Is it just me, or is there nothing more annoying than someone treating you like you're really fucking stupid?
Yeah, you're right, it's not just me, though perhaps I have greater sensitivity to it than most, seeing spectacular displays of stupidity on a daily basis. Nothing is dumber than a teenager with too much money and living far away from home, except the excuses they give you when they get caught out.
But such stupidity is born of desperation, the need to come up with a reason, any kind of vaguely plausible excuse for why they are doing what they should not be – even if that reason is, objectively speaking, about as likely as David Icke's theories.
In those cases, the act of treating me as stupid is almost forgivable, because the person in question is clearly too dumb to realise how dumb their excuse actually is. They can't operate at a level above their own intelligence, no-one can, and so they are sadly constrained to "the pet-I-don't-have-because-I-live-in-dorms ate my homework" type of statements.
No, what is really unforgivable is when people who damn well ought to know better treat you as Thicky Thicko because it suits their current agenda.
I am, of course, talking about the Samuel L. Jackson video (http://www.wtfu2012.com/) endorsing Obama's re-election.
Ooh boy, here we go again...Cain's pissed because he doesn't like Obama . Time for another snooze-fest about bankers and dead Pakistanis and the NSA wiretapping our dreams other boring shit. And all while beating up on Samuel L. Jackson, no less.
I dare you. I double-dog dare you to watch the entire video without wanting to smash your fist into your screen.
Yes, I'm talking about this particular doozy:
"Sorry my friends but there's no time to snore
An out-of-touch millionaire has just declared war
On schools, the environment, unions, fair pay
We're all on our own if Romney has his way"
That's about the point I started thinking about that nice bottle of absinthe I keep on my counter, for times when reality is best viewed via the bottom of a bottle.
I mean, doesn't the sheer brazen hypocrisy, running like a giant red line through that entire paragraph just set your teeth on edge? Oh no he din't! Hell yeah he did, girlfriend.
Where do you want to start? I'm fairly sure those teachers in Chicago have a slightly different opinion on education to the White House, given that Rahm Emanuel is the mayor of the city. You know, the man who thinks the role of trained educational professionals is to be underpaid and underfunded babysitters. "Well, you know, we value education so much we want to reduce your pay, benefits and pensions ".
And the environment? What's that? Because, you see, I looked all over the Obama campaign website and there isn't even a section for this mythical beast. It's not even on the issue list. Sure, there's a bit about preventing oil spills in the energy section, but that's rather like pledging your administration doesn't condone the use of microwaves to dry babies after a bath. That said, a Republican platform for more oil spills would only be somewhat surprising...
But this fragment, oh fuck this motherfucking line...
"An out-of-touch millionaire".
Now, I will be honest and say I have more right to hate the ultra-rich than anyone. I was poor, seriously poor, due to the economic crash causing the job market to shrivel up like my penis when confronted with photoshopped pictures of Margaret Thatcher in the nude. And then, when I did finally get a decent paying job, it involved having to deal with the insane demands and irrational fits of the globally rich on a daily basis.
But you know, from way down here, there isn't much of a dividing line between Obama, Romney and Samuel L. Jackson. Obama's worth $11.6 million, for starters. Relatively small fry, for the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, but it's still more than I, or most people reading this will earn in their lifetime. Romney's worth somewhere between $190 and $250 million, well far beyond what Obama has, but not so far away from Samuel L. Jackson's reputed net worth of $150 million.
There's something ever so slightly hypocritical to my mind that someone can call another person an "out of touch millionaire" before going back to their mansion in their chauffeur-driven Rolls Royce to enjoy freshly imported caviar on dishes made of pure platinum, you know.
Now of course Romney's out of touch. Hilariously so, his every movement and statement is awkward as fuck, as he desperately tries to show empathy, or indeed any human emotion that doesn't revolve around the acquisition of wealth.
But then, so are the Obamas. I seem to recall in that "oh so amazing" speech that transcended politics, race, gender, time and transcendence itself, that Michelle told a story about the days when the Obamas were poor Harvard grads, eating out of dumpsters, wearing clothes so thin they could have been used as extras in the "Save the Children" video about starving Africans and...talking about how their student loan repayments were bigger than their mortgage.
Now hold on a minute. Student loan repayments are determined by income. If you were that poor, there is no way they could outstrip your mortgage unless...well, either that was a hell of a good deal from the bank or they were doing pretty OK financially.
But yeah, the Obamas feel your pain or something. They're just like you, except they get escorted everywhere by elite bodyguards, live in a giant, old mansion, control legions of killer robots and are worth more than you'll ever get to see in your lifetime, unless you're cheating hardcore at Monopoly. Whatever.
