Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   We have become a culture accustomed to shutting up when we attempt to voice dissident political opinions, claims person upset at getting shot down by "facts" and "statistics" when trying to say Obama is really from Africa   (theatlantic.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, freedom of thinks, Great Village Recession, Brendan Eich, Mount Doom, Middlebury College, statistics, tort of outrage, cultures  
•       •       •

3980 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2014 at 9:56 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-04-08 01:39:54 PM  

kgf: The author said none of the things you attribute to him...


Except for that part right in the middle where he says exactly all of that. You know, where he lists off all those people who were "wronged" because they said something that got responses from people who disagreed. Or the part right after where he talks about how it's not right that the "middle" sometimes reacts to speech it disagrees with by harming the speaker financially or socially, as if it's wrong to make value-based decisions in a world with numerous options. Which is funny since immediately after he deigns himself arbiter of those ideas which are "off-limits" and glorifies the fact that that retaliation for racist and anti-semitic speech make the "social costs of saying the unsayable ... prohibitively high". Because, apparently, he gets to decide what is and is not off-limits.

Even ignoring all that, though, it's a bullshiat argument anyway. There is no "outrage bubble". The fact that people are able to communicate and organize their outrage is new, but the fact that people became outraged by the outrageous is not. He's essentially biatching because people are able to come together and their voices are now louder than before, but the voices aren't new, they're just organized and in unison now.

Get the fark over it. There was a time when you could take a Polaroid of your junk and then burn the evidence for good if you had misgivings later. Well, like those days of yore, the days when a CEO or other public figure could say something hateful and take it back before anyone noticed are gone. The solution to that isn't to stop holding assholes accountable for being assholes, it's for assholes to simply stop being assholes.
Since Eich is the current preeminent example, we'll use Eich. I personally don't care enough to get that worked up about his bigotry, but apparently a lot of other people did. I'm not going to say it's wrong what they did because it's not. There's no shortage of browsers out there, so if you're going to remain competitive, you probably shouldn't make bigots who are going to piss people off a major figurehead at your company. That's all there is to it. As a consumer in a country with a wide array of competitive options for most of the things I need, I can afford to take my money and associations elsewhere if I find the opinions of certain company heads offensive enough. As is my goddamn right.
 
2014-04-08 01:43:50 PM  
Oh, shut up, Subby.
 
2014-04-08 01:46:52 PM  

BSABSVR: That was long and rambling and the author admits towards the end that it doesn't really have much of a point. Also it approvingly quotes Maureen Dowd. What a waste of time.


It was a speech adapted into an article (which explains the rambling). And when I read it yesterday, I wanted that five minutes of my life back. Lovett took a long ass time to say absolutely nothing. I hope wherever he gave that speech originally, he didn't get paid, but I suspect he got paid by the word.

I think the Obama as first foreign born president was meant as a joke? Maybe? I hope. It doesn't matter where he was born: Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, Timbuktu. He is a US citizen by birth according to the law because at the time of his birth, his mother, a native-born US Citizen, was there, according to all sources, working in a qualifying job under immigration law and had lived in the US the requisite amount of time beyond her 14th birthday, qualifying him automatically as a natural US Citizen, regardless of where he was born. (Half my family are redneck Birthers and I looked the law up to shut them the fark up about it. I don't even like Obama, but the derp about this is ridiculous)

Every five years or so, Dowd makes a decent point. Most of the time, though, you're right: she exists to be mocked.
 
2014-04-08 01:50:39 PM  

Aigoo: BSABSVR: That was long and rambling and the author admits towards the end that it doesn't really have much of a point. Also it approvingly quotes Maureen Dowd. What a waste of time.

It was a speech adapted into an article (which explains the rambling). And when I read it yesterday, I wanted that five minutes of my life back. Lovett took a long ass time to say absolutely nothing. I hope wherever he gave that speech originally, he didn't get paid, but I suspect he got paid by the word.

I think the Obama as first foreign born president was meant as a joke? Maybe? I hope. It doesn't matter where he was born: Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, Timbuktu. He is a US citizen by birth according to the law because at the time of his birth, his mother, a native-born US Citizen, was there, according to all sources, working in a qualifying job under immigration law and had lived in the US the requisite amount of time beyond her 14th birthday, qualifying him automatically as a natural US Citizen, regardless of where he was born. (Half my family are redneck Birthers and I looked the law up to shut them the fark up about it. I don't even like Obama, but the derp about this is ridiculous)

Every five years or so, Dowd makes a decent point. Most of the time, though, you're right: she exists to be mocked.


Given that he worked for Obama, I was pretty sure it was a joke. But given that the subby and most of the people in this thread seem to think he is a birther, i'm beginning to think maybe he learned something while working for Obama to convince him the president is not a U.S. citizen.
 
2014-04-08 02:35:42 PM  

bigwf2007: patrick767: I see some people think the writer is serious about being a birther. Successful troll is successful.

