actually, as far as I can see, that’s a factually true statement. You certainly can have an opinion, have a voice, yell it from the street corners, write letters to the papers etc, but as far as having a ‘say’ in how the country is run, the only real way to do that is to vote for those you wish to represent your stance.
Yes, but if all the canidates are worthless pieces of shit, and I vote for neither of them, I still don’t have a say in how this country is run?
I see your point, but just because the guy you voted for president, or your friend voted for president, doesn’t mean that either is good.
Let’s admit it, Catperson and Kung Fu Lola have defeated us with superior arguments. After all, none of the rest of us has any idea what it’s like to be a college student, right?
Although I haven’t previously posted in The Pit since my entree into the SDMB, I felt the need to add to the pileon and add yet another voice to the chorus of excoriation. The OP is a whiny little punk, and I can only hope that one day he/she is wrongfully arrested or subjected to a trivial civil suit, and ends up with his/her future in the hands of a dozen similarly blockheaded booger-eating morons.
But the comment below also really jumped out at me:
WFT? Since when does “a jury of one’s peers” equal “some old yahooes who aren’t pharmacology students”? Who ARE one’s peers, if not college students, single parents, doctors, lawyers, mechanics, EVERY-freakin’-BODY? I profoundly resent the implication in Lola’s post that somehow being a college student is some higher calling that trumps one’s basic obligations to our legal system. Being a college student is no better and no worse than most other ways one can choose to spend one’s time in this country; as many a college student has found out on the other end of the legal system, one is still a citizen first. “College” is not its own country.
And the idea that the OP’s time has been bought and paid for and is thus somehow immutably “his” really doesn’t wash with me, either. After all, California is an “at will” employment state, which I believe means that there is a contract between the employer and the employee (stating, among other things, that the employee will be there). But what the hell do I know, I’m just some yahoo with a job.
Yes.
Judging from the OP’s “intellect”, regardless of the evidence against me, a handful of magic beans poof, I’m outta there, scott-free.
And as for Kung-Fu Lola,
After reading some of the garbage you’ve spewed. (“So he got pulled out of a hat to mouth off about some wanker who broke the law. Big whoop.”)I hope that someday you’re accused of a serious crime and you get someone exactly like you and the OP on your jury.
Fenris
The answer to the first statement here is “No, you still don’t get a say in how the country is run, as long as you don’t freakin’ vote!" I don’t care who you vote for, write in your own name, or Fred Phelps’ name, but VOTE!”
The answer to your second statement is “Yes, but even if there are two rotten candidates, vote for somebody.”
I agree. But I honestly don’t think that a person would Reaaaaaaalllly do this if push came to shove. IMHO, most people even those who complain and SAY that they will do such and such are just venting.
This person (he/she still hasn’t come in and corrected us as to his/her gender??) sounds very like many people his age. Lacking understanding of a process, he/she gripes in a way that suggests they really think that bratty behaviour, like a toddler holding his.her breath will get their way.
Like I said before, I’ll bet that if this rant had been by a popular and clever doper, one who writes well, not ONE person would have come in guns blazing with the wounded cry of “where is your sense of DUTY”???
Uh-huh.
It’s true, folks, CanvasShoes found out the secret of…
THE CLIQUE!
Might as well confess folks, he’s too smart for us. See, for those of in the Clique, SDMB Private-Messaging isn’t disabled* and we all use it (and our secret forum on the SDMB) to discuss all the non-Clique posters and come to an agreement on who to build up and who to tear down, 'cause all “popular and clever” Dopers share one opinion, after all. That’s the only possible explanation.
It couldn’t possibly be that for many grown-ups (of all ages) the words “civic-duty”, “obligation”, “responsiblity” aren’t just really big words that kinda confuse us, they mean something and it’s nauseating when the spoiled-brat brigade comes in and says “But it’s haaaaaaaard. I don’ wannnnnnnnnnna do anything that isn’t fuuuuuuuun.” any time something drags them from the valuable time they spend analyzing the latest Brittany Spears album for nuances indicating zetigeist change.
Clique-master Fenris
*Wanna see if you’re a “popular and clever doper, one who writes well”? Go to a user’s public profile, click on the “Send this user a Private Message” link and if it says “Your administrator has disabled private messaging.”, you’re not one of us.
You could always run for office yourself.
I’ll vote for ya!
Oh bother. [winnie the pooh off]
No, I’m talking about typical posts posted here in SDMB. Not some double secret IM group of dopers.
If a well-known and popular doper posts a well written rant, 90% of the posts are in agreement, regardless of the subject. Hell, if they’re well above average intelligence to boot (collounsbury comes to mind), they can get away with extreme rudeness and verbal abuse of other dopers to boot, and STILL have a bunch of supporters, generally more for than against. Again, frequently regardless of the subject matter or opinion.
Had this rant against jury duty been done in such a way, IMHO that’s what we would have seen here.
