firefly212: I don't think it is that there are fewer conservatives on fark, I just think more and more of the fark conservatives (good people like Weaver) aren't onboard with the new faux-conservatism

I don't think that's quite right, because this strain of conservatism isn't new. What is happening is that people's views have evolved. On the gay marriage topic, the majority of liberals also used to be opposed and their objections always used to be by far the most frustrating to deal with. In any case, the mainstream on a number of issues has shifted, not really in a left or right direction, but in a direction where culture war issues no longer have the same sway and are now actually alienating voters. A lot of the GOP values haven't changed, although what certainly has changed is their current intolerance of heterodox views in their party.

Was this study conducted by reading Fark Political threads?

'Conservative' has no real meaning. They only want to conserve their narrow-minded view of the world, not conserve the freedoms outlined in the US constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are religious radicals if anything. Call them what they are, not what they want to be called...smfhp

All I know about modern day conservatives is that they willingly try to debate a subject with false information and when called on it resort to ad hominem, racism and bigotry.

I have never, in my entire life, seen a conservative admit defeat and concede. They don't learn, they are unwilling to learn. They love being told what to do and what to think but only acknowledge information from morally acceptable sources. They are also very prone to paranoia and conspiracy theories and have a cognitive dissonance that is baffling to behold.

Carlo Spicy-Wiener:

In short, the Liberal animal learns from its mistakes, while the Conservative animal thinks that maybe this time, their mistakes will actually work.

Proven at 1:37 Link (new window)

firefly212: bobbette: Richard Flaccid: All i've learned from this thread is that Fark now has about a 100:1 liberal to conservative member ratio. My how times have changed.

Even a few years ago I'd be arguing with 30 people in a typical Fark thread who seriously had a problem with gay marriage. And yes, it really was that many. It felt like a losing battle in every thread. But recently it's like a Human Rights Campaign fundraiser up in here, at least until a politician has a sex scandal, at which point Politics tabbers all revert to chortling that Democrats are superior because they aren't having illicit gay sex.

In all fairness, I have plenty of dirty kinky gay sex, it just isn't all that illicit any more.

I don't think it is that there are fewer conservatives on fark, I just think more and more of the fark conservatives (good people like Weaver) aren't onboard with the new faux-conservatism that advocates for more business subsidies, more government intervention in marriages, more government intervention in medical decisions (Schiavo, drugs, whatever), and more domestic spying. The new faux-conservatives have staked their fortunes to a number of losing battles, I mean, when they laud frackin Newt Gingrich as a champion of marriage or (lets borrow money from China to crack down on porn) Rick Santorum as a champion of personal liberties, there just aren't a lot of sane people (which most conservatives are) who are going to jump on that bandwagon.

To Bobbette:

A.) The left "chortles" at Republicans for having illicit gay sex because the Republican in question is almost invariably a rock-ribbed family values conservative who has a history of being very vocally anti-gay... It's common enough that it's an actual "thing." Wake me when you see the left chortling at openly-gay Republicans for being gay. The only mockery you'll catch directed at the Log Cabin Republicans is of the "Chickens for Colonel Sanders" variety

The chortling about the scandals isn't for the gayness, it's for the closeted self-loathing which is so pathetic you have to either laugh or cry.

B.) What firefly212 just said...

As the right-wing races for the extremes, they're leaving a lot of people behind. I used to consider myself a conservative/Republican (of the Eisenhower/Rockefeller variety) way back in the day, but they started losing me in the 90's. By 2000 I was a left-leaning independent, and by 2004 I was a full-tilt liberal and a card-carrying Democrat. (who themselves have gone too far right economically)

The parties aren't equally reasonable, therefore it shouldn't be expected that they will have equal support or that their views deserve equal respect.

The right is lobbing a hail, mary at their nutjob base these days. I think they know they're going to lose a lot of people in the process, but I think they're hoping the religious right will turn out and reward them in a very big way.

As for the changing tides in the gay marriage issue... that's not a Fark thing, that's a movement thing, on the national level. The American people have gotten to know gay people and figured out that they're "just plain folks." That's making it harder and harder for most people to maintain the kind of vitriol necessary to want to treat them like second-class citizens. Gays aren't "weird half-naked guys" shamelessly flaunting their "deviancy" in San Francisco parades on TV anymore. More people are coming out, that means more people have to look friends and family in the eye and say "I think I should get to tell you who you can and can't marry." Few people have the audacity or mean-spiritedness to be able to do that.

In all those arguments back in the day, I was always telling those people you're talking about that the future was already written and that history had already left them behind, because even 10 years ago it was easy for anyone who was paying attention to see the wave swelling. It's currently crashing, and now the haters are the ones who've been shamed into silence... just as they were in the civil rights era. Those people can pound the table for a little while, and cow people into silence, but eventually everybody starts to see who the actual "bad guys" are.

"The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Saborlas: Trick question. Conservatives don't think.

Done in 6.

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher

You really think the media gives white people a harder time in talking about crime than minorities? Really?

are you daft?

I'm legitimately asking you that question. Is that your honest perception?

nope. However, the media DOES like sensationalizing stuff and this story is far more sensational if he is white than if he is a member of a minority group himself.

he's 1/2 latino and 1/2 white. He did something bad so (Farkers, media, commentators) call him white. If he were the victim (Farkers, media, commentators)'d call him latino.

That isn't really reflected in your original statement, but I know you'll never actually walk it back.

what isn't reflected in my original statement? The media will play up his whiteness because that's more sensational. People like you will "accidentally" refer to him explicitly as "white" as if that matters when in fact, he's only 1/2 white and under different circumstances - like if Zimmerman himself were shot by Honkey McCracker - he'd be the most Latino Latino ever to come out of Latinotown.

You see that's the difference between you and I. I admitted when I misspoke.

You cannot admit that your original statement was faulty. It's really quite unambiguous as you originally wrote it.

"He did something bad so we call him white".

Nothing about sensationalism. You identify one factor and one factor alone for why he is called white: He did something bad.

You then double down and reverse the same derp: "If he were the victim, we'd call him latino"

Again, nothing about sensationalism. Nothing about the difference in race with the attacker. Just one factor would get him called Latino: being the victim of the crime.

Now, can you admit that your original statement was poorly worded and failed to express what you intended it to? Or will you continue to bluster?

Mavent: Kenyan Democrat

LoL so is Obama..!!!!

/I kid.

skullkrusher: he's 1/2 latino and 1/2 white. He did something bad so we call him white. If he were the victim we'd call him latino.

I've seen you promulgating a lot of derp lately, which is sad in and of itself considering you used to be one of the guys I could point to as being an actual rational rightie (even if you were kind of abrasive), but pulling this race-card persecution-complex bullshiat is a new low for you.

Your newfound embrace of the right-wing groupthink is disturbing. Please. Stop.

Philip Francis Queeg: "He did something bad so we call him white".

Nothing about sensationalism. You identify one factor and one factor alone for why he is called white: He did something bad.

You then double down and reverse the same derp: "If he were the victim, we'd call him latino"

you're trying to out semantic minutia skullkrusher? good luck with that...

I alone am best: Mavent: Kenyan Democrat

LoL so is Obama..!!!!

/I kid.

Headso: Philip Francis Queeg: "He did something bad so we call him white".

Nothing about sensationalism. You identify one factor and one factor alone for why he is called white: He did something bad.

You then double down and reverse the same derp: "If he were the victim, we'd call him latino"

you're trying to out semantic minutia skullkrusher? good luck with that...

I know it's a fruitless task.

CorporatePerson: I listen to talk radio, watch Fox News, and stalk a lot of discussion boards to try to understand what conservatives are thinking. The only thing I've gathered is, they believe what they are told by their opinion leaders unconditionally, and they are never allowed to admit fault or apologize for anything. They are always right, the others are always wrong, and no amount of evidence could ever make them believe otherwise.

The article is right. They view their own politics as sacred, like a religion. Liberals just don't understand how you can believe something so strongly and never ever question it.

Because change is scary. It's easier to continue to believe (for several reasons) what you've always believed than it is to move "forward." Besides that it's not always wise to rush forward, so we as a society need people to drag their feet. You need to see the good in the bad to begin to understand and accept people for their differences...

