Re:NRA gives Ajit Pai “courage award” and gun for “saving th...
by TPPOW0020 on Friday February 23, 2018 @04:34PM
(#16449827)
The logic is simple. Obama talked about net neutrality. And Obama wanted to take our guns away. So net neutrality is bad. Q.E.D.
No really, after reading the article a second time, I still can't come up with a better explanation for their motives. If you think you have a better explanation, please reply. This truly baffles me and it bothers me that I can't understand how some of my fellow Americans think.
Re:NRA gives Ajit Pai “courage award” and gun for “saving th...
by spondyl on Friday February 23, 2018 @04:19PM
(#16449721)
I can understand and even sympathise a lot of positions conservatives and Republicans have but this type of shit baffles me.
Part of me figures it's nice PR to cover over that it's just a power play but then again, Hanlon's Razor[1] makes me wonder if they genuinely think net neutrality is bad
[1]: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Re:NRA gives Ajit Pai “courage award” and gun for “saving th...
by elefanten on Friday February 23, 2018 @04:44PM
(#16449886)
I often wonder about these dynamics. I've been genuinely befuddled to learn that some people believe political arguments that I perceived to be so stupid that they had to be part of a cynical political narrative. But lo and behold, some people who I otherwise knew to be reasonable still believed them.
My suspicion is that it only takes a very small minority of a political group to understand the landscape of an issue, initiate a narrative around a power play and have it spread like wildfire within the group.
In short, I think both of your explanations can be correct at the same time. A small subset initiates, the rest of the group genuinely adopts.
Re:NRA gives Ajit Pai “courage award” and gun for “saving th...
by kingbirdy on Friday February 23, 2018 @04:49PM
(#16449929)
It's funny to note that the reason he couldn't be presented with his rifle at the event is because the Conservative Political Action Conference is a gun-free zone.
No really, after reading the article a second time, I still can't come up with a better explanation for their motives. If you think you have a better explanation, please reply. This truly baffles me and it bothers me that I can't understand how some of my fellow Americans think.
Part of me figures it's nice PR to cover over that it's just a power play but then again, Hanlon's Razor[1] makes me wonder if they genuinely think net neutrality is bad
[1]: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
My suspicion is that it only takes a very small minority of a political group to understand the landscape of an issue, initiate a narrative around a power play and have it spread like wildfire within the group.
In short, I think both of your explanations can be correct at the same time. A small subset initiates, the rest of the group genuinely adopts.
Heinlein’s Razor.
I’m just having visions of every facepalm ascii, pic and gif I’ve ever seen.