| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Reddit Digg Stumble Facebook
Desc:Bonus: 'Zizek is wrong' dig.
Category:News & Politics
Tags:Zizek, chomsky, trump, how to ignore a user on POEtv, This triggers the POEtv
View Ratings
Register to vote for this video

People Who Liked This Video Also Liked:
How to Clean on a Moving Sidewalk In China
Banana Fire
Husky and samoyed puppies
George Carlin - People are Boring
M83 vs Creedence Clearwater Revival - Midnight Moon
Silicious - fried
The Undefeated Teaser Trailer
Mario Birthday Video Gig
Comment count is 102
bawbag - 2016-11-27
Based on the voting, the ayes have it, so here is the easy solution to ridding your POEtv reading of commenters who you can't be arsed with any more.

Step 1: Install ublock:https://www.ublock.org/
Step 2: open up the settings, (whitelist POEtv obviously) go to third party filters and paste the following:

poetv.com##div[style="padding-left: 30px;"]:has(a[href="/users.php?userid=13598"])
poetv.com##td[class='video-text']:has(a[href="/users.php?useri d=13598"])

(replace the user ID number with any user, in this case I've chosen evilhomer because his post-election schtick is boring the fucking tits off me)

Step 3: apply changes and voila, no more comments from that user will be visible. You will still see their video submissions but any comments they make will be filtered entirely. The only visible sign will be a double linebreak where their reply would have been. No more wall of text about ponyfucker cartoons or devil's advocate shit on every goddamn subject.

How does it look in practice? http://imgur.com/aqI6ZJm
bawbag - 2016-11-27
remove the space in the second instance of userid there too.

bawbag - 2016-11-27
ublock origin will work too.

bawbag - 2016-11-27
In fact yes, it will work better with ublock origin so go here instead: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock

Scrotum H. Vainglorious - 2016-11-27

bawbag - 2016-11-27
hah! *****

Cena_mark - 2016-11-27
So evilhomer is "boring" but 2001 a Space Odyssey isn't?
I don't like this censorship. It goes against the vibe here. Go to Reddit if you wanna block people.

Accidie - 2016-11-27
Yeah dude, poeTV isn't for this mentality. Covering your ears and humming is for people who prefer watching one channel on tv.

Mr. Purple Cat Esq. - 2016-11-27
The drama in the comments is half the fun! I intentionally upvote stuff just cus I expect it to cause a comment shitstorm :p

Its not you humdrum youtube shit comments, these are from people you know! + drama is not the norm here.

Also lotsmorerocs is gone and imo Evilhomers posts have long been well written and aim to be entertaining. imo evilholmes is not often serious, rather facetious.
I gather Cena has made a lot of progress via his interactions on this site.
Its not an echo-chamber.
People with differing viewpoints post here, that script would negate that quality which is rarer and rarer on the modern web.

Mr. Purple Cat Esq. - 2016-11-27
TYPO should read "Its not your average humdrum"...

Oscar Wildcat - 2016-11-27
Sorry Bags, I must concur. I fully expect people to be free to post whatever horseshit they desire here. In fact, were I king of the world, right after I replace the News Hour with "Hunker in the Bunker" starring Amy Goodman on mic and EvilNoam on standby, I would enforce just such a dictate on this site.

In fact, the only thing that ought to be explicitly banned on this site is outing users. Otherwise, anything goes.

Also: baiting EvilHomer with his favorite bait, Noam Chomsky, then blocking his responses? Come on Bags, that's just weak.

Hooker - 2016-11-27
Or, if you don't want to read someone's post and have a basic level of self-control, just see their username and don't read what they post.

bawbag - 2016-11-27

'Censorship' would be stopping him from posting, this doesn't do that in the slightest. It provides a filter for those who don't want to read/scroll through walls of text that they don't enjoy.


So in a crowd, you listen to every conversation at once? I know I don't.

@Mr. Purple Cat Esq.

I used to think the drama in the comments was fun and when it occurs naturally it still is. I'm sick of 'people doing a bit' here that seemingly occur just for the sake of it and i've provided an easy way for those who agree to filter that shit.

Different viewpoints are fine, and this filter won't stop anyone from posting them but wading through walls of total shit to get to the one nugget of sweetcorn is just annoying as hell for me, and i'm sure others too.

