Seeing the Other Side
August 11, 2006 4:52 AM Subscribe
Thanks to Peace Moonbeam's weblog, I now truly understand my liberal friends. And for those willing to reciprocate, Shelley the Republican is a similar blog from the opposite end of the spectrum.
So, I guess here would be a good place to Jesus' General:
Gen JC Christian, Patriot.
posted by The Giant Squid at 4:55 AM on August 11, 2006
Gen JC Christian, Patriot.
posted by The Giant Squid at 4:55 AM on August 11, 2006
American Political Bloggers™: Sledgehammer satire since 1998.
posted by i_cola at 4:58 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by i_cola at 4:58 AM on August 11, 2006
MetaFilter: is the fat one on the left.
posted by Captaintripps at 5:02 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by Captaintripps at 5:02 AM on August 11, 2006
The General's blog is actually more on par with Peace's. That Shelley the Republican one, though, stays scarily in character -- even the ads don't give it away.
posted by CodeBaloo at 5:14 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by CodeBaloo at 5:14 AM on August 11, 2006
Shelley's is way too well designed. Please remove the margins, graphics and punctuation.
posted by jsavimbi at 5:26 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by jsavimbi at 5:26 AM on August 11, 2006
(... just more proof that one man's un-modified satire is another man's un-intentional self-satire...)
posted by lodurr at 5:27 AM on August 11, 2006
From my personal european perspective: american political blogs are often filled with a lot of hate and anger, that is way beyond the 'democratic' process. This reflects IMHO the overall development in american society.
As much as enjoy a good political debate this smells more like a culture war. Political pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter plus their audiences remind me a lot of the 'hate moments' in 1984. Also the use of language, group think and the limitations on civil rights in the US are very orwellian (with a lot of Jesus on top).
So maybe these two blogs are on the freakish / cynical end of the spectrum, but there is a solid 'base' of political hate, distrust, group think and minds set into stone behind it.
I guess you could compare the power of blogs to of 17th century Pamphleteers, but so far the US of A seems to lose it's Common Sense of such great men like Thomas Paine.
Great ideas - like from the Age of Reason - often cause wars to get rid of old political limits and overcome ideas in societies. But you can also fight (cultural and real) wars to keep the status quo.
posted by homodigitalis at 5:49 AM on August 11, 2006 [3 favorites]
As much as enjoy a good political debate this smells more like a culture war. Political pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter plus their audiences remind me a lot of the 'hate moments' in 1984. Also the use of language, group think and the limitations on civil rights in the US are very orwellian (with a lot of Jesus on top).
So maybe these two blogs are on the freakish / cynical end of the spectrum, but there is a solid 'base' of political hate, distrust, group think and minds set into stone behind it.
I guess you could compare the power of blogs to of 17th century Pamphleteers, but so far the US of A seems to lose it's Common Sense of such great men like Thomas Paine.
Great ideas - like from the Age of Reason - often cause wars to get rid of old political limits and overcome ideas in societies. But you can also fight (cultural and real) wars to keep the status quo.
posted by homodigitalis at 5:49 AM on August 11, 2006 [3 favorites]
Man, both sides of the electorate have a really distorted stereotype of eachother.
posted by jonmc at 6:33 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by jonmc at 6:33 AM on August 11, 2006
God. He hates fags. How do we know? The Bible tells us so. And that’s the Word Of God.
This image actually shows Him controlling the weather. Do you still need proof, you foolish liberals?!
well, I'm convinced...
posted by Eirixon at 6:33 AM on August 11, 2006
This image actually shows Him controlling the weather. Do you still need proof, you foolish liberals?!
well, I'm convinced...
posted by Eirixon at 6:33 AM on August 11, 2006
Yup.
Satire is hard to write when reality is so surreal to begin with.
And to second (third?) the previous comments... yes, Jesus General and even that chick who writes about Condi's hair do a better job than those two sites.
posted by j-dub at 6:34 AM on August 11, 2006
Satire is hard to write when reality is so surreal to begin with.
And to second (third?) the previous comments... yes, Jesus General and even that chick who writes about Condi's hair do a better job than those two sites.
posted by j-dub at 6:34 AM on August 11, 2006
Yeah, after taking a look at both, nothing to see here, move along . . .
posted by mk1gti at 6:49 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by mk1gti at 6:49 AM on August 11, 2006
Clearly the storms and floods aren’t caused by some invisible gas that you can’t even smell, as liberals like to claim (because that’s crazy!). The answer is far more simple: God is angry.
Yeah, angry that we fucked the planet up. *Ctrl-F4*
posted by Hanover Phist at 7:06 AM on August 11, 2006
Yeah, angry that we fucked the planet up. *Ctrl-F4*
posted by Hanover Phist at 7:06 AM on August 11, 2006
Boring, unfunny.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:06 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:06 AM on August 11, 2006
Hmm, odd. I found both sites and General Jesus very funny. It's looking like I may have underestimated the importance folks attach to their own labels and/or overestimated the breadth of parody's appeal. Oh well, c'est la vie.
...when reality is so surreal to begin with
j-dub -- That's sorta the point... why many find these types of sites funny. These caricatures of liberals and conservatives are exactly what more and more people truly believe comprises the majority of "the other team". Those rubes are the folks these sites are really making fun of.
posted by CodeBaloo at 7:29 AM on August 11, 2006
...when reality is so surreal to begin with
j-dub -- That's sorta the point... why many find these types of sites funny. These caricatures of liberals and conservatives are exactly what more and more people truly believe comprises the majority of "the other team". Those rubes are the folks these sites are really making fun of.
posted by CodeBaloo at 7:29 AM on August 11, 2006
It's surprisingly difficult to tell whether Shelley the Republican is satire or just a collection of Coulter-style insane foaming-at-the-mouth ravings. Then again I sometimes have problems believing that Coulter, as a person, isn't a Colbert-like parody as opposed to being "serious".
posted by clevershark at 7:39 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by clevershark at 7:39 AM on August 11, 2006
But you can also fight (cultural and real) wars to keep the status quo.
a status quo, i should add, that is unsustainable ... the right jumped the shark of sanity years ago ... the left is jumping it right now ... "omg, the brits found terrorists to help lieberman!!"
history will record this - while the american political establishment argued bitterly over gay marriage and abortion, the average american's life slowly went to hell
and while the establishment squabbled over the middle east, latin america slid into civil strife and anarchy that affected the united states directly
with the exception of global warming, we've been concentrating on the wrong issues ...
posted by pyramid termite at 7:42 AM on August 11, 2006
a status quo, i should add, that is unsustainable ... the right jumped the shark of sanity years ago ... the left is jumping it right now ... "omg, the brits found terrorists to help lieberman!!"
history will record this - while the american political establishment argued bitterly over gay marriage and abortion, the average american's life slowly went to hell
and while the establishment squabbled over the middle east, latin america slid into civil strife and anarchy that affected the united states directly
with the exception of global warming, we've been concentrating on the wrong issues ...
posted by pyramid termite at 7:42 AM on August 11, 2006
I don't get it. While one is an obvious satire of a 'liberal' weblog, the other sounds like a typical conservative weblog.
posted by SenshiNeko at 7:48 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by SenshiNeko at 7:48 AM on August 11, 2006
These re-education camps wouldn’t cost a thing as they could be paid for out of the Liberals’ own pockets, diverting the money they would otherwise spend on drinking skinny lattes, ipods and Linux computer programs into something that’s actually useful for American society. They’d even have the added advantage of keeping Liberals away from the ballot box at election times (where they always try and ruin it for everyone!). There would be no fixed term duration for their stay, they would merely have to remain in the camps for as long as it takes for them to stop hating freedom and start loving Jesus.
posted by caddis at 7:51 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by caddis at 7:51 AM on August 11, 2006
She's no Russ Lieber. Now that's a liberal parody. I mean, if you're into that sort of thing. I can understand how everyone might not agree with me. Um... food for the revolution!
posted by fungible at 7:57 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by fungible at 7:57 AM on August 11, 2006
SenshiNeko -- "typical conservative weblog"? Really? Curious. For me, as a pretty-much-conservative, I see the exact opposite... the latter is the so-obviously-atypical-it-must-be-a-joke site.
