Official 2012 Democrat Gloating/Republican Tears Thread

You forgot the part where people are suddenly alright with internal school disciplinary policies being used to curtail the external actions of students where previous they were outraged, eg bong hits for Jesus. In this instance, the actions being condoned are even worse than the one being condemned in the bong hits controversy - here we have people who are using what is effectively a loophole in the system to mete out social justice because they think, rightly so, racism is wrong. The problem is that it is neither the journalist's place nor the layman's to decide what the punishment should be for public displays of verbal racism and that goes doubly so if that punishment includes bringing the issue to the attention of an agency that isn't charged with, or even considered remotely capable of, policing teenager's behavior.

I'm sure that everyone who agreed with the bong hits decision, both the school system's and the supreme court's, think that smoking weed is wrong, and that is why they have no problem with using a loophole, which is now a fairly permanent part of our culture, to unleash their righteous indignation upon an unwitting teenager via the school system. Just because these teenagers are racists doesn't give anyone the right to act with impunity.

I'll freely admit that this is a false equivalency and all that or at least is a fairly poor analogy.

It sucks, but schools are filled with mandatory reporters, so any controversial speech which goes against school policies is fair game for suppression or censure. Having your speech and conduct censured (note the spelling; no, I'm not British) is not the same as not being able to express it. Everybody cites Tinker, but Tinker has that annoying loophole which is only going to grow wider: Students have free speech as long as it is not disruptive. Who decides whether something is disruptive? Well, according to Hazelton, Fraser and Morse, it's the administrators' responsibility. S/he can overstep his/her bounds, but there's no non-court related check on what s/he does.

If you want to speak freely, don't let your Principal know about it. If he does know about it, and disagrees with it, he can make you take it down, and there can be further consequences. True story.

Not to pick too many nits, but Jezebel is a site aimed at women but it's not a feminist site. Sure, it sometimes has articles about feminism. Some of those articles are authored by a man who admits he attempted to kill his girlfriend, but Jezebel has no interest in letting their readers know about that side of him. I read Jezebel, sometimes for the horrorshow, sometimes because they have nifty stuff, but they are not a feminist site.

This and this will get you started.. I don't want to dig any deeper because god the whole situation ticks me off.

Ely's right. You can NOT just post that, drop mic, and exit stage left. Spill.

EDIT - DAMN your speed and agility

Fair enough, but from the perspective of someone who doesn't read the site (and who doesn't call himself a feminist any more than someone who needs oxygen and water could call himself an environmentalist) it might as well be. I first became aware of it because of all their posts about body image in the media; it soon became a case of "how can I agree with what this site is saying and still hate so much the way it says it?" Ever since then, I've only seen it when someone's posted a link that says "This makes me want to vomit!" or "OMG I can't believe how awful people are!" And from the perspective of Denton & Gawker Media, it doesn't need to be genuinely feminist, as long as the audience is aligned enough with feminism to still get very angry at examples of misogyny.

One of the only things I'd agree with alex about is that the original post has nothing to do with feminism. For that matter, it doesn't have much to do with a site "aimed at women." The only reason I flippantly described a "Liberal Feminist Outrage Engine" is because it's aimed squarely at a target demographic -- if you're charitable, it's "knowing your audience;" if you're not, it's "pandering." It's something that will get the audience super-angry, require no objectivity because it's not actually controversial for its target audience, and won't generate thoughtful debate so much as people firing off links.

Where I tend to get in trouble is when I describe it as manufactured outrage, people think I'm saying it's false. But manufactured outrage is still outrage; I just think people should be aware how much it's been manufactured, and be skeptical of anyone who's trying to treat them as a stereotypical demographic with a predictable response.

Except make Jezebel a decent site.

Interesting analysis of racist tweets as well: http://www.floatingsheep.org/2012/11/mapping-racist-tweets-in-response-to.html

Papa John founder John Schattner's wikipedia page

Verbatim. Then locked.

Do you have an actual point Otterloop? Other then you hate the rich of course.

Did you even read the text? Or is it just that you're a wife-beating pedophile?

Sorry, isn't that how it works -- start with a comment that makes it look like a legitimate reply; follow with the most batshit goofy, accusatory non-sequitur you can come up with; put it all on one line. I'm excited to learn this bold new art form.

I'm assuming it's performance art, anyway. I can't imagine otherwise how anybody wouldn't be able to distinguish "hating the rich" from "hating the greedy." Or be able to recognize that when a guy insists that his profit margins are so tight he's going to have to take it out on his employees and customers, it's reasonable to wonder where the money came from to buy the mansion from Dynasty.

Actually the profit margins in the food service industry ARE that slim. But please keep on hating anyone who dares to have more then you do, just like otterloop does, you will make a perfect couple that way.

Not slim enough to keep him from buying a mansion. But cutting down on his employees is, of course, a lot easier than cutting into his mansion fund.

I wonder if this will cause Brett to stop injecting pizza straight into his own ass.

"Actually the profit margins in the food service industry ARE that slim," is what someone familiar with the food service industry would say, if he were blind and had no concept of what English words mean. As evidence for how Schnatter is just barely scraping by: there's only one auxiliary mansion, and that can't be more than a 9 hole golf course.

But please, keep on defending any multi-millionaires who would eliminate lower-to-middle-income jobs in a tantrum, in response to being required to provide those employees health care, and still calls himself a job creator. Please, keep on accusing hourly workers of being greedy layabouts resentful of success, even when faced with photographic evidence to the contrary. It makes you a perfectly worthless sack of shit that way.

You gotta love the Tea Party "People literally threatening others to vote the way they want them to: A-OK. Minorities voting??? The death of Democracy as we know it!!!"

