Teabaggers, Bullies, Fatties, and Stoners

[vovat]

J.L. Bell, whom I know from the online community of Oz fans, made an interesting post on the increase of nasty rumors, threats, and such during the Obama administration. And I apparently wasn't the only one who liked it, as Slate picked it up. It does seem like right-wing outlets are eager to dismiss this trend by saying that there's plenty of bad behavior on the left as well. Which there is, but I don't think there's any real comparison for some of what's going on. This is especially true in terms of racism. Conservatives will insist that the majority of Republicans and Tea Partiers aren't racist, yet they refuse to call out the people who are. As I've argued before, why wouldn't they want to call out the bad apples from their own side? And really, isn't the right wing meaner in general? Not necessarily more critical, but just less likely to be sympathetic. Think about it. If you're more likely to be pro-war, pro-gun, opposed to social programs, resistant to expansion of civil rights, in favor of corporate bigwigs over their employees, unwilling for any of your money to support the less fortunate, and tough on crime...well, that suggests meanness to me. Now, there might well be cases where meanness is more effective than niceness, so I'm not saying these positions are always wrong. What I am saying is that they usually tend toward the violent and exclusive. So why is it Not Done to mention this? And why does nobody do anything about Facebook groups like this one? (I guess it's possible that someone HAS done something, as that's the kind of thing that might well attract the attention of the Secret Service, but if so I haven't heard of it.)


By the way, while I think part of why people like Jon Stewart criticize Fox News is indeed that they're a propaganda outlet rather than a legitimate source of news, we can't discount that it's fun to take swipes at them because they're one of the ultimate examples of being able to dish it out and not take it. Pretty much any criticism of Fox News on some other station, even if it's a joke, will result in a whole lot of "Awww, why does the liberal media have to be so MEAN?" responses from Fox News itself. It's an entire channel of self-satisfied bullies, and I'm not using "bully" in the sense that Theodore Roosevelt did.

If I may switch to another topic, have you heard about the Lane Bryant commercial that was banned by ABC, allegedly because it showed too much cleavage or something stupid like that?

So, okay, how is that any worse than the Victoria's Secret commercials they show on network TV all the time? Is it an FCC regulation that we're only allowed to see women in underwear if they're emaciated? For more takes on this subject, see here and here.

Another item that got me thinking was this one on changing the image of medical marijuana. While I'm not so keen on the drug business in general, I do think weed needs a facelift, so to speak. While the government is doing plenty to discredit pot, the potheads are unwittingly helping them out. I've never smoked marijuana myself, but I know plenty of people who have without getting into jam bands, patchouli, High Times magazine, saying "420" at every possible opportunity, and emblazoning pot leaves on things as if they're at all attractive.

Comments

[revme.livejournal.com]

I believe the difference is that the Lane Bryant women actually have breasts. (Also, way sexier than the Victoria's Secret ladies, if'n you ask me.)

[bec-87rb.livejournal.com]

That's right. Big handfuls of woman is sensual and dangerous; ABC was just scared of all that bouncy sexuality.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

So they think the bigger women are sexier than the skinny ones, or do they just not want to show big women in sexy outfits?

[revme.livejournal.com]

The thing I'd seen in another article on this -- which I don't know, is just that they had More Cleavage, which, apparently is bad. This is something I would disagree with.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

It's not like they can help having more cleavage, can they?

[bethje.livejournal.com]

Nope.

[revme.livejournal.com]

The Pope Said Nope!

[(Anonymous)]

That chunky chick in the commercial is HOT.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Isn't there more than one?

[onesto-hotel.livejournal.com]

Oh god, that facebook group...someone I know just joined it and I just...what. What. Combined with all the other anti-Obama groups he joined and all the ridiculous propaganda stuff he's been posting, I almost wanted to de-friend him right there.

I mean god, Bush was a retard, but I would never join a group hoping that he would die. I would like to say that the left is better than that, but then there are always people like my mom who have no qualms about calling for people's deaths.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't think the calling for death is new with Obama by any means, but it seems more common. I remember hearing about a girl who made a Facebook post a few years ago asking God to kill Bush, which resulted in a visit from the Secret Service. If that's the case, however, you'd think they'd be really busy with the anti-Obama groups and polls I'm always seeing on Facebook. And maybe they are; I'd imagine that, being the Secret Service, they do most of their investigation in, well, secret.

I have no subject

[(Anonymous)]

I dunno Nate... what exactly are either you or the Tea Party criticizing half the time? Liberals vs. Conservatives are doing nothing more than making fun of each other somehow, someway rather than debating the issues facing ourselves as individuals and as a country. 85% of the time it ends up nothing more than a ginormous bitchfest about bitching, don't you think?

