Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Rules for Being a Republican.
February 4, 2004 8:16 PM   Subscribe

Rules for Being a Republican. (~wink~)
posted by fold_and_mutilate (51 comments total)

 
How to be a Good Democrat (~chuckle~)
posted by hama7 at 8:21 PM on February 4, 2004


The republican one was dumb but, man, that democrat one is ridiculous.
posted by jpoulos at 8:28 PM on February 4, 2004


Is it centrist beyond any possible sympathy to think they're both substantially true? (~blush~)

Oh and stop using legitimate Iberian tildes ( Não! Or at least wait till mañana or amanhã) for nefarious purposes! ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:28 PM on February 4, 2004


(~fart~)
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:36 PM on February 4, 2004


Is it centrist beyond any possible sympathy to think they're both substantially true?

As for myself, I think... what's that smell? Ah, the scent of freshly stuffed straw men.

Probably won't scare off the crows.
posted by namespan at 8:37 PM on February 4, 2004


I honestly thought you'd grown out of that habit, f&m. (~sigh~)

Additionally, the "rules" are kind of lame - why are some of them "you have to believe" and others "you believe" and still others just statements of "fact"? If you're lambasting people for inconsistency, it's probably good to do it in a consistent manner.
posted by soyjoy at 8:40 PM on February 4, 2004


As for myself, I think... what's that smell? Ah, the scent of freshly stuffed straw men.

That's crash you're smelling. He's been eating hay again.
posted by trondant at 8:42 PM on February 4, 2004


I think I'll forward this to some friends and co-workers as an email!!!!
posted by Spacelegoman at 8:43 PM on February 4, 2004


I thought both those pages were pretty funny, actually. But I don't take my politics as seriously as my southern neighbours do, which is wrong of me, I know.
posted by ashbury at 8:47 PM on February 4, 2004


[this is shit]
posted by inpHilltr8r at 8:48 PM on February 4, 2004


and the lesson is: stop believing what you have to and start believing what you want to

so finishes todays after school special

thanks for the post
posted by NGnerd at 8:48 PM on February 4, 2004


Additionally, the "rules" are kind of lame - why are some of them "you have to believe" and others "you believe" and still others just statements of "fact"? If you're lambasting people for inconsistency, it's probably good to do it in a consistent manner.

Not that the list is amazing, but I'd say that was a conscious choice to give it variety. If they were all stated as commands it would read like a list of orders, which would change the voice and maybe distract from the impact.
posted by abcde at 8:51 PM on February 4, 2004


Both Republicans and Democrats, by the mere virtue of being political, skew their priorities according to their ideological premisses, whilst hopelessly trying to appear to defend the interests of the "whole nation"; i.e. hypocritical.

This is as it should be. Politics has to be partial. It's about saying X is important but Y is more and Z (although it's just as partial as X or Y) is universal.

So both satires can be true - and even helpful, if properly decoded.

I'll always remember my first Government I lecture in Manchester University - which I duly turned into my own first lecture when I became a professor - in which the very first definition of politics, from Harold Lasswell in the 40s, was "Who should get what, how, why and when".

It's an old-fashioned concept. There's a limited "cake" of social and economic resources considered to be valuable (power, education, health, money) which has to be distributed among the population.

The way you cut the cake - according to the simple questions ("Who? What portion? How? Why? When?") - is still a great indicator of one's political viewpoint. And pleasantly free of concepts such as "distributive justice", although addressing them entirely.

Politics is opinions about how to make, bake and divide the cake, along with the justifications for doing so.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:52 PM on February 4, 2004


Are these "Republicans" and "Democrats" something you need a television to have heard of?
posted by subgenius at 8:57 PM on February 4, 2004


Miguel: Conservative satire, whether by tradition or necessity, tends somewhat to be more focused on ideology, whereas liberal satire tends toward pointing out inconsistencies. Both appear skewed in their own way toward their own ideology; the right because they don't stop talking about it and the left because they take it for granted.
posted by abcde at 9:01 PM on February 4, 2004


(~pull~)
posted by homunculus at 9:08 PM on February 4, 2004


[this is a turd]

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that "Hillary Clinton" is the only name on both lists.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:19 PM on February 4, 2004


That's a good point, abcde, and that stands out so well in both these pages. Although the right seem to take their ideology of moral absolutism for granted too - bitter complaints about gays in hama7's link a case in point. But, as Migs has pointed out, if you can't admit that about three quarters of points on both lists are actually true, you should probably chill out a bit.
posted by Jimbob at 9:24 PM on February 4, 2004


Very charitable, abcde, but I think you're giving this more credit than it deserves - if there was some conscious attempt at rule-to-rule variety, why are 18 out of the 25 "rules" you-have-to-believes, sometimes five in a row? Why aren't any other formulations used (like, "Remember..." "Keep telling yourself that..." or "If someone...")?