On preview: OMFG... why do folks keep cutting a pasting like it's an authentic conservative blog?? It's goddamned satire! That's as ridiculous as supporting a point by cutting and pasting sections of The Onion!
posted by CodeBaloo at 8:01 AM on August 11, 2006
On preview: OMFG... why do folks keep cutting a pasting like it's an authentic conservative blog?? It's goddamned satire! That's as ridiculous as supporting a point by cutting and pasting sections of The Onion!
posted by CodeBaloo at 8:01 AM on August 11, 2006
The point is, it's hard to tell a genuine conservative site from the rantings of an extremist madman.
posted by clevershark at 8:09 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by clevershark at 8:09 AM on August 11, 2006
From the front page of "Peace Moonbeam":
Like I have to tell you
This is fictitious satire and any resemblance to persons, places, or events is coincidental.
Can anyone point me to a similar disclaimer anywhere on the Shelley site? 'Cause I can't find it.
posted by jlub at 8:15 AM on August 11, 2006
Like I have to tell you
This is fictitious satire and any resemblance to persons, places, or events is coincidental.
Can anyone point me to a similar disclaimer anywhere on the Shelley site? 'Cause I can't find it.
posted by jlub at 8:15 AM on August 11, 2006
And the co-point, and reason for linking to both sites, is it's hard to tell a genuine liberal site from the rantings of an extremist madman.
If the Peace Moonbeam entries (only, not the doctored pics, not conservative ads) were placed in a serious-looking format like the Shelley site, a bunch of folks on this side of the fence would just as readily be suckered into believing it was real.
That is more the point (at least my point): our own biases.
posted by CodeBaloo at 8:15 AM on August 11, 2006
If the Peace Moonbeam entries (only, not the doctored pics, not conservative ads) were placed in a serious-looking format like the Shelley site, a bunch of folks on this side of the fence would just as readily be suckered into believing it was real.
That is more the point (at least my point): our own biases.
posted by CodeBaloo at 8:15 AM on August 11, 2006
Jlub -- Not there. Anywhere. It was there until June of this year, then was pulled.
posted by CodeBaloo at 8:19 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by CodeBaloo at 8:19 AM on August 11, 2006
It's more of a satire of people's perceptions of the 'other', IMO, so kind of a boomerang satire, intentional or not.
posted by signal at 8:22 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by signal at 8:22 AM on August 11, 2006
Signal -- yeah, I see that, too. What's a little disturbing, though, is that few conservatives (at least in my circle) really believe the liberals are a bunch of Peace Moonbeams; but what I'm seeing here is that a hefty chunk of the left sees the right as a bunch of Shelleys.
posted by CodeBaloo at 8:29 AM on August 11, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by CodeBaloo at 8:29 AM on August 11, 2006 [1 favorite]
A lot of people here are going to hate Peace Moonbeam's site. And a lot of nerdy Simpsons fans hated "Homer Goes to College."
Coming from an unbiased standpoint (I'm hard left and I hate conservatives and don't have any affection for liberals), I would say that the author of Shelley is better at satire. It's just well done. Peace Moonbeam needs a new, subtler name and the subtlety in the entries need a shift of one or two degrees.
Conceptually, I like Moonbeams stories a little better. Shelley is just a dead-on parody of conservative blog entries that I can never finish anyway-- only a little more entertaining that the source material even though it's done perfectly. Moonbeam has adventures and a narrative, which makes it more fun to read and the whole point of proseltyzing (even in reverse) is to have people finish reading.
As for Moonbeam's existence, it's like that observation about a dog on its hind legs-- don't be upset that conservative doesn't do humor perfectly. Be impressed that it can do it even a bit.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:36 AM on August 11, 2006
Coming from an unbiased standpoint (I'm hard left and I hate conservatives and don't have any affection for liberals), I would say that the author of Shelley is better at satire. It's just well done. Peace Moonbeam needs a new, subtler name and the subtlety in the entries need a shift of one or two degrees.
Conceptually, I like Moonbeams stories a little better. Shelley is just a dead-on parody of conservative blog entries that I can never finish anyway-- only a little more entertaining that the source material even though it's done perfectly. Moonbeam has adventures and a narrative, which makes it more fun to read and the whole point of proseltyzing (even in reverse) is to have people finish reading.
As for Moonbeam's existence, it's like that observation about a dog on its hind legs-- don't be upset that conservative doesn't do humor perfectly. Be impressed that it can do it even a bit.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:36 AM on August 11, 2006
"Boomerang Satire," I like that. Like clevershark, I can't believe Ann Coulter is really serious--
posted by revonrut at 8:36 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by revonrut at 8:36 AM on August 11, 2006
CodeBaloo: "But what I'm seeing here is that a hefty chunk of the left sees the right as a bunch of Shelleys."
Not all of us, CodeBaloo. Some of us see you as Keatses and Byrons.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:39 AM on August 11, 2006 [1 favorite]
Not all of us, CodeBaloo. Some of us see you as Keatses and Byrons.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:39 AM on August 11, 2006 [1 favorite]
Might I modestly propose that we eat the children of satirists?
posted by BillyElmore at 8:39 AM on August 11, 2006 [2 favorites]
posted by BillyElmore at 8:39 AM on August 11, 2006 [2 favorites]
Some of us see you as Keatses and Byrons.
more like later wordsworth, i should think ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:44 AM on August 11, 2006
more like later wordsworth, i should think ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:44 AM on August 11, 2006
IRFH - How do ya type that bada-bing drum roll with the cymbal ching at the end?
posted by CodeBaloo at 8:46 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by CodeBaloo at 8:46 AM on August 11, 2006
Actually STR has to be satirical. No self-respecting right-wing blog would have a gay guest blogger (see the Schindler's List entry).
posted by clevershark at 8:48 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by clevershark at 8:48 AM on August 11, 2006
*rimshot*
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:48 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:48 AM on August 11, 2006
Right Wing political thinking on its own merit is unintentional satire.
When one reads the headline "Kissinger receives Nobel Peace Prize", all bets are off.
posted by wfc123 at 8:49 AM on August 11, 2006
Thanks sonofsamiam -- I brainfarted what it was called.
posted by CodeBaloo at 8:49 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by CodeBaloo at 8:49 AM on August 11, 2006
I am the Hitler of comedy.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:51 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:51 AM on August 11, 2006
That gives me an idea for a new blog: Cats That Look Like It's Raining Florence Henderson.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:01 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:01 AM on August 11, 2006
Am I the only person who thought that STR is also obvious?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:09 AM on August 11, 2006
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:09 AM on August 11, 2006
These re-education camps wouldn’t cost a thing as they could be paid for out of the Liberals’ own pockets, diverting the money they would otherwise spend on drinking skinny lattes, ipods and Linux computer programs
While "linux computer programs" do represent human effort and have a value, that value is normally expressed as $0.00, because few people BUY open source software.
So, is posting on the blue a re-education effort now being undertaken by the right?
posted by rough ashlar at 9:16 AM on August 11, 2006
While "linux computer programs" do represent human effort and have a value, that value is normally expressed as $0.00, because few people BUY open source software.
