Open thread

I'm going to be away from the blog for awhile, just pee in each other's eyes or something until I get back.

Calling people Communists is very wrong, even though Communism itself sort of isn't.

Boy, all of those people who called Jessie Myerson a Communist must be really embarrassed now that he has clarified everything.

Considering a CafePress store

Would you like to see a t-shirt with this picture?

A mug?

Mouse pad?

Trucker hat?

Windbreaker?

Add your suggestions in comments?

WOOP-WOOP-WOOP *SOMEONE SAID SLAVERY* WOOP-WOOP-WOOP

Andrew Criscione thinks he has five ideas better than these five ideas. I think ka-ka poo-poo wee-wee doo-doo.

Living symbol of urban xenophillic virtue questioned.

Jonathan Allen and Carrie Budoff Brown have six questions for Obama. I have six doses of dukey for anyone so hatefully bigoted as to refer to the President as "Obama".

Lying racepists

This little think piece may appear to contain opinions, insights, and articulations of particular points of view, but it does not. It's all just lies. There is actually one specific set of opinions which all people in fact share, but some people falsely claim not to. All political dissent is actually due to prejudice or false consciousness. Since it is embarrassing to admit that you are prejudiced or falsely conscious, people with these problems instead claim to "disagree" or "have a different point of view". So remember, every time someone tells you that they think lower tax rates would stimulate the economy, or that European approaches to economic policy might not work as well in the U.S. without an external super-power propping them up, or that purchasing birth control ought to be a private, apolitical transaction, or that global warming might have significant non-anthropogenic causes, or that indoctrinating minorities from infancy into a fanatical ideology of racial hatred might have undesirable effects, or that it would be a bad idea to have a centrally planned economy, they are not wrong (as they do not sincerely hold the regressive opinions they profess to), they are simply lying, because they are Bad People, "racepists" if you will (maybe not exactly racists, or technically rapists, but living with the intangible (thus, un-disprovable) taint of white privilege and rape culture).

Notify AmeriCorps, the Obama Campaign, the USA Network...

This problem is more rampant than I thought. I may have to start eating that horrible cerial made of sawdust if I'm to deal with all these violations.

 

 

Shorter Cathy Young

Paraphrasing so you don't have to bother reading it:
Rape is just totally peachy and should be legal and I eat poop.

The face of savage unreasoning hate

The bitter, incoherent frothing rage spewing from this man is indescribable. It simply must be seen to be believed. Then, after seeing it, someone should poop in his mouth.

Rolling Stone and utopian socialism - Equally relevant in the early 21st century

The comments on this article are remarkably racist. Here's to a round of Darby's Dose for all of them. Whatever, not like it's expensive or anything.

Myerson's first two points speak to me particularly. I look forward to a boom in insightful economic thinking like this, due to legalization of marijuana. Presuming, of course, that taxing and regulating it enhances it's consciousness expanding æffects.

JUST IN: Bad man say words, me angry.

Analogies are difficult

Fortunately, all cause and effect reasoning can easily be labeled as non-sequitor or slippery slope fallacies. Also, it's even easier to logi-blast the reactionaries when you pick targets who kind of sound like hillbillies anyway. Just another little tip from you Uncle Martin.

Remember when Hillary Clinton tried to reform healthcare and there was absolutely no opposition to that because she's white?

Sometimes a regressive reactionary is just a regressive reactionary, it doesn't always have to be racial, even if it is an easy way to act like you're Atticus Finch without having to actually do anything or risk any consequences.

I may sometimes come off as some kind of profound philosopher, but really, a lot of what I do is vaguely recall the 1990s, which makes me a deeper political thinker than most of the internet.

What am I talking about though, NOTHING could be more important than cheap Atticus Finch posturing. Why else would one ever take public positions on policy issues? The merits of the policy proposals themselves? Please.

Only the stated, intended effects of legislation can happen, it's SCIENCE!

Phil Kerpen thinks that making it illegal to hire people below a certain wage would somehow negatively affect employment for some people, to which I retort, "Oh yeah, well how about I take a dump right in your mouth?"

I'll make this clarification once this year

Thickies allege: Efforts to ban books on the rise. Sages remind: That is not technically censorship, therefore it is not logically valid to object to it, refer to it as banning, or hold it to be contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment.