Skip to main content

View Diary: Saddest and Truest Conservative Facebook Comment Ever? (386 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Pathetic. (8+ / 0-)

    Is it any wonder why they're dittoheads?  They can only "understand" the faulty arguments that are used to support their own positions.  Any evidence that supports an argument that opposes their beliefs is "fluff."  No wonder it's impossible to have a civil discussion with such people.

    -5.13,-5.64; GOP thinking: A 13 year path to citizenship is too easy, and a 5 minute background check is too burdensome. -- 1audreyrenee

    by gizmo59 on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 11:54:54 AM PST

    •  They don't want a discussion (12+ / 0-)

      They want their erroneous beliefs reinforced.  I encountered a similar facebook rant from my cousin's sister-in-law, complete with the explatives and the "I know your kind," accusation.  I haven't posted on my cousin's page since.

      Knowledge without conscience is the ruination of the soul -- François Rabelais

      by ccyd on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 12:31:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  not directed at you specifically, but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David PA

      srfRantz was acting like a jackass.

      He jumped onto someone's else's facebook page and asked the same question "over and over" even though the states he already knew the answer to the question.

      Further, that pompous 3 paragraph screed, heaped on top of the belligerent attitude, has ZERO chance of bringing someone over from the dark side. So what was the purpose?

      He's not too "pointy headed to communicate", he's not trying to communicate at all.

      "The right is correct on one thing...we really are a bunch of easily outraged nitpickers."

      by potato on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 12:48:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "What was the purpose?" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sagesource

        Asked without a hint of irony.

        Just sayin'....

      •  I'll take that under advisement (14+ / 0-)

        but you make several incorrect assumptions.

        the post showed up in my feed because a friend posted it. so I replied to him.

        I asked the question of him once and got the rank attitude from the jerk completely out of the blue. so I asked why he wouldn't answer and why he was so angry with me for simply asking. got more of the evasion. and the hate.
        then I became intrigued and it became a test of wills. as I explain in another post below. but we only went a couple rounds and I gave up. on him. that's it.

        I never intended to bring anyone over from the dark side. and throughout, told them I didn't want to question their beliefs nor would I try to convey mine to them. They made it clear they didn't want to communicate and were threatened by it. I said only that I wanted to hear what they had to say and what they believed, to which I received the continued hostility. Am I a jackass? if you say so.

        until the 'nice' guy answered and then asked me for my answer and I gave the 'pompous' reply.

        at which point he gave his answers and the thread ended.

        no man is completely worthless, he can always be used as a bad example.

        by srfRantz on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 01:32:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Keep in mind that FB (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        srfRantz, SoCaliana, sidnora, OldDragon

        is a social media - if you put something out there, you cannot only expect fawning admiration. The diarist did very well and kept composure and class.

        RWNJs should be countered at any junction if they bring up their ignorant talking points. I did so at a holiday gathering a couple of days ago and have no regrets for embarrassing the hell out of the guy in public.  

        Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. You step out of line, the man come and take you away. - S. Stills

        by ask on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 01:56:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I do it when people make the mistake (0+ / 0-)

          Of copying me on a mass email that is easy to verify as false. I hit "reply to all." (Most senders don't use BCC when spewing lies) Then I say, ohhh so sweetly, "Wow, that is horrible! I was appalled when I read this. Fortunately it's not true!" And then I include the Snopes link, which usually takes all of five minutes to find.

          I hope they're embarrassed. But whether they are or not, it often results in RWNJs removing me from their list of "People I Can Forward Bullshit To."  Of course, it's a little tougher now that the RW has gone after Snopes. Cuz we all know those Snopes people just love Obama, and therefore cannot be trusted.

          "So oftentimes it happens that we live our lives in chains, and we never even know we have the key." --Robb Strandlund and Jack Tempchin

          by Celestia89 on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 06:35:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I haven't gotten to do that since MI:2 was in the (0+ / 0-)

          cinema. I publicly humiliated the acting mayor asking what guarantees we were being offered that after an amalgamation of two councils the outlying regions that had formed the second council would be treated suitably instead of being ignored outside rate hikes to fund town works (he was still deputy mayor till the last elections I believe [like most worthless conservative politicians we just couldn't get rid of him and the mayor]). He dodged my question for 5 whole minutes while I tried to pin him down and get him to actually discuss what their plans were for where we lived. The news footage later on showed him going from white to beetroot (while repeating the same worthless talking point I'd been trying to pin him down on in the first place) a fact I'd missed in real life, and I was still a high school student at the time.
          Though we managed to dodge the amalgamation temporarily back then it got forced onto us in the end, and everyone suffers as a result.

    •  This is literally true (4+ / 0-)

      There's even research that confirms it.

      http://voices.yahoo.com/...

      Being attentive to the needs of others might not be the point of life, but it is the work of life. It can be ... almost impossibly difficult. But it is not something we give. It is what we get in exchange for having to die. - Jonathan Safran Foer

      by ramara on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 12:55:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They've been trained to distrust long rationales (5+ / 0-)

      Reading them is hard work. This group of Americans has been told that they shouldn't even bother to attempt to follow them, because only "Liberals" use such arguments. If it takes more than two steps to explain, they must not trust it!