So, is posting on the blue a re-education effort now being undertaken by the right?
posted by rough ashlar at 9:16 AM on August 11, 2006
CB: few conservatives (at least in my circle) really believe the liberals are a bunch of Peace Moonbeams; but what I'm seeing here is that a hefty chunk of the left sees the right as a bunch of Shelleys
"Peace Moonbeam" is obviously a parody. It's so far-out and silly, since anyone who really thought or wrote like that would be the tenth-of-a-percent loony fringe. There's no popular liberal weblog or Democratic officeholder that I'm aware of who even remotely sounds like that, yet it's a stereotype that gets portrayed throughout the conservative-controlled mainstream media as being that of the center-left with no substantiation. "Shelley" on the other hand, seems to fit right into the mainstream of popular conservative thought - echoing the same common arguments made by Coulter/Limbaugh/Malkin/FoxNews of liberals as 'America hating traitors' and the hate speech and eliminationist rhetoric common on popular conservative sites like Little Green Footballs, combined with willfully blind faith-based religiosity. When Bush himself uses the stupidly simplistic "islamic fascists" line that has become the standard rightwing view of Islam, when Cheney states that voting for liberals emboldens Al Qaeda, when the RNC chairman says that Democrats want to surrender to terrorism... it's difficult to see the similar views of Shelley and laugh it off as merely satire. There are weblogs even crazier sounding than Shelley which are widely read on the Right, after all.
As noted above, The General does better at showing the silly side of The Right in a satirical way. Shelley sounds too real to be funny... "scarily in character", indeed.
posted by SenshiNeko at 9:21 AM on August 11, 2006 [1 favorite]
"Peace Moonbeam" is obviously a parody. It's so far-out and silly, since anyone who really thought or wrote like that would be the tenth-of-a-percent loony fringe. There's no popular liberal weblog or Democratic officeholder that I'm aware of who even remotely sounds like that, yet it's a stereotype that gets portrayed throughout the conservative-controlled mainstream media as being that of the center-left with no substantiation. "Shelley" on the other hand, seems to fit right into the mainstream of popular conservative thought - echoing the same common arguments made by Coulter/Limbaugh/Malkin/FoxNews of liberals as 'America hating traitors' and the hate speech and eliminationist rhetoric common on popular conservative sites like Little Green Footballs, combined with willfully blind faith-based religiosity. When Bush himself uses the stupidly simplistic "islamic fascists" line that has become the standard rightwing view of Islam, when Cheney states that voting for liberals emboldens Al Qaeda, when the RNC chairman says that Democrats want to surrender to terrorism... it's difficult to see the similar views of Shelley and laugh it off as merely satire. There are weblogs even crazier sounding than Shelley which are widely read on the Right, after all.
As noted above, The General does better at showing the silly side of The Right in a satirical way. Shelley sounds too real to be funny... "scarily in character", indeed.
posted by SenshiNeko at 9:21 AM on August 11, 2006 [1 favorite]
There's a bit of a cottage industry with spoof blogs out there. I was involved with a right wing parody blog that had about a dozen people. Even though we went way over the top with our parody, we had people from the left and right linking to us (from Atrios to The Moderate Voice to Blogs for Bush[0]).
How do you top things like "Defeatocrats"?
[0] - There's still a debate over whether B4B is serious or not
posted by ryoshu at 9:24 AM on August 11, 2006
How do you top things like "Defeatocrats"?
[0] - There's still a debate over whether B4B is serious or not
posted by ryoshu at 9:24 AM on August 11, 2006
"Shelley" on the other hand, seems to fit right into the mainstream of popular conservative thought - echoing the same common arguments made by Coulter/Limbaugh/Malkin/FoxNews of liberals as 'America hating traitors' [...]
Shelly also uses the same language that Stephen Colbert uses to make fun of the right-wing pundits.
posted by triolus at 9:42 AM on August 11, 2006
Shelly also uses the same language that Stephen Colbert uses to make fun of the right-wing pundits.
posted by triolus at 9:42 AM on August 11, 2006
clevershark: Then again I sometimes have problems believing that Coulter, as a person, isn't a Colbert-like parody as opposed to being "serious".
Coulter herself has been known to retreat to that defense when pressed. "Couldn't you humorless liberals see that I was only joking?"
It's a great tactic. If no one can ever tell when you're serious, no one can really tell how to effectively counter you. Hell, it's worked for Quonsar all these years...
posted by lodurr at 9:43 AM on August 11, 2006
Coulter herself has been known to retreat to that defense when pressed. "Couldn't you humorless liberals see that I was only joking?"
It's a great tactic. If no one can ever tell when you're serious, no one can really tell how to effectively counter you. Hell, it's worked for Quonsar all these years...
posted by lodurr at 9:43 AM on August 11, 2006
The big problem with Shelley is that I don't think ["]she["] knows whether she's joking.
Which is to say that I think she's serious, and operating under the illusion that she has a sense of humor.
posted by lodurr at 9:44 AM on August 11, 2006
Which is to say that I think she's serious, and operating under the illusion that she has a sense of humor.
posted by lodurr at 9:44 AM on August 11, 2006
SenshiNeko - With the exception of the true-life nutjob blog example, the same basic argument could be flipped. In fact, the other side could say that the civil-liberty dismantling, gun-toting Rambo, racist, sexist, specist, homophobic, xenophobic, God-hates-fags born-again Christian fundamentalist stereotype is what gets portrayed throughout the liberal-controlled mainstream media as being that of the center-right -- and as your post begins to illustrate, that apparently is the perception of a typical conservative.
Again, I think it illustrates our own biased perceptions. For the most part, I'd bet that if you asked folks...
"We know they're both satires, but honestly (we won't tell anyone) which blog paints a more accurate picture?"
... conservatives would generally say the Moonbeam, and liberals, the Shelley even though they both paint portraits of the equally looney weirdoes at either end of the spectrum.
posted by CodeBaloo at 10:53 AM on August 11, 2006
Again, I think it illustrates our own biased perceptions. For the most part, I'd bet that if you asked folks...
"We know they're both satires, but honestly (we won't tell anyone) which blog paints a more accurate picture?"
... conservatives would generally say the Moonbeam, and liberals, the Shelley even though they both paint portraits of the equally looney weirdoes at either end of the spectrum.
posted by CodeBaloo at 10:53 AM on August 11, 2006
lodurr writes "Coulter herself has been known to retreat to that defense when pressed. 'Couldn't you humorless liberals see that I was only joking?'"
Sure, but she only does that when people confront her about her written endorsement of things that sound suspiciously like genocide -- things people can be tried and jailed for...
posted by clevershark at 11:16 AM on August 11, 2006
Sure, but she only does that when people confront her about her written endorsement of things that sound suspiciously like genocide -- things people can be tried and jailed for...
posted by clevershark at 11:16 AM on August 11, 2006
what gets portrayed throughout the liberal-controlled mainstream media as being that of the center-right
The "center-right" isn't currently in control of the Republican party or the White House. Nobody is even bothering to stereotype the center-right. There isn't, and probably never will be, an extreme left with the sort of power that the extreme right has enjoyed for the last few years. In an era where something like the Schiavo fiasco is reailty, it's hardly surprising that parody of the right has become more extreme, just to keep up with that reality.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:18 AM on August 11, 2006
The "center-right" isn't currently in control of the Republican party or the White House. Nobody is even bothering to stereotype the center-right. There isn't, and probably never will be, an extreme left with the sort of power that the extreme right has enjoyed for the last few years. In an era where something like the Schiavo fiasco is reailty, it's hardly surprising that parody of the right has become more extreme, just to keep up with that reality.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:18 AM on August 11, 2006
CodeBaloo: For me, as a pretty-much-conservative, I see the exact opposite... the latter [Shelley the Republican] is the so-obviously-atypical-it-must-be-a-joke site.