Not even trolling. Just a joke. i understand how i might have been the only person who read that and knew off the bat this guy was a former speechwriter for Obama, but he mentions working for him in the article, and he also mentions how right-wingers are constantly repeating stuff from his Twitter to show how awful liberals are. If I hadn't been reading Fark so long, I just might draw the conclusion that neither the submitter nor many of the people posting comments even bothered to read the piece.


I'm really glad that I'm not the only one who stumbled at the title after reading the actual article.
 
2014-04-08 02:57:11 PM  

skozlaw: kgf: The author said none of the things you attribute to him...

Except for that part right in the middle where he says exactly all of that. You know, where he lists off all those people who were "wronged" because they said something that got responses from people who disagreed. Or the part right after where he talks about how it's not right that the "middle" sometimes reacts to speech it disagrees with by harming the speaker financially or socially, as if it's wrong to make value-based decisions in a world with numerous options. Which is funny since immediately after he deigns himself arbiter of those ideas which are "off-limits" and glorifies the fact that that retaliation for racist and anti-semitic speech make the "social costs of saying the unsayable ... prohibitively high". Because, apparently, he gets to decide what is and is not off-limits.

Even ignoring all that, though, it's a bullshiat argument anyway. There is no "outrage bubble". The fact that people are able to communicate and organize their outrage is new, but the fact that people became outraged by the outrageous is not. He's essentially biatching because people are able to come together and their voices are now louder than before, but the voices aren't new, they're just organized and in unison now.

Get the fark over it. There was a time when you could take a Polaroid of your junk and then burn the evidence for good if you had misgivings later. Well, like those days of yore, the days when a CEO or other public figure could say something hateful and take it back before anyone noticed are gone. The solution to that isn't to stop holding assholes accountable for being assholes, it's for assholes to simply stop being assholes.
Since Eich is the current preeminent example, we'll use Eich. I personally don't care enough to get that worked up about his bigotry, but apparently a lot of other people did. I'm not going to say it's wrong what they did because it's not. There's no shortage of browsers out ther ...


This article was so terribly written, it's hard to tell what point the author was trying to make, exactly. To the extent that he was saying "defeat ideas, don't attack people" I can see the point of that argument, even if it is just hand-waving "take the high road" centrism that tends to really piss people off. It's along the same lines of the "agree to disagree" philosophy of civil, civic discourse - "I disagree with you but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler" sort of protesting. And to the extent that inflammatory rhetoric has replaced compromise, and there has been a sharp rise in the "us v. them" gamesmanship in the political sphere, I can see his point.

But where he falls short is not understanding that there are some people who do need to be told to shut up. There are people who need to be held accountable for stupid, dangerous, wrong, immoral, bigoted speech, and those people should be told to shut up. I don't care if my neighbor believes in evolution or is pro-life, except to the extent that he's an asshole about it. I do care when a school board member doesn't believe in evolution, or when my pharmacist is pro-life, because that will actually affect me personally. I care when a prominent person who has influence over...whatever, that might affect me, spouts off offensive and disgusting viewpoints. And I believe that those people should be removed from positions of influence so that those offensive viewpoints cease to affect me.

And that's what the author is missing. If you are in a position of influence in our society, whether it's as a CEO, or a politician, or a political commentator, or even just a celebrity, you have influence over the way people think, act, and respond to situations in their lives. Much more influence than me, I'm well aware. So if you hold a position I disagree with, the best way I know to counteract that position is by limiting the voices espousing that position. Reducing the influence of that position. And if you consider my methods of reducing that influence to be crass, argumentative, unproductive, or silly, well, sometimes that's the only way to be heard.
 
2014-04-08 04:07:51 PM  
Well, when we live in a society where the only people with an effective voice to change things are those with piles of money, and the great unwashed are left with a very small voice and very little real power, what did you expect would happen?

Bereft of any REAL power to change things, ordinary people will start attacking each other in the belief that changing the opinion of someone who is as equally powerless as you are will make a difference, even when the change of belief they want is often based on semantics and will not make any real difference anyway.

However there are ALWAYS cracks in the wall, and when we find them, we CAN use them to make change that matters to ordinary people. But ONLY if masses of us keep pushing, and it is so easy to give up these days....
 
2014-04-08 04:13:33 PM  
My god, that was poorly written.

And if only America had a culture of shutting up. But it doesn't, unfortunately.
 
2014-04-08 04:26:35 PM  

Beeblebrox: ManateeGag: Beeblebrox: Where does this idiot think George Washington was born?

Virginia?  (the colony, that is)

And what country was that in at the time of his birth?


Doesn't matter, because the Constitution has a separate provision to deal with candidates who were born prior to the Revolution.
 
2014-04-08 04:33:03 PM  

anfrind: Beeblebrox: ManateeGag: Beeblebrox: Where does this idiot think George Washington was born?

