全 55 件のコメント

[–]solebluesoul 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (4子コメント)

It seems more and more like we are trying to legislate away "being offended". Who wants to force an unwilling baker to make a cake under penalty of civil rights violations? Doncha think the final product is gonna taste like ass? Can you then sue if you get a sub-par product?

The fix in the Indiana law they want to put through now forces private companies to accept any sale the customer wants to pay for. What if my company does not want to work with/be associated with supplying materials to KKK/Satanic Group/Pornographic materials. If a business owner declines, are they subject to litigation?

It seems we have confused civil rights for the right to "not be offended"

Overturning this law in Indiana is the wrong text you are targeting, if you want to force people to go against their faith, the text below is what you want to work on eliminating.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[–]colonelmustard32 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was discussing This concept yesterday of why you might want to have a baker make a cake (for instance) under threat of penalty. We came to the conclusion that you would be able to take someone to civil court if the item was notoriously bad. You don't need beyond a reasonable doubt for civil proceedings. Further it wouldn't be that hard for a dedicated person to establish the quality of the vendor through agents. Given those three items of low quality of your product, a history of high quality product and the initial refusal to make the product you could make a decent case.

[–]puddboy 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We get so worked up on hypotheticals regarding petty issues that we ignore the real problems going on. This allows those in charge to obtain more power.

[–]I-Downvoted_You 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Having won the war on gay marriage (by judicial fiat), now some liberal zealots insist on going house-to-house and shooting the survivors."

pretty much sums it up.

[–]BaronVonWaffle 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (32子コメント)

This can be said about both sides of the aisle.

We live in the era of the 24 hour news cycle, everyone will cherry pick stories, twist them to suit their narrative, and claim 'It is happening everywhere'. I am a proud liberal, and I know my 'side' does this, but don't act for a second that conservatives don't do the exact same thing.

[–]zenontherocks 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's called confirmation bias, and its an extremely powerful thing. Its a little bit more involved than that, and it affects pretty much our thought processes at a core level. Anyone who wishes to engage in objective reasoning has to be on constant guard against confirmation bias.

[–]super_ag 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (28子コメント)

Just curious, but what are the big hysterical lies that the right propagates. I can think of a few, but I'd like to get your take.

[–]BaronVonWaffle 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (6子コメント)

After a quick googling, HERE is something you might want to look into.

The Daily show put out a Vine titled "50 Fox news lies in 6 seconds", and politifact fact-checked every one of them, with a source.

Edit: This only took 30 seconds of googling, and I found it at least interesting enough to look into. I would love to post a more in-depth analysis of the hypocrisy of the right (As /u/super_ag asked), but have since been banned.

[–]Captain_Yid 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

(A) I don't understand why you have to google. You made the statement before you googled. You should be able to answer the question in your own words IMO. I seem to encounter this a lot with liberals. They can't answer in their own words, so they link to Jon Stewart or some other anti-conservative commentator. I don't completely discount this sort of answer; I just see a lack of critical thinking.

(B) I'm taking a look at your source. I don't have time to delve into all 50 cites, so I just took a look at one of the "Pants on Fire" claims and I didn't find it very damning, and in fact, it doesn't support your cause at all because it was a conservative who challenged the veracity of the statement in the first place.

Number 16 on your list (where I stopped browsing and decided to click on the link)

  1. "We researched to find out if anybody on Fox News had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody's ever said it."

Bill O’Reilly, Oct. 27, 2010

Pants on Fire

To prove O'Reilly wrong, Politifact points out that four sources on Fox news had talked about jail being a consequence of not getting health insurance. But that was true at the time! The four sources all made their quotes BEFORE the law was amended to exclude the possibility of jail time. But Politifact harps on O'Reilly's usage of the term "ever" without giving it any contextual credit. To me, it's clear O'Reilly (which he clarifies) simply referred to the bill as it currently existed, not how it existed in the past when jail time was a real possibility (which even Politifact acknowledges, albeit they call the possibility "remote").

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/27/bill-oreilly/oreilly-says-no-one-fox-raised-issue-jail-time-not/

In addition to the underwhelming nature of this "lie," O'Reilly was originally challenged by, not a liberal, but by "Sen. Tom Coburn -- a staunchly conservative Oklahoma Republican." So trying to attribute this "false" statement to conservatives is misplaced - it was conservatives debating it with each other!

EDIT: Sorry you were banned. I wish our mods weren't so quick to ban people.

[–]gg140905 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (16子コメント)

War on religion

[–]super_ag 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Could you be more specific?

[–]bigcombination 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Fox New's War on Christmas thing is a good example. Government has to be religiously neutral for constitutional reasons, and businesses are just trying to attract the most customers in an era of shifting demographics and social values.

The Fox hosts and guests completely ignore how historically variable the practices associated with Christmas have been, instead they basically just have a little nostalgia tinged hate-jerk about liberals and atheists.