@Oscar Wildcat

He is free to post it though, I just don't have to read/scroll through MLP and devil's advocate on everything any more.


Easier said than done when there's wall upon wall of the same tedious text in every damn thread. When I don't want to hear my neighbour's music, I turn up my own or put headphones on. This is much the same but for comment sections and there is no one forcing anyone to use it, merely offering it as an option.

You do you.

kingarthur - 2016-11-27
Block people if you want, but I'm not going to. If I don't feel in the mood for somebody's shit on a given day, I just don't read what they post. But I think blocking someone here rather than outright banning someone outright using hate speech is not a direction I want the site to go down, personally.

Xenocide - 2016-11-27
I'm not blocking anyone because it's more satisfying to scroll past Homer's babble without reading a word, but I'm five-starring this because people who misuse the term "censorship" on the internet gotta learn.

Nominal - 2016-11-27
Bawbag, can you please add me to your block list?

15th - 2016-11-27
Do as you wish, obviously. I just don't buy that spinning your scroll wheel a centimeter or two was so taxing a technical work around was needed.

Whole thing seems very un-Poetv to me. In fact, I believe a personalized and sanitized version of PoeTv would suck. Suck Ass.


Mr. Bawbag, tear down that wall.

Cena_mark - 2016-11-27
But it is a form of censorship. This could cause a form of collective ignoring where most of the users here block various users thus taking away their voice.

Xenocide - 2016-11-27
Censorship means no one can read someone else's thoughts. If those thoughts are there, and I decide for myself I don't want to read them, that's just personal choice.

I don't intend to use any sort of blocking, I think it's a needlessly elaborate solution to a non-problem. But it's still not censorship, in that it's functionally no different from me scrolling past a post because I don't feel like reading it.

Old_Zircon - 2016-11-27

I feel like I should point out that I am using "cuck" ironically, which should be self evident but in 2016 you never can tell.

Still, 1 star for ignore scripts, which have wrecked more than one message board I used to frequent without the slightest impact on trolls.

bawbag - 2016-11-27
@cenahomer No Cena, it isn't, even if you wish it were so. That's some seriously tortured logic there. The tree will still fall in the woods whether I choose to hear it or not.

@nominal your posts don't really bother me, but if mine bother you, feel free to use my userid in there rather than getting huffy about it.

@15th as mentioned before, it hasn't been made mandatory, just an option for those who want it. I'm 100% fine if you guys choose not to use it, but apparently me choosing to is like the end of the fucking world or something :^]

bawbag - 2016-11-27
"without the slightest impact on trolls."

This is a misunderstanding. I'm not trying to 'stop trolls' in any way --that would be pissing in the wind-- I'm just offering a mute button that people are free to use or not.

That guy - 2016-11-27
What Accidie said.

There IS a line I think.

But if you're ignoring users on here just because they are hard to tolerate, you are doing yourself a disservice.

Filter bubbles online and social bubbles in life generally make people stupider and more intolerant. There's plenty of evidence for this and little against it.

I can't find the exact psych studies I'm looking for, but it's in this general domain:

bawbag, if you had blocked me way back when, we would have never had certain exchanges where we realized that our differences don't run that deep. Plus, dude, if I'm not going to block SolRo, you don't need to block anybody.

bawbag - 2016-11-27
Maybe you're right, god forbid I miss another few chapters on ancap ponies or sailor moon minutiae...

Or maybe not. YMMV hornet's nest, YMMV.

simon666 - 2016-11-27
I'm not personally interested in ignoring users here, but I have in the past adblock removed youtube comments and comments on other sites because I am too weak not to rubberneck at the accident.

dairyqueenlatifah - 2016-11-27
If you're going to block comments then what the fuck is the point in coming here?

Discussion of the videos is literally the only point to Poetv. You may as well cut out the middle man and go straight to Youtube if you're going to be an ear-plugging pussy.

Lord_Crocodilicus - 2016-11-27
I'm not even worth blocking

Hooker - 2016-11-28
No, it really is as easily done as said if you actually want to do it. This is cutting up your credit cards because you can't trust yourself with money. You _want_ to read Homer's posts and get angry. I have zero problem ignoring EvilHomer's posts without programmatically blocking them.

bawbag - 2016-11-28
@DQL actually the main point of the site -for me- is the videos and this place acts as a decent curation method. As for the 'pussy' remark, I'm not the one getting the vapours over 1 guy being filtered in a stranger's browser, that would be you, pussy. :^]

@hooker Thanks for the cod psychoanalysis there hooker, but no thanks, we have free mental health care here in Europe should I ever need to avail myself of it.