I could even make that argument that you're actually more backward than hardcore conservatives. Your inability to even understand how someone could feel that way means that you are yourself as flawed. You have to accept everyone to truly make a harmonious world; it's especially true for those that we don't understand. Because what's the alternatives? Force them to see it your way? How do you intend to do that to a person that doesn't see reason in the same way you do? Personally I'll just wait for them to die.

HeartBurnKid: skullkrusher: he's 1/2 latino and 1/2 white. He did something bad so we call him white. If he were the victim we'd call him latino.

I've seen you promulgating a lot of derp lately, which is sad in and of itself considering you used to be one of the guys I could point to as being an actual rational rightie (even if you were kind of abrasive), but pulling this race-card persecution-complex bullshiat is a new low for you.

Your newfound embrace of the right-wing groupthink is disturbing. Please. Stop.

yeah you've said this on a few occasions. The dude did something horrible. I've seen a number of people explicitly referring to him as "white" - if the situation were different and Zimmerman were shot by Winston Howell III, I think they'd be mentioning that he was latino to play up the racial aspect of the event. No persecution complex at all. Simply an observation on what I find to be an incongruity based on his role in this event

Philip Francis Queeg: You see that's the difference between you and I. I admitted when I misspoke.

You cannot admit that your original statement was faulty. It's really quite unambiguous as you originally wrote it.

"He did something bad so we call him white".

Nothing about sensationalism. You identify one factor and one factor alone for why he is called white: He did something bad.

You then double down and reverse the same derp: "If he were the victim, we'd call him latino"

Again, nothing about sensationalism. Nothing about the difference in race with the attacker. Just one factor would get him called Latino: being the victim of the crime.

Now, can you admit that your original statement was poorly worded and failed to express what you intended it to? Or will you continue to bluster?

sure, perhaps it was unclear. I suppose I can take your follow up questions as sincere. I've hammered out what I meant. I am sorry my initial comment was flippant.

Teufelaffe: If we were blind and had no choice
Differences hid
Would we hate each other by the sound of our voice?

Whoa.

/surprised by Anthrax quote.

They have already won. They got you to keep using the word 'conservative' to describe them -.- figures

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: You see that's the difference between you and I. I admitted when I misspoke.

You cannot admit that your original statement was faulty. It's really quite unambiguous as you originally wrote it.

"He did something bad so we call him white".

Nothing about sensationalism. You identify one factor and one factor alone for why he is called white: He did something bad.

You then double down and reverse the same derp: "If he were the victim, we'd call him latino"

Again, nothing about sensationalism. Nothing about the difference in race with the attacker. Just one factor would get him called Latino: being the victim of the crime.

Now, can you admit that your original statement was poorly worded and failed to express what you intended it to? Or will you continue to bluster?

sure, perhaps it was unclear. I suppose I can take your follow up questions as sincere. I've hammered out what I meant. I am sorry my initial comment was flippant.

Fair 'nough.

firefly212: just think more and more of the fark conservatives (good people like Weaver) aren't onboard with the new faux-conservatism

Has that boy came down from the derp pill that is economic populism? I swear on day he got curmudgeon and started yelling at clouds screaming about they are taking our jorbs money.

skullkrusher: HeartBurnKid: skullkrusher: he's 1/2 latino and 1/2 white. He did something bad so we call him white. If he were the victim we'd call him latino.

I've seen you promulgating a lot of derp lately, which is sad in and of itself considering you used to be one of the guys I could point to as being an actual rational rightie (even if you were kind of abrasive), but pulling this race-card persecution-complex bullshiat is a new low for you.

Your newfound embrace of the right-wing groupthink is disturbing. Please. Stop.

yeah you've said this on a few occasions. The dude did something horrible. I've seen a number of people explicitly referring to him as "white" - if the situation were different and Zimmerman were shot by Winston Howell III, I think they'd be mentioning that he was latino to play up the racial aspect of the event. No persecution complex at all. Simply an observation on what I find to be an incongruity based on his role in this event

You find an incongruity based solely on what you imagine would happen if the roles were reversed. And based on this (something that hasn't actually happened, mind), you call out the media and the other posters on this site. That's something I've seen a lot of really shiatty trolls do on this site, and it's something I've seen you do more and more.