Please state where anyone in this thread said that Otterloop. I haven't seen anyone here support that.

Wait, can we talk about the specifics of that quote for a second here?

That is not what the word "dramatically" means. A one-time one percent increase in operating costs is not dramatic, and it does not require any drastic cuts in employee hours.

You should be the last motherfucker asking for people to state what others have said.

I haven't seen anyone here support hating the rich for being rich. I see people hating one rich guy for being an asshole.

Shut your fucking mouth.

Not in the pizza business they're not. Especially at a place like Papa John's where they're churning out low quality, assembly line crap.

Also, just fyi everybody the news coverage of this story is absolutely idiotic across the board and I'd be wary of getting too riled about it if I were you. What I found out of Schnatter's own mouth is that he anticipates raising the cost of pizzas by the same miniscule amount that PPACA is going to raise costs, which might be dumb but it's not a big deal and he says as much, but then there's also some dipshit franchisee running her mouth about how Obama is going to make her lay people off and because people in the media and blogosphere can't tell the difference even when it's right in front of their face, you end up with this dumb flameout. The only thing Schnatter even says that I can find about cutting hours or staff is that some Papa Johns franchisees will probably cut staff to avoid having to pay health benefits--which is empirically true regardless of how he feels about it and which he has no control over.

Yeah, that writeup in his wikipedia article is heavily editorialized to put it mildly. It was obviously last touched by somebody who didn't like Papa John.

On the subject of markups: "Did you know the profit margins on pizza are the highest in almost any food prep industry? Better still, ingredients are easy to get, simple to prepare and the recipes and combinations of toppings are endless. The cost of ingredients per pizza can be well below $1.50 and the mark up is commonly $5-$10."

Granted, these guys are trying to sell pizza ovens.

That said, complaining about business owners looking to shift extra costs or reducing employment in response seems really naive to me. Business is run based on juggling between the costs and the customer willingness to shell out money. You drive the costs up or the profits down and employments shift accordingly. There was what, 4 recent years of recession to observe that in detail and slow motion?

Someone start "shitrichpeoplesay.tumblr.com" with quotes and pictures of mansions, stat!

I'm sorry

vs

There are other options besides cutting employee hours or employees. And hearing a multimillionaire talk about how we'll have to suffer the consequences of basic healthcare in America in 2012 is fucking infuriating. We're a third world country, but we're the number one third world country!

Yes and we all know that food is the only cost of running such a business, I mean the people work for free, there is no rent on the building or any other costs involved, no insurance nothing like that.

Just curious, does this mean the stupidity has to be rancid? Because the amount of fucking stupidity Brett puts on display is embarrassing for the internet in general, not just your forum.

I know you're probably ignoring half the forum now, but we covered this. The costs of Obamacare are fucking trivial.

$8M on a $451M profit.

A 1.77% hit to his profit OR a .06% hit to his gross.

Fuck that greedy asshole.

Seen it. Overrated.

Where did he ever say "dramatically"?

Are you trolling in general, or just on the weak-sauce "paraphrase is not a direct quote, hurdehurhur" argument. Because the paraphrase is in that post you quoted.

As for the second argument, he's not going to talk to reporters and say he's passing on the cost to customers because the cost is insignificant. I have confidence that the word "dramatic" came out of Schnatter's mouth, even if the reporter didn't directly quote it.

ETA: In the end, the hyperbole he uses doesn't matter as much as the fact that he's announcing that he's going to pass on costs to the consumer because he doesn't agree with the law.

The thing you quoted has nothing to do with cutting employee hours or laying people off.

Well when you put it that way, sure it's infuriating. If you phrase it in less apocalyptic language and describe it more accurately as a business owner talking about how the new healthcare law will impact the way he does business it's a little less so. And if you take into account that the dire costs of which he warns amount to somewhere between a dime and quarter for every meal you buy from him you actually have to squint at that statement pretty hard to read it as some kind of outrageous class warfare. And what on Earth is wrong with a business raising their prices when their costs go up? If eleven cents is too rich for your blood, buy your pizza someplace else.

Is this the place where we talk about an idiot losing her minimum-wage job for calling Obama the N-word and hoping for his assassination?

She'll be fine. I'm sure she can find a fast-food joint that's racist as fuck to hire her. Or maybe Papa John's.

I'm rooting for Chik-Fil-A. If this was the midwest, I'd say Shoney's.

God how could you be so stupid? It's one thing to say something stupid on Facebook. At least you can control that by changing your settings, deleting the comment or De activating your account. But when you say something so stupid that the general Internet picks it up... Whenever a potential employee Google her, even 10 years in the future, her name will bring up stories of calling the president the n-word and hoping for his assassination.

Really the offensive bit is "we may cut employee hours over this" which has nothing to do with the ACA since "worked 15 hours" vs "worked 30 hours" is irrelevant to the cost of their health insurance coverage.

Basically: Papa John's CEO says due to the ACA he may needlessly punish workers.


Anywho, the Papa John's cost increase thing was pretty eye opening to the country: The cost to not be a dick and provide insurance coverage to hourly employees is.. an extra 1% to what we pay for shit. Verdict: totally fucking acceptable.

There ya go lose-lose: people have healthcare, pizza prices go up and employees are punished.

It's not about the rising cost, the point is that there are other ways to make up "A 1.77% hit to his profit OR a .06% hit to his gross." without punishing employees or the customer, it's a blatant attempt to sway the voter with threats. It's the head of a company telling his employees that there are consequences to voting for a particular candidate.

Brett is male

The blinders are strong with this one. On Twitter:

On the reaction to her tweet:

What do these peeps think "being racist" means? As long as you don't lynch anyone, you're in the clear and it's just, like, your opinion maaaaan?