And then you have the reaction of Democrat partisans, who may actually be functionally retarded. Or, at the very least, suffering from possibly the most severe collective case of cognitive dissonance in history. They'll sneer at the "politician you can have a beer with" idea in one breath, while going on about how Obama is a Man of The People in the other. Watching this bunch of hacks and mental midgets pour scorn on "Rmoney" (it's funny because Romney has lots of money!) while sucking up to the guy who gave the banks billions, possibly even trillions in taxpayer money, is the absolute height of absurdity, and the triumph of modern propaganda over common sense.
It's even a better gambit than when conservative pundits pretend to be dumb-as-fuck yokels, because at least wingnuts don't go on constantly about how the fact they accept evolution and basic physics (well done, you are at a level of a 7th grader in scientific understanding) proves they are more logical and too clever to fall for such tricks.
"Wake the fuck up" indeed. Goddamn how I hate you all. I hope you get fucked up the arse a rogue Collateral Debt Obligation, no lube.
Well now I feel like a retard for thinking that video was funny.
I thought it was funny too, but the thought did occur to me that Jackson is filthy fucking rich, and that the line was hilarious because of the hypocrisy.
oh, that was a helluva rant!
sharp as fuck.
Quote from: American Jackal on October 03, 2012, 01:04:33 AM
Well now I feel like a retard for thinking that video was funny.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on October 03, 2012, 01:25:35 AM
I thought it was funny too, but the thought did occur to me that Jackson is filthy fucking rich, and that the line was hilarious because of the hypocrisy.
It was funny, folks. Sam does that.
Cain, your writing style has certainly sharpened since I last saw you.
It took me about 20 seconds to rage, since at the beginning of the video he implied that somewhere a once homeless family is now living the American dream due to Obama and his policies. While this may be true, I've yet to run into a single person whose life improved in the last four years thanks to O. Unless you count any of my military bros who were provided jobs by being sent back into the fray, in which case his policies have helped with unemployment. One guy even died, which I suppose helped cut down on future unemployment.
In civilian life, however, I have yet to see a positive change. So basically what the video says to me is "Roymen (it's funny because Romney has probably never resorted to eating Ramen noodles for weeks) and Ryan are going to fuck with your shit! OJesus won't!" Um, not punching me in the face is not an act of charity. The absence of harm does not mean help.
Oh shit, except that he's been actively harmful if you consider dying in the worst region on Earth bad.
Also, just this so much:
Quote from: Cain on October 03, 2012, 12:56:55 AM
And the environment? What's that? Because, you see, I looked all over the Obama campaign website and there isn't even a section for this mythical beast. It's not even on the issue list. Sure, there's a bit about preventing oil spills in the energy section, but that's rather like pledging your administration doesn't condone the use of microwaves to dry babies after a bath. That said, a Republican platform for more oil spills would only be somewhat surprising...
Jackson and the type that would be moved by his video are just smart marks. Sure they might have a better grasp of the policies but they're just as manipulated as the ones that vote on the one with the best hair.
I needed this, Cain. Thanks.
Also, I'm okay with you hating us. America is pretty much a shining beacon of what's wrong with the world.
My life has improved since Obama took office because it's so much fun watching the right wingers pitch tantrums. That's about it, but I really didn't expect any more. :p
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 03, 2012, 02:39:48 AM
My life has improved since Obama took office because it's so much fun watching the right wingers pitch tantrums. That's about it, but I really didn't expect any more. :p
The NDAA took all the fun out of the precious butthurt I was enjoying.
OBAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! :argh!:
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 03, 2012, 02:24:30 AM
Jackson and the type that would be moved by his video are just smart marks. Sure they might have a better grasp of the policies but they're just as manipulated as the ones that vote on the one with the best hair.
The term I've heard is a Smark. They're smart, hip to the game and how it's played, they might even be able to draw on some of the lingo used by real insiders, but they're still marks. Hence a Smark. A puppet who knows the strings are there, but is incapable of seeing their own strings.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 03, 2012, 02:39:48 AM
My life has improved since Obama took office because it's so much fun watching the right wingers pitch tantrums. That's about it, but I really didn't expect any more. :p
Butthurt is as valid a reason for your vote as any other. Might as well enjoy the ride as you're swirling the bowl.
Observe, a homeless man begging Obama for money as he drives away in his chauffeured SUV(GREEN ENERGY).
Spread it far and wide.
