Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

Thank you Jack, for making the connection.  This is what Demotivators look like to anyone who doesn't make them.  I finally understand my disgust now.

[Jackrabbit]

I quite like that particular political poster though, personally. The Snake one I mean, sans my additions.

[ToonyMan]

Yeah, I've always found that removing the black border and the pointless text around a demotivater makes the humor much better.  Otherwise it shouldn't be a joke in the first place.

[Leafsnail]

Not sure how Obama resembles a King, except in having very little power in practise.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I was quite suprised myself that "Obama Monarchy" actually returned the image I was looking for. I certainly don't like the guy, but that as a criticism doesn't make much sense.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Haven't you been paying attention to the strategy right-wing pundits have been pioneering for the last decade or so? The more insane, slanderous, and/or outright false the things they're screaming are, the more people believe them, since, after all, if it wasn't true they obviously wouldn't be allowed to scream it so feverishly.

[Leafsnail]

Looking at Glenn Beck's website, I was quite amused to see a link reading "Glenn Beck: The worst candidate in American history?"

After watching one of his videos, I'd have to agree.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Aqizzar]

Haven't you been paying attention to the strategy right-wing pundits have been pioneering for the last decade or so? The more insane, slanderous, and/or outright false the things they're screaming are, the more people believe them, since, after all, if it wasn't true they obviously wouldn't be allowed to scream it so feverishly.

If there's a "strategy" to it, and more on that in a second, I think the idea is more like - keep dragging the "rightward" edge of "crazy ideas" further and further out.  When you don't honestly and solidly know where the truth lays, it's natural when hearing two diametrically opposed statements to assume they're both about equally off the mark, and that the real statement is somewhere between them.  By saying increasingly outlandish things, and relying on the national media's shorthand of "no matter what's being said, equal time = objectivity", it makes things on the "leftward" side of arguments sound crazier just by dragging out the difference, and making the midpoint between them further "right" in the process.

Basically, if you say something balls-to-the-wall insane often enough, it makes anything less crazy sound more reasonable, even if it's still completely wrong.

Where I caveat the "strategy" idea, is that it's certainly not some nationwide "memo to everybody who doesn't like the President" thing.  Sure, FOX News takes Drudge Report headlines and memos them to their anchors to pitch a daily message, but that's about as far as it goes, and it's not like they're calling each other for flat-out made up ideas.  Of course, the Bush Administration's press office regularly sent FOX proprietary notes on what to report about other people, but that's all ancient history now.

Even still, I'm willing to say that most Republican and/or conservative politicians, journalists, and talking heads don't believe half the crazy shit they say, if even that much.  It's spectacle for garnering votes, viewers, and click-through, in the service of considerably more temporal, if no less ideological motives.  And yet, emphasis on the "most".  One of the things that I absolutely love about this election cycle and the past few years is watching Reagan's Pepsi-chickens come home to roost.  But that's enough gamesmanship from me for the moment, I'm sure somebody will ask what I'm talking about.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

A strategy doesn't need to be formed with collaboration. It can just as easily be an individual's strategy, which is then copied by others when it works.

Now, the tactic of slander and mudslinging has been around as long as there's been politics, but the concentrated "the more outrageous and less based-in-reality it is the better, since, after all, we couldn't say this slanderous lunacy if it weren't true, while less insane allegations are less believable because we could feasibly get away with making those up!" seems to have mostly risen with Fox news' pundits, like Beck and the more aggressive, less batshit insane one he's overshadowed now.

The strategy employed by republican leadership of driving the center line as far right as possible would appear to be quite a bit older than that, possible older than Newt Gingrich's "no matter their position, they're the enemy, and we have to stop everything they try to do, even if we'd do the exact same thing were it up to us" idiocy (although that was less about bringing the right wing to power, and more about bringing him into power over the right wing; he's more pragmatic and devious than he is dogmatic).

[Heron TSG]

Hrm, these comments remind me of my Balloon Debate last year. Everyone picked a famous American to 'be' that was alive between 1860 and 2000, and they were in a hot air balloon with only one parachute. They had to convince that class that they should get the parachute, because they were more important to America. In truth, it turned out to be more of a 'who was a better person' contest. Hilarity ensued in this debate...

Eleanor Roosevelt - The clear favorite going in, did quite a lot to help America, and they were a pretty good person to boot.
vs.
Harriet Tubman - They helped a bit with the Underground Railroad, but their main selling point was that they were a 'really good person'.
vs.
Eric Pianka - This was me. I chose a random Herpetologist because I signed up late and everyone I wanted to take (Teddy Roosevelt) was already taken. Eric Pianka is best known for his speech at the Texas Academy of Science, where he said that, in order to humans to have no effect on nature, we would have to go extinct, and then he made a comment about super-Ebola. Not good.

The crazy part? I won by a landslide. I actually did research on Harriet Tubman and Eleanor Roosevelt, but I could only use it against Harriet, because she kidnapped children a lot. Eleanor Roosevelt, on the other hand, seemed impervious until I started quoting her out of context. Here are some examples

A woman is like a tea bag - you can't tell how strong she is until you put her in hot water.

Cannibal!

Actors are one family over the entire world.

Communist!

the domination of education or of government by any one particular religious faith is never a happy arrangement

She's a God-hating lunatic!

Campaign behavior for wives: Always be on time. Do as little talking as humanly possible. Lean back in the parade car so everybody can see the president.

Sexist!

Happiness is not a goal.

She obviously hates fun! Witch!

And so forth. Propaganda was spread thoughout the school, including such choice pictures as these.

Spoiler: Cannibalism (click to show/hide)

caption: This arm could be yours!
_{*only $9.99!}

Spoiler: Soviet Infiltrator (click to show/hide)

caption: Only YOU can stop the Red Threat!

Spoiler: Pope Punching (click to show/hide)

Caption: She killed this man, will you let her kill the Master of Lizards too?

I got all but one vote of nearly forty students. Balls-to-the-walls insanity can at least pick up the Loony votes.

[Leafsnail]

In our recent Balloon Debate, Rupert Murdoch won.  Simply due to the awesomeness of his speech (hey, he promised to bribe God into letting us all survive!).

[KaguroDraven]

You know who should be President?  Toady, I think Toady should totally be president. Well Toady or Janet.

[nbonaparte]

But then who would code DF?

[KaguroDraven]

Good point, Janet for Predident then. Toady can be President once DF is finished.