      Any education that uses such intellectual constructions is also rejected, because it is obviously "Liberal." Anyone who uses "big" words, longer explanations, and references to scientific studies is immediately identified as "Liberal." They will not listen to anything you say. Of course, this attack on the thinking man is nothing new. Adlai Stevenson was attacked for his erudition, although he was derided as an "egghead" back then.

      Here is the consummate example of the reasoning power of most hothoused Conservatives:

      "The Bible says it.
      I believe it.
      And that settles it."

      They say "cut back" - we say "fight back"!

      by Louise on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 02:00:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  he just did that, identified me as Liberal (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gizmo59, Louise

        I went back to see if he'd replied to my final post thanking him for engaging at least. I wanted to see if he was willing to finally have a discussion.

        he said basically, 'your opinions are 100% straight from the Liberal playbook, mine are 100% opposed. You will never change my mind'

        and I had not expressed any opinions on politics generally at all other than my answer that it was Limbaugh who best exemplified what Sagan was talking about, the 'charlatan' misleading the willfully ignorant. and of course I did that while repeating Sagan's definitions and description and giving an example. too many words!

        he also said he'd discuss my opinion with me but only if I accepted his that it was Obama first. I declined and explained they were really two separate issues.

        I may have planted a seed as someone said up there...I feel obligated to carry on now, though I was never intending to enter into yet another long and eventually pointless 'discussion.'

        neither to I intend to get into a blow by blow of it here. (sorry!)
        I am glad for the discussion on the mindset, and that was primarily what I was interested in. thank you and the rest for your insights.

        no man is completely worthless, he can always be used as a bad example.

        by srfRantz on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 02:45:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Some of them rely on Answers in Genesis (0+ / 0-)

        which provides long, complex, sometimes very technical, and mutually contradictory answers to laughable questions, such as how Adam could see the stars that were many light-years away less than a week after they were created.

        Tastes differ, even on the dark side.

        Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

        by Mokurai on Thu Dec 26, 2013 at 11:53:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's a book you might enjoy reading (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          irishwitch

          It's called "The Year of Living Biblically" by A.J. Jacobs, I've been reading it the past few days. In general it's been proving interesting and there's a bit from where he goes to a Creationist museum early on that deals with that exact point involving the AiG crowd.

          Of course, the creationists cite plenty of scientific evidence of their own. Or more precisely, they interpret the same evidence as being proof of creationism. Mark told me about a T. rex bone in Montana that broke open and had blood vessels. No way that could be millions of years old, he said.
          The article Esquire ran was called “Greetings from Idiot America,” and it was very funny. But I have to disagree with the headline. The Answers in Genesis folks aren’t idiots. And despite a British news show that scored its segment with Deliverance-style banjo music, they aren’t hillbillies. Everyone I met had a full set of well-orthodontured teeth and blinked at regular intervals. I can’t prove it, but I’d wager there’s no difference in the average IQ of creationists and evolutionists.
          The thing is, their faith in the literal Bible is so strong, they will squeeze and distort all data to fit the Genesis account. In fact, you have to be quite sharp to be a leading creationist. The mental gymnastics can be astonishing.
          Consider AiG’s resident astrophysicist, Jason Lisle. Mark introduced me to him proudly. “A real, live PhD who believes in creationism. Here he is, in 3-D.”
          Jason has meticulously parted hair, looks a bit like Paul Reubens, and is sweet in an unforced way. He tells me it wasn’t easy being a creationist PhD student. He had to stay closeted about his beliefs and write for the AiG magazine under a pseudonym.
          Now here’s the interesting part: Like mainstream scientists, he thinks the universe is billions of light years big. But if it’s that big, and only six thousand years old, the light rays from distant stars wouldn’t have time to travel to the earth. Shouldn’t the night sky be black?
          “That’s a tough one,” he says. “But it’s not a killer.”
          There are several possibilities.
          1. The speed of light may not have always been 186,000 miles per second. Perhaps it was faster when the universe began.
          2. The time-zone analogy. You can leave Kentucky at 5: 00 p.m. and arrive in Missouri at 4: 00 p.m. In the same way, there may be something to continuous time zones in space.
          3. Something called gravitational time dilation. I didn’t quite understand it, but it had to do with our galaxy having a special place in the universe.

          Jacobs, A J (2012-01-31). The Year of Living Biblically (pp. 60-61). Random House. Kindle Edition.

          •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

            That's all laid out on the AIG Web site.

            Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

            by Mokurai on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 11:47:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The book covers a lot of other stuff that is (0+ / 0-)

              similarly interesting, including stuff I didn't know personally, and I've been going hammer and tong with Christians for 2 full decades now over their doctrine versus the scriptures (personally I find it hypocritical to call yourself a follower of Jesus but refuse to follow his example at all, instead diving for the OT laws for your way to live).

              Hence my recommendation, since while in the case of AiG this is on their website, some of the discussions with those who believe the crap provide some pearls of insight. One of the things from that segment is (note this was the Creationist museum that was written at), include their support of interracial marriage (we're all one race anyway so this was refreshing), commenting that Darwinism probably led to more racism (I can't really reject their reasoning completely on that, the argument has some substance for a change). While in dealing with the shatnez tester (the prohibition against mixed fibers), it touches on the blind adherence to laws relating to things as little as the order you put on your shoes and tie the laces (Rabbi teaching apparently that culminated in the "set table").

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site