Some better ideas for representing what liberals do:
[ul]
[li]A picture in which LBJ solemnly proclaims that this great nation can no longer have any individually not seeing a baseball game because he is too short. Johnson creates the six-member Fedaral Commission on Boxes for Baseball Game Watching (FCBBGW). By the time the Obama Administration ends, the FCBBGW has expanded to 2,843 employees and an annual budget of 3.7 billion dollars, and is issuing directives on matters such how to prosecute box-related sexual assaults. Meanwhile the short guy still can’t see the game.[/li][li]Bob’s Box Company is unable to compete due to the government’s hundreds of onerous regulations on box manufacturers. It goes out of business, no more boxes are made, and thus only the tall guy can now see the game.[/li][li]The third baseman on the baseball team refers to his teammates as “you guys”, and thus the league gets sued for harassment against transsexuals and is ordered to pay a 7-figure settlement, which puts it out of business. No one gets to watch baseball any more. Liberals coast to coast cheer the victory against discrimination.[/li][/ul]
Yes, ITR Champion, very good! That’s exactly the kind of stuff Trinopus was talking about, typical anti liberal screed that has nothing to do with real liberal ideology. Obviously exaggerated to the point of idiocy, only a slight bearing anything having to do with reality, complete nonsense really, you gave us three good examples of that kind of ridiculous crap we see conservatives spout all the time. Good job.
There’s another problem with viewing it as a metaphor for affirmative action. In the pictures, it’s clear and indisputable that moving the box from the guy on the left to the guy on right actually helps the guy on the right see the game. In real life, it’s far from clear that using affirmative action to move jobs, college placements, etc… to students of certain ethnicities actually benefits those students. In fact, there’s much evidence that it does not.
Liberal politicians want us to simply assume that certain policies help those born with fewer privileges reach equality with the more privileged. They prefer to steer away from most discussions of whether the policies are actually efficacious. Their argument is, “either support the policy or you’re opposing equality”.
I thought it was a metaphor for wealth redistribution.
ITR champion Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
The one about cutting off legs is offensive and stupid, a typical anti-liberal screed that has exactly nothing to do with real liberal ideology.
Some better ideas for representing what liberals do:
I mean if we’re playing this game:
The tall guy takes all the boxes, telling the other two boxes will “trickle down” to them eventually.
The medium guy shoots the short guy because he was pretty sure he looked like he was going to steal his box.
The medium guy breaks his leg after his shoddy, unregulated, third-world manufactured box collapses. He can’t afford heath care to get the leg fixed.
The tall guys son inherits his boxes and espouses the merits of working hard to get the best box possible.
This appears to be a very poor analogy and meant really to serve as a way to bring up transpeople negatively. Given that less than half of transgender persons even identify as female, a more correct attempt at an analogy backing this worldview would be to say that the league was sued for harassment against cisgender women.
It’s also stupid because women call each other “you guys” all the time, as well as “dude” etc.
That once makes the least amount of sense. The conservative one at least continues the metaphor, even if they do stretch it too far by pretending giving up money is like giving up a limb.
There is just no way that they will all earn the same amount of money. Income inequality is the rule, not the exception. It may be possible to raise everyone up, but it would wind up with the tall guy being exponentially taller, because he had more to start with.
I mean, you’re trying to triple the little guy’s wealth here, while barely adding a third to the tall guy’s wealth.
Making money by being good at running things is a better way to get rich than speculative projects. So even in your view those who earn their money would be more likely to be conservative.
The main problem with the analogy is that it ignores the fact that people adjust to what happens to you. If you are the tall guy, do you even bring a box to the next game? Why should you if it is just going to be taken away and given to the short guy. If you are the short guy do you start bringing more boxes to the next game? Why should you if free boxes are going to be provided?