i beg to differ. see your first statement with my emphasis. would you argue that LESS people will view that as a stance for a large group of people? i'd argue no, since DF already said "right wingers", i'd say he already classified it into a group larger than it probably is (DF i'm not calling you out or anything). i'd also argue that the kind of ignorance you're referring to is purposeful and malicious...what's the difference in seeing that photo and associating it with the republican party, and seeing a photo of 5 black dudes eating cornbread and watermelon staring at a fat white chick's butt and then assuming the majority of black people behave like that?

it's quite obvious that the minority and sterotypical opinions are portrayed loudly, because they are the most radical.

Maybe it's the way you phrased things, but i'm really not following your logic here. I see what you've emphasized in my quote, but i'm really not understanding the connections you're trying to make. Can you re-state it for me? I want to make sure I understand you before responding.

And 'cmon....we all know black dudes like fat white ass, no secret there

(I keed, I keed)

You just did the exact same thing, sans photo.

I'm not saying you're being racist, but you said that by posting the photo, it was equal to the original intent. Sorry Pat, but I gotta call hypocrite here.

Which is ecactly what I did.

Just saying man that I did say "some" and made it a point to not paint with a broad stroke. There are "some" right wingers that are way over the top paranoid and spread this kind of creative photoshop crap all the time. My uncle happens to be one of them.

_________________

To me Gun Control is simple...use two hands, and aim for your target...I don't understand why there's such a debate

#thingsRednecksSay

_________________
"She's like plan C after an 18 pack"

Squanto 7/27/2010

sure. i think it has as much or more "propagandic value" to assume that a photo or statement like that is representative of a large group of people as it is to post that picture. yes someone (as in very small group) took the time to create that picture, and they are blatantly using the shock factor to garner support for some movement.

in my opinion there are just as many, if not more, people that will think that a photo like that is representative of a large (usually conflicting) contingent of people (people for gun control thinking that about those against it) and pass it on, belittling the (overgeneralized) group that may sympathize to some degree with the original intent (in this case the overgeneralized group is "right wingers") than those people who identify with it and blame the opposition for the issue mentioned in this photo.

Passing this around causes the cascade and so on and so forth. things like this event (i'm not saying it doesn't happen more often) and FoxNews unfortunately fuel the fire for left wing vs right wing talk, and republicans often make themselves look stupid. also, the majority of news stations and (i think) heavy internet viewers are democratic, and thus the younger generation (i.e. 20-30 year olds, huge percent of which are democratic) makes these "stupid republican" things go viral and instead of being isolated incidents or actions of a single person or party, it gets blamed on the entire republican party.

I'm not saying the opposite doesn't happen- i don't support it either way. like this- i think it makes the people who posted and approved this look awful for the democratic party.

i just think crap like these two things are shooting the total goals of the parties in the foot. "HEY LOOK HOW STUPID THEY ARE, I SAW THIS AND MOST (insert political party here) BELIEVE THIS!!! HOW STUPID LOLZ!!!" it's just all stupid fuel on the hate fire, and it prevents people from being able to work together to solve problems. i also fully acknowledge that republicans seem to say way too much stupid stuff all too often...but the ones that don't (Huntsman, anyone?) never seem to get any attention.



i wasn't being a hypocrite, i was presenting an analogy? sometimes i don't know what you smoke. calling me a hypocrite there is a lot like the people who call me a hypocrite in life because i'm a christian ecologist.

i got that, i wasn't throwing you under the bus, i was using you as some credible proof that i wasn't talking about my ass. i am in full agreement with what you said. unfortunately, my real point is that few people are so careful to avoid categorizing an entire overgeneralized group from a subset.

we all do it sometimes. i remember for a while (please do NOT take this as inflammatory) you were very upset with all of christianity because of a few school districts or whatever. stuff happens.

I guess what I meant to say is that the accepted mainstream media outlets of the right (Fox News, Limbaughesque talk-radio) are much more inflammatory than the accepted mainstream "liberal" outlets (NPR, NY Times, Pacifica, I can't really speak for MSNBC). There was this awsome Daily Show where they compare the coverage of an issue in NPR and on Rush Limbaugh to show the difference. Even though obviously the Daily Show is a liberal show, the difference is clear as day. Rush Limbaugh used to start his broadcasts saying stuff like "The White House under seige: day 543" during the Clinton years (I haven't listened to it since). I don't mean to say that people whose beliefs lie more on the right are more inflammatory, but I do think their media outlets are. And based on things I read here occasionally, I have to think that right-wing media approach rubs off on some of the people who watch it.

similar to my sentiments that more democratic media stations are more likely to point out stupidity and racism...both parties certainly have their character flaws.

i take pride knowing i hate both of them the same. i like select people, political alignment is NOT a concern.

Shit....I think i've just had my mind changed. When you sort of 'zoom out' and see both communities as a whole, with this as a meme passing around gaining momentum, your point has a lot of merit. I'd reacted initially because I was mentally picturing ONE person creating it, and ONE person saying "thats how _______ think!". In that scenario I still disagree with you, but when you expand it to facebook, and that one person is now saying "Thats how _____ think" to hundreds of people, all of whom are capable of sharing it, it can go viral and have a much larger opposite effect.

sigh, this is the downfall to being open to discussion, if you actually listen you might have to change your mind sometimes Thanks for clarifying dude.

Pat, this quote is from you about the Hitler/Stalin/Obama picture.

But I want to talk about your abortion billboard. Let's get serious about that photo. Not only is it a horrible photoshop, but there is no fucking way on God's green earth that that billboard is real, or we would be getting bombarded with this "story" every time we turned on the TV, radio or internet. And if that's true, then posting that photo was completely hypocritical on your part. Did you actually create that photo just to make a counter example? If so, then you did your argument a great dis-service, because it's not an example of where a few people are making a larger group look bad. It's fake! It's not an example of anything.

I like you, Pat, and I enjoy your posts and I learn a lot from you, but I don't really like this path you're taking here in this thread.

I'll get off my high horse now, because actually my main reason for responding was not to give Pat a hard time, but rather to make it clear that THAT PHOTO IS FAKE, and I don't want people seeing it here and then forwarding it as if it were real.

_________________
This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.
--Emerson

I thought it was obvious that photo was a fake, I think he was just using it as a visual aid of sorts.

bingo. that photoshop is the same caliber as the original referenced photo. some dude made it at home.

1. you're right, it's absolutely fake. i'm not going to pretend (and never was) that it is real or a show of photoshop skills.

2. i didn't make it, i did a general google search for a photo that backed up my point and re-posted it with the assumption that people knew it was fake. i don't need to make up data to support my hypothesis

3. really? i think it's a great example. some dude who hates the other side made this photo to attack one side or the other and in the end it does a disservice to their original point.

4. i didn't think to disclaim it- i assumed everybody knew it was fake based on how terrible it is and the source at the bottom of the photo. i think you can copy the URL and see exactly where I got it from, too. but yes, you're right, i should have said it was fake more clearly. but also- remember, you said if it were real, you'd have already heard about it???;)
just kidding man. no offense taken. simple misunderstandings now cleared up.

Gun laws are needed, I love how we have the right to own guns also and you can own any gun you want, within certain licenses and all that crap. If Joe wants a fully automatic machine gun, he can or if I just want a simply 1911 handgun I can.

I agree we will never become a gun free country, we as Americans won't allow that to go over smoothly at all. Honestly I believe if the government takes away our rights to own guns shit would go down. And who knows what the government could do then. We wouldn't have any personal protection anymore.

_________________

Sorry, Pat. I didn't realize that the image on the 1st page was BS also.

This is an Emily Litella moment for me for sure!

(For those of you too young to remember Emily Litella, she was a Gilda Radner character on early SNL. I looked for a You tube vid of her editorial on 'violins', but didn't find it. In a nutshell, she goes on the news to respond to an editorial about too much violence on TV. She carries on about how wonderful violins are, then realizes she's got it all wrong, and then says, "Nevermind".

So, nevermind!

_________________
This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.
--Emerson

I guess my point is what's wrong with eating cornbread, watermelon, and staring at white girls asses? It is a racist statement, analogy or not, and really wasn't necessary, imo. Unfortunately, more people believe that stereotype than believe Obama is Hitler. I also believe the original picture you think was generalizing is a much more accurate representation of the silliness surrounding a good portion of the conservative base than you want to give it credit for. Socialist, not a citizen, class warfare creator, Muslim, the list goes on. I've followed politics a long time, and I know both parties play dirty, but it's very true that they vilify this man for things which are clearly untrue. A large amount of their base is fueled by this as well. I really don't think you can even dispute that. Now if you're saying it's stupid pictures like that which propagate this nonsense, then we are in agreement, but you're barking up the wrong tree complaining when a liberal posts the picture. Go after the douchebags who support this bullshit.

If you really want to know what I smoke, PM me, and I'll point you in the right direction. Also, it's ok if you do things your religion deems wrong. It's the norm really.

Oh ya, I want to clarify that those claims are false:
Socialist: I currently pay taxes for schools for which I have no children attending(for the common good). If that's socialist, then we were there long before "OBAMACARE"-no, I meant national healthcare.
Not a citizen: google fake birth certificate.
class warfare creator: Check the tax rates from before Bush. Apparently we had class warfare then, too.
Muslim: Maybe he just stumbled into the wrong building, where they preach un-American sentiments.

If you think it's only 'fringe elements' doing this shit, then you need to watch more tv.

i'm not sure what your point it. i wasn't complaining with any sort of political motivation. i'm pretty sure you're trying to say exactly what i said...

my point is the "racist statement" i made is completely analogous to my point in a much more simple format that will elicit understanding and a reaction from people. i think it was completely necessary to prove my point that overgeneralization IS what makes stereotypes.

here's the math that many people won't follow as well. a subset (x) of group 1 believes p, and a member of group 2 disagrees with p, therefore associates subset x as representative of group 1.

the bolded statement is one of the problems i have addressed, but there are still many very good members of the conservative party that are ignored.

i feel like i'll be construed as a conservative just because i am illustrating a middle point against only one side. i feel like it does more for my credibility if i outright state i am socially liberal and fiscally conservative overall. on those graphed political tests, i am usually just left of center overall.

So back on topic. "Some" extreme right wingers are on the paranoid side and think Obama is out for their guns. From what I can see and from what I have read here, the opinion doesn't hold a lot of water. Gun regulations are needed, times have changed significantly since the 1700's and I think we all agree that laws that strive to make them safer for children, keep them out of the hands of criminals and keep Bubba-Jo Toothlesston from owning a Predator quality Gatling gun are probably good things. I've been annoyed for awhile by my Uncle's ridiculous Nazi comparing, "Liberals are gonna kill grandma!" posts and I just wanted out of fairness to dive in and see if their was any substance to his ramblings. Cool beans.

_________________