I also thought STR was very much in line with actual conservative thought.
The post God’s rage: The true truth about our weather only echoes positions other conservatives have actually claimed.
The post The Sims : Hidden Liberal Agenda is a slight embellishment of the real-world tempest-in-a-teapot over The Sims 2.
The post Middle-East Crisis? No, Middle-East Opportunity mirrors the fraudulent photos of Iraq scandal Congressman Kaloogian found himself in some time ago.
In short, "Shelly" isn't just some made-up character, she's inspired by real people and events. "Shelly" follows real-world attitudes so closely that the only satire lies in the aggregation of the positions espoused into a single person. It's dead easy to find people who would agree with her on any particular issue or point.
I wonder what conservative blogs you had in mind, that are so much more reasonable? Care to link to any?
posted by Western Infidels at 12:16 PM on August 11, 2006
I also thought STR was very much in line with actual conservative thought.
The post God’s rage: The true truth about our weather only echoes positions other conservatives have actually claimed.
The post The Sims : Hidden Liberal Agenda is a slight embellishment of the real-world tempest-in-a-teapot over The Sims 2.
The post Middle-East Crisis? No, Middle-East Opportunity mirrors the fraudulent photos of Iraq scandal Congressman Kaloogian found himself in some time ago.
In short, "Shelly" isn't just some made-up character, she's inspired by real people and events. "Shelly" follows real-world attitudes so closely that the only satire lies in the aggregation of the positions espoused into a single person. It's dead easy to find people who would agree with her on any particular issue or point.
I wonder what conservative blogs you had in mind, that are so much more reasonable? Care to link to any?
posted by Western Infidels at 12:16 PM on August 11, 2006
Not calling double or anything, but just a heads up: previous post on our friend Shells.
(By me, yeah. Sue me.)
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:16 PM on August 11, 2006
(By me, yeah. Sue me.)
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:16 PM on August 11, 2006
Oh, I'm drowning in this sea of satire-...-or-IS-IT?!?! blogs.
Right now, I really wish Fafblog was updating more often....
posted by JHarris at 1:38 PM on August 11, 2006
Right now, I really wish Fafblog was updating more often....
posted by JHarris at 1:38 PM on August 11, 2006
Peace Moonbeam is funny cos it's 1st person stories, real heartfelt mockery, and the font is large enough, the humor broad enough for me to get it. It seems to lack any deeply-felt contempt or repugnance for the viewpoints it is skewering. It realizes it's a caricature.
On the other hand, I can see Shelley the Republican is satire, but it lacks a central storyteller and a point-of-view. It's like they're thinking of ideas they want to mock, rather than a clear-cut person named Shelley who's espousing their particular brand of claptrap.
Whoever puts it together seems truly horrified that the right-wingers exist, and their contempt shows through. If the satire were broader and more ridiculous would be readable and laughable. Otherwise, it's just as mean and dumb as the real thing. Plus the teeny-tiny font gives me a headache, which isn't at all funny.
posted by eegphalanges at 2:16 PM on August 11, 2006
On the other hand, I can see Shelley the Republican is satire, but it lacks a central storyteller and a point-of-view. It's like they're thinking of ideas they want to mock, rather than a clear-cut person named Shelley who's espousing their particular brand of claptrap.
Whoever puts it together seems truly horrified that the right-wingers exist, and their contempt shows through. If the satire were broader and more ridiculous would be readable and laughable. Otherwise, it's just as mean and dumb as the real thing. Plus the teeny-tiny font gives me a headache, which isn't at all funny.
posted by eegphalanges at 2:16 PM on August 11, 2006
Western Infidels -- If you'll look at the bit of mine you quoted, you might notice the word "atypical". That in mind,...
"Shelly" follows real-world attitudes so closely that the only satire lies in the aggregation of the positions espoused into a single person.
Of course "Shelley" follows real world attitudes. And of course everything is going to be aggregated into a single person. That's the whole damn point of the site! If the blog was made up of several characters writing, instead of just one, each of whom, individually, held some view or had some quirk that isn't mirrored by some conservative somewhere, there would be no satire at the conservative's expense.
It's dead easy to find people who would agree with her on any particular issue or point.
Yeah, duh, it's dead easy to find people who'd agree with her on any particular issue or point. Is your claim really, as it seems to be, that because there are examples of people agreeing with her, that her's is the view embraced by the typical conservative? If not, what is the point?
I hope that is the claim, actually, because it's also dead easy to find people who feel the way to protest a war is to take of their clothes and walk around with signs that say "Breasts Not Bombs" and "Dicks Not Death", make out on a street corner for 30 minutes to protest an unfair stock market, douse themselves in pachouli oil, espouse hatred of the U.S., wear Birkenstocks, think "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" and "The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration", and on and on toward the ultimate liberal stereotype -- and by the same reasoning, since examples can be found or observed, that means that those real world attitudes represent a "typical" liberal, right? No? Really? How odd.
posted by CodeBaloo at 2:44 PM on August 11, 2006
"Shelly" follows real-world attitudes so closely that the only satire lies in the aggregation of the positions espoused into a single person.
Of course "Shelley" follows real world attitudes. And of course everything is going to be aggregated into a single person. That's the whole damn point of the site! If the blog was made up of several characters writing, instead of just one, each of whom, individually, held some view or had some quirk that isn't mirrored by some conservative somewhere, there would be no satire at the conservative's expense.
It's dead easy to find people who would agree with her on any particular issue or point.
Yeah, duh, it's dead easy to find people who'd agree with her on any particular issue or point. Is your claim really, as it seems to be, that because there are examples of people agreeing with her, that her's is the view embraced by the typical conservative? If not, what is the point?
I hope that is the claim, actually, because it's also dead easy to find people who feel the way to protest a war is to take of their clothes and walk around with signs that say "Breasts Not Bombs" and "Dicks Not Death", make out on a street corner for 30 minutes to protest an unfair stock market, douse themselves in pachouli oil, espouse hatred of the U.S., wear Birkenstocks, think "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" and "The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration", and on and on toward the ultimate liberal stereotype -- and by the same reasoning, since examples can be found or observed, that means that those real world attitudes represent a "typical" liberal, right? No? Really? How odd.
posted by CodeBaloo at 2:44 PM on August 11, 2006
eegphalanges -- In hindsight, the STR was a bad choice to post. I planned on posting the Peace Moonbeam one, but wanted to add a counterpoint and hit Google for a blog that takes a satirical look at conservatives... and got STR. Had I known it existed, the General Jesus site would've been a much better choice.
posted by CodeBaloo at 2:47 PM on August 11, 2006
posted by CodeBaloo at 2:47 PM on August 11, 2006
I keep trying to find links regarding the CIA psychological profiling of 60's radicals like Abbie Hoffman, where they determined he was an unpredictable attention whore, the worst type, shifting allegiances, palsy-walsy with not-fun folks. It's very important that we all be pinned down, you know. Otherwise, you may be an idiot pawn for some unpredictable burning bush or ezekiel wheel.
I think we all love and crave the polarization and predicatability put forth by the "political" blogs like this. We know how to make fun of each other so we can all laugh. The more ironic our distance, the safer we all feel. It's a good thing, you just hope the powers-that-be have a better sense of humor than, say, Augusto Pinochet.
