Could someone please explain the “rino” aspect of the insults?
Republican In Name Only. Someone who claims they’re a Republican, but holds opinions that are against the standard Republican Party opinions.
And by “standard Republican Party opinions”, they mean reactionary extremist opinions that had a place only at the edges of the Republican party prior to Reagan. Basically, RINOs are classic Republicans rather than neo-Republicans.
Now that I’ve looked at the link, I smell a rat. No way those are legitimate Tea Party insults: all the words are spelled correctly and the grammar is functional.
The Newsroom - Rinos, Real Republicans, The Tea Party, The Founding Fathers on religion.
Two clicks got me this gem: “Asshole Fascist Communist”.
It’s one with a black president. Doesn’t matter that he’s droned brown people all over the middle east or whatever.
He’s a Keyan, Muslim, Nazi, socialist, colored to the teabaggers.
There is a huge swath of unwashed dipshits (for now we’re leaving out the stunted growth libertarians) that are really, truly going into fits because their country is moving even farther from their 50’s fantasy.
Black guys who have a say in stuff, gays marrying, etc…
These numbnuts are showing up to Teabagger meetings in fucking medicare scooters decrying “socialism” and “handouts”.
One of the recurring idiocies I see in seedier comment sections (so … almost anywhere without good moderation) is that fascism is ultimately a leftist thing. The exact reasoning tends to be heavy on insults and very selective reading of history.
When I was still working at a small-town paper, we had someone give us a pile of newspapers from the '50s (the newspaper’s archives were lost in a fire.) And you know, you ain’t kidding. The '50s were terrible. Apparently crime rates were lower but things like domestic abuse and hate crimes were reported a lot less often back then.
Because they weren’t really considered crimes then, even if they were legally crimes. Crimes were things that upset the social order, not against any particular individuals. The shift began in the late 50s and 60s with civil rights gaining serious momentum and women’s lib. But of course, those are the things “destroying Amurica” now. Oh, also, teen pregnancy was sky high, too, but kids either were married off or girls were “sent away to school” and the baby given up for adoption, which were always closed adoptions.
Also, how awesome to see all those old papers! Very cool! Hopefully, you guys were able to digitize them and share them with a local library too?
Compared with other generators, the vocabulary is pretty lame.
Turns out Boing Boing doesn’t need a machine to generate insults of Tea Partyers.
Here’s how clannish and dickish people can be:
The TP is the natural ally of Boing Boing on NSA spying and 1st Amendment rights. But Boing Boing would rather align themselves with Senate Democrats and Establishment Republicans.
You created this account just to insult this website, and praise the Tea Party? Don’t you guys have something better to do? Go repeal Obamacare some more.
I’m sure you’re going to win tons of converts and friends by starting your second post ever with name calling.
::slowclap::
The teabaggers are funded by corporatists and filled mainly with cranks and racists and other assorted assholes that dream of a country where there is only one color.
Or the baby was played off as the teen mother’s sibling, lies upon lies, compounding over the years. “Hey, I have a great idea! Let’s lie to everyone, including our grandkid, and force our daughter to lie. It’ll be a great basis for family unity.” Because neither the teen mother, nor the child, were really considered people, just appendages with the power to ruin reputations. Guh.
And I detect the use of lower case.
Yep. We think of the 50s as this era of conformity and safety, but really it was an era of deep social dysfunction, because in part the strictures were so much reinforced via the culture… it’s just that everyone hid it behind a mask of conformity, in part because they were afraid of losing their security/jobs/social standing because they were accused of being communists or gay.
But there was a whole lot of non-conformity and turmoil during the 50s that are generally ignored or glossed over, and I think the beats are just one example of that, really. I don’t think the late 40s or 50s were less tumultuous than the 60s, it’s just that the culture was less prone to express that. Plus it plays nicely into the 60s as an era of transformation and change, led by the youth (hence reinforcing the normantive notion of youth as cutting edge, really meaning cutting edge consumers). Funny how the writing of history works that way. We have such a weird focus on the 60s, when the 50s and 70s were just as, if not more interesting, I think.
Edited to add: Maybe “deep social dysfunction” is the wrong term to use here? Maybe a better tern is turmoil or transformation? Dysfunction implies that there was something inherently deviant about the way people were or are, but I think it’s a problem of society as a whole looking to shape people into particular boxes, and people looking to either conform and failing, or not caring and not conforming.