Not saying all conservatives believe that stuff, it's just what I see on Fox and some places online.

[–]super_ag 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (6子コメント)

The "War on Christmas" is not a fake story. There were and still are stories emerging where there is a concerted effort to remove public expressions of religion and even remove the term "Christmas" from the public realm. Here are just a few examples:

Now you can say that Conservatives were blowing it out of proportion, but they are upset about real phenomena. They're not lying when they say that schools, businesses and activist Atheist groups are making concerted efforts to ban aspects of Christmas. You seem to be acknowledging that what Conservatives are upset about is happening. You just don't think it's a big deal or think it's justified. And you may be right. But that is wholly different than promoting a false narrative based on things that didn't happen.

[–]theotherduke 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I think a lot of those examples point to a shift away from a specifically Christian-centric social trends, to more open and "inclusive" ways of communicating - especially your examples relating to advertising. I was raised in a multi-faith household where we celebrated and learned about both muslim and chirsitan holidays so i completely understand why businesses would be generalizing holiday-themed ads to include people of more than just one faith. I also understand public schools trying to get away from christmas parties and instead focus on more inclusive holiday parties. Banning particular colors is stupid. Maybe instead of banning the use of "christmas" they could simply include more religious holidays in the mix. that's what i like to see - full inclusion.

I also want to say that i'm not entirely disagreeing with your assertion or your examples of this phenomena. I just think that some of these are far from examples of any kind of "war" on christmas. Christmas is being made to share the spotlight in many ways, and I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with that. There are good and bad expressions of that change.

[–]super_ag 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Like I said, perhaps O'Reilly and gang are overreacting to the downplaying of Christmas, but it's not based on a lie like "Hands Up Don't Shoot," "Women make 77% of what a man makes for the same job," "1 in 4 women are raped in college" or this Indiana law legalizes discrimination. I have no problem with people being critical of the "War on Christmas," I do think calling it a hysterical lie comparable to the false narratives on the Left is pretty inaccurate.

[–]theotherduke 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I think that it's entirely comparable to many false narratives from the left (both sides lie and sensationalize issues constantly - that's just the nature of politics) but I totally respect your opinion.

[–]super_ag -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Apples to oranges. You're saying your wife getting mad at you for leaving the toilet seat up (which you did) is the same as her getting mad and blaming you for pissing all over the toilet seat (even though there was no piss on the toilet seat). One is an overreaction to a real phenomenon, and the other is flat out lying and making shit up and touting it as fact.

Yes, both sides Left and Right sensationalize the news to make it more marketable and that's a problem, but that's not what I asked. I asked about hysterical lies propagated by the Right as you've seen on the Left recently.

[–]xXnewbsonlyXx 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So Fox's "war on Christmas" occupied as much media time as the stories in this article?

If you really think the media is 50/50 liberal you should do some research on the voting practices of the press corps.

[–]bigcombination -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not what I said at all. I'll defend my point, not your straw-man's.

[–]CherryCokeNixon 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I know. It's such a horror that the government recognizes Christmas as a holiday. Endless oppression of non-Christian minorities. /s

[–]bigcombination -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Way to miss the point.

[–]CherryCokeNixon 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think I did a pretty good job expressing the ridiculousness of claiming that the federal government needs to remain secular (and by default atheistic)

[–]CrushyOfTheSeas 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I actually didn't get that out of your comment at all. Please do elaborate.

[–]BaronVonWaffle 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure, I'm just about to head to work, but I'll post some examples later tonignt.

edit: Oops, got banned :x

[–]Phillipinsocal 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

When was the last time you seen a story critical of democrats in /r/ politics?

[–]YosoffNatural Rights Conservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Typical liberal response anytime they are caught red handed.

"Everybody else is doing it, so I shouldn't be held accountable."

[–]AthosN8 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The same thing was on the news this AM about the RFRA and it being lied about in the Daily Beast

The RFRA in Arkansas has nothing to do with gay marriage. The first paragraph starts with a lie.

[–]Illiterategenius 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Case in point: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/abe-lincoln-democrat-plaque_n_4228689.html

Then when presented with facts, lets just change the narrative and meaning of what they meant.

I see a lot of people on hear talking about various topics that are hot button issues in our country right now. What liberals tend to not have as a starting point is this on word: freedom. None of their choices, ideas, or legislation start at, "How does this affects freedom?"

You cannot legislate freedom. All any legislation ever does is limits someone else's freedoms.

Gay marriage for instance, I am not gay, but I can promise you if I was, nobody would prevent me from loving who I wanted to love. The idea that I would need the ok from some politician is beyond me.

Healthcare - you cannot legislate mine or my families health. Thanks for this big shit stain, by the way. I know pay quarterly, what I paid in a year before ACA. My freedom is not defined by taking care of yours.

We can go on and on, but freedom does not equate free things. Legislation does not change people's true feelings and beliefs, but we all just pretend what is on paper does this magical shit. Most liberals don't believe in a higher power, but believe a pen and paper has some magical power. And if Foxnews is so full of lies, why is it the most watched and respected news program in the country? That didn't happen by accident.

[–]AgoraphobicOikophobe 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

There are a couple of points that I want to respond to:

Gays have been having relationships for as long as there have been gay people. They are not looking for a politician's approval to love somebody, they want equal legal rights and protections as their straight counter-parts. That's a pretty big distinction. Because these are political problems, they must find political solutions which usually means dealing with politicians who support their cause.

Healthcare costs have increased for some people, that's true. Some people especially are going to pay more than they would have otherwise. These increases have been normal for long before the ACA was implemented, and in some case are less than what they were before. Compound increases to double the original amount a lot faster than you would think; with the average 10% annual increase, premiums would typically double every seven years. You, personally, are above that rate but rises could be offset by improved quality of your plan or the increase could be due to any number of factors.

Fox news is the most watched because there is less competition on the conservative side of TV news programming. People like to hear what they already agree with, so it isn't surprising that a medium with fewer options pushing a certain agenda has a more consolidated viewership than an agenda with more choices.

Atheism, while growing, is still a minority. Most atheists are liberal, but most liberals still identify as religious.

While many laws are aimed at restricting one group or another, that doesn't mean that a particular law can't result in more overall freedom by limiting the actions of those who would use whatever influence they have to limit the freedom of others. An example off the top of my head is banning the use of company script as a form of employee payment. It does interfere with the actions of private parties, but the workers who are paid ultimately more choices than they would have without such laws.

[–]Illiterategenius 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Because these are political problems, they must find political solutions which usually means dealing with politicians who support their cause." See that's not doing a litmus test on what is good for the country. That is politicians buying votes. A politician promises you one thing that you want and then does ten things that set you back further than where you are. It shouldn't be about yourself, it should be about the country.

The healthcare costs issue is not for some people it is for all people. Before, you could find a plan that fit your needs and pay for that. Now I am paying for things that I will never need or use. Our rates didn't increase one time in 7 years, and in an 18 month span quadrupled after ACA was set into motion. See, there is a lot of bullshit out there to get you to like the idea. Problem is it is made up and that is what this thread is about.

Foxnews isn't even worth arguing about to me. I don't watch it much. However, I do find it odd that if it were so easy to emulate telling people what they wanted to hear, every news channel would be doing the same thing. Near as I can tell they do. Only problem is that either people don't want to really hear what they're saying, or what they want to hear is so unbelievable they don't believe it when they hear it.

I think you meant scrip, not script. However, banning the use really didn't necessarily help the people it was intended to help. The main reason it was banned was taxes. See you could get scrip tax free. If your company had everything you needed, then you actually lost money. Sure it limited your freedom to do what you want with actual money. However, you took the job knowing what you were going to receive as tender. If it was so bad, people would have not taken those jobs and then the companies would have been forced to look at paying people with actual money. Could have been solved without legislation. (I am kidding, companies using scrip were actually employing a form of slavery. They would mark up prices and charge exchange fees for actual currency.)

[–]CherryCokeNixon 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Incredible how conservative opinions regularly get downvoted in the conservative subreddit.

[–]AthosN8 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was just thinking that. Is this a novelty sub? Just making sure.

[–]Neon-Knight 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, it's like they seek all these little "Reichstag fires" to stir up the pitchfork crowd, whenever it seems like the right has any momentum, along comes Trayvon, Ferguson, Indiana etc, etc...

Pure Alinsky-ism, no crisis should go to waste, so why not create a few of our own, don't look at that lady over there behind the curtain burning her server, or the fellow over there using the IRS as a weapon, or setting the table so the Persian Dr. No can hold the entire world nuclear hostage....

[–]lovemymeemers 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

whenever it seems like the right has any momentum, along comes, "The body has a way of shutting that whole thing down" etc, etc...

FTFY

[–]I-Downvoted_You 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Jon Stewart is funny"

That is definitely one of the most pervasive lies the left has not only told but believed over the last decade.

[–]Aegisx5 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So accurate

[–]altpron -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So you're telling me that people that were denied medical insurance due to pre-existing conditions were lying? Were they paid liberal shills or just pushing their own agenda? How did they coordinate their fake story so well over such a long time? How did we fail to catch them before the ACA passed?

[–]CleatusFTW 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm so tired of liberals, but I have an idea.

The best way to deal with liberals might be to not deal with them at all, and just leave them to their own devices. The problem should take care of its self. They'll either just die off or kill each other.

[–]I-Downvoted_You 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wish we could split the country in two. The liberal side would be gone in less than 15 years.

[–]druvid -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not a Liberal. But didn't you guys go to war over a non existing WMD that killed so many people and brought even more instability to that region. Before blaming others may be you should also look into mirror.