FTR, as I said in at least three posts, WAS the OP snotty? Yes. My point was that this, and the rant against jury duty are two separate issues, that the dopers in this post seem to be griping against as if it were one and the same.
This OP behaved, and posted in a way that is typical of many of his age. Yeah, it was bratty, but I thought the idea here was fighting ignorance.
Silly me, I thought perhaps that could be done in a more socially acceptable and mature manner than name calling and putdowns of the offending party.
And this is the part where several reply “Well, this IS the ‘pit’”.
Ummm, YEAH folks and he WAS ranting. Perhaps not well, but it was a rant. People DO overexaggerate in rants, and so on.
Seems like too many people are making a mountain out of a molehill, and mainly due to his attitude. But then they’re using the subject matter to get all righteous and offended about it.
Which WAS my point, that of if he’d not been snotty, and instead had been clever and funny, I bet he wouldn’t have gotten so much guff.
**
Yeah, it’s cliche, but: cite?
I remember Coll getting raked across the coals on a regular basis. I joined in the raking on several occasions.
**
**
IMO, nonsense. What we would have seen are posts saying “That was a great rant, but you’re still a spoiled asshole.” Dopers do value wit and clever writing, but not to the exclusion of values.
**
**
Because they can be combined into one response.
There’s only three combinations of “tone” and “topic”
-
Had the OP been about a sane topic but written in the OP’s whiney, semi-literate tone, you would have seen stuff like “Groan, get off my side. Note to everyone else—the OP doesn’t represent me.” (see any number of vegetarian/anti-vegetarian flamefests for examples of this… )
-
Had the OP been a wittily written post about an insane topic, you would have gotten “Cute rant, but too bad you’re an asshole with issues” type response from the opposition (see FatherJohn’s semi-psychotic “SUVs will kill us ALL” rants or Phaedrus’s drivel for examples)
-
Finally, in the case of the OP, we have a moron writing badly to promote a stupid POV (“I don’ wannnnnnnna haveta do aaaaanything that’s boooooring!”) and he’s getting no kudos at all.
What do you want? Literary criticism? This ain’t a creative writing forum. If he’d gone into GD and said “I think the jury selection system is outmoded. Resolved: professional jurors are the way to go. Discuss” and explained that he finds jury duty ducedly inconvienient and frankly, professional jurors who could be trained and schooled in how to be good jurors would both serve society and justice better than the “unskilled” juror that we now have, he’d have gotten a 5 page debate with nary a flame in sight.
Instead, what other options did the OP give people. He’s a whiney asshole who’s trying to justify being a selfish prick and writes on about a third grade level. There’s not much room to be supportive here.
**
I cry “Bullshit”. There are too many literate, intelligent, cogent high-school/college age Dopers who put the lie to the idea that snivelly “It’s all about MEEE” behavior is “typical” of that age.
**
Fighting ignorance sometimes means giving the ignorant a good, swift, verbal kick in the ass. Have you actually read Cecil’s columns? In the words of the master, “If ignorance were corn flakes, the OP would be Kelloggs” (paraphrased). Cecil is not noted for being warmly supportive of brainless cretins. Remember when he called the guy a “craven puppy” for trying to see if he could draft-dodge to Canada? Or when he asked the poster if he’d stopped taking his lithium? Frankly, if Cecil (who invented the “Fighting ignorance since 1973 (it’s taking longer than we thought”) motto) were here, I’d guess that the OP would be roasted like a marshmallow.
**
I can live with exaggeration, but a pathetic attempt to justify whiney selfish behavior in written in a barely literate voice is not exaggeration.
**
Really? You’d say that if someone wrote a clever, funny post about, say, how handicapped people should kill themselves 'cause they’re taking up too much space with their wheelchairs, the OP wouldn’t get flack?
Which is exatly the point. If the OP didn’t come across as such a snot-nosed little brat afraid of doing their civic duty, then no harm-no foul.
However, what you post is what you get (WYPIWYG). And given such statements as:
and
it goes a little past fighting ignorance, to the point of fighting those who spread ignorance.
Granted, freedom of speech is a sacred right in this country, but there are sometimes . . . well, never mind.
But by God, it takes me by surprise that someone would seem to actively revolt at the idea of doing their civic duty.
Maybe I’m reading too far into it. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Tripler
Goddamn Communists.
Speaking only for myself, CanvasShoes, I didn’t look at the original poster’s post count until I had already read the OP. My reaction was to content, not to the relative fame of the person presenting it. In fact, I rarely read poster names and post counts unless the person’s point catches my eye.
I admit I may not be typical, though. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanvasShoes
If a well-known and popular doper posts a well written rant, 90% of the posts are in agreement, regardless of the subject. Hell, if they’re well above average intelligence to boot (collounsbury comes to mind), they can get away with extreme rudeness and verbal abuse of other dopers to boot, and STILL have a bunch of supporters, generally more for than against. Again, frequently regardless of the subject matter or opinion.
Well, one in particular was the thread when Collounsbury was finally dropped. There were a TON of supporters, stating along the lines of “who cares if he’s a jerk, he’s so right and so intelligent”. (paraphrased).