Someone warn me when things aren't funny anymore, m'kay?
posted by eegphalanges at 3:23 PM on August 11, 2006
I think we all love and crave the polarization and predicatability put forth by the "political" blogs like this. We know how to make fun of each other so we can all laugh. The more ironic our distance, the safer we all feel. It's a good thing, you just hope the powers-that-be have a better sense of humor than, say, Augusto Pinochet.
Someone warn me when things aren't funny anymore, m'kay?
posted by eegphalanges at 3:23 PM on August 11, 2006
CodeBaloo: I hope that is the claim, actually, because it's also dead easy to find people who feel the way to protest a war is to take of their clothes...
Not that there is anything wrong with that. If anything we need more people taking off their clothes for politics. Left-wing political theatre with its puppets and shrink-wraped nakey people just strikes me as more fun.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:34 PM on August 11, 2006
Not that there is anything wrong with that. If anything we need more people taking off their clothes for politics. Left-wing political theatre with its puppets and shrink-wraped nakey people just strikes me as more fun.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:34 PM on August 11, 2006
I hope that is the claim, actually, because it's also dead easy to find people who feel the way to protest a war is to take of their clothes and walk around with signs that say "Breasts Not Bombs" and "Dicks Not Death", make out on a street corner for 30 minutes to protest an unfair stock market
I dunno, seems like that's much more fun to watch than someone screaming about Mexican immigrants and how God Hates Fags.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:39 PM on August 11, 2006 [1 favorite]
I dunno, seems like that's much more fun to watch than someone screaming about Mexican immigrants and how God Hates Fags.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:39 PM on August 11, 2006 [1 favorite]
Holy shit, firefox supports animated favicons. I had no idea. Crazy.
posted by delmoi at 3:45 PM on August 11, 2006
posted by delmoi at 3:45 PM on August 11, 2006
CodeBaloo: Is your claim really, as it seems to be, that because there are examples of people agreeing with her, that her's is the view embraced by the typical conservative?
You described STR as "so-obviously-atypical." I pointed out that at least some of the views held/mocked therein were actually quite mainstream. Do you disagree? You haven't actually said so.
Even so, it's possible that you're right, and that on the whole STR is "atypical." But "obviously?"
Much of the discussion in this thread (and the last STR thread) is centered around that very issue - is STR serious or satire? How many people have to be confused by something to make it less than "obvious?"
Can you demonstrate the obviousness of it? Can you offer something that seems more reasonable in comparison? I asked you to, and you declined my invitation, instead spending your energy and time digging up wacky fringe protesters to mock. Where are the reasonable conservative blogs?
...it's also dead easy to find people who feel the way to protest a war is to take of their clothes and walk around with signs that say "Breasts Not Bombs"... since examples can be found or observed, that means that those real world attitudes represent a "typical" liberal, right?
Isn't this all very much beside the point? Do you imagine that these represent "typical liberals?" Do you believe that holding a nude protest or a "kiss-off" is Hurting America?
posted by Western Infidels at 3:51 PM on August 11, 2006
You described STR as "so-obviously-atypical." I pointed out that at least some of the views held/mocked therein were actually quite mainstream. Do you disagree? You haven't actually said so.
Even so, it's possible that you're right, and that on the whole STR is "atypical." But "obviously?"
Much of the discussion in this thread (and the last STR thread) is centered around that very issue - is STR serious or satire? How many people have to be confused by something to make it less than "obvious?"
Can you demonstrate the obviousness of it? Can you offer something that seems more reasonable in comparison? I asked you to, and you declined my invitation, instead spending your energy and time digging up wacky fringe protesters to mock. Where are the reasonable conservative blogs?
...it's also dead easy to find people who feel the way to protest a war is to take of their clothes and walk around with signs that say "Breasts Not Bombs"... since examples can be found or observed, that means that those real world attitudes represent a "typical" liberal, right?
Isn't this all very much beside the point? Do you imagine that these represent "typical liberals?" Do you believe that holding a nude protest or a "kiss-off" is Hurting America?
posted by Western Infidels at 3:51 PM on August 11, 2006
a status quo, i should add, that is unsustainable ... the right jumped the shark of sanity years ago ... the left is jumping it right now ... "omg, the brits found terrorists to help lieberman!!"
I don't think I've heard anyone say that. Do you have any evidence that any mainstream liberal blogs expounded that position? Remember it's the mainstream republican blogs like instapundit, powerline, and LGF that propound these crazy conspiracy theories. Lately.
and while the establishment squabbled over the middle east, latin america slid into civil strife and anarchy that affected the united states directly
Huh?
And the co-point, and reason for linking to both sites, is it's hard to tell a genuine liberal site from the rantings of an extremist madman.
The whole first entry was a story about how she traveled to Lebanon to fight with Hezbolla, who made her wear a burqua and fire rockets. How could anyone believe that was true?
"But what I'm seeing here is that a hefty chunk of the left sees the right as a bunch of Shelleys."
Shelly's blog is really to boring pay much attention too.
Which is to say that I think she's serious, and operating under the illusion that she has a sense of humor.
No, shelly is satire, but bad satire.
posted by delmoi at 4:05 PM on August 11, 2006
I don't think I've heard anyone say that. Do you have any evidence that any mainstream liberal blogs expounded that position? Remember it's the mainstream republican blogs like instapundit, powerline, and LGF that propound these crazy conspiracy theories. Lately.
and while the establishment squabbled over the middle east, latin america slid into civil strife and anarchy that affected the united states directly
Huh?
And the co-point, and reason for linking to both sites, is it's hard to tell a genuine liberal site from the rantings of an extremist madman.
The whole first entry was a story about how she traveled to Lebanon to fight with Hezbolla, who made her wear a burqua and fire rockets. How could anyone believe that was true?
"But what I'm seeing here is that a hefty chunk of the left sees the right as a bunch of Shelleys."
Shelly's blog is really to boring pay much attention too.
Which is to say that I think she's serious, and operating under the illusion that she has a sense of humor.
No, shelly is satire, but bad satire.
posted by delmoi at 4:05 PM on August 11, 2006
WI: Much of the discussion in this thread (and the last STR thread) is centered around that very issue - is STR serious or satire? How many people have to be confused by something to make it less than "obvious?"
It is an unfortunate fact that many people are idiots and can't recognize satire or hyperbole. Satire in particular must hit close to plausible in order to hit the target.
But come on here: STR is loaded with tells:
'Aspyr Media, Inc., the maker of the Sims, describes the game of follows: “The sims evolve by genetically passing on physical and personality traits. Create and play your own virtual sitcom by choosing one of five different aspirations – Popularity, Fortune, Drugs, Liberalism and Sex.“'
'Sam Johnston (MA, Cantab (correspondence course), Divine Events)'
'1) Always bitching and moaning about the war in Iraq when it’s so over and Our President declared Mission Accomplished years ago.
2) Listening to Gothic Black Metal music.'
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:07 PM on August 11, 2006
It is an unfortunate fact that many people are idiots and can't recognize satire or hyperbole. Satire in particular must hit close to plausible in order to hit the target.
But come on here: STR is loaded with tells:
'Aspyr Media, Inc., the maker of the Sims, describes the game of follows: “The sims evolve by genetically passing on physical and personality traits. Create and play your own virtual sitcom by choosing one of five different aspirations – Popularity, Fortune, Drugs, Liberalism and Sex.“'
'Sam Johnston (MA, Cantab (correspondence course), Divine Events)'
'1) Always bitching and moaning about the war in Iraq when it’s so over and Our President declared Mission Accomplished years ago.
2) Listening to Gothic Black Metal music.'
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:07 PM on August 11, 2006
CodeBaloo: You are unfortunately nto making much sense. Of course there are a few people who do think like Peace Moonbeam. But they are not at all in the mainstream of liberal thinking. They are at the fringes, and they have no voice inside the liberal movement (which is less a movement then a reaction to the conservative movement).
On the other hand, people like shelly do exist. And unfortunately all of the stuff she says has been espoused by the mainstream of the conservative movement. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannety, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Riely, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, and so on. Those people have a loud voice in the conservative movement, and they do share some of those views.
When the right wing makes fun of "liberals" they make fun of their strawman view of liberals, like peace moonbeam, not mainstream ones. They spend so much time in an insular world, ignoring the outside, they have no idea what real liberals think or feel. They lambaste an imaginary construction, not real-world people.
Other then the premillennial dispensationalist stuff, shelly's views are not really that different from the ones expressed by mainstream conservative 'thinkers' like Rush Limbaugh, Michele Malken, Instapundit, etc, etc, etc.
posted by delmoi at 4:13 PM on August 11, 2006
On the other hand, people like shelly do exist. And unfortunately all of the stuff she says has been espoused by the mainstream of the conservative movement. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannety, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Riely, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, and so on. Those people have a loud voice in the conservative movement, and they do share some of those views.
When the right wing makes fun of "liberals" they make fun of their strawman view of liberals, like peace moonbeam, not mainstream ones. They spend so much time in an insular world, ignoring the outside, they have no idea what real liberals think or feel. They lambaste an imaginary construction, not real-world people.
Other then the premillennial dispensationalist stuff, shelly's views are not really that different from the ones expressed by mainstream conservative 'thinkers' like Rush Limbaugh, Michele Malken, Instapundit, etc, etc, etc.
posted by delmoi at 4:13 PM on August 11, 2006
By the way, is it just me or has the right wing gone completely out of it's mind recently? Like not even in the past couple years but the past couple of weeks? Is it the war in Lebanon, Lieberman getting booted what? They appear to have gone thoroughly and completely out of their minds.
posted by delmoi at 4:29 PM on August 11, 2006
posted by delmoi at 4:29 PM on August 11, 2006
Can you be a bit more specific?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:52 PM on August 11, 2006
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:52 PM on August 11, 2006
Miss Moonbeam has been added to my RSS feeds. It cracked me up.
On the other hand, Shelly's blog is a waste of bandwidth.
posted by bim at 6:47 PM on August 11, 2006
On the other hand, Shelly's blog is a waste of bandwidth.
posted by bim at 6:47 PM on August 11, 2006
KirkJobSluder: It is an unfortunate fact that many people are idiots and can't recognize satire or hyperbole. Satire in particular must hit close to plausible in order to hit the target.
This is an argument that good satire is always subtle, or at least less than "obvious."
But come on here: STR is loaded with tells ... "Create and play your own virtual sitcom by choosing one of five different aspirations – Popularity, Fortune, Drugs, Liberalism and Sex."
"Sex" and "drugs" as the goals of a video game (if not The Sims 2) are downright plausible. (Or at least, they are in the games I play.) The major "tell" is "liberalism," and it's inclusion could function well as a snark.
1) Always bitching and moaning about the war in Iraq when it’s so over and Our President declared Mission Accomplished years ago.
2) Listening to Gothic Black Metal music.'
If those seem like obvious "tells" to you, that's great and all. They aren't so obvious to me. It's possible I'm just very humor-impaired about the whole thing; it's true I don't think either of these blogs is funny.
Look, I'm not saying the site fooled me, or that I have doubts about whether or not it's serious. But I disagree that it's "obviously" very far divorced from current mainstream "conservative" thinking.
If it is "obviously atypical," it must be pretty easy to demonstrate. One could debunk the major beliefs presented therein one-by one: "STR espouses Major Belief X, which only 1% of Republicans agree with today." And so on through Major Belief Y and Z and so on. Done well, one could put quite a dent in the reputation modern conservatives have earned for using emotional "logic," bigotry, fear- and hate-mongering.
No one's doing that, and I expect no one will.
Short of that, one committed conservative could stand up and simply say, "Look, Thing X from STR is repugnant!" No one's done that, either.
Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions." - Terry Pratchett
posted by Western Infidels at 7:00 PM on August 11, 2006
This is an argument that good satire is always subtle, or at least less than "obvious."
But come on here: STR is loaded with tells ... "Create and play your own virtual sitcom by choosing one of five different aspirations – Popularity, Fortune, Drugs, Liberalism and Sex."
"Sex" and "drugs" as the goals of a video game (if not The Sims 2) are downright plausible. (Or at least, they are in the games I play.) The major "tell" is "liberalism," and it's inclusion could function well as a snark.
1) Always bitching and moaning about the war in Iraq when it’s so over and Our President declared Mission Accomplished years ago.
2) Listening to Gothic Black Metal music.'
If those seem like obvious "tells" to you, that's great and all. They aren't so obvious to me. It's possible I'm just very humor-impaired about the whole thing; it's true I don't think either of these blogs is funny.
Look, I'm not saying the site fooled me, or that I have doubts about whether or not it's serious. But I disagree that it's "obviously" very far divorced from current mainstream "conservative" thinking.
If it is "obviously atypical," it must be pretty easy to demonstrate. One could debunk the major beliefs presented therein one-by one: "STR espouses Major Belief X, which only 1% of Republicans agree with today." And so on through Major Belief Y and Z and so on. Done well, one could put quite a dent in the reputation modern conservatives have earned for using emotional "logic," bigotry, fear- and hate-mongering.
No one's doing that, and I expect no one will.
Short of that, one committed conservative could stand up and simply say, "Look, Thing X from STR is repugnant!" No one's done that, either.
Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions." - Terry Pratchett
posted by Western Infidels at 7:00 PM on August 11, 2006
Delmoi & Western Infidels -- I'll have to concede that there are likely more Shelley's than Peace's. However, I think a large part of that is the difference in the two styles. Peace is more a goofy caricature, like a Barney Fife; where as Shelley is more a extreme-but-just-this-side-of-caricature exaggeration, like a McGyver. Not apples and oranges, but maybe oranges and grapefruits.
As for mainstream personalities, I discard Coulter and Robertson. They're not mainstream, they're extreme... only the kook fringe takes them seriously. Kinda like what Ingrid Newkirk would be if the left dominated talk radio. Which leaves Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Malken, etc (Newt's washed up and inconsequential) as appealing to the mainstream. I don't listen/read any of them regularly, but of what I have listened to or read, none of them comes close to stuff like liberal re-education camps or God is pissed so he's making bad stuff happen. Outspoken, yeah. Derisive of liberal, yeah. Effective, yeah. But way out kooky extreme views, hardly.
W.I., I'm not quite sure what type of site you want examples of. If I've understood the past few comments correctly, you're asking for different examples each time. 1. A better mirror of the Peace site? 2. Examples of blogs that appeal to most conservatives? 3. Blogs that are more reasonable than Shelley's?
1. If I had one, I'd have used it. As I said before, if I'd known of the General Jesus one, I probably would've used that one.
2. Sorry. See that trap a mile away.
And 3. I'd gamble you could use 99% of conservative-oriented blogs with Google PRs of, say, six or higher.
Also, your mention that my links to the outerleft examples as being beside the point is curious. You linked to radical right ideas expressed in the blog and tied those each to an example to prove, I guess, people like that exist. You said Shelley was "inspired by real people and events". You said it's dead easy to find folks to agree with what she spouts. I simply flipped exactly what you did over to the mirror opposite -- linked to people as real-life examples of Peace, showed she was "inspired by real people and events", and said it's easy to find people who agree with what she spouts. Yet when you do it, it's valid; when I mimic it, however, it's suddenly beside the point.
