(03-11-2021 08:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:rapey humor
A little over the top with the historonics there, 93? Funny that.
From a guy that went for more awkward as hell kisses in my life, do you really consider Pepe to be 'rapey'? Seriously? Yeah, I would definitely call that characterization of Pepe as very much in the line with a Church Lady comparison.
'rapey' ----- and this coming from the guy that went over the gd top for me saying 'working tirelessly'.
[yoda mode on] In this one hypocrisy strong it is[end yoda mode] <slow clap>
It was certainly a somewhat hyperbolic phrase. I was hardly histrionic, though. I think we both know that you are in no position to call anybody else on this forum histrionic, Tanq. You have no issues with LePew I guess. To each their own.
* he is definitely Date-rapey lite, tho. I assume when you were going in for those awkward kisses when told no you would not simply grab the girl and try to have your way with her.
Tanq, I’m still interested if you think there is anything from popular culture from the first half of the 20th century that you think would probably best not be revived today. There were a ton of racist tropes back then. Are those fair game still?
(03-11-2021 08:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:rapey humor
A little over the top with the historonics there, 93? Funny that.
From a guy that went for more awkward as hell kisses in my life, do you really consider Pepe to be 'rapey'? Seriously? Yeah, I would definitely call that characterization of Pepe as very much in the line with a Church Lady comparison.
'rapey' ----- and this coming from the guy that went over the gd top for me saying 'working tirelessly'.
[yoda mode on] In this one hypocrisy strong it is[end yoda mode] <slow clap>
It was certainly a somewhat hyperbolic phrase. I was hardly histrionic, though. I think we both know that you are in no position to call anybody else on this forum histrionic, Tanq.
I mean, I might take your comments on the subject more seriously if you actually followed your own sermons. Just saying there, pardner. Capiche?
(03-11-2021 08:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:rapey humor
A little over the top with the historonics there, 93? Funny that.
From a guy that went for more awkward as hell kisses in my life, do you really consider Pepe to be 'rapey'? Seriously? Yeah, I would definitely call that characterization of Pepe as very much in the line with a Church Lady comparison.
'rapey' ----- and this coming from the guy that went over the gd top for me saying 'working tirelessly'.
[yoda mode on] In this one hypocrisy strong it is[end yoda mode] <slow clap>
It was certainly a somewhat hyperbolic phrase. I was hardly histrionic, though. I think we both know that you are in no position to call anybody else on this forum histrionic, Tanq. You have no issues with LePew I guess. To each their own.
* he is definitely Date-rapey lite, tho. I assume when you were going in for those awkward kisses when told no you would not simply grab the girl and try to have your way with her.
Tanq, I’m still interested if you think there is anything from popular culture from the first half of the 20th century that you think would probably best not be revived today. There were a ton of racist tropes back then. Are those fair game still?
Are we now mixing and matching racist and rapey stuff? Goody, a progressive daily double coming down the path I sense.
As for your question, I dont have a clue as to what you are asking. Lot of 'things' in pop culture from 1900-1950. Dont know in what essence you mean 'revived'. I have zero idea what you mean as to 'are those in fair game' (i.e. fair game for........... what? Revival? Censorship? To use in a trademark sense?)
I will tell you one thing in pop culture I hope never gets revived. Blacklists for both entertainment, books, articles, movies, and business based on political belief, ya know, McCarthy 1950's. But, whoops, you guys are already doing that. And, now that I look at my pithy response, anything post-1950 is off limits based on your specific question. Sorry for the temporal foul there.
(03-11-2021 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:rapey humor
A little over the top with the historonics there, 93? Funny that.
From a guy that went for more awkward as hell kisses in my life, do you really consider Pepe to be 'rapey'? Seriously? Yeah, I would definitely call that characterization of Pepe as very much in the line with a Church Lady comparison.
'rapey' ----- and this coming from the guy that went over the gd top for me saying 'working tirelessly'.
[yoda mode on] In this one hypocrisy strong it is[end yoda mode] <slow clap>
It was certainly a somewhat hyperbolic phrase. I was hardly histrionic, though. I think we both know that you are in no position to call anybody else on this forum histrionic, Tanq. You have no issues with LePew I guess. To each their own.
* he is definitely Date-rapey lite, tho. I assume when you were going in for those awkward kisses when told no you would not simply grab the girl and try to have your way with her.
Tanq, I’m still interested if you think there is anything from popular culture from the first half of the 20th century that you think would probably best not be revived today. There were a ton of racist tropes back then. Are those fair game still?
Are we now mixing and matching racist and rapey stuff? Goody, a progressive daily double coming down the path I sense.
As for your question, I dont have a clue as to what you are asking. Lot of 'things' in pop culture from 1900-1950. Dont know in what essence you mean 'revived'.
Revived like taking a cartoon character from the 1950s-70's and putting him in a 2021 movie.
Quote: I have zero idea what you mean as to 'are those in fair game' (i.e. fair game for........... what? Revival? Censorship? To use in a trademark sense?)
Fair game to put back into popular culture.
Quote:I will tell you one thing in pop culture I hope never gets revived. Blacklists for both entertainment, books, articles, movies, and business based on political belief, ya know, McCarthy 1950's. But, whoops, you guys are already doing that. And, now that I look at my pithy response, anything post-1950 is off limits based on your specific question. Sorry for the temporal foul there.
I'm not doing that any more than "you guys" are into QAnon.
(03-11-2021 10:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]A little over the top with the historonics there, 93? Funny that.
From a guy that went for more awkward as hell kisses in my life, do you really consider Pepe to be 'rapey'? Seriously? Yeah, I would definitely call that characterization of Pepe as very much in the line with a Church Lady comparison.
'rapey' ----- and this coming from the guy that went over the gd top for me saying 'working tirelessly'.
[yoda mode on] In this one hypocrisy strong it is[end yoda mode] <slow clap>
It was certainly a somewhat hyperbolic phrase. I was hardly histrionic, though. I think we both know that you are in no position to call anybody else on this forum histrionic, Tanq. You have no issues with LePew I guess. To each their own.
* he is definitely Date-rapey lite, tho. I assume when you were going in for those awkward kisses when told no you would not simply grab the girl and try to have your way with her.
Tanq, I’m still interested if you think there is anything from popular culture from the first half of the 20th century that you think would probably best not be revived today. There were a ton of racist tropes back then. Are those fair game still?
Are we now mixing and matching racist and rapey stuff? Goody, a progressive daily double coming down the path I sense.
As for your question, I dont have a clue as to what you are asking. Lot of 'things' in pop culture from 1900-1950. Dont know in what essence you mean 'revived'.
Revived like taking a cartoon character from the 1950s-70's and putting him in a 2021 movie.
You know, I hate old people, so lets ban Mr Magoo. And I hate rabbits. Ban Bugs.
My thing is that, as I noted, as close to a 1st amendment absolutist as you can get. Using your yardstick on the skunk, perhaps we should ban 'A Clockwork Orange', since it shows very graphically the issue of rape. And ultra-violence.
Lets ban 'Blazing Saddles'. Lets ban 'Gone With the Wind'. Ooops, your team is already hot on the trail of that, especially with the latter.
Quote:Quote: I have zero idea what you mean as to 'are those in fair game' (i.e. fair game for........... what? Revival? Censorship? To use in a trademark sense?)
Fair game to put back into popular culture.
Apparently I havent thought about it as much as you have. Popular culture shouldnt be 'administered' if that means anything to you.
Give me a specific 'thing' and I will give you a specific (yet subjective) answer.
Quote:Quote:I will tell you one thing in pop culture I hope never gets revived. Blacklists for both entertainment, books, articles, movies, and business based on political belief, ya know, McCarthy 1950's. But, whoops, you guys are already doing that. And, now that I look at my pithy response, anything post-1950 is off limits based on your specific question. Sorry for the temporal foul there.
I'm not doing that any more than "you guys" are into QAnon.
I dont think *you* specifically are. I am very convinced that your side as a whole is very much letting that come into their mode of acceptable. And I think the amount that it is happening is indicative of that.
I *dont* think 30%+ of conservatives, let alone Republicans, are into QAnon. As much as you tap your ruby slippers together and try to make that equivalence.
The concept of banning, or canceling, seems to currently run rather deep in the progressive mindset. I am sorry that you dont seem to be able to come to grips with that.
(03-11-2021 10:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 10:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]It was certainly a somewhat hyperbolic phrase. I was hardly histrionic, though. I think we both know that you are in no position to call anybody else on this forum histrionic, Tanq. You have no issues with LePew I guess. To each their own.
* he is definitely Date-rapey lite, tho. I assume when you were going in for those awkward kisses when told no you would not simply grab the girl and try to have your way with her.
Tanq, I’m still interested if you think there is anything from popular culture from the first half of the 20th century that you think would probably best not be revived today. There were a ton of racist tropes back then. Are those fair game still?
Are we now mixing and matching racist and rapey stuff? Goody, a progressive daily double coming down the path I sense.
As for your question, I dont have a clue as to what you are asking. Lot of 'things' in pop culture from 1900-1950. Dont know in what essence you mean 'revived'.
Revived like taking a cartoon character from the 1950s-70's and putting him in a 2021 movie.
You know, I hate old people, so lets ban Mr Magoo. And I hate rabbits. Ban Bugs.
My thing is that, as I noted, as close to a 1st amendment absolutist as you can get. Using your yardstick on the skunk, perhaps we should ban 'A Clockwork Orange', since it shows very graphically the issue of rape. And ultra-violence.
Lets ban 'Blazing Saddles'. Lets ban 'Gone With the Wind'. Ooops, your team is already hot on the trail of that, especially with the latter.
Quote:Quote: I have zero idea what you mean as to 'are those in fair game' (i.e. fair game for........... what? Revival? Censorship? To use in a trademark sense?)
Fair game to put back into popular culture.
Apparently I havent thought about it as much as you have. Popular culture shouldnt be 'administered' if that means anything to you.
Give me a specific 'thing' and I will give you a specific (yet subjective) answer.
Quote:Quote:I will tell you one thing in pop culture I hope never gets revived. Blacklists for both entertainment, books, articles, movies, and business based on political belief, ya know, McCarthy 1950's. But, whoops, you guys are already doing that. And, now that I look at my pithy response, anything post-1950 is off limits based on your specific question. Sorry for the temporal foul there.
I'm not doing that any more than "you guys" are into QAnon.
I dont think *you* specifically are. I am very convinced that your side as a whole is very much letting that come into their mode of acceptable. And I think the amount that it is happening is indicative of that.
Maybe I am biased by the people that are in my circle. I don't know a single progressive that has interest in suppressing books, ideas, news stories, etc. Perhaps it is more pervasive than I would think.
Quote:I *dont* think 30%+ of conservatives, let alone Republicans, are into QAnon. As much as you tap your ruby slippers together and try to make that equivalence.
The concept of banning, or canceling, seems to currently run rather deep in the progressive mindset. I am sorry that you dont seem to be able to come to grips with that.
I mean... using your approach one could say "The concept of the use of force as a way to arrest the decline of the 'traditional American way of life' seems to currently run very, very deep in the conservative mindset."
(03-11-2021 08:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 07:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 06:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 05:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 03:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ][I wonder if the protesters who demanded that a store stop selling a book consider themselves "mainstream progressives".]
They are probably as mainstream as those who are involved in the riots in Portland.
An admission! Exactly what we have been saying. I wonder if 93 ever considers that he is in the minority in his party?
The majority of the party is not rioting in Portland nor working tirelessly to get books banned.
Are you in the minority of the Republican party if you aren't part of Qanon?
Go to American National Election Studies.
In their time series studies, groups from 2016 and 2020 are asked the question "How much do you feel it is justified for people to use violence to pursue their political goals in this country"?
The most restrictive answer is 'not at all' -- i.e. meaning there is never any justification.
In 2016, the answers were somewhat standard across political viewpoints -- 87%+ of 'very liberal' respondents answered with that 'never justified'. Compared to 93% to very conservative, and similar-ish 87%-ish numbers for moderate liberals, moderates, and moderate conservatives.
In 2020, the number of 'very liberal' answered with the 'not at all' 66% -- that is a full third of them view political violence as a justified means to a goal.
17.2% --- over 1 in 6 -- of liberals (not very, not somewhat) answered with an indication violence is acceptable.
Somewhat liberal was 12% --- roughly one in 8, or close to the 2016 answer.
Moderate was 14%, somewhat conservative 6%, conservative 5%, and very conservative a little over 4%.
So yes, violence does seem to have a fairly heavy base in very liberal and straight liberal quarters from that question.
I dont think for a second that if one were possessed enough to say that 'violence is acceptable' would have a huge number therein say 'violence is acceptable, but censoring bad'.
Maybe not 'working tirelessly', but, from the numbers, I hazard that significant numbers do see it as an acceptable choice, a justification, for political ends.
From my standpoint as pretty much a free expression absolutist --- I think the apathy standpoint, even more so in light of the numbers above, might be actually more grotesque than the people who find it an acceptable justification for a political goal.
You seem to work furiously into that Sgt Schultz mindset.
Don’t go throwing stones too quickly...
Quote: More than one in three (36 percent) Americans agree with the statement: “The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” Six in 10 (60 percent) Americans reject the idea that the use of force is necessary, but there is significant partisan disagreement on this question.
A majority (56 percent) of Republicans support the use of force as a way to arrest the decline of the traditional American way of life. Forty-three percent of Republicans express opposition to this idea. Significantly fewer independents (35 percent) and Democrats (22 percent) say the use of force is necessary to stop the disappearance of traditional American values and way of life.
The use of violence finds somewhat more support among Republicans than Democrats, although most Republicans oppose it. Roughly four in 10 (39 percent) Republicans support Americans taking violent actions if elected leaders fail to act. Sixty percent of Republicans oppose this idea. Thirty-one percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats also support taking violent actions if elected leaders do not defend the country.
However, although a significant number of Americans—and Republicans in particular—express support for the idea that violent actions may be necessary, there is a notable lack of enthusiastic support for it. For instance, only 9 percent of Americans overall and only 13 percent of Republicans say they “completely” agree in the necessity of taking violent actions if political leaders fail.
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/res...tionalism/
LOL to Tanq's selective quoting of his article. Lad with the mic drop.
(03-11-2021 10:29 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 07:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 06:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 05:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]An admission! Exactly what we have been saying. I wonder if 93 ever considers that he is in the minority in his party?
The majority of the party is not rioting in Portland nor working tirelessly to get books banned.
Are you in the minority of the Republican party if you aren't part of Qanon?
Go to American National Election Studies.
In their time series studies, groups from 2016 and 2020 are asked the question "How much do you feel it is justified for people to use violence to pursue their political goals in this country"?
The most restrictive answer is 'not at all' -- i.e. meaning there is never any justification.
In 2016, the answers were somewhat standard across political viewpoints -- 87%+ of 'very liberal' respondents answered with that 'never justified'. Compared to 93% to very conservative, and similar-ish 87%-ish numbers for moderate liberals, moderates, and moderate conservatives.
In 2020, the number of 'very liberal' answered with the 'not at all' 66% -- that is a full third of them view political violence as a justified means to a goal.
17.2% --- over 1 in 6 -- of liberals (not very, not somewhat) answered with an indication violence is acceptable.
Somewhat liberal was 12% --- roughly one in 8, or close to the 2016 answer.
Moderate was 14%, somewhat conservative 6%, conservative 5%, and very conservative a little over 4%.
So yes, violence does seem to have a fairly heavy base in very liberal and straight liberal quarters from that question.
I dont think for a second that if one were possessed enough to say that 'violence is acceptable' would have a huge number therein say 'violence is acceptable, but censoring bad'.
Maybe not 'working tirelessly', but, from the numbers, I hazard that significant numbers do see it as an acceptable choice, a justification, for political ends.
From my standpoint as pretty much a free expression absolutist --- I think the apathy standpoint, even more so in light of the numbers above, might be actually more grotesque than the people who find it an acceptable justification for a political goal.
You seem to work furiously into that Sgt Schultz mindset.
Don’t go throwing stones too quickly...
Quote: More than one in three (36 percent) Americans agree with the statement: “The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” Six in 10 (60 percent) Americans reject the idea that the use of force is necessary, but there is significant partisan disagreement on this question.
A majority (56 percent) of Republicans support the use of force as a way to arrest the decline of the traditional American way of life. Forty-three percent of Republicans express opposition to this idea. Significantly fewer independents (35 percent) and Democrats (22 percent) say the use of force is necessary to stop the disappearance of traditional American values and way of life.
The use of violence finds somewhat more support among Republicans than Democrats, although most Republicans oppose it. Roughly four in 10 (39 percent) Republicans support Americans taking violent actions if elected leaders fail to act. Sixty percent of Republicans oppose this idea. Thirty-one percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats also support taking violent actions if elected leaders do not defend the country.
However, although a significant number of Americans—and Republicans in particular—express support for the idea that violent actions may be necessary, there is a notable lack of enthusiastic support for it. For instance, only 9 percent of Americans overall and only 13 percent of Republicans say they “completely” agree in the necessity of taking violent actions if political leaders fail.
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/res...tionalism/
LOL to Tanq's selective quoting of his article. Lad with the mic drop.
To be fair, I think they're different studies - so not sure if it was selective editing.
But it definitely wasn't exhaustive, and there are studies clearly showing that conservatives who are polled are very willing to use violence for political gains.
(03-11-2021 10:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 10:29 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 07:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 06:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]The majority of the party is not rioting in Portland nor working tirelessly to get books banned.
Are you in the minority of the Republican party if you aren't part of Qanon?
Go to American National Election Studies.
In their time series studies, groups from 2016 and 2020 are asked the question "How much do you feel it is justified for people to use violence to pursue their political goals in this country"?
The most restrictive answer is 'not at all' -- i.e. meaning there is never any justification.
In 2016, the answers were somewhat standard across political viewpoints -- 87%+ of 'very liberal' respondents answered with that 'never justified'. Compared to 93% to very conservative, and similar-ish 87%-ish numbers for moderate liberals, moderates, and moderate conservatives.
In 2020, the number of 'very liberal' answered with the 'not at all' 66% -- that is a full third of them view political violence as a justified means to a goal.
17.2% --- over 1 in 6 -- of liberals (not very, not somewhat) answered with an indication violence is acceptable.
Somewhat liberal was 12% --- roughly one in 8, or close to the 2016 answer.
Moderate was 14%, somewhat conservative 6%, conservative 5%, and very conservative a little over 4%.
So yes, violence does seem to have a fairly heavy base in very liberal and straight liberal quarters from that question.
I dont think for a second that if one were possessed enough to say that 'violence is acceptable' would have a huge number therein say 'violence is acceptable, but censoring bad'.
Maybe not 'working tirelessly', but, from the numbers, I hazard that significant numbers do see it as an acceptable choice, a justification, for political ends.
From my standpoint as pretty much a free expression absolutist --- I think the apathy standpoint, even more so in light of the numbers above, might be actually more grotesque than the people who find it an acceptable justification for a political goal.
You seem to work furiously into that Sgt Schultz mindset.
Don’t go throwing stones too quickly...
Quote: More than one in three (36 percent) Americans agree with the statement: “The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” Six in 10 (60 percent) Americans reject the idea that the use of force is necessary, but there is significant partisan disagreement on this question.
A majority (56 percent) of Republicans support the use of force as a way to arrest the decline of the traditional American way of life. Forty-three percent of Republicans express opposition to this idea. Significantly fewer independents (35 percent) and Democrats (22 percent) say the use of force is necessary to stop the disappearance of traditional American values and way of life.
The use of violence finds somewhat more support among Republicans than Democrats, although most Republicans oppose it. Roughly four in 10 (39 percent) Republicans support Americans taking violent actions if elected leaders fail to act. Sixty percent of Republicans oppose this idea. Thirty-one percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats also support taking violent actions if elected leaders do not defend the country.
However, although a significant number of Americans—and Republicans in particular—express support for the idea that violent actions may be necessary, there is a notable lack of enthusiastic support for it. For instance, only 9 percent of Americans overall and only 13 percent of Republicans say they “completely” agree in the necessity of taking violent actions if political leaders fail.
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/res...tionalism/
LOL to Tanq's selective quoting of his article. Lad with the mic drop.
To be fair, I think they're different studies - so not sure if it was selective editing.