Quote:
Had this rant against jury duty been done in such a way, IMHO that’s what we would have seen here.
I disagree. A lot of people can’t stand jury duty. How does the disliking of jury duty (and the ranting thereof), PERIOD, = spoiled asshole?
Quote:
FTR, as I said in at least three posts, WAS the OP snotty? Yes. My point was that this, and the rant against jury duty are two separate issues, that the dopers in this post seem to be griping against as if it were one and the same.
Fair enough.
I don’t “want” anything. I’ve just seen other people, even ones who’ve acted like complete jerks, given the benefit of the doubt in at least a FEW posts. Granted, I haven’t seen any other threads by this poster.
But I thought it only fair to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he’d found himself in a frustrating position that he (obviously incorrectly, and in naivete and ignorance) thought was going to “ruin” him, and that he was venting such.
Sometimes when people feel as if they have they’re backs against the wall, and have no recourse, they DO act whiny, bratty, and over the top. His OP struck me as THaT sort of whiny, rather than that he actually meant that he’d do that which he threatened.
Quote:
This OP behaved, and posted in a way that is typical of many of his age.
Excuse ME. I said “of many that age”. I did NOT say “typical of that age”.
Quote:
Yeah, it was bratty, but I thought the idea here was fighting ignorance.
Silly me, I thought perhaps that could be done in a more socially acceptable and mature manner than name calling and putdowns of the offending party.
Yes, and own some of his books too. Everyone is not Cecil. Just because that is HIS best way of dealing with it doesn’t mean that everyone has to, or SHOULD go to the same level as the OP and turn into jerks themselves. IMHO.
Quote:
Ummm, YEAH folks and he WAS ranting. Perhaps not well, but it was a rant. People DO overexaggerate in rants, and so on.
quoteI can live with exaggeration, but a pathetic attempt to justify whiney selfish behavior in written in a barely literate voice is not exaggeration.
[/quote]
Is that what he was doing? Again, I didn’t get that from his rants. I saw something else entirely. Again, bratty yes. What I saw was what I’ve seen many people do when faced with something unknown, which THEY believe (whether correctly or not) is something they can’t find an answer too. That doesn’t mean that I think he was justified in his whining.
As I’ve said several times, but let me put it a different way, does this kind of reaction = total asshole. And does assholery back solve the problem or teach them anything? IMHO, No.
Quote:
Which WAS my point, that of if he’d not been snotty, and instead had been clever and funny, I bet he wouldn’t have gotten so much guff.
Oh for Pete’s sake. Could you be any sillier? Of course not. That’s a completely illogical example. I was perfectly celar that I meant THIS subject, that of jury duty. Where, in my sentence above do you see that I said “funny and clever about just any old subject”???
No, you’re the dumbass. Many states are now going to a drivers liscense jury pool where anyoen driving is sold into the jury pool by mailmerging the states lists.
Also, around here, for the district court the last time my neighbor went the company gives you UNPAID time off, and the “pay” you get for being on the jury doesn’t cover the exhorborant rates charged by the court parking garage.
OH! Sorry I wasn’t very clear about that. No, it’s not the post count. I’ve read relative necomer’s posts that seem to fit what I’m describing as well.
Oh well, it’s not that big a deal. I’m obviously not going to change anyone’s mind. I just didn’t see this kid as being so much an asshole, as having a problem and not addressing it very well, and perhaps coming off not very well in type. And that likely due to his inexperience and youth. (maybe it’s the old mom in me).
I think people judged him too quickly and harshly. Others think he’s the next incarnation of the Prince of Darkness.
Hey, for all I know, …
I agree. But I guess I’m being a mom here. There are ways, and there are WAYS of teaching someone who’s “not seeing the light” the correct way.
There are kids who are being brats because they’re just spoiled brats, and then, as I said above sometimes this is how people act when they believe they’ve been backed into a corner.
The OP strikes me as the latter, as one who made whiny threats in frustration and ignorance of his/her rights and options, rather than one who actually BELIEVED and would do the bratty things he said.
But again, I could be wrong, and may have let the mom in me be judging this one. He (the OP) reminds me of a young friend of my daughter’s (who is now 24) at that age. Very naive about how the whole “establishment thing” worked, and very easily put on the defensive when not knowing the processes and how they all affected him.
That’s all.
Are you saying that it is too high a price to pay for justice?
Well, um, it’s been a long time. Some of us just forgot. 
'Scuse me a sec…If I could just slip in here for a sec to respond to a minor point…
Okay. I’ve got no problem with that point. And just FTR, I’m over 30 myself, and I’m registered with Selective Service, so I know whereof you speak in that regard.
But what you said earlier was “Your country is well known for sending persons your age draft notices.” Which makes it sound like a common, ongoing thing, which it really isn’t. Registering, yes. Being drafted, not recently.
Probably a minor quibble, but I felt the need to respond. I agree with your position as clarified. 'Kay?