On preview, W.I., ya got me... it's atypical, but maybe not obviously atypical. And as for line-by-line debunking: why? First it's a joke... you're not supposed to debunk jokes. Do you expect someone to pipe up and say, "Hey wait just a goddamn minute... only one percent of alligators go into bars. And of those, only 3.43% are in the company of a priest, a rabbi, and a blind man." Or for that matter, why not go through the Peace make-up and debunk her stereotypical stuff such as the nekkid protests, the drug use, the fear of Christmas, etc.? Why not... because it a joke.
posted by CodeBaloo at 7:47 PM on August 11, 2006
As for mainstream personalities, I discard Coulter and Robertson. They're not mainstream, they're extreme... only the kook fringe takes them seriously. Kinda like what Ingrid Newkirk would be if the left dominated talk radio. Which leaves Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Malken, etc (Newt's washed up and inconsequential) as appealing to the mainstream. I don't listen/read any of them regularly, but of what I have listened to or read, none of them comes close to stuff like liberal re-education camps or God is pissed so he's making bad stuff happen. Outspoken, yeah. Derisive of liberal, yeah. Effective, yeah. But way out kooky extreme views, hardly.
W.I., I'm not quite sure what type of site you want examples of. If I've understood the past few comments correctly, you're asking for different examples each time. 1. A better mirror of the Peace site? 2. Examples of blogs that appeal to most conservatives? 3. Blogs that are more reasonable than Shelley's?
1. If I had one, I'd have used it. As I said before, if I'd known of the General Jesus one, I probably would've used that one.
2. Sorry. See that trap a mile away.
And 3. I'd gamble you could use 99% of conservative-oriented blogs with Google PRs of, say, six or higher.
Also, your mention that my links to the outerleft examples as being beside the point is curious. You linked to radical right ideas expressed in the blog and tied those each to an example to prove, I guess, people like that exist. You said Shelley was "inspired by real people and events". You said it's dead easy to find folks to agree with what she spouts. I simply flipped exactly what you did over to the mirror opposite -- linked to people as real-life examples of Peace, showed she was "inspired by real people and events", and said it's easy to find people who agree with what she spouts. Yet when you do it, it's valid; when I mimic it, however, it's suddenly beside the point.
On preview, W.I., ya got me... it's atypical, but maybe not obviously atypical. And as for line-by-line debunking: why? First it's a joke... you're not supposed to debunk jokes. Do you expect someone to pipe up and say, "Hey wait just a goddamn minute... only one percent of alligators go into bars. And of those, only 3.43% are in the company of a priest, a rabbi, and a blind man." Or for that matter, why not go through the Peace make-up and debunk her stereotypical stuff such as the nekkid protests, the drug use, the fear of Christmas, etc.? Why not... because it a joke.
posted by CodeBaloo at 7:47 PM on August 11, 2006
Short of that, one committed conservative could stand up and simply say, "Look, Thing X from STR is repugnant!" No one's done that, either.
Look, saying God is sending bad weather as punishment is repugnant!
Look, using "shrieks of fag rage" to mean honest disagreement is repugnant!
Look, assuming liberals are truth haters is repugnant!
Look, calling women's health clinics "Liberal extermination plants" is repugnant!
Look, saying that allowing Muslims in the country is bad is repugnant!
Look, assuming "most people in prison are stupid and under-educated" is repugnant!
Look, implying only "super-tough fag-hating Men of God" are productive citizens is repugnant!
Look, assuming to be God's mouthpiece on earth is repugnant!
Look, indefinite confinement to a re-education camp until they "stop hating freedom and start loving Jesus " is repugnant!
Look, assuming a liberal can't think is repugnant!
Well, that about does it for a quick skim of the first article. There's probably a lot more in the first article that's repugnant... but this exercise is just plain stupid so I'll quit here.
How's that?
posted by CodeBaloo at 8:03 PM on August 11, 2006
Look, saying God is sending bad weather as punishment is repugnant!
Look, using "shrieks of fag rage" to mean honest disagreement is repugnant!
Look, assuming liberals are truth haters is repugnant!
Look, calling women's health clinics "Liberal extermination plants" is repugnant!
Look, saying that allowing Muslims in the country is bad is repugnant!
Look, assuming "most people in prison are stupid and under-educated" is repugnant!
Look, implying only "super-tough fag-hating Men of God" are productive citizens is repugnant!
Look, assuming to be God's mouthpiece on earth is repugnant!
Look, indefinite confinement to a re-education camp until they "stop hating freedom and start loving Jesus " is repugnant!
Look, assuming a liberal can't think is repugnant!
Well, that about does it for a quick skim of the first article. There's probably a lot more in the first article that's repugnant... but this exercise is just plain stupid so I'll quit here.
How's that?
posted by CodeBaloo at 8:03 PM on August 11, 2006
Do you have any evidence that any mainstream liberal blogs expounded that position?
define mainstream ... but here's an example of a well known blog ... there's also all those comments people made on metafilter ...
as far as civil strife and anarchy in latin america ... it's building
what else would you call it when millions of latin americans abandon their country for ours?
the protests in mexico against the election are still going on
wars between drug lords are endemic in several countries and central american gangs are known to be active here
it's only going to get worse ... and meantime, we're up to our necks in the middle east and ignoring the trouble in our own neighborhood ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:59 PM on August 11, 2006
define mainstream ... but here's an example of a well known blog ... there's also all those comments people made on metafilter ...
as far as civil strife and anarchy in latin america ... it's building
what else would you call it when millions of latin americans abandon their country for ours?
the protests in mexico against the election are still going on
wars between drug lords are endemic in several countries and central american gangs are known to be active here
it's only going to get worse ... and meantime, we're up to our necks in the middle east and ignoring the trouble in our own neighborhood ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:59 PM on August 11, 2006
CodeBaloo: I'll have to concede that there are likely more Shelley's than Peace's. However, I think a large part of that is the difference in the two styles. Peace is more a goofy caricature, like a Barney Fife; where as Shelley is more a extreme-but-just-this-side-of-caricature exaggeration, like a McGyver. Not apples and oranges, but maybe oranges and grapefruits.
Well, exactly. Thank you.
As for mainstream personalities, I discard Coulter and Robertson. They're not mainstream, they're extreme.
You can (and you should) ignore them. You are not in any position to "discard" them, to say that they don't matter.
"Extreme" and "mainstream" are not mutually exclusive. Believing that they are is moral relativism.
Which leaves Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Malken ... way out kooky extreme views, hardly.
Laughable. Wasn't Malkin the one who defended internment camps for innocent people? Isn't Limbaugh the guy who calls everyone a Nazi? Isn't O'Reilly the one who screams at the family members of 9/11 victims and calls them traitors?
W.I., I'm not quite sure what type of site you want examples of ... Blogs that are more reasonable than Shelley's?
I'd like to see a big "conservative blog" that outright condemned the extreme-right views espoused at STR. If those are truly repugnant views, then there is a moral duty to at least do that.
Sorry. See that trap a mile away.
I really don't know what you're talking about.
Also, your mention that my links to the outerleft examples as being beside the point is curious ... I simply flipped exactly what you did over to the mirror opposite...
Yes, exactly.
If you're arguing that the "God hates you" religious right forces typified by STR are equal in number and influence with the "topless protest" crowd you pointed out, then your "flip" of the argument simply isn't, because that's just not true.
If you're arguing that stereotyping conservatives based on the positions they claim isn't fair, then that argument itself is very much beside the point. Also, boo-hoo.
Even if you're arguing (as I thought you were) that the modern stereotype of conservatives isn't true, things aren't much better. Your retort is to point out that some people care passionately about animals. Uh. What?