RedTank: I could even make that argument that you're actually more backward than hardcore conservatives. Your inability to even understand how someone could feel that way means that you are yourself as flawed. You have to accept everyone to truly make a harmonious world; it's especially true for those that we don't understand. Because what's the alternatives? Force them to see it your way? How do you intend to do that to a person that doesn't see reason in the same way you do? Personally I'll just wait for them to die.

Well yeah. I think that's the difference, though. I understand that I'm flawed and while I have my opinions, there's no guarantee that I'm right. I know in a few years, or a few decades, I may look back on my liberal opinions and facepalm.

I have no idea what it's like to believe I'm 100% right about everything. I have no concept of what it's like to be so sure that I'm right, that I never have to apologize to anyone for anything I do to them. That's why I'm a liberal. I question everything.

I was raised in a fairly conservative household, too. I was raised Catholic by two parents who vote Republican. I just grew up and started asking questions.

Saiga410: firefly212: just think more and more of the fark conservatives (good people like Weaver) aren't onboard with the new faux-conservatism

Has that boy came down from the derp pill that is economic populism? I swear on day he got curmudgeon and started yelling at clouds screaming about they are taking our jorbs money.

hehe Weavs and Hubie are the favorite conservatives of Fark liberals. Quite possibly because they never, ever disagree with them on anything :)

skullkrusher: Saiga410: firefly212: just think more and more of the fark conservatives (good people like Weaver) aren't onboard with the new faux-conservatism

Has that boy came down from the derp pill that is economic populism? I swear on day he got curmudgeon and started yelling at clouds screaming about they are taking our jorbs money.

hehe Weavs and Hubie are the favorite conservatives of Fark liberals. Quite possibly because they never, ever disagree with them on anything :)

Or possibly because they recognize stupidity when they see it, even when it comes from their own team.

Or possibly because, when they do disagree, they don't pull out the ifs and buts (which, I remind you, are not candy and nuts).

Understanding liberals is easy for conservatives. Just follow these principles.

1. The rich didn't earn their money, they stole it.

2. There is no difference between 200K and 200 billion. They are all millionaires and billionaires.

2. Whenever something bad happens in this world there is almost always a conservative behind it if you connect enough dots.

3. The validity of your position doesn't matter as much as how enraged and offended you can get yourself.

4. Logic is for losers.

5. If it's important enough for someone to put on a chart then it has to be true.

6. Budgets don't matter. In fact what does that even mean?

7. Racists and sexists are everywhere......I mean everywhere.

8. Athiests are brilliant and all Christians are idiots....except for Barrack Obama who is obviously without a doubt as christian as grape juice at communion.

9. If loving the earth is wrong I don't want to be right.

10. People take operation wall street seriously. I'm Seriously.....poop.

HeartBurnKid: You find an incongruity based solely on what you imagine would happen if the roles were reversed. And based on this (something that hasn't actually happened, mind), you call out the media and the other posters on this site.

yes, I believe that people would not be explicitly referring to Zimmerman as "white" had he been the victim in this tragedy.

HeartBurnKid: That's something I've seen a lot of really shiatty trolls do on this site, and it's something I've seen you do more and more.

Dunno what to tell you. I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that Zimmerman had a justification to use deadly force and my feeling is that that he should go to jail although I will reserve that judgment until a full investigation is complete. Of course this assumes that one is being conducted which is a travesty. However, I do have other observations about the circumstances of the case. For example, I think that now infamous "coon" tape isn't what people are trying to make it out to be. I think people are TRYING to play up the racial angle (which likely exists to some degree, at least subconsciously) and WANT to hear him say that word.

CorporatePerson: RedTank: I could even make that argument that you're actually more backward than hardcore conservatives. Your inability to even understand how someone could feel that way means that you are yourself as flawed. You have to accept everyone to truly make a harmonious world; it's especially true for those that we don't understand. Because what's the alternatives? Force them to see it your way? How do you intend to do that to a person that doesn't see reason in the same way you do? Personally I'll just wait for them to die.

Well yeah. I think that's the difference, though. I understand that I'm flawed and while I have my opinions, there's no guarantee that I'm right. I know in a few years, or a few decades, I may look back on my liberal opinions and facepalm.

I have no idea what it's like to believe I'm 100% right about everything. I have no concept of what it's like to be so sure that I'm right, that I never have to apologize to anyone for anything I do to them. That's why I'm a liberal. I question everything.