(http://i48.tinypic.com/2ilebti.jpg)
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 03, 2012, 03:22:11 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 03, 2012, 02:39:48 AM
My life has improved since Obama took office because it's so much fun watching the right wingers pitch tantrums. That's about it, but I really didn't expect any more. :p
Butthurt is as valid a reason for your vote as any other. Might as well enjoy the ride as you're swirling the bowl.
Damn right. :lol:
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on October 03, 2012, 03:26:36 AM
Observe, a homeless man begging Obama for money as he drives away in his chauffeured SUV(GREEN ENERGY).
Spread it far and wide.
(http://i48.tinypic.com/2ilebti.jpg)
It's better if we say he's praying to Obama. Plays up "The Won" angle.
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on October 03, 2012, 03:26:36 AM
Observe, a homeless man begging Obama for money as he drives away in his chauffeured SUV(GREEN ENERGY).
Spread it far and wide.
(http://i48.tinypic.com/2ilebti.jpg)
Of course, if Obama had stopped the car and given the guy some cash, somebody would talk about how Obama was just showing off that he had that kind of money to just give away. Or that handing cash to a homeless person isn't going to fix anything, and helping one guy out of 100 million is just playing cheap politics. "Teach a man to fish" and all that.
As for the hypocrisy of Samuel L. Jackson, I wasn't aware that the point was to
hate the rich. I don't hate rich people, but I do hate the shitty games they play, and the way they game the system. I don't begrudge Sam Jackson for his millions. I just don't want to see him spending his money doing everything he can to make sure nobody else sees any success.
I wish Obama would give up the killer robots, and push forcefully for reasonable foreign, military, and economic policies. I wish he would not tell the UN all about how Freedom of Speech™ should be an inalienable right, while his agencies keep tabs on everything Americans talk about on the Internet. These are things I talk about all the time with people -- here, on Facebook, in actual reality. To friends, family, and coworkers. These are issues that are important and they're not on the back burner for me.
But Mitt Romney is hardly any different with respect to those things, except maybe being marginally worse. And there really are areas where Obama does meaningfully depart from the agenda espoused by Romney. Those areas don't earn Obama my enthusiastic support, but they earn my vote. And a vote for Obama doesn't mean I am suddenly on the Surveillance State bandwagon. But it'll be a lot harder to talk to anyone about the CCTV cameras all over the place when their primary concern is which child to sell off to pay for medical bills.
All in all, I think Cain is correct that there are very large issues at stake that nobody's even talking about -- that the two American parties already agree on. And maybe Sam Jackson should be using his talents to change those things, instead of rallying people around a president who is complicit in them. But I don't buy the argument that because he has money, he should forfeit his right to draw attention to Supply-Side vampirism, or that he is a "hypocrite" because he campaigns for issues that matter to him instead of issues that matter to us.
What vex said.
Quote from: v3x on October 03, 2012, 06:27:36 AM
All in all, I think Cain is correct that there are very large issues at stake that nobody's even talking about -- that the two American parties already agree on. And maybe Sam Jackson should be using his talents to change those things, instead of rallying people around a president who is complicit in them. But I don't buy the argument that because he has money, he should forfeit his right to draw attention to Supply-Side vampirism, or that he is a "hypocrite" because he campaigns for issues that matter to him instead of issues that matter to us.
This.
Cain, I loved your rant. Fucking loved it. Because, I admit, I was kind of Smarked (thanks for that term IJ!) by it. Mostly the rule of cool, because SLJ is a badass motherfucker.
But your rants always dismantle things in the most unexpected ways, for me. Sure, I "know" the things you laid out, there wasn't anything new, but the way you put it togther turned it up to 11, connected the dots, underscored the fundamental ugly nature of it all.
But I still can't help think that Romney would do the exact same thing as Obama, and then add a whole bunch of supply-side trickle-down bullshit on top of that.
Good rant.
I read the primary indictment in Jackson's ad not as "Romney is rich", but as "Romney is disconnected and his primary interest is in protecting his wealth". Therefore, before accepting charges of hypocrisy, the questions I would ask are not "Is Jackson similarly rich?" but "Is Jackson similarly disconnected?" and "Is Jackson similarly interested in protecting his wealth?"
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 03, 2012, 03:15:34 PM
Good rant.
I read the primary indictment in Jackson's ad not as "Romney is rich", but as "Romney is disconnected and his primary interest is in protecting his wealth". Therefore, before accepting charges of hypocrisy, the questions I would ask are not "Is Jackson similarly rich?" but "Is Jackson similarly disconnected?" and "Is Jackson similarly interested in protecting his wealth?"