Take a step back for a moment and look where this has landed you, and us. On one side are literally millions of people who say they believe their fellow citizens should die and spend an eternity in torment because of their sexual orientation, or because they were raised in a different faith. This isn't even news. On the other side we have a "kiss-off," which I daresay neither of us had even heard of until now. Is this really a comparison you want to be making?
...as for line-by-line debunking: why? First it's a joke... you're not supposed to debunk jokes.
It was the stereotype I was hoping someone would debunk.
posted by Western Infidels at 5:23 AM on August 12, 2006
Well, exactly. Thank you.
As for mainstream personalities, I discard Coulter and Robertson. They're not mainstream, they're extreme.
You can (and you should) ignore them. You are not in any position to "discard" them, to say that they don't matter.
"Extreme" and "mainstream" are not mutually exclusive. Believing that they are is moral relativism.
Which leaves Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Malken ... way out kooky extreme views, hardly.
Laughable. Wasn't Malkin the one who defended internment camps for innocent people? Isn't Limbaugh the guy who calls everyone a Nazi? Isn't O'Reilly the one who screams at the family members of 9/11 victims and calls them traitors?
W.I., I'm not quite sure what type of site you want examples of ... Blogs that are more reasonable than Shelley's?
I'd like to see a big "conservative blog" that outright condemned the extreme-right views espoused at STR. If those are truly repugnant views, then there is a moral duty to at least do that.
Sorry. See that trap a mile away.
I really don't know what you're talking about.
Also, your mention that my links to the outerleft examples as being beside the point is curious ... I simply flipped exactly what you did over to the mirror opposite...
Yes, exactly.
If you're arguing that the "God hates you" religious right forces typified by STR are equal in number and influence with the "topless protest" crowd you pointed out, then your "flip" of the argument simply isn't, because that's just not true.
If you're arguing that stereotyping conservatives based on the positions they claim isn't fair, then that argument itself is very much beside the point. Also, boo-hoo.
Even if you're arguing (as I thought you were) that the modern stereotype of conservatives isn't true, things aren't much better. Your retort is to point out that some people care passionately about animals. Uh. What?
Take a step back for a moment and look where this has landed you, and us. On one side are literally millions of people who say they believe their fellow citizens should die and spend an eternity in torment because of their sexual orientation, or because they were raised in a different faith. This isn't even news. On the other side we have a "kiss-off," which I daresay neither of us had even heard of until now. Is this really a comparison you want to be making?
...as for line-by-line debunking: why? First it's a joke... you're not supposed to debunk jokes.
It was the stereotype I was hoping someone would debunk.
posted by Western Infidels at 5:23 AM on August 12, 2006
Look, saying God is sending bad weather as punishment is repugnant!
...
Look, assuming "most people in prison are stupid and under-educated" is repugnant!
That's actually quite a lot better than I was expecting. Thanks, and congratulations.
There are some bigger-picture views on display here that perhaps didn't occur to you, though.
The "God's Rage" article, for example, takes the position that I'll try to summarize this way: "People who live a different lifestyle than I do are immoral and should be punished." This may not (quite) be a majority view. It's not by any means a "fringe" one, either.
The "Middle East Opportunity" article takes the position that the ideal future of the Middle East is more important than the immediate reality of the Middle East. That is, the lives of Iraqis are less important than our dream for Iraq. This is actually the current Government's view.
I'm out of time for the moment, but these are the sorts of big-picture views I'd like to see some conservatives repudiating. This sort of thing is more likely to break the stereotype than the narrow, specific things you mentioned.
posted by Western Infidels at 5:38 AM on August 12, 2006
...
Look, assuming "most people in prison are stupid and under-educated" is repugnant!
That's actually quite a lot better than I was expecting. Thanks, and congratulations.
There are some bigger-picture views on display here that perhaps didn't occur to you, though.
The "God's Rage" article, for example, takes the position that I'll try to summarize this way: "People who live a different lifestyle than I do are immoral and should be punished." This may not (quite) be a majority view. It's not by any means a "fringe" one, either.
The "Middle East Opportunity" article takes the position that the ideal future of the Middle East is more important than the immediate reality of the Middle East. That is, the lives of Iraqis are less important than our dream for Iraq. This is actually the current Government's view.
I'm out of time for the moment, but these are the sorts of big-picture views I'd like to see some conservatives repudiating. This sort of thing is more likely to break the stereotype than the narrow, specific things you mentioned.
posted by Western Infidels at 5:38 AM on August 12, 2006
On one side are literally millions of people who say they believe their fellow citizens should die and spend an eternity in torment because of their sexual orientation, or because they were raised in a different faith.
I don't believe numbers here. Please support. If you said hundreds, or even thousands, I'd buy it. But millions?
That's kinda what I've been trying to say all along: you seem to think that these The STR) are the views of an average conservative. They're not. Just as the Peace views such as spitting on soldiers, burning the flag, abolishment of all drug laws, and granting full legal equality to animals (for example, outlawing the "murder" of animals for food) are not the views held by an average liberal.
posted by CodeBaloo at 1:54 PM on August 12, 2006
I don't believe numbers here. Please support. If you said hundreds, or even thousands, I'd buy it. But millions?
That's kinda what I've been trying to say all along: you seem to think that these The STR) are the views of an average conservative. They're not. Just as the Peace views such as spitting on soldiers, burning the flag, abolishment of all drug laws, and granting full legal equality to animals (for example, outlawing the "murder" of animals for food) are not the views held by an average liberal.
posted by CodeBaloo at 1:54 PM on August 12, 2006
I don't believe numbers here. Please support. If you said hundreds, or even thousands, I'd buy it. But millions?
Many surveys have shown that 20% to 30% of Americans claim the Bible is to be taken as the literal word of God. Many more agree that it is at least inerrant. Leviticus 20:13 is commonly used as "evidence" that homosexuality is a mortal sin. The Catholic church (which nearly a third of Americans belong to) still classifies homosexuality as a "mortal sin," one which will send you to Hell.
With numbers like these, even if only one person in ten actually believed what they say they believed, you'd clear a threshhold of "millions" quite easily.
This isn't even controversial. Witness the overwhelming landslide support for the various anti-gay state constitutional amendments in 2004. Note that in many cases, voters weren't actually voting to make gay marriage illegal (it already was), but to make the very discussion of the idea essentially moot.
The Republicans didn't tap the gay issue to pick up a few fringe hate votes; they did it because it would (and did) help them pick up millions of hate votes. Its an issue that many people have very strong negative feelings about, and corresponds closely with Republican supporters.
posted by Western Infidels at 9:06 AM on August 15, 2006
Many surveys have shown that 20% to 30% of Americans claim the Bible is to be taken as the literal word of God. Many more agree that it is at least inerrant. Leviticus 20:13 is commonly used as "evidence" that homosexuality is a mortal sin. The Catholic church (which nearly a third of Americans belong to) still classifies homosexuality as a "mortal sin," one which will send you to Hell.
With numbers like these, even if only one person in ten actually believed what they say they believed, you'd clear a threshhold of "millions" quite easily.
This isn't even controversial. Witness the overwhelming landslide support for the various anti-gay state constitutional amendments in 2004. Note that in many cases, voters weren't actually voting to make gay marriage illegal (it already was), but to make the very discussion of the idea essentially moot.
The Republicans didn't tap the gay issue to pick up a few fringe hate votes; they did it because it would (and did) help them pick up millions of hate votes. Its an issue that many people have very strong negative feelings about, and corresponds closely with Republican supporters.
posted by Western Infidels at 9:06 AM on August 15, 2006
« Older The Wikipedia of dictionaries | The future via haruspicy Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by CodeBaloo at 4:53 AM on August 11, 2006