I was raised in a fairly conservative household, too. I was raised Catholic by two parents who vote Republican. I just grew up and started asking questions.

Well I may have been a tad abrassive. My appologies. I guess like I felt like this article is attempting to drive a wedge further between people when I personally see that as very irronically backwards.

I just wish we could move beyond black and white labels and finally have real discussions about the issues that are facing this county. There is a crisis of character in America and it all comes down to honesty. Bill Clinton lied. George Bush lied. Honestly Obama might be the most honest of the bunch, but he has surrounded himself with so many liars that it doesn't even matter. The reason Mitt Romney isn't running away with the Republican primary is because he is a phony.

skullkrusher: HeartBurnKid: You find an incongruity based solely on what you imagine would happen if the roles were reversed. And based on this (something that hasn't actually happened, mind), you call out the media and the other posters on this site.

yes, I believe that people would not be explicitly referring to Zimmerman as "white" had he been the victim in this tragedy.

Actually, you went a little further than that, didn't you? You said that people would be explicitly referring to him as Latino.

Not that it matters, though, because either way, you're still carping at people, not because of anything they actually did, but because of something you think they might have done in a hypothetical situation. I'm sorry, but that is farking clownshoes and you should know better than that.

HeartBurnKid: skullkrusher: Saiga410: firefly212: just think more and more of the fark conservatives (good people like Weaver) aren't onboard with the new faux-conservatism

Has that boy came down from the derp pill that is economic populism? I swear on day he got curmudgeon and started yelling at clouds screaming about they are taking our jorbs money.

hehe Weavs and Hubie are the favorite conservatives of Fark liberals. Quite possibly because they never, ever disagree with them on anything :)

Or possibly because they recognize stupidity when they see it, even when it comes from their own team.

Or possibly because, when they do disagree, they don't pull out the ifs and buts (which, I remind you, are not candy and nuts).

many things do have ifs and buts. Rick Santorum is a monster but his wife didn't have an abortion and I'll argue with someone who says that she did because that's false. We SHOULD be taxing the wealthiest Americans to a greater degree but I don't agree with all the plans to do so proposed by Democrats. Newt Gingrich is a pretentious farkwad but he probably didn't mean to insult people when he talked about Walmart being empty...

Next time you're in a thread with them, read what they're saying. Pretend that you don't know a thing about them and ask yourself "is this person a conservative?" I'm willing to bet you'll have to honestly answer "no"

o5iiawah: technicolor-misfit: The bottom line is this, if conservatives are such swell people, why do they so consistently rally around such awful hate-mongering people and terrible policies, and why are they always on the opposite side of every bit of historical progress we've experienced?

Civil rights, women getting the vote, blacks getting the vote, gays getting married, interracial marriage... you name it, conservatives have opposed it. If they're so great, then why?

Are you serious?

It was 4 democratic senators, Byrd, Al Gore senior and 2 others who filibustered civil rights legislation
It was a republican congress who fought tooth and nail with Wilson to get women's suffrage passed
It was southern democrats who passed Jim Crow laws which required men and women apply with the state for a marriage permit
President Eisenhower sent troops to the south to integrate schools, much to the chagrin of democratic governors

He said "conservatives", not "Republicans". Prior to the 1960's, the type of people who are Republicans today were Democrats back then, especially in the South. Of course, you know this, but you just like to play these unoriginal little games to convince yourself that you are so clever.

HeartBurnKid: Actually, you went a little further than that, didn't you? You said that people would be explicitly referring to him as Latino.

yes, if he were shot by a white guy then yes, absolutely. I believe they would be.

MFL: Understanding liberals is easy for conservatives. Just follow these principles.

1) Create strawman
2) Knock down strawman.

There you go.

MFL: Understanding liberals is easy for conservatives. Just follow these principles.

1. The rich didn't earn their money, they stole it.

2. There is no difference between 200K and 200 billion. They are all millionaires and billionaires.

2. Whenever something bad happens in this world there is almost always a conservative behind it if you connect enough dots.

3. The validity of your position doesn't matter as much as how enraged and offended you can get yourself.

4. Logic is for losers.

Apparently, counting isn't for third-rate trolls.