Let's get real: This isn't like the Onion's well-polished tips on how to do something, where each tip goes off into a new and unexpected voice/perspective to achieve a humorous effect; it's just sloppy writing. And since the only point of this is to take an ideological critique (one with which I completely agree, of course) and put it into a witty format, well, if your format fails, what is there?
posted by soyjoy at 9:29 PM on February 4, 2004


hey fold and mutilate, what's with the B-list material? What - the fuck - don't you know it's an election year. Let's all wake up and pitch in: the site is not going to troll itself!
(~zhink)
posted by crunchburger at 9:32 PM on February 4, 2004


Actually, I think it was a natural attempt at variety. They naturally tended toward not having every list item start with the same words, but they didn't contrive it. So it is sloppy writing, but I wouldn't say they wanted each item to look the same.
posted by abcde at 9:35 PM on February 4, 2004


Rules for being a fool:

1. If a fact conflicts with a belief, dismiss the fact.
2. If something is uncomfortable to contemplate, it must be false.
3. The greater the number of people who agree, the truer the statement.
4. Beliefs one currently holds are more likely to be correct than beliefs one has been recently exposed to.
5. Vehemence correlates with truth.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 9:57 PM on February 4, 2004


aeschenkarnos, you are my hero.
posted by velacroix at 10:07 PM on February 4, 2004


3a: The fewer the number of people who agree, the truer the statement
posted by turbodog at 10:29 PM on February 4, 2004


(~modest bow~)

Thanks for the compliment, Velacroix. :) Although it does inspire another couple of points ...

6. The source of information is more important than its content.
7. The source of information is not important at all.

And so on. It's always easier to be a fool. That's the hell of it.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 10:38 PM on February 4, 2004


Turbodog, good point. (~tips hat~)
posted by aeschenkarnos at 10:41 PM on February 4, 2004


mathowie must be incapacitated!
posted by rhyax at 10:46 PM on February 4, 2004


That was genuinely very funny, rhyax! Unlike, say, this post, which was kind of pathetic, even for this chump.
posted by jonson at 10:57 PM on February 4, 2004


Ya know the thing is that i have heard people state and act on those views (sometimes not both at once or by the same people) and claim to be republicans or conservatives. However the thing about the 'democrats' is just made up as i haven't heard express those particular opinions.
posted by MrLint at 11:11 PM on February 4, 2004


My favorite part of this post is the part where it was a worthless, myopic troll. Good times..
posted by dhoyt at 11:32 PM on February 4, 2004


Oops, forgot:

(~barf~)
posted by dhoyt at 11:34 PM on February 4, 2004


From the republican list: 16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and really a very nice person.

Dear right-wing america: maybe you should give those meds a try.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:30 AM on February 5, 2004


Nothing will ever change until you bastards stop your idiotic Republicans vs. Democrats In A Cage Match To The Death nonsense and realize you're all getting taken for a freakin' ride.

Really disappointingly bad and unfunny post, foldy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:06 AM on February 5, 2004


I mean all the points on both lists are lazy caricatures. But this one, on the Democrats list was really amusing:

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

It's obvious of course that you can flip it around (replace bad with good and good with bad) and then put it on the other list. Its just an acute reminder of how thought and logic and discourse get subsumed by a bumper-sticker slogan.

This post made me momentarily ashamed to be a liberal until I looked inside and saw hama7's post thankfully reminding me that idiotic extremists occupy both sides of the fence.
posted by vacapinta at 1:36 AM on February 5, 2004


an article which may be somewhat relevant to the discourse here.

Is Britain becoming too diverse to sustain the mutual obligations behind good society and the welfare state?
posted by johnnyboy at 1:43 AM on February 5, 2004


Politics is opinions about how to make, bake and divide the cake, along with the justifications for doing so.

but complicated by viewpoints about how to make the cake bigger?
posted by biffa at 1:56 AM on February 5, 2004


I was only able to read through the first five on both.
posted by rudyfink at 2:30 AM on February 5, 2004


but complicated by viewpoints about how to make the cake bigger?

... and what constitutes a "cake", and what "bigger" means, and what does and does not cause the cake to be made or unmade, and whether the cake in fact exists, and whether there is one, a few or many cakes, and whether or not there is icing on the cake, and what kind of action is dividing the cake, and whether the cake can be divided, and who ought to do the dividing, and whether slices of negative or imaginary size can be cut, and whether the cake ought to be divided, and whether previous or future methods of division have a bearing on the matter, and whether the cake is to be colored pink, yellow, or in an another color or an imaginary color or no color at all, and whether the cake is stationary or in motion or both, and whether the cake is cut by the knife or the knife cuts the cake, and whether the hand that holds the knife is invisible or belongs to an intelligent entity or moves randomly or is dead, and whether the action of cutting the cake has an effect upon the cake-matter, and whether the baker or the buyer or both ought to decide how the cake is cut, and what kind of knife ought to be used, and whether the knife has real existence or is merely a rhetorical device (as with the cake), and whether the action of cutting might or might not affect the size that future slices may be cut at, and the angle of the cuts ....
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:40 AM on February 5, 2004


In other words, those with the most influence, control the terms of the "debate". I quit seeing differences between Dems and Pubs years ago. Why can't more Americans?
posted by infowar at 4:46 AM on February 5, 2004


Politics is opinions about how to make, bake and divide the cake, along with the justifications for doing so.

but complicated by viewpoints about how to make the cake bigger?


No, no, no. That's "grow the pie higher." Our current creator of malapropisms is very creative this way.
posted by nofundy at 4:54 AM on February 5, 2004


The republican one was dumb but, man, that democrat one is ridiculous.

poulos, don't take this personally, but is that because the jokes on your side? Isn't that just carrying the silly shouting match further?

Ah, I dunno. Both lists catch the worst/stupidest tendencies of both groups pretty well. And was somewhat amusing.

Which tells me that no matter their political affiliation, human beings are often full of shit. And that we seem to judge people on both sides of the political fence by the actions of the mouthiest and stupidest of their affilliates. It's become a big clusterfuck. It sounds nuts, but until people prove otherwise, I try to assume that people (Dem and Repub) hold their beliefs out of 1)healthy self-interest and 2)a genuine belief that their party will make things better. Now, I could be wrong, but maybe I'd rather be wrong than so toxically cynical. And then again maybe this is why I find politics so distasteful.
posted by jonmc at 6:24 AM on February 5, 2004


(~the bird~) ...and it's all because of stupid fuckin' knuckleheads like "you".
posted by Witty at 6:44 AM on February 5, 2004


thanks jon, i feel better informed.

rules for the terrorist doctor
posted by clavdivs at 6:56 AM on February 5, 2004


hama7, if you're going to link to my site, link to the whole story, not just the parts that suit you. (Please note, however, that I think the list fold_and_mutilate linked to is better than the one I wrote.)
posted by RylandDotNet at 6:57 AM on February 5, 2004


Actually, I think it was a natural attempt at variety. They naturally tended toward not having every list item start with the same words, but they didn't contrive it.

The whole thing is contrived, but whatever. I can't speak for what's "naturally" going on in the writer's mind, but it comes off as stupid and sloppy, adopting a rigid format as its supposed source of humor, and then failing to even be true to that. Without wit, it's just repetitive browbeating.

</repetetive browbeating>
posted by soyjoy at 7:11 AM on February 5, 2004


I just realized that hama7 must have done a Google search. It would have freaked me out to know that he was a regular reader of my blog.
posted by RylandDotNet at 7:40 AM on February 5, 2004


Don't flatter yourself.
posted by Witty at 9:13 AM on February 5, 2004


The Flower Strikes Again!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:20 AM on February 5, 2004


Obligatory self-link: "Brief Republican Field Guide to California Liberals", which because of its semi-related page title, was on the 10 ten Google searches for "enemas" for several weeks. Google is broken, but so am I.
posted by wendell at 9:25 AM on February 5, 2004


Hey, this is a great thread!

Way to go!

Chain e-mails are definitely good FPP material!


So foldy, maybe some time you can let us all know what your political views are. I am sure we would all love to know.
posted by Seth at 9:34 AM on February 5, 2004


I guess part of the confusion with the pie scenario is the fact that there's no such thing as a Republican or Democrat. Sure, the Republican and Democratic parties exist and people register or affiliate themselves with the party but how can anybody tell me that the guy with the American flag on his lunch box working a union factory job is the same as some guy marching in a SF anti-war rally with a Bush = Hitler sign? By the same token not every fiscal conservative who thinks the government should do a few jobs well instead of trying to do a lot of things poorly goes out and shoots abortion doctors for kicks.

People have many, many different interests and they choose whichever side promises them the bigger slice of the pie. So union guys register Democrat because the party tends to support unions and middle class wage earners tend to vote for Republicans in the hopes that they can ease their tax burden. Of course, you might have a union guy who is 100% NRA and he might vote Republican because that issue is so important to him that he's willing to live with a less union-friendly government and a middle class guy might care so much about the environment that his taxes are a secondary concern. In the end though, very, very few adopt the party philosophy lock, stock and barrel . . . except the extremists.

I think both the Dean implosion and Arnie-mania are lessons to be learned by both parties. Dean appealed to the extreme left of the Democratic Party and the rank and file Democrats punted on him because they don't believe in his views. Arnold was a Republican running in a liberal state that had a history of putting up extremist Republicans (and losing) and he won an overwhelming percentage of the votes. Sooner of later the Democratic and Republican party need to realize that the vast majority of the nation is centrist with a slight leaning in one direction or the other and quit pandering to the extremist in their respective parties.

Lists like this FPP only illustrate the extremism of the person posting them.
posted by billman at 4:43 PM on February 5, 2004


« Older Asian Tradition in Architecture....  |  This Amazing Software... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments