AR-15 forum talks about STEM vs STEAM.
Art just drags STEM down? What?
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Monday, February 19, 2018
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Banned from Red State.
According to the writer I was being an ass (hence the motivation of my last post.) I tried to post this on a separate article which earned my ban and got this message.
The ruckus came from me explaining that Santorum's wish "to fight" abortion, same-sex "marriage," and the legalization of marijuana wasn't a "theocracy."
I later asked why my post was getting such a response. A Red State moderator helped me understand.
So in other words don't correct or question what's written in the article especially if the piece is written by the editor.
A post of mine was deleted as well since I guess I was "being an on-line ass" to others. My post, in a cheeky manner, responded, "Did you think of that yourself?" or something to that effect; I cannot remember exactly.
It was ultimately a stupid question since it was implying that I was supporting Santorum's process of legalizing his social views. No where did I say that he was right in his efforts. What Santorum wants to do isn't a "religious dogmatic view" (though the editors and others on Red State think it is, or else why the writer's frame Santorum in such a way) since such views can also be perfectly and soundly be held on a secular stance.
Another post was wiped out of existence because it spoke ill of libertarians even though the post I was responding to also did, but that post wasn't deleted.
From what has happened as detailed above tells me the editors of Red State aren't too high on people who may be a little sympathetic to candidates that aren't be triumphed in a given article.
Others have noted this issue as well when denouncing any "theocracy" accusation (I get the feeling that social conservatives who aren't on the whole "let the state choose their own morality" wagon are immensely unpopular among the Red State editors). See below.
Okay, I read 1689's comment. I don't see anything "passive aggressive" or rude or inconsiderate. Wait, he questioned the "theocracy" usage which was written by the editor. He wrote this: "All would be better than some free-wheeling, do-whatever-you-want small-government! society." Nevermind. He also "attacked the site" by writing, "NR has enough authors trying to fundamentally transform what it means to be a conservative. Apparently the problem is not limited to NR." Bill S. won't have that. On the "blacklist" you shall go.
The overall tone of Bill S.'s reasons on banning fall apart when he turns to the "you're mean" reason. The whole "keeping the peace" is talk because it's him really saying, "We don't want conservatives who have different opinions - who cannot form their opinions with the most softest snow so not to harm the feelings of the editors - to share their thoughts." It's such a cop-out move.
I learned that another has-been poster was also banned, back in 2012. The comments on his article that explained his disdain of the ban got the trolls out of the wood work. I'm not sure of the politics of those that mock him, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were socially "progressive" libertarians or douchebag liberals. It seems like that the day he wrote it those that were aware of the ban took advantaged of the moment - they maybe Red State posters who agreed with the moderators.
Here's what Calvin and another has-been poster said:
I remember reading that Red State doesn't tolerate birthers, truthers and Palin haters and for good reason: They're idiots. But why ban people who "attack" the editors regarding the content of which they post? This tells me they're cowards, and assholes.
The ruckus came from me explaining that Santorum's wish "to fight" abortion, same-sex "marriage," and the legalization of marijuana wasn't a "theocracy."
I later asked why my post was getting such a response. A Red State moderator helped me understand.
So in other words don't correct or question what's written in the article especially if the piece is written by the editor.
A post of mine was deleted as well since I guess I was "being an on-line ass" to others. My post, in a cheeky manner, responded, "Did you think of that yourself?" or something to that effect; I cannot remember exactly.
It was ultimately a stupid question since it was implying that I was supporting Santorum's process of legalizing his social views. No where did I say that he was right in his efforts. What Santorum wants to do isn't a "religious dogmatic view" (though the editors and others on Red State think it is, or else why the writer's frame Santorum in such a way) since such views can also be perfectly and soundly be held on a secular stance.
Another post was wiped out of existence because it spoke ill of libertarians even though the post I was responding to also did, but that post wasn't deleted.
From what has happened as detailed above tells me the editors of Red State aren't too high on people who may be a little sympathetic to candidates that aren't be triumphed in a given article.
Others have noted this issue as well when denouncing any "theocracy" accusation (I get the feeling that social conservatives who aren't on the whole "let the state choose their own morality" wagon are immensely unpopular among the Red State editors). See below.
Okay, I read 1689's comment. I don't see anything "passive aggressive" or rude or inconsiderate. Wait, he questioned the "theocracy" usage which was written by the editor. He wrote this: "All would be better than some free-wheeling, do-whatever-you-want small-government! society." Nevermind. He also "attacked the site" by writing, "NR has enough authors trying to fundamentally transform what it means to be a conservative. Apparently the problem is not limited to NR." Bill S. won't have that. On the "blacklist" you shall go.
The overall tone of Bill S.'s reasons on banning fall apart when he turns to the "you're mean" reason. The whole "keeping the peace" is talk because it's him really saying, "We don't want conservatives who have different opinions - who cannot form their opinions with the most softest snow so not to harm the feelings of the editors - to share their thoughts." It's such a cop-out move.
I learned that another has-been poster was also banned, back in 2012. The comments on his article that explained his disdain of the ban got the trolls out of the wood work. I'm not sure of the politics of those that mock him, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were socially "progressive" libertarians or douchebag liberals. It seems like that the day he wrote it those that were aware of the ban took advantaged of the moment - they maybe Red State posters who agreed with the moderators.
Here's what Calvin and another has-been poster said:
I remember reading that Red State doesn't tolerate birthers, truthers and Palin haters and for good reason: They're idiots. But why ban people who "attack" the editors regarding the content of which they post? This tells me they're cowards, and assholes.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Things that annoy me when it comes to social conservatives.
As said by a poster named Athena Carson about a rape scene in Game of Thrones (tv series),
"Leave Harry alone!"
Actually, I see this occurrence = endorsement much more often in conservative Christian circles, trying to scare parents into sanitizing their homes of every last scrap of popular culture. Over the last several years I have seen much ridiculous debate about how Frozen is corrupting our children, how Brave is corrupting our children, about the (supposed) hidden Satanic messages in Harry Potter.
Invariably, the non-conservative Christian types (which may or may not overlap with the more liberal progressive types) sensibly take down these ridiculous objections, only to have their commentary fall on deaf ears (of course).The "sanitize" type of parents have a more compelling argument against Frozen (not that I agree with them) than with Harry Potter. I have always felt that "HP is evil!" parents, though well-meaning, are an embarrassment to sensible social conservatives. Harry Potter isn't evil, though the author of the series is the one you should be critical of since she's basically a modern day liberal when it comes to social issues (defends Islam, shallow defense for the LGBT community).
"Leave Harry alone!"
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Caiden Cowger (and Jonathan Krohn)
I'm not sure if he is as loathed as he was three years ago, but apparently in 2012 his youtube channel was making the rounds with youtube progressive and they were a bit pissed off.
What I gather is that Cowger accuses HuffPo, among other left-leaning media/news sites, in trying to take down his youtube channel. I'm not sure if this is anywhere near accurate - maybe the young man jumped to conclusions, but I wouldn't be surprised if HuffPo, or someone from the online media site, did take action again him.
Videos like this, this, this and this were posted in response to Cowger's infamous upload that shared his views on homosexuality. (The video, so far, has received 4, 000 comments, 9, 000+ down votes vs. 400 up votes.) Even The Young Turks, a progressive media/news channel via youtube, jumped on the "Can you believe this kid?" bandwagon. When TYT makes a segment about you you know you've "made it" in the non-left world, at least when it comes to circulated media. In their eyes you're either a crazed wacko religious wingnut akin to an extreme Islamist yelling "Allahu Akbar!" with a bomb strapped to your chest, or you're not progressive enough. Heck, Cowger's video became to popular among the progressive side that he was even mentioned on the Bill Maher Show. Talk about getting the left pissed off.
The kid just isn't liked. Look here and here. It is obvious that Cowger has greatly irritated social "progressives" and the secular types.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone who saw the video, disagreed with him, and had a very negative reaction to it, flagged it and reported it to youtube. Youtube, like all social media sites, is extraordinary liberal, so they too might have felt it violated sit rules and categorized it as "hate speech." I wouldn't be surprised if some LGBT activist pulled the alarm bell and yelled "FIRE!"
Whether or not Cowger will pull a Johnathan Krohn when he turns 18, or in later years, is anyone's guess. If he does I hope he finds his way to conservatism.
Krohn was held up to a pedestal by a few people on the right when he was a preteen (I don't know why) for espousing conservative views. Later the young Krohn would switch political leanings as he reached his university years. The left began mocking the right for doing such a thing and rightfully so: It was a moronic. At the time Krohn wasn't even 13 when he caught the eyes and hearts of moronic conservatives and Republicans whom then later saw him as the future of conservatism. Why? The kid hadn't even gone through puberty.
When a few FOX News personalities (those that sit around a table and drink coffee while a huge tv is behind, not the anchors) heard that all grownup Krohn was now a liberal college student, they threw him under the bus in a very non-professional manner. Excellent way to make the right look like idiots, FOX.
(On how he, Krohn, turned into a liberal.)
Krohn: "So I read philosophy and it showed me how wrong I was in my worldviews .... "
Dear Allah. Really, Krohn? You read philosophy and it made you liberal? And you're majoring in film at NYU? You cannot be anymore stereotypical if you weren't already.
Anyways, it seems Cowger is a smart kid; I think he has balls, if not somewhat reckless on how he broadcasts his views. He's opinionated. He "doesn't" mind own business. I don't know any kid his age who is doing what he's doing: a talk show via youtube espousing (social) conservative views in that manner, all with an understanding of those views - not just blind allegiance (though referring to the Bible when won't help much since social progressive are immensely stubborn).
Like I said, I'm not sure if Cowger will continue on like this - holding the views he currently holds - but if he does, well into his life, then good for him. If he doesn't, I'll just say "You were much wiser when you were a kid."
Note: I'll be dedicating one more post (or two) abut Cowger later this year. I think, besides the current vitriol he's receiving by the left, he deserves some good words (not the type Krohn got, Dear Allah no). I did a quick google search of him and most of the stuff were negative finds. I don't believe he's known in the conservative blogsphere, or even in general by conservatives, who more savvy with social media. He should be.
What I gather is that Cowger accuses HuffPo, among other left-leaning media/news sites, in trying to take down his youtube channel. I'm not sure if this is anywhere near accurate - maybe the young man jumped to conclusions, but I wouldn't be surprised if HuffPo, or someone from the online media site, did take action again him.
Videos like this, this, this and this were posted in response to Cowger's infamous upload that shared his views on homosexuality. (The video, so far, has received 4, 000 comments, 9, 000+ down votes vs. 400 up votes.) Even The Young Turks, a progressive media/news channel via youtube, jumped on the "Can you believe this kid?" bandwagon. When TYT makes a segment about you you know you've "made it" in the non-left world, at least when it comes to circulated media. In their eyes you're either a crazed wacko religious wingnut akin to an extreme Islamist yelling "Allahu Akbar!" with a bomb strapped to your chest, or you're not progressive enough. Heck, Cowger's video became to popular among the progressive side that he was even mentioned on the Bill Maher Show. Talk about getting the left pissed off.
The kid just isn't liked. Look here and here. It is obvious that Cowger has greatly irritated social "progressives" and the secular types.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone who saw the video, disagreed with him, and had a very negative reaction to it, flagged it and reported it to youtube. Youtube, like all social media sites, is extraordinary liberal, so they too might have felt it violated sit rules and categorized it as "hate speech." I wouldn't be surprised if some LGBT activist pulled the alarm bell and yelled "FIRE!"