But it definitely wasn't exhaustive, and there are studies clearly showing that conservatives who are polled are very willing to use violence for political gains.
I’ll still give that a histrionic mic drop.
*edit* I didn’t click on his link, I just read his quotes. It’s been a pretty busy day andI couldn’t be arsed to do any type of background research on his source.
(03-11-2021 10:29 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 07:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 06:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 05:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]An admission! Exactly what we have been saying. I wonder if 93 ever considers that he is in the minority in his party?
The majority of the party is not rioting in Portland nor working tirelessly to get books banned.
Are you in the minority of the Republican party if you aren't part of Qanon?
Go to American National Election Studies.
In their time series studies, groups from 2016 and 2020 are asked the question "How much do you feel it is justified for people to use violence to pursue their political goals in this country"?
The most restrictive answer is 'not at all' -- i.e. meaning there is never any justification.
In 2016, the answers were somewhat standard across political viewpoints -- 87%+ of 'very liberal' respondents answered with that 'never justified'. Compared to 93% to very conservative, and similar-ish 87%-ish numbers for moderate liberals, moderates, and moderate conservatives.
In 2020, the number of 'very liberal' answered with the 'not at all' 66% -- that is a full third of them view political violence as a justified means to a goal.
17.2% --- over 1 in 6 -- of liberals (not very, not somewhat) answered with an indication violence is acceptable.
Somewhat liberal was 12% --- roughly one in 8, or close to the 2016 answer.
Moderate was 14%, somewhat conservative 6%, conservative 5%, and very conservative a little over 4%.
So yes, violence does seem to have a fairly heavy base in very liberal and straight liberal quarters from that question.
I dont think for a second that if one were possessed enough to say that 'violence is acceptable' would have a huge number therein say 'violence is acceptable, but censoring bad'.
Maybe not 'working tirelessly', but, from the numbers, I hazard that significant numbers do see it as an acceptable choice, a justification, for political ends.
From my standpoint as pretty much a free expression absolutist --- I think the apathy standpoint, even more so in light of the numbers above, might be actually more grotesque than the people who find it an acceptable justification for a political goal.
You seem to work furiously into that Sgt Schultz mindset.
Don’t go throwing stones too quickly...
Quote: More than one in three (36 percent) Americans agree with the statement: “The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” Six in 10 (60 percent) Americans reject the idea that the use of force is necessary, but there is significant partisan disagreement on this question.
A majority (56 percent) of Republicans support the use of force as a way to arrest the decline of the traditional American way of life. Forty-three percent of Republicans express opposition to this idea. Significantly fewer independents (35 percent) and Democrats (22 percent) say the use of force is necessary to stop the disappearance of traditional American values and way of life.
The use of violence finds somewhat more support among Republicans than Democrats, although most Republicans oppose it. Roughly four in 10 (39 percent) Republicans support Americans taking violent actions if elected leaders fail to act. Sixty percent of Republicans oppose this idea. Thirty-one percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats also support taking violent actions if elected leaders do not defend the country.
However, although a significant number of Americans—and Republicans in particular—express support for the idea that violent actions may be necessary, there is a notable lack of enthusiastic support for it. For instance, only 9 percent of Americans overall and only 13 percent of Republicans say they “completely” agree in the necessity of taking violent actions if political leaders fail.
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/res...tionalism/
LOL to Tanq's selective quoting of his article. Lad with the mic drop.
Try the data here, sparkles.
https://electionstudies.org/
So sorry, that is not the place I found. Bummer to that 'I am omniscient as to everything' thing that just failed for you.
As to your comment that I lied (or misquoted, or selectively quoted), **** off. First time Ive seen that article.
Nice opening douche move there. Even without a provocation from me. Yep, Mr Sanctimonious and Mr Hypocrite all rolled into one tonite for you. <slow clap>
(03-11-2021 11:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 10:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 10:29 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 07:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Go to American National Election Studies.
In their time series studies, groups from 2016 and 2020 are asked the question "How much do you feel it is justified for people to use violence to pursue their political goals in this country"?
The most restrictive answer is 'not at all' -- i.e. meaning there is never any justification.
In 2016, the answers were somewhat standard across political viewpoints -- 87%+ of 'very liberal' respondents answered with that 'never justified'. Compared to 93% to very conservative, and similar-ish 87%-ish numbers for moderate liberals, moderates, and moderate conservatives.
In 2020, the number of 'very liberal' answered with the 'not at all' 66% -- that is a full third of them view political violence as a justified means to a goal.
17.2% --- over 1 in 6 -- of liberals (not very, not somewhat) answered with an indication violence is acceptable.
Somewhat liberal was 12% --- roughly one in 8, or close to the 2016 answer.
Moderate was 14%, somewhat conservative 6%, conservative 5%, and very conservative a little over 4%.
So yes, violence does seem to have a fairly heavy base in very liberal and straight liberal quarters from that question.
I dont think for a second that if one were possessed enough to say that 'violence is acceptable' would have a huge number therein say 'violence is acceptable, but censoring bad'.
Maybe not 'working tirelessly', but, from the numbers, I hazard that significant numbers do see it as an acceptable choice, a justification, for political ends.
From my standpoint as pretty much a free expression absolutist --- I think the apathy standpoint, even more so in light of the numbers above, might be actually more grotesque than the people who find it an acceptable justification for a political goal.
You seem to work furiously into that Sgt Schultz mindset.
Don’t go throwing stones too quickly...
Quote: More than one in three (36 percent) Americans agree with the statement: “The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” Six in 10 (60 percent) Americans reject the idea that the use of force is necessary, but there is significant partisan disagreement on this question.
A majority (56 percent) of Republicans support the use of force as a way to arrest the decline of the traditional American way of life. Forty-three percent of Republicans express opposition to this idea. Significantly fewer independents (35 percent) and Democrats (22 percent) say the use of force is necessary to stop the disappearance of traditional American values and way of life.
The use of violence finds somewhat more support among Republicans than Democrats, although most Republicans oppose it. Roughly four in 10 (39 percent) Republicans support Americans taking violent actions if elected leaders fail to act. Sixty percent of Republicans oppose this idea. Thirty-one percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats also support taking violent actions if elected leaders do not defend the country.
However, although a significant number of Americans—and Republicans in particular—express support for the idea that violent actions may be necessary, there is a notable lack of enthusiastic support for it. For instance, only 9 percent of Americans overall and only 13 percent of Republicans say they “completely” agree in the necessity of taking violent actions if political leaders fail.
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/res...tionalism/
LOL to Tanq's selective quoting of his article. Lad with the mic drop.
To be fair, I think they're different studies - so not sure if it was selective editing.
But it definitely wasn't exhaustive, and there are studies clearly showing that conservatives who are polled are very willing to use violence for political gains.
I’ll still give that a histrionic mic drop.
*edit* I didn’t click on his link, I just read his quotes. It’s been a pretty busy day andI couldn’t be arsed to do any type of background research on his source.
Try the raw data source I just made available, sparkles.
And of course you made the charge of 'selective editing', now we know without bothering to read. What an utter douche.
(03-11-2021 11:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 10:29 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 07:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 06:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]The majority of the party is not rioting in Portland nor working tirelessly to get books banned.
Are you in the minority of the Republican party if you aren't part of Qanon?
Go to American National Election Studies.
In their time series studies, groups from 2016 and 2020 are asked the question "How much do you feel it is justified for people to use violence to pursue their political goals in this country"?
The most restrictive answer is 'not at all' -- i.e. meaning there is never any justification.
In 2016, the answers were somewhat standard across political viewpoints -- 87%+ of 'very liberal' respondents answered with that 'never justified'. Compared to 93% to very conservative, and similar-ish 87%-ish numbers for moderate liberals, moderates, and moderate conservatives.
In 2020, the number of 'very liberal' answered with the 'not at all' 66% -- that is a full third of them view political violence as a justified means to a goal.
17.2% --- over 1 in 6 -- of liberals (not very, not somewhat) answered with an indication violence is acceptable.
Somewhat liberal was 12% --- roughly one in 8, or close to the 2016 answer.
Moderate was 14%, somewhat conservative 6%, conservative 5%, and very conservative a little over 4%.
So yes, violence does seem to have a fairly heavy base in very liberal and straight liberal quarters from that question.
I dont think for a second that if one were possessed enough to say that 'violence is acceptable' would have a huge number therein say 'violence is acceptable, but censoring bad'.
Maybe not 'working tirelessly', but, from the numbers, I hazard that significant numbers do see it as an acceptable choice, a justification, for political ends.
From my standpoint as pretty much a free expression absolutist --- I think the apathy standpoint, even more so in light of the numbers above, might be actually more grotesque than the people who find it an acceptable justification for a political goal.
You seem to work furiously into that Sgt Schultz mindset.
Don’t go throwing stones too quickly...
Quote: More than one in three (36 percent) Americans agree with the statement: “The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” Six in 10 (60 percent) Americans reject the idea that the use of force is necessary, but there is significant partisan disagreement on this question.
A majority (56 percent) of Republicans support the use of force as a way to arrest the decline of the traditional American way of life. Forty-three percent of Republicans express opposition to this idea. Significantly fewer independents (35 percent) and Democrats (22 percent) say the use of force is necessary to stop the disappearance of traditional American values and way of life.
The use of violence finds somewhat more support among Republicans than Democrats, although most Republicans oppose it. Roughly four in 10 (39 percent) Republicans support Americans taking violent actions if elected leaders fail to act. Sixty percent of Republicans oppose this idea. Thirty-one percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats also support taking violent actions if elected leaders do not defend the country.
However, although a significant number of Americans—and Republicans in particular—express support for the idea that violent actions may be necessary, there is a notable lack of enthusiastic support for it. For instance, only 9 percent of Americans overall and only 13 percent of Republicans say they “completely” agree in the necessity of taking violent actions if political leaders fail.
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/res...tionalism/
LOL to Tanq's selective quoting of his article. Lad with the mic drop.
Try the data here, sparkles. https://electionstudies.org/
So sorry, that is not the place I found. Bummer to that 'I am omniscient as to everything' thing that just failed for you.
As to your comment that I lied (or misquoted, or selectively quoted), **** off. First time Ive seen that article.
Nice opening douche move there. Even without a provocation from me. Yep, Mr Sanctimonious and Mr Hypocrite all rolled into one tonite for you. <slow clap>
That is just the home page - can you link to the data?
I'm interested in looking at it - I was surprised when I'd seen the results I posted in a news article. Would be interesting to see some more of that survey.
93's question about shows from the earlier part of the 20th century intrigued me. I think a lot of it depends on what people think are the values represented. Since I was there and watched those shows, here's what I think:
Lone Ranger: Progressives see a white guy telling a Native American what to do, while shooting guns at people. Horrible. What I saw was two men righting wrongs and protecting the defenseless. Admirable.
Cisco Kid: Progressives see two Hispanic men wearing sombreros and talking in accents. Horrible. What I saw, again, two men righting wrongs and defending the defenseless. Admirable.
Now the Biggie:
Amos and Andy: Progressives see black characters. That's enough for them. What I saw was working men holding jobs and providing for their stable families. Never heard them use the N-word, as is heard so often in so many modern shows lauded by progressives (Power, Snowfall).
(03-11-2021 11:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 11:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 10:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 10:29 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Don’t go throwing stones too quickly...
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/res...tionalism/
LOL to Tanq's selective quoting of his article. Lad with the mic drop.
To be fair, I think they're different studies - so not sure if it was selective editing.
But it definitely wasn't exhaustive, and there are studies clearly showing that conservatives who are polled are very willing to use violence for political gains.
I’ll still give that a histrionic mic drop.
*edit* I didn’t click on his link, I just read his quotes. It’s been a pretty busy day andI couldn’t be arsed to do any type of background research on his source.
Try the raw data source I just made available, sparkles.
And of course you made the charge of 'selective editing', now we know without bothering to read. What an utter douche.
I apologize for accusing you of selective editing. I will accept your histrionic response given my mistake.
3... 2... 1... for OO coming after you for "name-calling".
(03-12-2021 12:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]93's question about shows from the earlier part of the 20th century intrigued me. I think a lot of it depends on what people think are the values represented. Since I was there and watched those shows, here's what I think:
Lone Ranger: Progressives see a white guy telling a Native American what to do, while shooting guns at people. Horrible. What I saw was two men righting wrongs and protecting the defenseless. Admirable.
Cisco Kid: Progressives see two Hispanic men wearing sombreros and talking in accents. Horrible. What I saw, again, two men righting wrongs and defending the defenseless. Admirable.
Now the Biggie:
Amos and Andy: Progressives see black characters. That's enough for them. What I saw was working men holding jobs and providing for their stable families. Never heard them use the N-word, as is heard so often in so many modern shows lauded by progressives (Power, Snowfall).
Never watched any of these so I can't comment on them. As to the bolded... you think progressives are against black characters? Huh?
(03-11-2021 10:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 10:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 10:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 08:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Tanq, I’m still interested if you think there is anything from popular culture from the first half of the 20th century that you think would probably best not be revived today. There were a ton of racist tropes back then. Are those fair game still?
Are we now mixing and matching racist and rapey stuff? Goody, a progressive daily double coming down the path I sense.
As for your question, I dont have a clue as to what you are asking. Lot of 'things' in pop culture from 1900-1950. Dont know in what essence you mean 'revived'.
Revived like taking a cartoon character from the 1950s-70's and putting him in a 2021 movie.
You know, I hate old people, so lets ban Mr Magoo. And I hate rabbits. Ban Bugs.
My thing is that, as I noted, as close to a 1st amendment absolutist as you can get. Using your yardstick on the skunk, perhaps we should ban 'A Clockwork Orange', since it shows very graphically the issue of rape. And ultra-violence.
Lets ban 'Blazing Saddles'. Lets ban 'Gone With the Wind'. Ooops, your team is already hot on the trail of that, especially with the latter.
Quote:Quote: I have zero idea what you mean as to 'are those in fair game' (i.e. fair game for........... what? Revival? Censorship? To use in a trademark sense?)
Fair game to put back into popular culture.
Apparently I havent thought about it as much as you have. Popular culture shouldnt be 'administered' if that means anything to you.
Give me a specific 'thing' and I will give you a specific (yet subjective) answer.
Quote:Quote:I will tell you one thing in pop culture I hope never gets revived. Blacklists for both entertainment, books, articles, movies, and business based on political belief, ya know, McCarthy 1950's. But, whoops, you guys are already doing that. And, now that I look at my pithy response, anything post-1950 is off limits based on your specific question. Sorry for the temporal foul there.
I'm not doing that any more than "you guys" are into QAnon.
I dont think *you* specifically are. I am very convinced that your side as a whole is very much letting that come into their mode of acceptable. And I think the amount that it is happening is indicative of that.
Maybe I am biased by the people that are in my circle. I don't know a single progressive that has interest in suppressing books, ideas, news stories, etc. Perhaps it is more pervasive than I would think.
Quote:I *dont* think 30%+ of conservatives, let alone Republicans, are into QAnon. As much as you tap your ruby slippers together and try to make that equivalence.
The concept of banning, or canceling, seems to currently run rather deep in the progressive mindset. I am sorry that you dont seem to be able to come to grips with that.
I mean... using your approach one could say "The concept of the use of force as a way to arrest the decline of the 'traditional American way of life' seems to currently run very, very deep in the conservative mindset."