MFL:
1. Derp

Hey! I remember you. You're an idiot. *Plink* (you're too inconsequential to make a Plonk.)

Fart_Machine: MFL: Understanding liberals is easy for conservatives. Just follow these principles.

1) Create strawman
2) Knock down strawman.

There you go.

Both sides do this. Both sides also enjoy pointing out the dichotomy you mentioned in an attempt to smear the other side while pretending to be holier than thou merely because they have the intellect to point out and/or make up such situations.

RedTank: Both sides yadda yadda.

ORIGINAL!

Any more insights for us?

o5iiawah: Part of protecting individual rights and liberties is to ensure that trials are fair.

So you're saying that based on the dissent in last week's ruling about competent counsel, we have 4 Supreme Court justices who don't give a flying fark about liberty?

Most of us knew that, but it's nice of you to admit it.

MFL: Derp at eleventy

The article says conservatives "understand' liberals. But you definitely do not (and also can't count).

So this means you aren't a conservative. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

RedTank: Fart_Machine: MFL: Understanding liberals is easy for conservatives. Just follow these principles.

1) Create strawman
2) Knock down strawman.

There you go.

Both sides do this. Both sides also enjoy pointing out the dichotomy you mentioned in an attempt to smear the other side while pretending to be holier than thou merely because they have the intellect to point out and/or make up such situations.

Are you talking politics or normal people debating?

Because, of course they all do it in politics. Problem is all conservatives apparently think they are politicians, or at least act like them.

Smackledorfer: RedTank: Both sides yadda yadda.

ORIGINAL!

Any more insights for us?

When did I ever frame it like it was a new idea? How do you intend to convince people that what you believe is right?

HeartBurnKid: skullkrusher: Saiga410: firefly212: just think more and more of the fark conservatives (good people like Weaver) aren't onboard with the new faux-conservatism

Has that boy came down from the derp pill that is economic populism? I swear on day he got curmudgeon and started yelling at clouds screaming about they are taking our jorbs money.

hehe Weavs and Hubie are the favorite conservatives of Fark liberals. Quite possibly because they never, ever disagree with them on anything :)

Or possibly because they recognize stupidity when they see it, even when it comes from their own team.

Or possibly because, when they do disagree, they don't pull out the ifs and buts (which, I remind you, are not candy and nuts).

Its because weaver is a liberal libertarian and Hubie is a disillusion republican.

skullkrusher: Next time you're in a thread with them, read what they're saying. Pretend that you don't know a thing about them and ask yourself "is this person a conservative?" I'm willing to bet you'll have to honestly answer "no"

To be quite frank, I don't know what a conservative is anymore. We've got people who want a government so small it fits in a woman's vagina. We've got people who hate debt so much that they oppose any possible method to reduce it. We've got people who shriek about family values while they support a serial adulterer. We've got people who are convinced that everything would be just fine if we just set the clock back to 1988, or 1978, or 1958. We've got people who think that the surest indicator of the merit of a person's positions is the party they're registered with. And then we have a few folks who honestly want low taxes and minimal regulations. And every single one of those groups says they're the only real conservatives.

You ask me if I would think hubie and Weav are conservatives if I knew nothing else about them? I'd have to ask you what definition of conservative we're using first. To be honest, I don't see either one of them discuss fiscal policy or the like all that often; most of what I see them do is call out guys who are nominally on their "side" when they act like stupid assholes. And they should be praised for that.

And all I see you do is make up excuses, false equivalencies, and hypothetical situations so you can somehow stretch to condemn the other side, as if that makes your own side's foibles OK.

RedTank: Fart_Machine: MFL: Understanding liberals is easy for conservatives. Just follow these principles.

1) Create strawman
2) Knock down strawman.

There you go.

Both sides do this. Both sides also enjoy pointing out the dichotomy you mentioned in an attempt to smear the other side while pretending to be holier than thou merely because they have the intellect to point out and/or make up such situations.

So vote Republican?

skullkrusher: HeartBurnKid: Actually, you went a little further than that, didn't you? You said that people would be explicitly referring to him as Latino.

yes, if he were shot by a white guy then yes, absolutely. I believe they would be.

Well, I believe that if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

And both of those statements have the same relevance to reality.