Whether or not Cowger will pull a Johnathan Krohn when he turns 18, or in later years, is anyone's guess. If he does I hope he finds his way to conservatism.
Krohn was held up to a pedestal by a few people on the right when he was a preteen (I don't know why) for espousing conservative views. Later the young Krohn would switch political leanings as he reached his university years. The left began mocking the right for doing such a thing and rightfully so: It was a moronic. At the time Krohn wasn't even 13 when he caught the eyes and hearts of moronic conservatives and Republicans whom then later saw him as the future of conservatism. Why? The kid hadn't even gone through puberty.
When a few FOX News personalities (those that sit around a table and drink coffee while a huge tv is behind, not the anchors) heard that all grownup Krohn was now a liberal college student, they threw him under the bus in a very non-professional manner. Excellent way to make the right look like idiots, FOX.
(On how he, Krohn, turned into a liberal.)
Krohn: "So I read philosophy and it showed me how wrong I was in my worldviews .... "
Dear Allah. Really, Krohn? You read philosophy and it made you liberal? And you're majoring in film at NYU? You cannot be anymore stereotypical if you weren't already.
Anyways, it seems Cowger is a smart kid; I think he has balls, if not somewhat reckless on how he broadcasts his views. He's opinionated. He "doesn't" mind own business. I don't know any kid his age who is doing what he's doing: a talk show via youtube espousing (social) conservative views in that manner, all with an understanding of those views - not just blind allegiance (though referring to the Bible when won't help much since social progressive are immensely stubborn).
Like I said, I'm not sure if Cowger will continue on like this - holding the views he currently holds - but if he does, well into his life, then good for him. If he doesn't, I'll just say "You were much wiser when you were a kid."
Note: I'll be dedicating one more post (or two) abut Cowger later this year. I think, besides the current vitriol he's receiving by the left, he deserves some good words (not the type Krohn got, Dear Allah no). I did a quick google search of him and most of the stuff were negative finds. I don't believe he's known in the conservative blogsphere, or even in general by conservatives, who more savvy with social media. He should be.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
A note to conservatives commenting on Chicago
PG-13 for crude language.
Old-time conservatives when commenting on Chicago need to stop being so ignorant. I know that's a word that's thrown at non-progressives all the time, but I think in this case it's appropriate.
I am not apologizing for the city of Chicago's crime rate and gang wars, but if you want to "prove" that Democratic governance is horrid every time the city is mentioned, in whatever way, then at least drop the headlines that you receive in your local newspapers or whatever - most likely immensely inaccurate - ideas you have about crime in the city.
The "Chiraq" call is effective when commenting on the shootings, when acknowledging that there is a problem in Chicago, but on the South Side. But it stops there when conservatives or when outsiders use it. Why? If you want to get into the particulars a lot of the shooting happen in select low-income neighborhoods whose residents are black. Derrick Rose lived in Englewood which is a neighborhood known for its gang wars and crime. Ben Wilson aka Benji was shot to death in the South Side neighborhood of Chatham even thought Chatham is considered more of a "safe" neighborhood when compared to the likes of Englewood.
Most of the North Side of Chicago and Southwest Side are relatively safe. The West Side is the South Side Light, but like its "heavier" half most of the crime happens in certain neighborhoods - in certain streets/pockets/zones. What demographic tends to dominate the West Side? Latinos. Most of the North Side is white while the Southwest Side is a mixture of white (ie Polish immigrants) and family oriented Latinos.
Many of the conservatives who comment on Chicago and its crime fail to acknowledge, or simply they succumb to laziness and generalizations, that a couple of the occurring facts that fail to make the headlines: Many of the shootings are located in neighborhoods on South Side which are dominated by black residents. The problem isn't the city itself, but the culture that pervades the South Side in these neighborhoods plagued by gang wars and ghetto mamas.
It's the culture, stupid!
