Not trolling in the slightest. Some of you laid into a guy who was already absolutely furious at a gross injustice. What the fuck did you think would happen? This is such a commonly known issue that people actually use this technique in arguing. You take someone who is already angry and provoke them more, so that, in their fury, they start saying stupid things.
It’s just how anger works. You first shift to trying to win rather than being rational. Then, as it gets worse, you get more focused on one thing, and do less and less checking of what you say. You don’t notice that something you said that sounds right to you might be interpreted as idiocy by a calmer person. You don’t pay attention to what your brain labels extraneous details.
fervour was not trolling. He was absolutely furious.
I actually kinda like the raw emotion better than the glib and snarky bullshit. It feels more real. I find it much, much easier to empathize with someone who is so upset they say stupid things than people who seem to always hold it together.
Oh, bullshit. Just read what I wrote and his responses to me - he was clearly trolling. Hell, BigT, I told him about a calling campaign I organized last week on this very issue, and what does he do the next time I commented on the thread?
The dipshit asked me if I called my Senator.
IMHO he “sounded” high as a kite with his aggressive focus on that one response. Probably wasn’t, but the boy wasn’t acting right last night. Note that now he’s slept it off, he’s stopped repeating himself.
He called it “bullshit” because that’s what it was. BigTard was up on his podium white-knighting fervour and defending him from trolling charges when that clearly was what he was doing.
I’d call it a peculiar form of jerkish behavior — supremely annoying and energy-wasting, but not trolling. That is, not done to merely to provoke a particular response, much less disingenuously. But that’s just semantics, especially since both “trolling” and “jerkishness” can be sanctioned by mods.
Oh shut up, BigT. He asked me several times, (and not just me) if I had contacted my reps, even after having been informed of the question. If he wasn’t willing to pay attention to my answer, then fuck it. And oooh, contact your reps! gasp The way he was acting, if he was so fired up, if it was such an injustice to him, then calling the reps would be an inadequate response*.
The guy just wanted to show off how morally superior he is. Just like you. If anything, that thread made me want to go and personally smack one of those little kids right in the face.
Not to mention he asked someone from Australia if he had called his reps about it. After quoting the post where the guy said he was from Australia. :smack:
*Considering his over the top reaction, of course. Please don’t think I’m sincerely suggesting that people go out and throw paint on cop cars or something like that.
I’ll give you smug (the other poster might argue) and I think we can agree that there is plenty of smugness on all sides. It is an attitude that I can well do without, especially in political discourse, because it infects the discussion with “Everyone knows better than you do and that’s why you’re wrong” which gets in the way of actual thinking.
But I wish you could explain what is elitist about being in favor of (for example) universal health care. It is a desire to take money from those who have it in order to provide medical care for everyone. That sounds egalitarian rather than elitist. It may be impractical, it will certainly annoy the people who have money (who are in every way the elite in this country), but how is it elitist?
It still doesn’t make sense. Single payer would be cheaper and have better outcomes. The real mantra of Republicans is “never, ever change anything from how I think it was in the '50s” with a side of “trickle down economics works”!
I couldn’t agree with you more on the first paragraph! Thank you.
There’s nothing inherently elitist about what you described in the second paragraph, I was directing that at the smugness attitude of the other poster, the attitude in itself is smug as it has a stench of what you described as “Everyone knows better than you and that’s why you’re wrong”. The healthcare debacle is not in question of its possible benefits, the issue with it [that I, and many others have] is the in many ways forcible taxation/taking of money from those who have it and in all likelihood have earned it, to help others who have not earned it or cannot for whatever reason. Ideally it is a great notion to have universal healthcare, but it will take away from others bottom line and in doing so is in essence saying “you have to give up some of your money and give to others because that is the morally superior way of things” which it may be, but it comes off as elitist and smug.
I think the “whore” was just an unfortunate mindless rage word — sort of how you might shout something unchracteristic when you hit your finger with a hammer — and the obtuseness was immature defensiveness, the doubling-down many of us do sometimes when we find it difficult or embarrassing to just say “I’m sorry — I was wrong.” An un-admirable human trait, but not trolling.
I am genuinely curious (not sarcasm or hidden intent here) as to why this stereotype of Republicans came to be? I’d visit the past just to do so but I’d more than likely never, ever want to live in the 1950’s. Maybe the 1980’s if I had to choose (I like the cars of that time, the music and the ridiculous fashion )
re:bolded, THAT’S EXACTLY THE POINT! THAT’s WHAT GOVERNMENTS ARE FOR! ESPECIALLY ONE THAT’S OF, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE! You are essentially saying that you don’t want the government to do its job because “I got mine, Jack!”:smack:
:rolleyes: This is a dumbass trite internet reaction. No good person responds to sanctimony by wanting to be a terrible person. However, dummies on the Internet have read this tired “joke” before and repeat it in a desire to be clever.
In your defense, I don’t think you’re a terrible person.
So instead, we continue with the dysfunctional system we have in the US where the uninsured let chronic illnesses go untreated until there is a crisis and then are treated at hospital emergency rooms (which are legally required to at least stabilize all patients), at much greater expense. All the numbers I’ve seen show that the US as a country spends much more per capita on healthcare and gets worse outcomes than countries with universal healthcare. So if you stop thinking just about what universal healthcare will cost you personally, but instead think of it in terms of how much is spent collectively, we’ll save money.
Very fair points there, but you are assuming I am personally against the idea. I am not. I said it would be nice to have. It just is not feasible yet where the transition can be made comfortably for everyone. The dynamics of the U.S. are far different that of socialist countries where uni healthcare is established and applied. A lot of people are going to get screwed over making the change and the only answer thus far I have seen from anyone is to have people bite the bullet and pay more. This is not what the people want but what a certain group wants for the people. There is a huge difference in that.
[most] Republicans know there needs to be a change in the healthcare system, that is definitely agreed upon by most of both parties.Gradual changes are needed to assist the healthcare system but abrupt changes which are almost universally pushed by a certain wing are likely going to prove disastrous. In the long run Universal Healthcare can and should be beneficial but we are speaking of humans here, intrinsically greedy and self-serving. They will not take such rapid changes lightly being creatures of comfort and habit. You have to work with what you’ve got in this scenario.
So you are saying that “smug” and “elitist” go together as a highly cohesive pair of words. Can one be smug without being elitist? For example, apparently you agree that there is smugness on the Republican side, among others, but I don’t recall seeing where Republicans are routinely accused of elitism.
Here is my counter-theory: elitism has to do with level of education, and perceived quality of educational institutions. Not speaking of leaders now, but liberal supporters tend to have higher educational levels and generally at better schools than conservative supporters. This is the view that liberal supporters are supposed to have, which allows them to look down on conservative supporters as uninformed and uneducated. Hence, elitism.
I am not granting as fact that this is the way that liberal supporters generally think, but it is a common trope, especially among conservative supporters. It is, I believe, why so many of them look with glee on 45’s dismantling of expectations and refusal to hew to normalcy. It’s what allows him, an alleged billionaire, to be regarded as “one of us!” by people who are barely scraping by and whose conditions are being daily made worse by his policies. All that stuff is theoretical to them, but he sure is sticking it to those snooty, well-educated nabobs, ain’t he.
This is my précis of elitism in America. It’s the topsy-turvy world where lack of education is to be prized as “real” and “elitist” thoughtful discourse gives way to “glurge I saw posted on Facebook.”
)