Virginia?  (the colony, that is)

And what country was that in at the time of his birth?

Doesn't matter, because the Constitution has a separate provision to deal with candidates who were born prior to the Revolution.


I get it but you're missing the point.  The writer (lol) of TFA claims that Obama is the "first foreign-born President".
 
2014-04-08 04:42:43 PM  

Beeblebrox: anfrind: Beeblebrox: ManateeGag: Beeblebrox: Where does this idiot think George Washington was born?

Virginia?  (the colony, that is)

And what country was that in at the time of his birth?

Doesn't matter, because the Constitution has a separate provision to deal with candidates who were born prior to the Revolution.

I get it but you're missing the point.  The writer (lol) of TFA claims that Obama is the "first foreign-born President".


The writer was a speechwriter for Obama for three years. Before that he was chief speechwriter for Hilary Clinton during her presidential run. He noted that he worked for Obama and Clinton  in the article, which apparently few people posting in this thread actually read.
 
2014-04-08 04:52:38 PM  

bigwf2007: Beeblebrox: anfrind: Beeblebrox: ManateeGag: Beeblebrox: Where does this idiot think George Washington was born?

Virginia?  (the colony, that is)

And what country was that in at the time of his birth?

Doesn't matter, because the Constitution has a separate provision to deal with candidates who were born prior to the Revolution.

I get it but you're missing the point.  The writer (lol) of TFA claims that Obama is the "first foreign-born President".

The writer was a speechwriter for Obama for three years. Before that he was chief speechwriter for Hilary Clinton during her presidential run. He noted that he worked for Obama and Clinton  in the article, which apparently few people posting in this thread actually read.


So you're saying that the article doesn't say that Obama is the first foreign-born President?
 
2014-04-09 02:30:47 AM  
I have no problem with dissent.

None at all.

I don't have much of a problem with the American Commie Party.

I don't even have a problem with those damn Illinois Nazis, even though they're a buncha losers.

What I do have a problem with is
BLATANT, FEAR PEDDLING, HYSTERICAL, DELIBERATE LYING.
 
2014-04-09 04:13:26 PM  

Beeblebrox: bigwf2007: Beeblebrox: anfrind: Beeblebrox: ManateeGag: Beeblebrox: Where does this idiot think George Washington was born?

Virginia?  (the colony, that is)

And what country was that in at the time of his birth?

Doesn't matter, because the Constitution has a separate provision to deal with candidates who were born prior to the Revolution.

I get it but you're missing the point.  The writer (lol) of TFA claims that Obama is the "first foreign-born President".

The writer was a speechwriter for Obama for three years. Before that he was chief speechwriter for Hilary Clinton during her presidential run. He noted that he worked for Obama and Clinton  in the article, which apparently few people posting in this thread actually read.

So you're saying that the article doesn't say that Obama is the first foreign-born President?


LEARN2SARCASM
 
2014-04-09 06:25:56 PM  

anfrind: Beeblebrox: bigwf2007: Beeblebrox: anfrind: Beeblebrox: ManateeGag: Beeblebrox: Where does this idiot think George Washington was born?

Virginia?  (the colony, that is)

And what country was that in at the time of his birth?

Doesn't matter, because the Constitution has a separate provision to deal with candidates who were born prior to the Revolution.

I get it but you're missing the point.  The writer (lol) of TFA claims that Obama is the "first foreign-born President".

The writer was a speechwriter for Obama for three years. Before that he was chief speechwriter for Hilary Clinton during her presidential run. He noted that he worked for Obama and Clinton  in the article, which apparently few people posting in this thread actually read.

So you're saying that the article doesn't say that Obama is the first foreign-born President?

LEARN2SARCASM


Holy crap some of you people are stupid.  Yes, I know it was a sarcastic remark.  But obviously you don't get why his joke fails.
 
2014-04-09 08:22:25 PM  

Beeblebrox: anfrind: Beeblebrox: bigwf2007: Beeblebrox: anfrind: Beeblebrox: ManateeGag: Beeblebrox: Where does this idiot think George Washington was born?

Virginia?  (the colony, that is)

And what country was that in at the time of his birth?

Doesn't matter, because the Constitution has a separate provision to deal with candidates who were born prior to the Revolution.

I get it but you're missing the point.  The writer (lol) of TFA claims that Obama is the "first foreign-born President".

The writer was a speechwriter for Obama for three years. Before that he was chief speechwriter for Hilary Clinton during her presidential run. He noted that he worked for Obama and Clinton  in the article, which apparently few people posting in this thread actually read.

So you're saying that the article doesn't say that Obama is the first foreign-born President?

LEARN2SARCASM

Holy crap some of you people are stupid.  Yes, I know it was a sarcastic remark.  But obviously you don't get why his joke fails.


And yet you're the only one who seems to care enough to throw a fit about it.
 
Displayed 16 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report