What would be worth psychoanalysing are the many angry howls this has generated from you guys in the peanut gallery. Is it a fear that you too will be ignored, some sort of hurt conformist streak or a chicken little 'this is literally destroying poetv' kneejerk? Don't know, don't care, wind your neck in.

alitheiathricechastened - 2016-11-28
i for one appreciate it. thanks, bawbag. i'll be copying it.

i've been lurking forever and evilhomer's evilhomering is genuinely fucking useless and has forced me to register and bait him with steven universe, his kryptonite.

he only has one note and that note is: If you're FAIR then you have to defend the "right" of racists to be racist just as much as you have to defend minorities from the effects of racists. If you're FAIR then half the fire trucks in your fire department have to spray gas instead of water. If you're FAIR then half the meat in your chili con carne has to be racoon shit. If you're FAIR then we need alt-right shit on poetv.com comments, reddit, imgur, youtube, and every newspaper comment section. If you're UNFAIR then alt-right shit will only be on reddit, imgur, youtube, and every newspaper comment section. that is exactly the same oppression level as being in the Warsaw Ghetto. Jesus wept.

anyway i'm ignoring evilhomer's goofy ass with scripts. it takes less energy to shovel snow than to melt snow.

bawbag - 2016-11-28
Sure Nik/Orcs, you're welcome.

Hooker - 2016-11-28
There's no angry howls. We're just calling you a fucking pussy. I already don't read EvilHomer posts. It's called self-restraint.

bawbag - 2016-11-28
'Pussy' is one of those insults that really, truly tells you a lot about the person who uses it. Great 'self-restraint' there man, sorry I hurt your feelings by disagreeing.

Old_Zircon - 2016-11-28
"without the slightest impact on trolls."

This is a misunderstanding. I'm not trying to 'stop trolls' in any way --that would be pissing in the wind-- I'm just offering a mute button that people are free to use or not."

That's my point, using ignore scripts is entirely about tailoring your own experience at the expense of the larger community. It's the message board version of "OMG I AM MOVING TO CANADA IF BUSHITLER WINS" (there's probably some kind of Galt's Gulch metaphor too but I haven't had my coffee yet) except that in this case it takes no effort so people actually follow through.

As far as I'm concerned, there are so many unavoidable filter bubbles these days I'll be damned if I'm going to voluntarily add even more.

simon666 - 2016-11-28
Zircon, you have a good point in your last post. I agree that filter bubbles (echo chambers etc) aren't good in a general way, but what do you think about cases where discussion can't happen in virtue of the attitudes or skill of the commenters?

bawbag - 2016-11-28
This popsci idea of 'filter bubbles' (and it being conflated as 'echo chambers') doing the rounds is garbage. It literally comes from a shitty TED talk in 2011, now the media have glommed onto it and so too have most people online apparently.

In actual fact even if an ignore list of -1 person- (to be clear, that's what all this handwringing is over so far) constitutes a filter bubble, the entire original argument was about 'opaque personalized algorithms' in search engines/social media. Even within that very narrow category, there is no consensus view and Wharton among others' research indicates the opposite effect that the laymen have decided: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/different-worlds-do-rec ommender-systems-fragment-consumers-interests/

I'll stick to reducing my noise-to-signal ratio with my 'transparent personal choices' and it's there for anyone else who wishes it, you guys can do your own thing by all means, no one is stopping you.

bawbag - 2016-11-28
...and really, to take a broader perspective the US media did a great job of not ignoring Trump's constant bullshit and look where that got you.

Sputum - 2016-11-28
Thank you bawbag.

This place is on its way to void poe news was sucked into. PoeTV didn't used to be like this. It's survived because it's just a site to leave funny comments on videos. In the past any of the bickering fell off of the front page and thus out of the collective memory pretty quickly.

Now there are only half of a handful of posters and the troll to sincere-user ratio is skewing in a dangerous direction. And neither group has been all that funny lately. What the fuck, guys.

bawbag - 2016-11-28
You're welcome sputum, glad I'm not the only one to see it that way!

Waugh - 2016-11-28
thank you very much, mr. bawbag
for doing the job that nobody wants to

Meerkat - 2016-11-27
Known Chompski
Xenocide - 2016-11-27
"Chompski" is what the Russians call Pac-Man.

Old_Zircon - 2016-11-27
I've always affectionately referred to him ass "Sir Chomps-A-Lot," myself.

Bort - 2016-11-27
Nim Chimpsky


Old_Zircon - 2016-11-28
Bort that is amazing.

Binro the Heretic - 2016-11-27
Maybe things just have to get worse before they can get better.

You can't educate people who totally tune you out. That's why all the dire warnings I and others doled out to Trump supporters during the election fell on deaf ears.

They won't really believe what a rotten old bastard he is until they're personally affected by his bullshit.
Anaxagoras - 2016-11-27
And then they'll believe that that particular bastard was a bastard. But they'll fall for the next grifter, because the deplorables are stupid and never learn the fundamental lessons.

Meerkat - 2016-11-27
I always look to Joe Scarborough as the epitome of the Republican mindset. One week he's all praising and licking whatever Republican is in charge, the next week he's had some sort of epiphany where he realises that the Republican in charge is a fucking idiot, then the next week he's right back to praising and licking THE SAME DAMN GUY.

It's like he has some sort of persistent learning disability where common sense keeps getting overwritten by party loyalty.

Anaxagoras - 2016-11-27
Oh my God... I never made that connection. You're right. Scarborough really is the embodiment of mainstream Republicans. He even sounds like them; he's superficially reasonable and intelligent until you realize that A) He said the exact opposite thing not two days ago, and B) What he's saying makes no sense once you scratch the surface & look at the underlying assumptions.

StanleyPain - 2016-11-27
Fuck Noam Chomsky.

Hey, maybe *part* of Trump winning and the fact he has such an unusual amount of support amongst young people is because regressive shits like you have fallen so far down the "AMERICA IS SATAN" rabbit hole and hating absolutely everything good Americans stand for that *maybe* it gives birth to people who actively fight against our best interests as people so they can cling to their dumbshit identity politics of self-loathing and America-hating bullshit. AMERICAN IS A SINGLE PARTY STATE MAAAAANNNN *bong hit* My vote doesn't matter because ummm....QUOTE FROM V FOR VENDETTA...

Let me be more clear: *you* helped fucking elect this New American Nazi Party into power, Chomsky, and until you apologize to the world for that you should shut the fuck up about how awful he is.
SolRo - 2016-11-27
You're an idiot.

The biggest idiots on the left have been delusionally deciding (without proof or a fucking clue) that not being nice enough to racists and bigots is why the election was lost.

You dumbasses never, ever understand that the bigots won't vote democratic no matter what.

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2016-11-27
I blame the Trump voters.

GravidWithHate - 2016-11-27
SolRo: The states that won Trump the election DID vote democratic, when Obama was running. Fucking hell man, the last time Pennsylvania and Michigan went red was when Bush the Elder beat Dukakis.

kingarthur - 2016-11-27
Uh, isn't Noam saying here that voting third party is a mistake? Doesn't he roll out the same speech EVERY election year? I'm pretty sure he does.

kingarthur - 2016-11-27
Also, I really don't think anyone on the real left is saying you have to be nice to racists and bigots, only that the issues affecting the working class weren't addressed by the Democrats at all in the last eight years or in this election and there was a price to pay for it - namely a con artist like Trump.

Putting yourself above another class or group of people by disparaging them in a blanket statement that they're all racists or bigots and will never vote Democrat is no way to understand them or win their vote. Believe it or not, not everyone who voted for Trump is a racist or a bigot.

kingarthur - 2016-11-27
Well, maybe Sanders addressed those issues pretty well and the working class certainly favored him but, without going into a long discussion with anyone about Clinton v Sanders and all that incredibly ridiculous bullshit, Clinton certainly wasn't speaking to them.

simon666 - 2016-11-27
StanleyPain has a legitimate and plausible argument: Some Trump voters (we don't know how much exactly) were likely alienated from the left by tribalist rhetoric.