I agree with this, as my initial reaction was not that Jackson was saying "millionaires are bad, but don't look at my millions of dollars". I would also add the minor quibble that your last question, Nigel, is perhaps too narrow? Not sure if that's the right way to phrase that, but I don't think it's unreasonable of a person to want to protect their own wealth, but maybe rephrase it as "Is Jackson similarly interested in protecting his wealth and the wealth of others, at any cost?" Though, maybe I'm putting a bit too much thought into it at that point.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 03, 2012, 02:15:14 AM
It was funny, folks. Sam does that.
Cain, your writing style has certainly sharpened since I last saw you.
Thanks. I've actually been worried about my writing style lately, so it's something I'm paying more attention to now. I'm glad it's paying off.
I'm sure that there are people whose lives have improved thanks to Obama's policies, who are pretty far down on society's lists of concerns. Or who soon will be. ACA, for all its flaws, is a huge achievement. I'm also fairly sure that McCain and Caribou Barbie would have mangled the economy beyond all recognition by this point, going by their list of economic advisors.
That said, it's not good enough, and there is room for improvement. There is always room for improvement, except on liberal blogs, where mentioning Obama's reign may not be perfect will result in cries of "unserious leftist" and bouts of random hippie punching. Not that hippies don't deserve to be punched, as a general rule, but picking fights with pacifists is a bit lame.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 03, 2012, 02:06:01 PM
Cain, I loved your rant. Fucking loved it. Because, I admit, I was kind of Smarked (thanks for that term IJ!) by it. Mostly the rule of cool, because SLJ is a badass motherfucker.
But your rants always dismantle things in the most unexpected ways, for me. Sure, I "know" the things you laid out, there wasn't anything new, but the way you put it togther turned it up to 11, connected the dots, underscored the fundamental ugly nature of it all.
But I still can't help think that Romney would do the exact same thing as Obama, and then add a whole bunch of supply-side trickle-down bullshit on top of that.
Firstly, thanks.
In regards to Romney, sure he would. He'd be a terrible President, in addition to possibly foreshadowing the Mormon Apocalypse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy).
But that's an actual policy based argument. "Romney's a rich, out of touch millionaire" is not a policy argument, especially when it's being made by other rich, out of touch millionaires. It's simply hoping to capitalize on class resentment, by people who are more like the person they are criticizing (based on class similarities) than the people they are appealing to.
That's what annoys me. It's no different than watching Newt Gringrinch warble on about the sanctity of marriage, except Newt gets rightly mocked in liberal circles for his hypocrisy.
I'd love to share your rant, but I have no idea which of the myriad, idiotic, passive, drone-like infofeeds this could possibly fit into.
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 03, 2012, 03:20:45 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 03, 2012, 02:24:30 AM
Jackson and the type that would be moved by his video are just smart marks. Sure they might have a better grasp of the policies but they're just as manipulated as the ones that vote on the one with the best hair.
The term I've heard is a Smark. They're smart, hip to the game and how it's played, they might even be able to draw on some of the lingo used by real insiders, but they're still marks. Hence a Smark. A puppet who knows the strings are there, but is incapable of seeing their own strings.
I dig it. It was actually a conversation you had with Luna in another thread about pro wrestling that made me remember the mark/smart mark terms.
I can forgive Samuel L Jackson for making anti rich comments if only because I'm pretty sure he wasn't born into the complete separate wealth bubble that Romney is unable to see beyond. My problem is that he's urging people to buy into the con.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 03, 2012, 09:12:06 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 03, 2012, 03:20:45 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 03, 2012, 02:24:30 AM
Jackson and the type that would be moved by his video are just smart marks. Sure they might have a better grasp of the policies but they're just as manipulated as the ones that vote on the one with the best hair.
The term I've heard is a Smark. They're smart, hip to the game and how it's played, they might even be able to draw on some of the lingo used by real insiders, but they're still marks. Hence a Smark. A puppet who knows the strings are there, but is incapable of seeing their own strings.
I dig it. It was actually a conversation you had with Luna in another thread about pro wrestling that made me remember the mark/smart mark terms.
Someone actually read that discussion? Shit I thought I was being boring.
It's a useful distinction to keep in mind whenever you're discussing anything wherein a good portion of the participants are fans of something at a surface level. It can be mapped out all to hell, with varying degrees of being a mark vs being smart, but in the final analysis, unless you're they guy trying to get something over, you're a mark at some level.
Which is why I dislike folks who try to paint themselves as being 100% smart. That's just an example of how much of a mark they are.
(And you're welcome LMNO)
I don't care what anyone says.
I just like watching Samuel L Jackson yell WAKE THE FUCK UP. I'd prefer SHUT THE FUCK UP, but beggars can't be choosers.