Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Low Serotonin Edition (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=1946)

Bloggingheads 07-10-2008 03:47 PM

Low Serotonin Edition
 

Bobby G 07-10-2008 04:25 PM

See Mickey get the better of Bob
 
http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs...7&out=00:02:05

piscivorous 07-10-2008 05:00 PM

Geography
 
If Iraq is fairly stable and actually being governed by a government that is seen as viable by many of the Iraqis they may have a problem with Iran causing problems in Iraq. It's not like they have been kissing cousins in the past. There is at least an equal if not better chance that Afghanistan will be the theater in which Iran can and will cause problems. After all Afghanistan also borders Iran, currently it seems to be deteriorating instead of stabilizing, it's government is seen by just about everyone as highly corrupt and inefficient and they are less likely to have the blow back from the the general populace.

Wonderment 07-10-2008 05:01 PM

Re: See Mickey get the better of Bob
 
Mickey's is being disingenuous here.

Bob is making the point that Mickey is more critical of Obama than McCain.

Mickey responds by saying it's not true because he always criticizes McCain on immigration.

But the immigration critique implies that McCain is bad because he's too close to Obama's (liberal) views; so in essence the critique of McCain is tantamount to saying "He's bad because he's too much like Obama." Hence, it's just another (disguised) critique of Obama.

gwlaw99 07-10-2008 05:06 PM

Re: Geography
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by piscivorous (Post 82953)
If Iraq is fairly stable and actually being governed by a government that is seen as viable by many of the Iraqis they may have a problem with Iran causing problems in Iraq. It's not like they have been kissing cousins in the past. There is at least an equal if not better chance that Afghanistan will be the theater in which Iran can and will cause problems. After all Afghanistan also borders Iran, currently it seems to be deteriorating instead of stabilizing, it's government is seen by just about everyone as highly corrupt and inefficient and they are less likely to have the blow back from the the general populace.

I think you meant this.

piscivorous 07-10-2008 05:35 PM

Re: Geography
 
Thanks and you are Absolutely correct. I will fix it in the original comment. Whis that they would get the strike through tag working.

Thus Spoke Elvis 07-10-2008 05:40 PM

Re: See Mickey get the better of Bob
 
Nah, Mickey thinks McCain is worse than Obama on immigration, not the same. Why? Because McCain has no domestic agenda except immigration, whereas this will clearly be a backburner for Obama given all the other, more pressing and politically popular issues on his plate (e.g., health care, reducing carbon emissions, etc.).

Bobby G 07-10-2008 05:41 PM

Re: See Mickey get the better of Bob
 
Au contraire, my wondering friend; Mickey has outlined on his blog why McCain would be worse than Obama on immigration. I don't know whether he thinks McCain's stated policies are worse than Obama's, but he's made the point that Obama would spend his political capital on health care, whereas McCain would spend his (given the near-certainty of a Democratic congress) on immigration reform. So if you're concerned about immigration reform, McCain would be worse than Obama. Moreover, as Kaus also points out, if you're scared of both health care and immigration reform, you should worry more about McCain than Obama, because health care reform is more reversible than immigration reform.

Dinsdale 07-10-2008 05:49 PM

Re: Comments on Comments?
 
Mickey has a comments section? Really. I've been reading kausfiles on and off seven years and I've never seen it. I can't even find the thing now.

Anyway, you two don't always make the most interesting view, but you do make the most amusing. Thumbs up!

Wonderment 07-10-2008 05:53 PM

Re: See Mickey get the better of Bob
 
Quote:

So if you're concerned about immigration reform, McCain would be worse than Obama.
I am very concerned about immigration reform, and I agree that McCain would be worse than Obama. Far worse.

Wonderment 07-10-2008 05:55 PM

Re: See Mickey get the better of Bob
 
Quote:

Nah, Mickey thinks McCain is worse than Obama on immigration, not the same. Why? Because McCain has no domestic agenda except immigration, whereas this will clearly be a backburner for Obama given all the other, more pressing and politically popular issues on his plate (e.g., health care, reducing carbon emissions, etc.).
Maybe, but it's still an example of Mickey pushing the agenda ever rightward.

He attacks Obama from the right and he attacks McCain from the right.

