied about the invasion of Iraq, is as misguided as anything that contains words 'Obama', 'secret', 'terrorist' and 'muslim' in the same sentence.
More specifically, because the religious left or right care about information, but don't care whether it's scientifically verifiable or not. The thing is, religion, by it's very nature is conservative. Change contradicts 1,000-year-old scripture.
To be fair, anyone educated in the last 50 years has been indoctrinated with some form of socialism; but not only does Obama have a lot of socialist views so do most of the far right bashing him for those views. The 'secret Muslim' conspiracy is wacko and wouldn't matter even if it was true.
Ok, for the birth-ers you're gonna have to bear with me a second. I don't buy it, nor do I think it would matter even if it was true. The claim was that he wasn't born in the US, lets say they are right, his mother was still a US citizen so he would still be able to claim us citizenship from birth anyway. They also had some argument about the type of birth documentation that was needed, and the piece they were looking for was never given. Some lesser piece was. And at this point if it became that big a deal (which apparently it did) who is to say that he couldn't forge the document? But like I said it doesn't matter he was sworn in and it wouldn't change anything. About the only thing that would happen if it was true is that it would allow Arnold a presidential bid. So, does it deserve mocking? It was important enough to be in the constitution, but they should have dropped it as soon as he was sworn in.
Did anyone actually think there would be "death panels" in the health care bill? From what I got from all the news coverage about death panels it just seemed like people were saying this bill could lead to it. They were following the slippery slope to its soylent green conclusion. I believe the actual argument for death panels went more like: The new health care bill will raise health care costs to the government, which will in turn cause the government to first cut "unnecessary" services to health care, which some group will need to decide what will be cut, which at some later time maybe 20 years from now will require cuts to elderly care, which at some point became 'death panels'; but I don't think anyone honestly thought that the bill in its current form was going to have death panels in them. If people actually believed that, then maybe they do deserve mocking; to me I thought it was just hyperbole.
As for the TEA party, the neocons in there are messing the hole thing up. The core of the tea party was fiscal responsibility. Lower taxes and reduce spending. Anything beyond that doesn't belong in the TEA party. It makes it hard for the people in the middle to associate with the TEA party when they start taking on social issues. Sarah Palin is ripe for mockery and her support of the TEA party actual keeps a lot of people from the middle and left out of the party. If you want social conservatism join the GOP, if you just want the fiscal conservatism but not the social bigotry that is where the TEA party got its initial push. It really sucks that the neocons took it over.
Anyway. I don't fit anywhere politically anymore. I grew up republican, but can't stand their imperialistic foreign policy, stance on gay and abortion rights, position on the war on drugs, etc; but I do think they understand economics better in word, but not in deed. They talk like fiscal conservatives, but they spend as much as the democrats. So where does that put someone who wants to download unlimited media at under $20 a month, drink a beer on Sunday after mowing the lawn, smoke a joint when on vacation, go to a gay friends wedding, and stop getting raped on my income taxes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJd_vm9VhpU
was my favorite interview - congrats to the camera man for that shot setup..
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
>> They invite it, though, with [left] wing politicians calling [Bush] a [chimpanzee], a 'secret [Nazi] or [fascist], not [properly elected] in the U.S. because he [bribed the Supreme Court and stole the election]. Talking about death panels in the [secret prison camps] and [Guantanamo Bay], etc. And that's in the [DNC] itself, not just in the [Green] Party.
> Fixed that for you.
> I guess you forgot about that.
> Or else you endorse it.
I don't recall Democrat politicians calling Bush a Nazi or a chimp or saying he bribed the Supreme Court. Lots of that going on in the populace, of course. And if you think people weren't killed in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, you're kidding yourself. And there WERE massive voting machine irregularities during the 2000 election, for sure, in addition to ridiculous amounts of gerrymandering. There's a difference between reality and fantasy.
> POINT = There are idiots in both parties.
Absolutely.
The way Obama's been treated these past two years is no different than how Bush was treated the previous eight.
Bush got treated badly because of the way he mismanaged the office of President. Obama is being treated badly because he's part-black, because he's not a wacko religious crazy right winger, AND because he's mismanaging the office of President (though the valid complaints of his mismanagement seem to be coming from the Left, not the Right).
I'm sorry, but how does being robbed make you guilty of vote theft? Where does that investigation show that ACORN rigged the election? How does any of this address the made up pimp video? Breitbart lied, end of story.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
They also had some argument about the type of birth documentation that was needed, and the piece they were looking for was never given. Some lesser piece was.
Incorrect. Each state can name their 'birth certificate' document anything they want. What was supplied was what the state of Hawaii gives out. There were also birth notices in the newspapers of the time. Completely insane to think this was ever even a possibility of being true.
The core of the tea party was fiscal responsibility.
The CLAIMS of the core of the tea party being fiscal responsibility don't line up with the history of the people in the tea party. If those people had ever been concerned with size of government or government spending, they would've been up in arms (literally, like now) at what Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 did. They're all out of their mind. And then there's the simple fact that taxes are lower now than they've been in 50 years. This is not only a non-issue, it's a flat-out LIE. And then compare our low taxes with those of European nations who have a substantially higher standard of living. To think this is a problem is to have a complete disconnect with reality.
Anyway. I don't fit anywhere politically anymore. I grew up republican, but can't stand their imperialistic foreign policy, stance on gay and abortion rights, position on the war on drugs, etc; but I do think they understand economics better in word, but not in deed. They talk like fiscal conservatives, but they spend as much as the democrats. So where does that put someone who wants to download unlimited media at under $20 a month, drink a beer on Sunday after mowing the lawn, smoke a joint when on vacation, go to a gay friends wedding, and stop getting raped on my income taxes?
Well, you certainly don't fit in the Republican party, and, at age 43, I can say that the Republican party I know of has never in my lifetime been one in which you would've belonged. You're WAAAAY closer to a modern Democrat than a Republican of any modern era. Democrats don't like taxes either, you know, but realize that the bills have to be paid if we want services from government. I don't know why Republicans think paying the bills is a 'liberal' thing. Fiscal responsibility certainly doesn't describe the GOP.
Pretty much the entire Obama era so far has been an example of the left experiencing all the things they did to the right and an administration doing all the things Bush did. The country didn't change at all.
Pretty much the entire Obama era so far has been an example of the right projecting all the things they did onto the left and the Democrats doing all the things in the Republican's interest. The country didn't change at all.
Thought I'd fix that for you.
I find it interesting that the Republican talking points are an extreme example of projection. If they accuse someone of embezzlement, or pretty much anything, you can be sure of three things:
a. They really believe it and always will, no matter how much you point out facts that prove them wrong
b. That when said facts disagree with their worldview, they will accuse the source of being left wing and biased and therefore by definition incorrect
c. That somewhere, they are actually doing the same thing they are accusing the left of, except much more efficiently and effectively.
Examples of this would be the family values thing, the deficit thing, the not giving a fuck about the veterans thing, the being in the pocket of industry thing, the government program = welfare thing (i.e. a huge amount of the defense budget), the racism thing, the litmus test thing, the only policy being that to gain power politically thing no matter what the cost to the country thing, the voter intimidation thing, the voter fraud thing...
I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Well, probably not, but whatever. I'm going to go back and watch the continuing subjugation of our citizens to the almighty dollar. Hopefully I can continue to afford to buy popcorn.
At some point, we can only hope, people are going to accept the most simple explanation, that Germany and Russia both wanted a chunk of Poland and that's why there was an alliance between the two, and at one point further down the road, Germany needed oil and eastern territory more than it needed Russian acquiescence, and so the alliance collapsed.
The idea that communism and fascism are some sort of ideological fusion, and that this fact has any effect on history, is hokum, and both Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were driven by their leadership's self-interest and geopolitical pressures, and that their ideology had nothing to do with it. Unfortunately we are damned to live among people who expect history to have an ideologically consistent basis, so that the "bad guys" and the "good guys" can have nice, narrative-ready reasons for losing and winning, instead of having to accept that the outcome was simply a consequence of many practical decisions made in the heat of the moment that could have just as easily gone the other way. Asking someone what their ideological attitude about private property is, or what they believe constitutes a "nation" or "people," tells you almost nothing about wether they are "good" or "Evil" or if they'll naturally agree with someone else on issues that happen to have a confluence of interest.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Commentators are elected politicians now?
Hint: the right is actually (re)ELECTING people who say this stuff.
On the left, I think we only have that one crazy georgia congresswoman (cynthia mckinney), and we had the decency not to reelect her.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Isn't "slow news day" what Idle is for?
>>>Bush got treated badly because of the way he mismanaged the office of President. Obama is being treated badly because he's part-black, because he's not a wacko
No. He's being treated badly because he's Bush Part 2. Bush increased the national debt +0.5 trillion per year, while Obama made it jump +1.5 trillion in just. The CBO projects +1 trillion every year until 2020. So Obama is increasing the debt at double the rate Bush did.
Obama's broken promises:
1 - Stop snatching people off streets. Provide a Right to fair trial. (No longer have Miranda rights even for U.S. citizens.) (Can be held indefinitely w/o trial)
2 - Right to Privacy (They now spy on us via warrantless wiretaps and track our cellphones) (Patriot Act renewed by Obama.)
3 - No interrogation. Close Guantanamo. (Revoked - now they interrogate American citizens too.)
4 - End the war. (Now it's been extended two more years.)
Obama's not being criticized because of his color, but because he lied to us. It wouldn't matter if he was as pale-white as Bill Clinton - he'd still be disliked by those of us who Fear government (and for good reason - study history).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The video was taken in 1986. Please explain what a 24 year old video tells us about the NAACP of today, which has actually denounced even suspected racists in their midst.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
P.S.
I'm also pissed because Obama signed the Patriot Renewal Act. What the hell??? Didn't Obama say he's repeal that piece of shit? Obama should have vetoed it as soon as it crossed his desk.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>When the idiots don't realize the Communists fought against the Nazis.
There's no stronger fight than brother against brother. They were originally partners (prior to 1920s) and only split later on
Not true. The SA (brownshirts) in the early nazi party, being recruted mostly from the working class, where in favor of social reform but they sent out street brawlers to beat up communists and disrupt communist gatherings (in fact they were partly formed out of anti-communist militias battling communist putsch attempts.) They were also later put aside when the nazis were firmly in power. There was the infamous non-agression pact with Stalin of course but that didn't keep both countries from secretly preparing for war with each other.
The only difference between the National Socialists and the Communists is that the Natsi Party wanted to keep companies privatized. The Communist Party did not. In all other aspects they are almost identical - strong centralized power. - Elimination of undesirable populations. - Rise of a cult figure (Mussolini and Stalin respectively). Control of the media to spread propaganda. 5 or 10 year economic plans.
And on and on and on
You have a point when comparing Stalinism (which you are describing as opposed to communism) to Naziism which seems logical because they were both dictatorships. There have also been a lot of capitalist dictatorships that have shared all those traits.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
As well as Germans, Nazis, Russians and Communists.
All four of those are VERY different things and no two of them are synonymous to each other.
Or maybe I am wrong.
Maybe in your universe Fascist is synonymous with Italian and American is synonymous with racist cowboys?
Also, as someone has pointed out below - Nazis and Fascists were ALWAYS actively against Communists.
Regardless of the Hitler-Stalin pact - which was a ruse for both sides, only it was German dictator who decided to break it first.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
And then there's the simple fact that taxes are lower now than they've been in 50 years. This is not only a non-issue, it's a flat-out LIE
Right, what was one of the first things that the Obama administration did? They advocated for and passed what could be considered the biggest tax cut in US history. And mere weeks after this happens these tea party clowns rise up and start ranting about Obama and taxes. If they believed a word of what they claim to believe then you really have got to wonder where they were while Bush was spending us into huge debts with needless wars and when Bush signed off on the massive bailout bill just months earlier.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
What is so difficult to understand about that?
Maybe it's difficult to understand because you're wrong.
Yeah, Regan's tax cuts brought in so much money the national debt went through the roof. Wait...that does not sound right. Regan's policies were a complete failure.
It's derived from the same place we get the word nigger.
The two words are not derived from the same place.
Definition and history of "niggardly". Possibly Scandinavian origin, 14th century.
Definition and history of "nigger". French and Spanish origin, 17th century.
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. --Hofstadter's Law
And why would black people have a problem with the word niggardly? It's derived from the same place we get the word nigger.
Wow, you're over-sensitive and ignorant. The words are not etymologically related. Two seconds of research could have told you that. Niggardly comes from the same root words as "niggling details", Niggle comes from the Old Norse word "Nigla" which means, "To fuss about small matters."
However, the more inflamatory term comes from the Latin "niger," meaning "black".Although it is more likely to come from the Americanization of the Spanish version of "negro", namely negero.
Not only do they not come from the same source, they don't even come from the same root language.
Do Italians get to declare a racist epithet when someone yells out "Swap" because it's close to the sound of "wop"? I'm of German descent, can I complain when someone talks about their "route" because it's close to "kraut"?
Words mean things, and even the head of the NAACP said that people who take "niggardly" as a racial slur need to be given a dictionary.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
Calling the Nazi party 'national socialists' makes about as much sense as calling North Korea the 'democratic peoples republic of korea'. I hope you read this because it's an important lesson for you.
mediocrity rules, man
And why would black people have a problem with the word niggardly? It's derived from the same place we get the word nigger.
False.
Niggardly: From the Norse word nigla - "to fuss about small matters"
Nigger: From the latin Niger - "Black" through Spanish, Portuguese, or French.
They are false cognates of each other, words that sound the same but have different meanings and origins. It's entirely possible that given how common your misinformed view is that there are people who say 'niggardly' in a racist way, but from a purely linguistically and historical view there is nothing racist about the word. Ignoring that fact and calling everyone who uses the word racist is dishonest at best.
It was a lot faster to type than "that time that she fired the Public Safety Commissioner of Alaska because he refused allow her to abuse her power by firing her ex-brother-in-law as as an act of revenge during a family squabble". Plus, both google and wikipedia will redirect any uninformed parties very quickly if search for the term.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
The fact that's it's just plain wrong?
You just proved you did not read the explanitory page offered to you.
And why would black people have a problem with the word niggardly? It's derived from the same place we get the word nigger.
From that linked page:
"Niggardly" (noun: "niggard") is an adjective meaning "stingy" or "miserly", perhaps related to the Old Norse verb nigla = "to fuss about small matters". It is cognate with "niggling", meaning "petty" or "unimportant", as in "the niggling details".
"Nigger" derives from the Spanish/Portuguese word negro, meaning "black", and probably also the French nègre, which likewise has become a racist insult in American culture. Both negro and noir (and therefore also nègre and nigger) ultimately come from nigrum, the accusative case of the Latin word niger, meaning "black".
So the words have different origins, different meanings, they just sound similar.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
And why would black people have a problem with the word niggardly? It's derived from the same place we get the word nigger.
Wrong. This is the problem. Just because words might sound similar, doesn't mean they come from the same place.
Nigger's earliest appearance in English was in the 16th century, coming from the Spanish word Negro as a pejorative for blacks.
Niggardly comes from Niggard, which first appears in the 14th century and is likely to come from a Swedish word, which just means "stingy".