But funny, funny --- we see a metric ton more of banning, canceling, and silencing from your quarter than your last pithy statement.
Criminy -- we see far more *actual* violence from your quarter as well (that is as opposed to to your mixing and matching concepts above).
But, please, try and stick your head in the sand -- both about the prevalence of left wing violence in pursuit of left wing goals, *and* sticking your head in the sand about the proclivity of the left wing to ban, cancel, or silence what they deem fit in pursuit of their political goals.
On the 'jackboot Maoist' scale -- progressives seeking any and all of the above in pursuit of their political goals are light years ahead at this point.
Not only have you all supplanted the Moral Majority in the effort to silence what one does not agree with -- you all have surpassed it in its efficacy. *And* you all have gone down the violence as a pursuit of political goals in a way that the Moral Majority could never even dream of.
But, nope, you still stick your head in the sand at that. Got it. Message delivered.
(03-12-2021 12:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 10:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 10:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 10:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Are we now mixing and matching racist and rapey stuff? Goody, a progressive daily double coming down the path I sense.
As for your question, I dont have a clue as to what you are asking. Lot of 'things' in pop culture from 1900-1950. Dont know in what essence you mean 'revived'.
Revived like taking a cartoon character from the 1950s-70's and putting him in a 2021 movie.
You know, I hate old people, so lets ban Mr Magoo. And I hate rabbits. Ban Bugs.
My thing is that, as I noted, as close to a 1st amendment absolutist as you can get. Using your yardstick on the skunk, perhaps we should ban 'A Clockwork Orange', since it shows very graphically the issue of rape. And ultra-violence.
Lets ban 'Blazing Saddles'. Lets ban 'Gone With the Wind'. Ooops, your team is already hot on the trail of that, especially with the latter.
Quote:Quote: I have zero idea what you mean as to 'are those in fair game' (i.e. fair game for........... what? Revival? Censorship? To use in a trademark sense?)
Fair game to put back into popular culture.
Apparently I havent thought about it as much as you have. Popular culture shouldnt be 'administered' if that means anything to you.
Give me a specific 'thing' and I will give you a specific (yet subjective) answer.
Quote:Quote:I will tell you one thing in pop culture I hope never gets revived. Blacklists for both entertainment, books, articles, movies, and business based on political belief, ya know, McCarthy 1950's. But, whoops, you guys are already doing that. And, now that I look at my pithy response, anything post-1950 is off limits based on your specific question. Sorry for the temporal foul there.
I'm not doing that any more than "you guys" are into QAnon.
I dont think *you* specifically are. I am very convinced that your side as a whole is very much letting that come into their mode of acceptable. And I think the amount that it is happening is indicative of that.
Maybe I am biased by the people that are in my circle. I don't know a single progressive that has interest in suppressing books, ideas, news stories, etc. Perhaps it is more pervasive than I would think.
Quote:I *dont* think 30%+ of conservatives, let alone Republicans, are into QAnon. As much as you tap your ruby slippers together and try to make that equivalence.
The concept of banning, or canceling, seems to currently run rather deep in the progressive mindset. I am sorry that you dont seem to be able to come to grips with that.
I mean... using your approach one could say "The concept of the use of force as a way to arrest the decline of the 'traditional American way of life' seems to currently run very, very deep in the conservative mindset."
But funny, funny --- we see a metric ton more of banning, canceling, and silencing from your quarter than your last pithy statement.
Criminy -- we see far more *actual* violence from your quarter as well (that is as opposed to to your mixing and matching concepts above).
But, please, try and stick your head in the sand -- both about the prevalence of left wing violence in pursuit of left wing goals, *and* sticking our head in the sand about the proclivity of the left wing to ban, cancel, or silence what they deem fit in pursuit of their political goals.
On the 'jackboot Maoist' scale -- progressives seeking any and all of the above in pursuit of their political goals are light years ahead at this point.
Not only have you all supplanted the Moral Majority in the effort to silence what one does not agree with -- you all have surpassed it in its efficacy. *And* you all have gone down the violence as a pursuit of political goals in a way that the Moral Majority could never even dream of.
But, nope, you still stick your head in the sand at that. Got it. Message delivered.
What? No <slow clap> this time? I feel slighted.
(03-12-2021 12:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I *dont* think 30%+ of conservatives, let alone Republicans, are into QAnon.
More like 0.00030% of conservatives.
(03-12-2021 12:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2021 12:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I *dont* think 30%+ of conservatives, let alone Republicans, are into QAnon.
More like 0.00030% of conservatives.
Pretty sure there are more conservatives that are QAnoners than there are liberals who partake in violent protesting. Not that you would think that were you to peruse these forums.
(03-12-2021 01:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2021 12:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2021 12:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I *dont* think 30%+ of conservatives, let alone Republicans, are into QAnon.
More like 0.00030% of conservatives.
Pretty sure there are more conservatives that are QAnoners than there are liberals who partake in violent protesting. Not that you would think that were you to peruse these forums.
Interesting, a splinter group that barely exists is considered a force in conservatism by you guys, but thousands of rioters in hundreds of cities for 100 days are a tiny minority.
I guess you can believe what you want to believe, I will just go with the numbers.