Thus Spoke Elvis 07-10-2008 06:04 PM

Re: See Mickey get the better of Bob
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 82974)
Maybe, but it's still an example of Mickey pushing the agenda ever rightward.

I agree with Eric Alterman, who once argued convincingly on bloggingheads that immigration is neither a right-wing or left-wing issue. George W. Bush and McCain were two of the biggest proponent of a more open immigration policy, while protectionist Democrats like Sen. Byron Dorgan were strong opponents. It's a complicated, multifaceted issue.

Wonderment 07-10-2008 06:22 PM

Re: See Mickey get the better of Bob
 
Quote:

I agree with Eric Alterman, who once argued convincingly on bloggingheads that immigration is neither a right-wing or left-wing issue. George W. Bush and McCain were two of the biggest proponent of a more open immigration policy, while protectionist Democrats like Sen. Byron Dorgan were strong opponents. It's a complicated, multifaceted issue.
Yes, you have a point there. But Mickey's xenophobic anti-immigrant and paranoic rhetoric is more representative of hard-core right-wing Republicans.

The Democrats, once clearly the party of the segregationists of the South, have dramatically advanced a pro-civil rights and anti-racism agenda over the past half century, and although Mickey's style appeals to the lowest common denominator in both parties, the Dems. now have a more robust culture of resisting racism.

Granted, there are strong vestigial elements of racism in the Democratic Party as well, as we all learned in some of the primaries where Clinton trounced Obama by garnishing the I'd-never-vote-for-a-black vote.

graz 07-10-2008 06:33 PM

Parsley, sage ... or Fleeger?
 
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/126...1&out=00:51:04

Since you asked for it Bob, I will offer a correction to your contention. Far be it from one of the gang of 12 to support McCain. But, he did denouce Parsley:
http://changeyourcondition.net/2008/...ian-preachers/
But there was no evidence of low serotonin on your part today. Thanks for bringing the "meat."

uncle ebeneezer 07-10-2008 06:49 PM

Re: Low Serotonin Edition
 
Just to clarify the logic of my comment about Mickey's comment about we commentors: Mickey complained about the predominance of Lefty commentors on BHTV. Usually when a person complains about a situation it is because they wish it were otherwise (ie- Mickey wishes the comments section was more balanced.) Usually if a person wants to change a set of conditions they take action that is within their power to achieve that goal. For someone like Mickey who loves to tout his readership and his draw, one would think that he very easily could summon his legion of fans to come over here and change the balance of the comment-board on a level that the Gang of 12 liberal conspiracy couldn't possibly counteract (none of us has a blog in Slate, that I know of.) But he'd rather complain about the comment section (that he doesn't read because it's not balanced enough to his taste...though how he know's this considering he doesn't read it still strains logic) but does nothing to change that scenario. For someone who repeatedly makes charges of "why don't these people do ___, to change their situation?" style arguments (which I oftentimes find insightful) it's strange that he doesn't take his own advice.

Moreover, his disinterest in getting BHTV more success through using his vast Slate readership, is completely at odds with his constant griping about not being paid. Quiz Mickey: would more viewers likely increase or decrease the financial stability of BHTV and the potential for your own financial reimbursement?

I stand by my guns that Mickey's animosity towards BH commentors is more based on the fact that they have been critical of Mickey to a level that he's uncomfortable with and that although he likes to pretend he doesn't care about what we think, he's really the sad clown who's crying on the inside.

Ann Althouse's comment section better than BHTV...puhleeze!!

Hmm, wonder why Ann has such feelings towards BHTV commentors. Could it have something to do with her embarassing little tantrum aimed at Garance, and the fact that BHTV commentors called her out on her ridiculously over-the-top behavior?

graz 07-10-2008 06:59 PM

Mickey as the white Bill Cosby
 
serotonin high... hip-hop low

Let's not let ignorance get in the way of Obama bashing... Mickey.

lil wayne

This is embedded in the original blog. If you don't read this for context, it would lend credence to Mickey's claim. Yet, we know Mickey expended his journalistic instincts already when he posted his "most damaging to Obama yet" discursive dig:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...slams-hoo.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2194571/#obamaskatrina

Wonderment 07-10-2008 07:06 PM

Attention Gang of 12
 
Let's form a Facebook group. Who's down?

graz 07-10-2008 07:09 PM

Re: Attention Gang of 12
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 82989)
Let's form a Facebook group. Who's down?

I'm a social networking novice. And secondly, like Groucho, I'm averse to joining any group that would have me as a member.

Gravy 07-10-2008 07:32 PM

Re: Low Serotonin Edition
 
I go back about 10 diavlogs and see nothing at all on the on-going massive credit contraction. I understand that Bob and Mickey don't know beans about it (I'd guess Mickey is smart enough to learn about it....Bob's probably hopeless). Guys, you're missing the big story here. It may not be an easy one to describe, but Obama, McCain, FISA, Heller etc look pretty puny when you start grasping what's going on and what is at stake. Bloggingheads is in the entertainment business, and so has to feed its loyal audience comfortable and familiar material most of the time, I don't think it would hurt too much to occasionally address the major public issue of our days.

harkin 07-10-2008 07:32 PM

Re: See Mickey get the better of Bob
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 82978)
But Mickey's xenophobic anti-immigrant and paranoic rhetoric is more representative of hard-core right-wing Republicans.

This sentence is illustrative of the amount of dishonesty thrown at Mickey here. I have never once heard him say he is 'anti-immigrant'. What Mickey advocates is enforcing existing immigration law, which allows for hundreds of thousands of immigrants, those that stick to the rules and don't cut in line.

In 1985 the politicians (of both parties) said "hey, we have an immigration reform bill, we're going to secure the borders and grant amnesty to millions of illegals". The congress passed an immigration reform bill (1986) with two major provisions, to secure the borders and to grant amnesty to millions of illegals. The amnesty part was easy (roughly 3 million), the border security was a joke. After 20 years (and 15-20 million more illegals) the politicians (of both parties) came at us again and said "hey, we have an immigration reform bill, we're going to secure the borders and grant amnesty to millions of illegals".

For insisting that the government follow through on their 1985 border security promise before rewarding amnesty to millions who flaunted our laws, opponents of the bill are called racist, paranoid and xenophobic, when in reality all they are are citizens demanding their goverment be held accountable to their word.

kjkeys88 07-10-2008 07:38 PM

Robust and Illuminating Debate on the Great Issues of Our Time
 
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/126...ut=01:00:42.42

Wonderment 07-10-2008 07:50 PM

Re: See Mickey get the better of Bob
 
Quote:

In 1985 the politicians (of both parties) said "hey, we have an immigration reform bill, we're going to secure the borders and grant amnesty to millions of illegals". The congress passed an immigration reform bill (1986) with two major provisions, to secure the borders and to grant amnesty to millions of illegals. The amnesty part was easy (roughly 3 million), the border security was a joke. After 20 years (and 15-20 million more illegals) the politicians (of both parties) came at us again and said "hey, we have an immigration reform bill, we're going to secure the borders and grant amnesty to millions of illegals".
Calling people "illegals," as you did four times in one paragraph is hurtful, disparaging and inflammatory. Watch your language.

TwinSwords 07-10-2008 07:53 PM

Re: Low Serotonin Edition
 
Here's Harkin over at Althouse:

Quote:

RCO nailed it. You have to wade through a maypole dance of liberal gobbledeegook to find the relevant comments.

It's funny but the most hateful hyperbolic comments, and as far as I know the only ones asking/imploring/demanding that certain people be banned from participating in the dialogues, all come from the liberal/leftists.

There is one delusional radical there that has been trying to get Mickey banned for his 'xenophobic', 'racist' and 'paranoid' comments. This is the same deep thinker who boasts that he's protested a military recruitment center for being in too close proximity to a Petco. These people are not well.

TwinSwords 07-10-2008 07:54 PM

Re: See Mickey get the better of Bob
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 82997)
Calling people "illegals," as you did four times in one paragraph is hurtful, disparaging and inflammatory. Watch your language.

I'm sure Harkin will wade over to respond to your comment soon. :LOL:

Bobby G 07-10-2008 07:59 PM

Re: See Mickey get the better of Bob
 
Why? Because you're referring to a person primarily by an adjective that is the most relevant one for describing the activity in question to which you object?

I suppose it's like calling a homosexual a sodomite?

I think what's at issue is how much you disapprove of the activity in question. For instance, calling Ted Bundy a murderer rather than a "anti-social individual" seems perfectly kosher, because murdering is an activity that is so unusual, and of such high moral significance, that it's permissible to describe someone who engages in it just by that descriptor. Sodomy, on the other hand, is regarded by many people in the West either as morally permissible or, if morally bad, then morally not very serious (obviously there are a sizable number of people who think it is a serious moral wrong); consequently, referring to someone as though his whole being revolved around sodomy is degrading.

(But "child molester" seems appropriate to describe someone who molests children, regardless of who complex he is otherwise.)

Anyway, it seems like the main issue is how much of you disapprove of the activity in question, not a callous disregard for individuals' life-projects, complexities, etc.

graz 07-10-2008 08:11 PM

Re: Low Serotonin Edition
 
rcocean and harkin seem to be here under duress. I wish they wouldn't associate political disagreement with the freedom to post and persuade. I would think they might welcome the challenge of perceived imbalance. At a minimum, their posts provide a stark contrast and are certain to receive a considered reply. They don't seem to be suggesting that they're shouted down. Maybe they're just disappointed that these opposing views exist?

harkin 07-10-2008 08:19 PM

Re: See Mickey get the better of Bob
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 82997)
Calling people "illegals," as you did four times in one paragraph is hurtful, disparaging and inflammatory. Watch your language.

If you can suggest a better term to distinguish persons who did not immigrate legally from others who did, I will be happy to entertain it.

I LOVE how branding Mickey 'racist' 'xenophobic' and 'paranoid' is OK but to use a perfectly apt term is 'hurtful. disparaging and inflammatory'.

The delusions continue.

TwinSwords 07-10-2008 08:22 PM

Re: Low Serotonin Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 83001)
rcocean and harkin seem to be here under duress. I wish they wouldn't associate political disagreement with the freedom to post and persuade. I would think they might welcome the challenge of perceived imbalance. At a minimum, their posts provide a stark contrast and are certain to receive a considered reply. They don't seem to be suggesting that they're shouted down. Maybe they're just disappointed that these opposing views exist?

I think that's it.

Plus, is it really accurate that BHTV's forum is dominated by liberals? There seem to be quite a few conservatives, by my count.

Thus Spoke Elvis 07-10-2008 08:22 PM

Re: See Mickey get the better of Bob
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby G (Post 83000)
Anyway, it seems like the main issue is how much of you disapprove of the activity in question, not a callous disregard for individuals' life-projects, complexities, etc.

It also depends on the context of the conversation. When we're talking about immigration generally, it's entirely sensible to use terms like "legal immigrant" or "illegal immigrant" so people know what category you're talking about, even if those phrases might be offensive in other situations.

Let me give an example. I have a friend named Jerry who happens to be black. When we discussing race issues, we'll often refer to people as "blacks" and "whites." No problem there. On the other hand, if I said to Jerry, "Hey black, are you coming over to watch the game tomorrow?," there would be a big problem.

In short, context matters.

harkin 07-10-2008 08:29 PM

Re: Low Serotonin Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 83001)
rcocean and harkin seem to be here under duress. I wish they wouldn't associate political disagreement with the freedom to post and persuade. I would think they might welcome the challenge of perceived imbalance. At a minimum, their posts provide a stark contrast and are certain to receive a considered reply. They don't seem to be suggesting that they're shouted down. Maybe they're just disappointed that these opposing views exist?

Better check yourself before you comment. Wonderment and another liberal were the two most recent persons looking to get someone banned. This is a much better example of someone being 'under duress' and 'disappointed that these opposing views exist'.

I welcome anyone posting here, the 'wade' comment was directed much more to the quantity of the gobbledeegook, not that it should be silenced.


And ps to Mickey (or Bob if you want to pass it on) you didn't 'almost' say something, you did say something. I'm sure a quick digilinker will catch it.

graz 07-10-2008 08:56 PM

Re: Low Serotonin Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 83006)
Better check yourself before you comment. Wonderment and another liberal were the two most recent persons looking to get someone banned. This is a much better example of someone being 'under duress' and 'disappointed that these opposing views exist'.

I welcome anyone posting here, the 'wade' comment was directed much more to the quantity of the gobbledeegook, not that it should be silenced.


And ps to Mickey (or Bob if you want to pass it on) you didn't 'almost' say something, you did say something. I'm sure a quick digilinker will catch it.

Fair enough. But just keep an open mind about posting.

bjkeefe 07-10-2008 09:10 PM

Re: Attention Gang of 12
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 82989)
Let's form a Facebook group. Who's down?

How can we have a Facebook group and still be a secret cabal?

TwinSwords 07-10-2008 09:15 PM

Participation Inequality in online communities
 
Participation inequality is a well understood phenomenon in online communities, whether BHTV or Althouse's own comments section, or anyplace else. Mickey's discovery is no discovery at all.

Per the industry's leading web usability engineer, Jakob Nielsen:


Participation Inequality: Encouraging More Users to Contribute

Summary:
In most online communities, 90% of users are lurkers who never contribute, 9% of users contribute a little, and 1% of users account for almost all the action.

All large-scale, multi-user communities and online social networks that rely on users to contribute content or build services share one property: most users don't participate very much. Often, they simply lurk in the background.

In contrast, a tiny minority of users usually accounts for a disproportionately large amount of the content and other system activity. This phenomenon of participation inequality was first studied in depth by Will Hill in the early '90s, when he worked down the hall from me at Bell Communications Research (see references below).

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/commun...on-pyramid.gif

Read the rest....

Wonderment 07-10-2008 09:15 PM

Re: Attention Gang of 12
 
Quote:

How can we have a Facebook group and still be a secret cabal?
What we lose in anonymity we gain in solidarity.

Plus, we can network with other evil progressive gangs from other sites and form a federation of gangs to take over the galaxy.

Wonderment 07-10-2008 09:26 PM

Re: See Mickey get the better of Bob
 
Quote:

If you can suggest a better term to distinguish persons who did not immigrate legally from others who did, I will be happy to entertain it.
Thank you. I would suggest "undocumented immigrant," "economic refugee" or, if you insist on a pejorative, you could try "illegally imported working families."

I never hear anyone refer to the businesses who hire undocumented workers as "the illegal corporations" or "illegal businesses."

Why is the nanny the "illegal," but the parents who hire the nanny are not illegals? Why not refer to suburban families as "illegals," since they often all benefit from off-the-books services provided by nannies, gardeners, housekeepers, handypersons, etc.

Why don't I see the MinuteKlan protesting outside "illegal" homes and businesses?

TwinSwords 07-10-2008 09:27 PM

Re: Attention Gang of 12
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 83029)
What we lose in anonymity we gain in solidarity.

Plus, we can network with other evil progressive gangs from other sites and form a federation of gangs to take over the galaxy.

Unfortunately, I live in a small, ultra conservative town, and work at a large, ultra conservative corporation. My boss listens to Rush Limbaugh in his office. As a result, I'm not willing to reveal my true identity on this forum. Doing so could easily cost me my my job -- and in this town, you either work for The Company or you work for peanuts.

I understand you live in southern CA. That's about the other side of the world from where I'm at. The people around here would faint if they were exposed to views that are mainstream in your community.

bjkeefe 07-10-2008 09:31 PM

Unsatisfied customer
 
Sheesh. Now I'm "benign?" I suppose it's better than being called malignant, but ...

And a few weeks ago, I was "venerable."

All I can say is that if this is Bob's notion of whoring after the affections of the Gang of 12, someone needs to buy him a thesaurus. Being called bland and old is not exactly the best fluffing I've ever had.

AemJeff 07-10-2008 09:48 PM

Re: Attention Gang of 12
 
If there can't be a Facebook group, how about starting here? I'm counting on acquiring at least thirteen members.

Wonderment 07-10-2008 09:58 PM

Re: Attention Gang of 12
 
I'm in.

bjkeefe 07-10-2008 09:59 PM

Re: Attention Gang of 12
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 83029)
What we lose in anonymity we gain in solidarity.

Plus, we can network with other evil progressive gangs from other sites and form a federation of gangs to take over the galaxy.

We should avoid overreaching. Isn't controlling the media, the schools, and speech enough?

And don't forget: we still have work to do in enabling Iran to get the bomb so that we can hasten the formation of the worldwide caliphate so that Mexicans can swarm over our borders and confiscate all the guns and make everyone have to press "2" to speak English when it's time for them to call the state-run hospital to make appointments for their compulsory abortions because the government needs the stem cells to implant in the patriots in order to turn them gay.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.