Actually, the video was from March of this year (2010) - Sherrod was relating an event that took place in 1986. Just trying to keep the facts straight (an impossible task, I know)
Arguing that communists and nazis can be considered the same is the like categorizing apples and oranges are of the same family because they both grow on trees
You tea baggers are all the same. Ignorant and dumb as a bag of rocks
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
I am also quite impressed with how many people have been convinced that the executive branch of our federal government is some mysterious shamanistic coven that totally baffles the dunderheads that plague the legislative branch. Although I do not work in Washington D.C. politics, it seems likely that Senators (not an easy job to get in the first place) have plenty of experience working closely with most, if not all, of the executive branch. Also, I'm not sure it helps your position when your political party chose to run someone with "zero executive experience" in the last presidential election.
No, "guaranteed incompetence" does not trump "possible incompetence".
Calling a german kid a kraut today is meaningless - he doesn't experience any racism due to his German heritage.
In other words, racism is ok as long as the target isn't a member of an approved ethnic group.To rebut your argument here, by being called a "Kraut", the German kid is indeed experiencing racism due to his German heritage.
It wasn't until after the Stalin regime that the Comintern or "international communism" was considered to be a joke. It was considered a real entity in 1939, and had real adherents.
The cooperation of Western communists, on Stalin's orders, was invaluable to the Nazis before June 22, 1941. That isn't Russian - French, British, etc communists.
I think you might have a pear/apple issue yourself, or are badly misinformed.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Just that makes this pretty big news I think..
For fuck's sake, they used Communists as an excuse to form the Axis.
Oh, and this little anecdotal piece of history should give you a clue just HOW Nazis treated Communists.
And if you are particularly dense about believing in YOUR lies instead of proven truth...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps#Camps_before_the_war
The first camp in Germany, Dachau was opened in March 1933,[5] The press statement given at the opening stated:
"On Wednesday the first concentration camp is to be opened in Dachau with an accommodation for 5000 persons.
'All Communists and--where necessary--Reichsbanner and Social Democratic functionaries who endanger state security are to be concentrated here, as in the long run it is not possible to keep individual functionaries in the state prisons without overburdening these prisons, and on the other hand these people cannot be released because attempts have shown that they persist in their efforts to agitate and organise as soon as they are released.'[5]
But yeah, sure...
Nazis were cooperating with Communists AND putting them into concentration camps at the same time.
Shit.. those must have been some awkward meetings.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
can I complain when someone talks about their "route" because it's close to "kraut"?
I just wanted to congratulate you on being able to pronounce "route" correctly. I can't say the same for most, sadly.
not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
I can't magically cure the deficiencies afflicting urban cultures, but I think some changes in federal and state policies would help. For example, eliminate the minimum wage, institute school vouchers, legalize recreational drug and other victimless crimes (including complete amnesty for people convicted of these crimes), and eliminate laws that discriminate based on ethnicity (such as hiring quotas and related law). Many of these seem counterintuitive. For example, laws that prohibit discrimination based on race have the unintended consequence of making it legally risky to hire or even interview people of particular ethnicity.
Eliminating the minimum wage seems unintuitive as well until you realize that the alternative to paying someone a higher wage is simply to not pay them at all. Given the high unemployment rate in blacks, that's precisely what is happening. Many of them simply are unemployable at current minimum wage.
School vouchers are pretty straightforward. Urban schools are notorious for failing to do their job, even with the reduced resources at their disposal. School vouchers would give parents some bargaining power that they currently don't have with dysfunctional public schools.
Finally, the legalization of a broad category of crime is a pretty straightforward benefit for blacks and similar urban minorities. It both frees a number of minorities from jail so that they can be more productive members of society than merely holding down a jail cot, perhaps even opening up some legal avenues of work (such as prostitution). And it vastly lowers the cost of living with an addiction to a drug. They no longer need to run a high risk, criminal career in order to feed a habit. Finally, it reduces the power of criminal cultures and their pernicious influence on modern (not just urban) culture.
You mean "root" and "kroot"?