Why is it triablist? Well the left when talking about political and social problems does so with language that highly abstract and usually requires a few years of college courses to understand the concepts under-girding it. Often when people are not convinced there is a certain problem by way of language like "institutionalized racism", "implicit bias", and "white privilege" the response is shaming tactics and zealous claims of racism/sexism etc.

If someone doesn't immediately get a given argument for why institutionalized racism is an actual phenomenon, the appropriate response is to realize that it's not intuitive and takes a lot of time reading dense and abstract academic papers to get acquainted with the idea, which most people understandably haven't done or don't have the time.

It's another issue how many Trump voters were actually turned off from the rhetoric of the left, however. I tend to take the perfect storm view: Clinton is a typical plugged in politician fighting a populist surge; clinton not speaking enough to economic/security issues; Trump seemed like enough of an outsider; post-truth social media echo chambers with a little Russian propaganda thrown in; some explicit racism/sexism; voter apathy for Clinton who lacked Obama's charisma, etc.

Spaceman Africa - 2016-11-27
damn stanleypain is dumb as hell

Xenocide - 2016-11-27
The idea that "tribalist rhetoric" loses elections is pretty shaky given that we just elected a guy whose most enthusiastic supporters wear white hoods.

15th - 2016-11-27
See, this is why we cannot whitewash PoeTV. Stanley's closed-head trauma logic brought a couple good comments and a funny one. The system works.

Xenocide - 2016-11-27
And come to think of it, when did Hillary embrace PC talk, anyway? Can you name a moment during the campaign when she used terms like "transphobia" or "patriarchy?" Did she ever even say "black lives matter?"

It seems like the right associated her with this mindset even though she was trying to run from it, while more oppressed groups (normally the basis of the Democrats whole voting bloc) saw Clinton as an opportunist who didn't have their backs, so they either stayed home (black turnout dropped sharply this year, for instance) or turned to third parties (take away Stein's votes in just a few states and give them to Hillary, and she'd be president.)

In other words, Clinton lost in part because she DIDN'T use leftist rhetoric, and thus sent the message to the Dem base that she was not on their side. She just assumed that black people, gay people, and women would fall in line without her offering them anything substantial. Trump actually called her out on this in one of the debates, in one of his few moments of lucid thought.

tl,dr: We already ran a candidate who "rejected identity politics" and it got us President Donald Trump.

Bort - 2016-11-27
"Did she ever even say "black lives matter?""

She did as far back as December 2014:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hillary-clinton-speaks-us-torture/sto ry?id=27654296

Of course Breitbart panicked about it:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/17/hillary-cli nton-black-lives-matter/

simon666 - 2016-11-27
Xenocide: I did not claim that tribalist rhetoric loses elections. As a response to SolRo, I was saying that StanlyPain's general thesis was plausible and therefore legitimate aka worthy of taking seriously. I then explained how SP's thesis is plausible.

I did not say that it was the reason why Hillary lost the election. In fact, I specifically said that it was likely a cause, the significance of which we don't know, that combined with other factors (see my 4th paragraph) lead to Hillary's loss.

Further, I never claimed, though I can't speak for SP, that Hillary using particular language, call it PC language, alienated voters. By arguing for the plausibility of SP's thesis, I was suggesting that the way discourse is conducted on the left can alienate people. Insofar as people were alienated by such discourse, they would not vote for the figurehead or symbol of that political movement, which was Hillary.

Again, I think there are many reasons why Hillary lost. Do you agree or disagree that it is at least plausible that calling people racists/homophobes etc is alienating?

And as a rejoinder to your point about Hillary not using leftist rhetoric: maybe. But I tend to think post truth confusion in voters played a bigger part into it. Example: Colin Kaepernick thinks there is literally no difference between Trump and Hillary and he didn't even vote because of it. That is symbolic of a big portion of the left's confusion.

SolRo - 2016-11-27
" Do you agree or disagree that it is at least plausible that calling people racists/homophobes etc is alienating?"

Are you so stupid that you think racists/homophobes would ever vote for anyone other than the party that pushes for racist and homophobic laws?


SolRo - 2016-11-27
I'll even spell it out for you;

If trailer trash dreg A hates gay people and/or black people, do you think he will vote for the party that also hates gay and/or black people or the party that gives those people protection and more rights while not talking trash about bigots?

You're so fucking stupid because you keep equating "working class" with "bigot", when being working class neither requires you to be white nor a bigot. There are millions of tolerant people working hard 9-5 for wages that have been stagnant the last 40 years.

Republican shitbags don't own the working class. they are not the working class. they are a section of the working class, and shouldn't be pandered to like they're the end-all-be-all of American society.

kingarthur - 2016-11-27
I agree that tribalist politics are a very real thing in the DNC and the RNC and even in the Libertarian and Green camps to a large extent. Election years bring out the tribalist stupid in people to the nth fucking degree. However, I don't think the language on "the left" requires academic college level experience to understand. I think that's a handy excuse to disempower the non-college educated and used especially to paint the fly over as a bunch of yokels, not that you intended to use it that way in your example. I think the issue is that Clinton, like you said, didn't connect with the base and expected to be able to court establishment Republicans by doing so.

Still, it's important to remember that 51% of the eligible voters didn't, or couldn't vote, not to mention all the other people who were ineligible due to a variety of bullshit reasons, which is nearly half the country.

I think the big culprit we're looking for in how this election went is a combination of working class disenfranchisement, out of touch candidates, VOTER SUPPRESSION (probably more than anything else), and how the electoral college works.

Potrod - 2016-11-28
"Are you so stupid that you think racists/homophobes would ever vote for anyone other than the party that pushes for racist and homophobic laws?


There are people who, to this day, approve of the job Obama's doing, who voted for Trump, so for a decent number of voters you can probably throw logic out the window. Anyway I don't think it's far-fetched that x number of Trump voters might have stayed home if they hadn't been galvanized for the reasons simon666 and StanleyPain are talking about. At any rate it's not really worth being a condescending (even for you) shithead about it.

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2016-11-28
On one hand, all this finger-pointing and circular firing squad stuff is bullshit. I blame the Trump voters. On the other hand, being a condescending asshole is generally a bad idea. Even if it gets you elected.

simon666 - 2016-11-28
Solro, you said: "Are you so stupid that you think racists/homophobes would ever vote for anyone other than the party that pushes for racist and homophobic laws?"

This is not at all my position. You have mischaracterized what I said. Look at my exact language. The voters I am talking about are not people who have explicit, conscious racist/homophobic etc views. Some fraction of these people are plausibly alienated when 20 something millenials from an elite university call them a racist or homophob. They will be alienated because concepts like "white privilege" and "implicit racial bias" and "institutional racism" are always intuitive to people and require significant explanation. When instead of getting patient explanation (which will not happen in timely manner) they are berated, then they wont identify with those people. And insofar as the berated identify those people as representative of the left, they wont identify with the left's figurehead, in this Hillary.

So SolRo, I'm not sure why you are huffing and puffing. You seem to take me for a position I don't hold. If you want to just be angry at someone online, you can be angry at me; that is fine. But you don't need to do on false premises.

Now, to speak to KingArthur. You and I disagree on how easy or intuitive these kinds of concepts (white privilege, implicit bias, etc) are to grasp. One need not necessarily go to college and learn them, but quite often this is exactly what it takes for people to learn and make sense and incorporate these ideas into their world view. Additionally, it's also possible to agree on the conclusions of say critical race theory, but be skeptical of certain of the theoretical moves; and when you push back on some of the theoretical moves, get harangued by the left for being a racist--the way SolRo has behaved is sort of indicative of that. And that is alienating. It doesn't alienate me, but I get how someone could just be turned off by that behavior and not engage and in the worst case vote for someone other than Hillary. Anyway, I hope your treatment is going all right.

simon666 - 2016-11-28
*Not always intuitive...

SolRo - 2016-11-28
I wish you spoiled yuppies would understand that the election was lost because of low voter turnout on the left, a bunch of idiots protest voting or not voting at all, and a higher voter turn out on the right.

Pandering to the right would not have changed those. Most of those people voted trump based on false information that reinforced their biases, subconscious or not. You can not carefully explain things in an election...it doesn't work.

(All) People are generally simple and have short attention spans. They are more likely to believe things that match their opinions than things that challenge those opinions. That's why carefully explaining things to voters never has and never will work. Bumper stickers, shouting, muck raking, scandals...all that shit works on the American populace, it has been proven again and again.

If you want to blame someone, blame all the idiots on the left that thought they didn't need to vote (or protest voted) because 'no way trump would win' and the utter fucking idiots that protest voted even knowing it might help trump win because of moronic idealisms like "I wont pick the lesser evil", "Bernie or bust", "I love huffing paint", "Man these horse cocks taste great".

kingarthur - 2016-11-28

I totally agree that getting called a racist or bigot for simply not understanding a leftist position with no exposure to any of those ideas at all is completely alienating and is a huge fucking problem for establishment Democrats.

Maggot Brain - 2016-11-27
Depressed old man causes web site to loses it's shit. Three stars.
Pillager - 2016-11-27
I respectfully disagree with Gnome. Like scare tactics, shaming tactics stop working after a while. I cast a protest vote & don't regret it one bit.

The Dems need to run anti war, charismatic, relatable people who speak to the working class without talking to them like they are scum.
simon666 - 2016-11-27
How dare you!

kingarthur - 2016-11-27
Pillager's on it.

Nominal - 2016-11-27
After getting Bush elected in 2000 and 2004, Pillager personally gave us Barack Obama.

You should all be thanking him for the wonderful presidential candidate he'll be giving us in 2024.

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2016-11-28
>> I cast a protest vote & don't regret it one bit.

How lovely for you. It's still pretty early, though.

SolRo - 2016-11-28
Don't worry, I'm sure he's white and affluent enough that he will never be effected or can leave the country if it actually goes (more) dystopian.

Bort - 2016-11-28
Trump is stocking the executive branch with every right-wing figure too loathsome to attain or hold office on their own.

But Hillary wanted a $12 minimum wage (with subsequent increases to follow as the economy shows it can absorb them) rather than an immediate leap to $15, so you know, a protest vote was perfectly reasonable.

Pillager - 2016-11-28
@ Bort,

The teacher's union backed Hillary, a supporter of charter schools over Bernie the lifelong Union backer. What did that get them? Betsy DeVos.

Let that sink in.

Bort - 2016-11-28
No, YOU got us Betsy DeVos with your pissy little protest vote.

Old_Zircon - 2016-11-28
Protest votes didn't loe the election for Clinton, but they also accomplished nothing.

I live in Rhode Island, we went for Sanders by double digits in the primaries, we haven't gone red in over 30 years and only have 3 electoral votes anyhow, so my vote means exactly zero.

I still voted for Clinton because not voting at all sends absolutely no message to anyone and does nothing, and the third party options were bad jokes (Jill Stein is good on paper but the Green Party has no real, ongoing plan other than running a symbolic campaign every four years and, Libertarians are, well, Libertarians so even if Johnson hadn't been such a mes he'd have still been Libertarian) so I opted for the path that allowed me the greatest leeway to credibly complain.

Voting for someone and supporting them is not the same thing. You can vote for someone strategically without supporting them ideologically, and that's what I did and I'd do it again because like it or not that is how politics actually works.

Anyway, it's moot now.

Bort - 2016-11-28
I admit that not one of us was in a position to cast the deciding vote, so by that standard none of our votes matter.

The problem is that, if too many people think that way, we end up with intolerable election results. So I figure we can't let it go on the individual level.

That said, I can see being forgiving if the other person had some sort of semi-legit reason for making bad decisions on Election Day. "Nach Trump, uns" or any passive-aggressive motivation doesn't count.

Pillager - 2016-11-28
Bort, Bernie would have beaten Trump since Sander is actually likable & would have taken the fight to the red states. It pays not to think you are entitled to high office.

Bort - 2016-11-28
"It pays not to think you are entitled to high office."

Right, well I'm glad we agree Bernie disqualifies himself by believing the super-delegates had an obligation to vote for him, and by complaining that every primary he lost was rigged.

Also, single payer went down to humiliating defeat in Colorado this election, 79% - 21%. And Colorado even went blue; it's not like Colorado was a far-right state. That's how much the general public loves single payer; if you don't think Sanders would have been dragged down by his flagship proposal, you're some combination of crazy and stupid.

Still, maybe some of Bernie's death-threaters might have proven useful, trying to intimidate Trump voters and the like. With luck, some of them would have been doxxed and been forced to make their arguments face-to-face.

Bort - 2016-11-28
"would have taken the fight to the red states"

Hey Pillager, during the primaries I heard that Hillary's victories in southern states didn't matter because they're red states. Now you're telling me that Hillary didn't fight hard enough in the red states. Make up your mind already.

kingarthur - 2016-11-28
Respectfully, Bort, I think you're ignoring the sheer mountains of money that goes into propagandizing the public against single payer and any modicum of morally decent social welfare.

Bort - 2016-11-28
Fair enough, but wouldn't that have equally well been a factor against Sanders?

Then there is the small matter that Sanders' plan was based on arithmetic that is dodgy at best and completely ludicrous at its most likely. Don't imagine for a second that Trump and the Republicans wouldn't have seized upon that, to add to the usual fear / uncertainty / doubt they would trot out in any case.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-t horpe-single-payer

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11640292/sanders-single-payer-urba n-institute

I keep going back to this: until we figure out how to rein in medical COSTS, we can't just impose single payer and expect cheap medical care. Any serious champion of single payer would tell you that. Bernie is not serious about single payer, just enthusiastic.

Pillager - 2016-11-29
Oh Bort, don't let failure go to your head.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-joseph/how-a-train-ticket-c ould-have_b_13151112.html

Hillary was out of touch with middle america & paid for it by losing to a buffoon like Trump.


http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigge d-dnc-undermined-democracy/

Sad how the Dems stuck with someone they were told was going to lose to Trump.

Finally, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-spee ches-wikileaks.html?_r=0

Her campaign wasn't a coffin with nails in it, it was a pin cushion filled with rail road spikes.

Bort - 2016-11-29
The important thing, Pillager, is that YOU succeeded. You cast your pissy little protest vote, and you got the Trump you asked for. Well done!

Lord_Crocodilicus - 2016-11-27
1. When I was 9 and playing little league, we had those circular rubber batting weights you swing around before your at bat and mine was named Chomsky...nobody knew why, but we all referred to that little red weight as "Chomsky"

2. Osama bin Laden loved him.
John Holmes Motherfucker - 2016-11-28
Did anybody else first learn about Chomsky through his work as a linguist? At least during the 80s, his theory of Transformational Grammar was apparently huge. I spent two semesters struggling to understand it, finally grasped it, and immediately forgot it forever.
Bort - 2016-11-28
Yep, in cognitive psychology class back in 1985.

SolRo - 2016-11-28
I was ignoring evilhomer before it was cool.
bawbag - 2016-11-28
Hah! *****

alitheiathricechastened - 2016-11-28
i actually think poetv.com commenters might be evilhomer's only friends and that is so fucking sad. not fucking sad enough not for me to use bawbag's described method to block him out but - fucking sad.

Bort - 2016-11-28
I used to like EvilHomer. Disagreed with him sometimes, but that's okay.

These days, EH is nothing but contrary, and I feel like I'm arguing with a sophisticated language-parsing script. Every now and again I succumb to the temptation to treat him like a person with sincere views, and in short order I regret the effort.

EH, please stop doing a thing all the time. You're fine being yourself (and no, "the opposite of the other guy" is not the same as being yourself).

bawbag - 2016-11-28
Agreed Bort.

Thing is, he's been doing this skit for so long here that I don't think he even knows -how- to stop or what he would do if he did; that's assuming he has even considered that there might be any reason to do so.

I'll gladly have open debates with sincere idiots like RoUS even though I'm vehemently opposed to his kneejerk racist shit, key word being 'sincere'. He comes by it honestly rather than just trying to argue for the sake of it.

Same goes for the huge stramash I had with that guy originally, we disagreed but never at any point did I doubt that he was coming at it from a place of sincerity.

Not so for argument bot EH. I mean if that's sincere on his part, then he's literally an exhibit, but I think/hope more so he's just a troll who doesn't know when to quit.

It has amazed me how mad a lot of folk got that I personally choose not to read it any more though, you'd think I'd shot their grandma or something.

15th - 2016-11-28
Maybe I'm a sucker, but I always thought EH was mostly sincere - in a way.

I don't get why so many people don't like him.

SolRo - 2016-11-29
you're a sucker, and not just because you believe EH's shtick.

Waugh - 2016-11-28
Register or login To Post a Comment

Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement