Looking good on the televised debates is actually kind of important. Nixon lost to Kennedy ENTIRELY because his debate against him made him look like a sweaty liar; people listening in on the radio thought Nixon one, but TV viewers thought Kennedy had won.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
That actually shows why I find the idea ridiculous. Nixon removed from video "won" the debate. Kennedy being visible "won" the debate. "winning" is largely arbitrary and opinion, but consumes the news cycle more than the actual content and positions presented forward. Plus a debates only real purpose now is to shore up existing supporters.
This is America, we don't watch news about French or Dutch or Belgian politics.
To be fair, French, Dutch, and Belgian politics don't affect life in America as much as American politics can affect life... well, EVERYWHERE.
They were an example. British, Australian, fuck it - Russian politics. Even our information about what's going on in Syria is mostly based on very one sided information from a very small number of sources - English-language ones, at that.
Does anyone have any links to real polls post-debate? I didn't watch so I have no opinion on who won, but all I'm seeing in my Facebook feed are internet polls, or links to the same 2-3 15-minute focus groups, and that's starting to irk me.
As a researcher, I'm a big believer in the value of focus groups, but as representations of numeric/quantitative estimates, they're very poor (especially when they're short and there is only a few of them). They're much too easily influenced by the tone of the room or how the moderator asks questions (which is why it seems like every single toothpaste brand claims that 9 out of 10 doctors prefer them to other leading toothpaste brand).
As a researcher, I'm a big believer in the value of focus groups, but as representations of numeric/quantitative estimates, they're very poor (especially when they're short and there is only a few of them). They're much too easily influenced by the tone of the room or how the moderator asks questions (which is why it seems like every single toothpaste brand claims that 9 out of 10 doctors prefer them to other leading toothpaste brand).
GasBandit
Staff member
"Would you rather brush with Crest, or would you rather slurp Colgate from a hyena's asshole?"
Makes me wonder about that 10th dentist.
"4 out of 5 dentists who chew gum..."
Ok, so what percentage of dentists chew gum? Otherwise it's like "50% of the time, it works every time."
--Patrick
I actually know how this works. The toothpaste companies sent out little cheques (like $1 & $2 value) to a list of dental offices. Either in small print on the cheque or an attached letter, they state that depositing it amounts to supporting their brand. It's really that simple.
It's far worse than the Internet parts. But of course, I assume you already know this.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, yeah. That was just the part in the graphic though.
The only thing I wish they could find a way to curb was tracking down people that, say, do SWATting.
But the internet is such a wild wild west free market. It's any wonder why all these companies are terrified of it.
Necronic
Staff member
Had a bit of an epiphany today. Every gun nut I know says that guns are for self defense or to help defend against the over-reach of government, which, ok, fine, I can buy that. But of them, I really wonder how many have ever taken any form of a self defense course or a martial art. Of the ones I know I can't think of a single one who has any sort of physical combat training. Hell most of them couldn't even jog a ten minute mile.
Having a gun is only a small part of a much larger equation for both self defense and military uses. There isn't a single military in the world that does not spend considerable effort training its troops in martial arts, or expecting physical conditioning. And many self defense situations are far better served by physical combat instead of gun combat. Only having training in one just seems...I dunno. Lazy? Or...inconsistent?
This is something that's always bothered me at gun ranges tbqh. I see so many guys that would have a hard time making it up 3 flights of stairs, and these guys think that they could fight the government? Or...even a home invader? This isn't true for all of them of course, but honestly anyone who doesn't do some form of physical conditioning who claims gun rights for self defense or government stuff is...well...totally full of crap.
Having a gun is only a small part of a much larger equation for both self defense and military uses. There isn't a single military in the world that does not spend considerable effort training its troops in martial arts, or expecting physical conditioning. And many self defense situations are far better served by physical combat instead of gun combat. Only having training in one just seems...I dunno. Lazy? Or...inconsistent?
This is something that's always bothered me at gun ranges tbqh. I see so many guys that would have a hard time making it up 3 flights of stairs, and these guys think that they could fight the government? Or...even a home invader? This isn't true for all of them of course, but honestly anyone who doesn't do some form of physical conditioning who claims gun rights for self defense or government stuff is...well...totally full of crap.
Necronic
Staff member
Ironically the kind of people who would say that are the same kind of people I am talking about, but that's neither here nor there.
It's absolutely not the same though. A person who has never played the game is completely capable of talking about it at that level. Many handicappers have never played, but they understand the sport so well they can accurately predict outcomes. There are many examples of this. Moreover, there is a HUGE difference between playing high school ball and pro ball, and almost no one has played pro ball. Does that mean that no one can comment on it?
On the other hand if you can't run a 10 minute mile or walk 5 flights of stairs with a ruck on then you are basically useless in a military situation. This goes down to my general stance that most military wannabes don't understand that logistics is how wars are won. If you can't move your troops around easily then they are useless. And this isn't just my opinion. Every military force in the entire world and down through history agrees that physical conditioning is integral to a good soldier. There are ZERO examples of a military force that did not require some form of physical conditioning. That's about as factual as you can get.
If you don't know basic hand to hand combat techniques you are far less likely to handle most self defense situations well. Cops handle dangerous situations that require self defense more than anyone else around (except American Ninjas). And they are taught extensive take down techniques that they use. They aren't just given gun training and told to go to town. This isn't just my opinion either. Every police force in the world and down through modern history agrees with this.
Simply pulling out a weapon is enough to dissuade a home invader, who is basically fucked if they got hurt in any way during their robbery attempt. They can't risk having to explain away the injury at a hospital and not everyone has access to a back alley doctor. To put it lightly, there are very few stories of home invaders actually duking it out with armed defenders unless they had a gun too. So yes... range training is the most important part of home self defense because you really only get one shot.
I'd also like to point out that ISIL and other groups like them have managed to maintain control of vast parts of their countries by simply being the only guys in town with guns. Yes, they have terrible training and they get pushed out by US forces but they always come back once the US forces leave. This is why you can't WIN an engagement with indigenous forces: you have to leave sometime, but they LIVE there. It's why the Taliban is back. That's exactly how it would look in any long campaign against the government: the US Military doesn't have the numbers to control every fucking block of every little podunk in the US, so it really doesn't matter how well armed and trained they are... and they would be facing constant desertions from folks who want to check in on their families or just don't believe anymore.
So really... it doesn't matter if they are out of shape or poorly trained. There'd be more than enough people looking to fight it out with the US Military the moment they rolled into their town. All you need are bodies and guns to hold a town and all you need to do is wait for them to leave/reduce their numbers enough that they HAVE to leave. They only way to actually remove that kind of infestation would be to completely cleanse a town and if you thought our government was capable of that, we'd ALREADY be in the streets.
I mean... it's not like any militia would need to PUSH into another town on foot like World War 2. We're not talking a large scale campaign against another established military. We're talking a war of attrition against a force that can't replace it's numbers fast enough to counter it's losses. We can't even control our cities against the few criminals we have with 900,000 police in this country... sending 1.4 million soldiers in (even with 1.1 mil support personal), knowing that a fair number will desert the second they can, isn't going to be enough to control the country.
I guess what I'm saying is that gun ownership is probably the least of the reasons why we don't need to worry about the US Military actually trying to suppress the US population at a large scale.
Dave
Staff member
Just got this movie. Never seen it. Watching it later.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'd also point out that the second amendment describes the right to own a gun, and the necessity of that right to a free state, it doesn't create an obligation to own a gun. Just as assuredly, one would make a better resistance fighter if they're in shape, but they're not obligated to be, especially not as a prerequisite to exercising their second amendment rights.
I am, however, all for making gun safety/use courses a standard part of high school curricula.[DOUBLEPOST=1445440943,1445440747][/DOUBLEPOST]
But, it is still a noteworthy part of pop culture, I suppose - at least you'll finally understand this meme:
I am, however, all for making gun safety/use courses a standard part of high school curricula.[DOUBLEPOST=1445440943,1445440747][/DOUBLEPOST]
I was disappointed in it, really. Starship Troopers was a political novel with a sci-fi backdrop, and almost all the political discussion got removed for the movie (as did the mechsuits the troopers fought in - they were supposed to be space marines, not imperial guard).
But, it is still a noteworthy part of pop culture, I suppose - at least you'll finally understand this meme:
Dave
Staff member
Yeah, this movie is all kinds of bad. And not just the plot. The acting it terrible, the action is nonsensical, the military scenes are incredibly stupid. Rico going from private to Lieutenant as fast as he did is just dumb. And the (really fucking old) teacher with one hand suddenly gets a commission? Ugh. And you can tell ahead of time who is going to live and who is going to die.
But hey, there were tits, so I suppose....score?[DOUBLEPOST=1445446115,1445445816][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh and let's not forget the giant vagina bug that eats your brain. No Heinlein metaphors there.
But hey, there were tits, so I suppose....score?[DOUBLEPOST=1445446115,1445445816][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh and let's not forget the giant vagina bug that eats your brain. No Heinlein metaphors there.
Necronic
Staff member
The rank stuff is sort of from the book, although they may have had it totally backwards. Heinlein had some pretty crazy ideas about how the military should be. One of his ideas was that there should be no compulsory promotions to fill out a command structure, which is exactly what's happening to Rico during the movie. Heinlein was also basically a fascist so they did get that part right.
And let's be fair, the book would not have translated well to film. They fought weird aliens called "Skinnies", they had power armor that could let them leap a quarter mile in a go and had rocket launchers and whatnot. All of heinleins writing seems to have a sort of cheese factor to it that is decidedly mid century. It was undoubtedly a good read but it wouldn't have worked on film.
And let's be fair, the book would not have translated well to film. They fought weird aliens called "Skinnies", they had power armor that could let them leap a quarter mile in a go and had rocket launchers and whatnot. All of heinleins writing seems to have a sort of cheese factor to it that is decidedly mid century. It was undoubtedly a good read but it wouldn't have worked on film.
I've long given up trying to defend the movie. It's telling a different, albeit connected, story to that of the movies, and it's a lot more intelligent than most people give it credit for. It's a dumb and exaggerated Hollywoodian action movie, which is exactly what it set out to do, and it's also a deconstruction of those same movies. *shrug*
I'm a fan of Heinlein (and he was not a fascist by a long stretch - he was far closer to libertarianism than fascism) and Verhoeven, though.
I'm a fan of Heinlein (and he was not a fascist by a long stretch - he was far closer to libertarianism than fascism) and Verhoeven, though.
GasBandit
Staff member
Heinlein was actually fairly libertarian. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress was a love letter to libertarianism.
Necronic
Staff member
Fascist is sort of a nonsense word and I shouldn't have used it. I remember one political dude saying that fascist is just used to describe something we don't like and has no real meaning.
Anyways. He's not fascist. And I also like his books. But he hamfistedly crams some pretty intense ideology into his books. Farnhams Freehold may be the best example of that. That book is such a confusing mix of...everything....that it's hard to tell how to feel about it. Is it incredibly racist or incredibly racially progressive? Is it the writings of a perverted old man or is it honest about sexuality in a time where that's rare? Is it a whack job survival fantasy or an examination of humanity?
Heinleins fucking weird yo.
Anyways. He's not fascist. And I also like his books. But he hamfistedly crams some pretty intense ideology into his books. Farnhams Freehold may be the best example of that. That book is such a confusing mix of...everything....that it's hard to tell how to feel about it. Is it incredibly racist or incredibly racially progressive? Is it the writings of a perverted old man or is it honest about sexuality in a time where that's rare? Is it a whack job survival fantasy or an examination of humanity?
Heinleins fucking weird yo.
You've basically described every "great book" out there, just distinguished by the degree people agree that it's "hamfistedly" or not, usually running along their political ideology as well. Totally against = totally hamfistedly. There is some cases of "wtf? that's totally crammed in!" but most of the time IMO it goes more like I said.
And also this: http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2015/10/16
Necronic
Staff member
There are plenty of books that don't just cram an ideology down your throat, because many books, even great ones, don't necessarily have a big ideology to pitch. Take Forever War. That is one of the greatest scifi books of all time, and it's not really about any ideology. It's just about explaining why the way we used to think of sci-fi is so completely wrong, and what an interstellar war would really be like, and what the future itself could really be like. I didn't feel like there was any..."pitch" there. I mean sure, some books are better or worse than others, but Heinlein is definitely one of the authors that turns his megaphone up to full volume when he writes. I mean take Stranger in a Strange land. He straight up made a major character (the professor or writer or whoever, the one with all the girls...seriously Heinlein was a dirty old man) just give monologues and speeches about ideologies. Only other writer I've seen take such a sledgehammer approach to their writing is Ayn Rand.
Forever War is a horrible example. The writer himself says it's very much an anti-war, anti-Vietnam story.
Necronic
Staff member
Yeah....ok maybe not the best example, although I didn't realize he admitted that, people just suspected.
But there's a difference between Halderman writing a semi-autobiographical sci-fi book about war directly after the Vietnam war and Heinlein writing direct social commentary. Halderman really just lamented the ridiculous uselessness of it all and the ennui of being involved, but didn't have broader political statements than that. Heilnein straight up says "this is how I think the world works and how it should work."
ed: Although, I'll admit, he doesn't always specificially state which way he wants you to think, but he makes it very clear that you NEED to think about it. Man, I need to read some Heinlein again.
But there's a difference between Halderman writing a semi-autobiographical sci-fi book about war directly after the Vietnam war and Heinlein writing direct social commentary. Halderman really just lamented the ridiculous uselessness of it all and the ennui of being involved, but didn't have broader political statements than that. Heilnein straight up says "this is how I think the world works and how it should work."
ed: Although, I'll admit, he doesn't always specificially state which way he wants you to think, but he makes it very clear that you NEED to think about it. Man, I need to read some Heinlein again.
Dave
Staff member
One of Heinlein's characters once said something to the effect of, "9 out of 10 women who get raped are at fault." I may be mis-remembering, but that's the overall gist of it. I remember reading that as a lad and going, "WTF?" I liked some of his early stuff but his later stuff wen right off the rails into almost Piers Anthony levels of misogyny.
They actually did a short CG tv series that worked more like this, which actually featured the Skinnies as eventual allies against the Bugs. It's sort of a midway thing between the movies and the books. It's pretty good: look up Starship Troopers: Roughnecks.