When old-time conservatives complain about the MSM fooling America, they are fooled as well since Chicago crime fits right into the (true) narrative that ghetto culture ruins family and potential which is pushed by the right (and 'rightfully' so).
The irony of shot-gun feelings. No pun.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Name Calling
Warning: PG-13 for crude language.
Conservatives are called a host of names and are accused of many things:
This also extend to jabs at low paying jobs. People working at KFC, as a cashier or in retail are usually met with "have fun working at your dead end job" to "have fun working at your menial job." White collar jobs don't fair any better - "office drone" to "desk jockey" to "pencil pusher."
I was having a discussion with some person who was obviously liberal. Since this was on the internet and my avatar wasn't a picture of me, so he had no way of actually knowing my face therefore let had no accurate way of assuming my background. The discussion got a bit testy and here's what he thought of me:
And this was all because he read into my comment that I was making fun of rap music & rappers. I assure you I wasn't. If it is of any importance this guy was white.
The poster was man who was a college graduate, had taught kids English in the Middle East (or was it Africa?) and visited other countries afterwards. I think it's fair to say he's well-traveled compared to the average American, liberal (let's attribute these to the label: open-minded, compassionate, wants fairness & justice) and a college degree holder. Impressive, right?
No.
It's too bad every time I engaged he couldn't hold a somewhat sound position.
Now let's list the names asserted to modernists/progressives:
I remember about five years ago, there was a facebook page entitled "Lose the Label." I joined while I was in high school since I thought it was a good cause. Thinking about such a group it's safe to bet that most that joined were not socially conservative and probably held a negative view towards the GOP and towards anything remotely conservative.
Looking that the names conservatives are called compared to the ones modernists/progressive are called ... I guess "Lose the Label" was really geared towards eliminating words that were directed at certain groups, like LGBTs (fair enough) and the use of the word nigger (but black can call fellow blacks that). Kind of like how "It Gets Better" was initially - and mainly directed to this day - for the LGBTs. General bullying was just the "Oh yea, and them too!" safety net when someone questions the scope of the campaign. Sorry fat kid and four-eyes, you're on the bottom of the totem poll.
"Wait, how about the whole 'equality' talk? Isn't everyone created equal?"
"Sure, but that's different. It's relative to the situation."
"Oh ... I guess I can tuck that new 'It Gets Better' t-shirt away ..."
Conservatives are called a host of names and are accused of many things:
- bigoted
- homophobic
- sexist
- backwards
- rubes
- redneck
- troglodyte
- neanderthal
- places they live are called "fly over country" or "nowhere" or (heard this in college) "bumblefuck"
- anti-science
- anti-logic
- gun-totting bible thumpers
- "clinging to your guns & bibles"
- the world despises you
- fatty
- "soccer mom" (used as a jab in reference to mothers who drive mini-vans and dresses in zip hoodie)
- wicked (some old-school dude in my city said that in reference to "typical whites" and conservatism -- said he was liberal)
- Teabagger
This also extend to jabs at low paying jobs. People working at KFC, as a cashier or in retail are usually met with "have fun working at your dead end job" to "have fun working at your menial job." White collar jobs don't fair any better - "office drone" to "desk jockey" to "pencil pusher."
I was having a discussion with some person who was obviously liberal. Since this was on the internet and my avatar wasn't a picture of me, so he had no way of actually knowing my face therefore let had no accurate way of assuming my background. The discussion got a bit testy and here's what he thought of me:
- I lived in the swamps
- I played the banjo (at least he thought I had musical talent)
- I had no teeth
- I had "infant parents" (parents that had kids in their teens or early twenties, hence "infant")
And this was all because he read into my comment that I was making fun of rap music & rappers. I assure you I wasn't. If it is of any importance this guy was white.
The poster was man who was a college graduate, had taught kids English in the Middle East (or was it Africa?) and visited other countries afterwards. I think it's fair to say he's well-traveled compared to the average American, liberal (let's attribute these to the label: open-minded, compassionate, wants fairness & justice) and a college degree holder. Impressive, right?