And if you want to rage against the machine a little, don't you think politicians enjoy the masses fight each other over the retarded statements procured by both sides? Take the high road, instead.

That said, to respect your original point as it regards to nastiness towards Obama and/or liberals, and socially speaking, is this anger of any surprise? Regardless if the Tea Party has prejudiced members or not, and I for one am positive they do, is there any shock or surprise a black President is getting scrutinized? No. That would happen regardless of the economics of the day. So really what are you going to do about it, huh? If you can't stop stupid then what the hell do you think you're going to do about the prejudiced?

We're living in arguably the 2nd-worst economic setting in the history of our country. Don't you think that alone is enough to perturb the masses beyond reason? I am not defending the prejudiced few, but anybody who believes that race is the driving force of Tea Party or any other conservative opinion is simply ignoring the facts facing hundreds of thousands of frustrated citizens today. ...and that frustration does not take into account politics! Most people want government to fix things, or want the government to stop wrecking things. It is a lose/lose situation politically and there have been and will be many fall guys for this mess.

ABC is being a bunch of nitwits, yes. The thing I notice about that model is even though she is not "fit" she is an extremely beautiful woman in the face. But why do you bring up the FCC??? I'm failing to understand what the FCC has nothing to do with this, since the ad was not aired.?

Regarding marijuana I only support legalization simply because I fail to comprehend any major difference ethically, medically or socially than consumption of alcohol. If I HAD to indulge in either I'd take the doobie every time. A recent survey claims that while (at least?) 55% of those polled do not support the legalization of marijuana, 55% of the polled under age 30 DO. In one sense would that statistic have been any different 10, 20 or 30 years ago? Probably not. But I believe that the demographic of that sub-30yo demographic is not a hippie, not a stoner and not a law-breaking citizen, generally-speaking. The tax revenues and economics are absolutely undeniable to both the Reggie Regulations and Freddie Freemarkets out there too. I agree: marijuana leaves are only cool to probably 15-18 year olds that were as-moronic as I was at that age! :P

Re: I have no subject

[bethje.livejournal.com]

Sign your comment, anonymo.

Re: I have no subject

[vovat.livejournal.com]

And if you want to rage against the machine a little, don't you think politicians enjoy the masses fight each other over the retarded statements procured by both sides?

Most likely. People who don't think are a boon to politicians who really don't have anything to offer.

We're living in arguably the 2nd-worst economic setting in the history of our country. Don't you think that alone is enough to perturb the masses beyond reason?

Yes, but that didn't start with Obama, and it seems like a lot of these protest groups did.

The thing I notice about that model is even though she is not "fit" she is an extremely beautiful woman in the face.

I don't think most plus-sized models are particularly overweight; they just have bigger frames. Which can definitely be a good thing, considering how many super-skinny models there are in the world.

But why do you bring up the FCC??? I'm failing to understand what the FCC has nothing to do with this, since the ad was not aired.?

It really doesn't have anything to do with it. It was mostly just an attempt at humor. Maybe a poor one, though. {g}

Re: I have no subject

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I'm guessing we'll agree to disagree: I think there's a level of unfortunate timing involved with the whole Obama:economics:protesting bit that I guess isn't the popular opinion here. That's fine. I guess I just wanted to generally say it's not as-simple and ignorant as a bunch of prejudiced numbskulls crapping on Obama. Some surveys actually seem to indicate the Tea Party members are quite affluent individuals. Regardless they suffer from a lack of an F7 key when painting their signs. :)

By 'overweight' she's as overweight as I am. I guess I framed my attempt of a compliment to her poorly. Beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder and the eyes don't always behold the beauty in the first place. And no, I would not believe she is 'particularly overweight' either.

FCC: OK. NP: it's easy to misunderstand in such informal text and I misunderstood where you might have been going with that. :)

Sincerely,
Anonymous ....come on, someone was just begging for that. ;)

Re: I have no subject

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Some surveys actually seem to indicate the Tea Party members are quite affluent individuals.

Yeah, but being affluent doesn't necessarily make you smart, nor does either of those traits make you nice. It would probably make MORE sense if the Tea Party members were affluent, since it's only the very richest people who have been paying higher taxes.

Re: I have no subject

[(Anonymous)]

That's very true.

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

You can see more skin in an average beach scene on Saved by The Bell than in that commercial.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but the girls on Saved by the Bell were all skinny.

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

True -- the Saved by the Bell girls were probably all much less healthy than these ladies. But if there's weight bias going on here ..... I wouldn't be surprised.

[k1cup.livejournal.com]

What's ridic about ABC banning that ad is that their shows, including Ugly Betty, are racier than that. BTW, this model that Lane Bryant hired to portray the full-figured woman appears to me as an average-figured gal.