No.
It's too bad every time I engaged he couldn't hold a somewhat sound position.
Now let's list the names asserted to modernists/progressives:
- pinko commie
- anti-American
- faggot (mostly hurled at homosexuals, but this is rare in my experience)
- pervert (more common than faggot)
- socialist
- libtard (I think conservicunt is better ... I just find it, er, a bit funny, but that's the 12 yr old in me speaking)
I remember about five years ago, there was a facebook page entitled "Lose the Label." I joined while I was in high school since I thought it was a good cause. Thinking about such a group it's safe to bet that most that joined were not socially conservative and probably held a negative view towards the GOP and towards anything remotely conservative.
Looking that the names conservatives are called compared to the ones modernists/progressive are called ... I guess "Lose the Label" was really geared towards eliminating words that were directed at certain groups, like LGBTs (fair enough) and the use of the word nigger (but black can call fellow blacks that). Kind of like how "It Gets Better" was initially - and mainly directed to this day - for the LGBTs. General bullying was just the "Oh yea, and them too!" safety net when someone questions the scope of the campaign. Sorry fat kid and four-eyes, you're on the bottom of the totem poll.
"Wait, how about the whole 'equality' talk? Isn't everyone created equal?"
"Sure, but that's different. It's relative to the situation."
"Oh ... I guess I can tuck that new 'It Gets Better' t-shirt away ..."
Monday, July 28, 2014
Things I disagree with conservatives (that I find on the internet) + "Game"
(A) Their views on education
and
(B) their view when pertaining to the arts.
(A) Makes them look like "I pick things up and put things down" types or bitter "them 1%" types - yes, I bet you took "risks" (though undefined and never explained what these 'risks' were) while (B) helps them fulfill the stereotypical simpleton from inner America (though there are simpletons everywhere, even in cities and in every profession). But then again this coming from someone who admires & believes in John Henry Newman's view on education and someone who has great interest in the arts (painting, sculpture, writing, poetry, ballets, operas, symphonies, plays & musical theater, photography).
GAME
I'm new to this whole blogosphere thing. I'm glad that I found blogs commentating on what would be deemed as modern thought (e.g. modern day feminism, modern day views on sexuality). What really gave me a "what the fuck" feeling was learning that the writers of these blogs (some are Catholics, some are Christians) also seem to adopt the "game" mentality. In some odd ass way they're Catholics on one foot yet are Darwin-esque on the other. How this pairing happened I have no clue. This makes up for one messed up manosphere. It's like they bought into the "player" mentality when it comes to wooing and courting the opposite sex.
More on this "Christian + [insert whatever modern day Kool-Aid myth that's believed on _____ ]." It's thoroughly depressing.
and
(B) their view when pertaining to the arts.
(A) Makes them look like "I pick things up and put things down" types or bitter "them 1%" types - yes, I bet you took "risks" (though undefined and never explained what these 'risks' were) while (B) helps them fulfill the stereotypical simpleton from inner America (though there are simpletons everywhere, even in cities and in every profession). But then again this coming from someone who admires & believes in John Henry Newman's view on education and someone who has great interest in the arts (painting, sculpture, writing, poetry, ballets, operas, symphonies, plays & musical theater, photography).
GAME
I'm new to this whole blogosphere thing. I'm glad that I found blogs commentating on what would be deemed as modern thought (e.g. modern day feminism, modern day views on sexuality). What really gave me a "what the fuck" feeling was learning that the writers of these blogs (some are Catholics, some are Christians) also seem to adopt the "game" mentality. In some odd ass way they're Catholics on one foot yet are Darwin-esque on the other. How this pairing happened I have no clue. This makes up for one messed up manosphere. It's like they bought into the "player" mentality when it comes to wooing and courting the opposite sex.
More on this "Christian + [insert whatever modern day Kool-Aid myth that's believed on _____ ]." It's thoroughly depressing.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)