The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Matt Ottinger on May 20, 2014, 06:46:59 PM
-
...he just doesn't think it has anything to do with climate change.
Google it, or open Facebook. Some people are saying he's deliberately trolling, others are outraged. As always, I'm amused.
-
And people have a right to be upset. Because it's incredibly stupid logic.
-
I like how one tweet is enough to qualify as a "rant" or "online outburst."
-Jason
-
I saw that in the Trending Topics section (which is starting to grow on me), and the reaction both globally and locally to this amuses me a great deal. What Pat Sajak thinks about a thing carries just about as much weight or sway as what any other celebrity thinks about a thing.
Don't care if he's serious, trollin', ranty or something else. That's the internet.
-
The magic word in his Twitter piece was "racist." I think "unpatriotic" would have been let go by most, but the second adjective crossed a line.
-
The magic word in his Twitter piece was "racist." I think "unpatriotic" would have been let go by most, but the second adjective crossed a line.
You're probably correct. In broad terms, the left gets called "unpatriotic" all the time, but it's usually the right that gets the "racist" taunts. Of course, if we're going to analyze this like the Zapruder film, "racist" is a surreal word choice. Who equates the climate argument with racism? That's the part that makes me think he's being deliberately provoking.
-
The magic word in his Twitter piece was "racist." I think "unpatriotic" would have been let go by most, but the second adjective crossed a line.
They both crossed a line to me.
Those of you who know me know that I lean in the opposite direction of Mr. Sajak politically. In the course of some discussions I've had with people on that opposite side, I've been accused of being non-patriotic.
My theory is this. There are three things you won't do to me. You won't attack me or my family unprovoked, you won't put words in my mouth, and you will NEVER question my patriotism. To me, dem's fightin' woids.
-
Here's what I do when a teabagger questions my patriotism:
I dismiss them as a jackoff and go about my business.
-
Here's what I do when a teabagger questions my patriotism:
I dismiss them as a jackoff and go about my business.
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.
-
*Rant mode on*
I used to experiment with the extreme far-right on a few sites here and there. But as time and time went on, I realized just how dreadful, dreadful, dreadful my experience was. According to them, if you do not agree with them 100% of the time, you are a Communist in disguise.
I even witnessed some people who were so happy when Roger Ebert did just because he was a liberal. One person called Ebert a "leftist loser". And that same person called Betty White a "pathetic, decrepit, liberal loser".
Lastly, I noticed they do not like anything about Hollywood since the 1960's. All they love is Golden Age Hollywood. That's it.
*Rant mode off*
There, I feel better now.
-
I know Sajak's got a dry sense of humor, but him throwing racism into the equation was weird, even by his dry standards. That being said, given his followup post about how fun it is to poke the hornet's nest, I imagine it was a trolljob, just poorly executed. FWIW, I did follow him on Twitter, but got a little tired of the constant political posts. I respect his conservatism, but I don't really care to read any celebrity's constant politicizing, left or right. It just gets repetitive after awhile.
It'll gain a little traction because the media will make it more than it is, but I don't think it'll reach Donald Sterling or Paula Deen levels. More like the levels of that non-controversy about how to pronounce The Emancipation Proclamation (http://uproxx.com/tv/2013/08/jeopardy-kids-week-contestant-says-he-was-cheated-by-alex-trebek-and-the-judges/). Big story for a few days, then we'll look back on this and shake our heads. Remember that Wheel contestant who fouled up those two puzzles and still won the game? Exactly.
-
Big story for a few days, then we'll look back on this and shake our heads.
Whether someone believes him or not, or if he meant what he said, what's going to happen? 4chan or Reddit or whatever isn't going to get him fired. If I only worked forty days a year and was coronated host of Wheel of Fortune for life, that's about 320 days where I can goof off and do wacky stuff. I suspect the most that happens is Harry says "hey, guy, slow your roll." And maybe Pat says "er, pass."
I think this nicely demonstrates who can take a joke and have a good laugh, and who chafes at it.
/bigger controversy is return of Bet on Your Baby.
-
FWIW, I did follow him on Twitter, but got a little tired of the constant political posts. I respect his conservatism, but I don't really care to read any celebrity's constant politicizing, left or right. It just gets repetitive after awhile.
Was this a while ago? I know he deleted his Twitter for a small period of time, but since he's come back, I haven't noticed it as much. He still does it, but I mostly find sarcastic jabs at everything else nowadays.
In any case, I'm all for a Woolery/Sajak ticket in 2016.
-
The post in question was yesterday, I believe.
-
Meh, it's an opinion and he has a right to express it. Just like everyone has the right to express their outrage. And the outrage to the outrage.
-
I find it surprising that anyone cares what Pat Sajak thinks in 2014.
-
I think this nicely demonstrates who can take a joke and have a good laugh, and who chafes at it.
/bigger controversy is return of Bet on Your Baby.
This. Those words are thrown around all the time by both sides of the political spectrum and Pat was just poking a little fun at that.
-
I also scratched my head at what Sajak said. And I consider myself pretty conservative.
Which is why I discuss politics and religion very little as a general rule on Facebook, for two main reasons. I find over the years that people that have a certain viewpoint on either side are very unlikely to change that viewpoint. Also, many of my FB Friends are in the animation, entertainment, TV or news industry, and some of them tend toward being liberal, and frankly their politics or religion are not why I am FB friends with them. I just read over some of their viewpoints. I told myself I'd never defriend someone purely because of their political leanings. Another thing..As conservative as I am, I can't stand Rush Limbaugh or most of that crowd on the radio talk shows..
-
Another thing..As conservative as I am, I can't stand Rush Limbaugh or most of that crowd on the radio talk shows..
I remember when Donna Summer died (which has been 2 years since), Rush Limbaugh said that "she was a right-wing conservative, one of us". He seemed to have based that on the fact that she became a born-again Christian, thinking there is no such thing as a liberal christian.
-
Stay tuned for the following hashtags to trend...
#cancelwheel
#shutupandhost
#bringbackBenirschke
/now removing tongue from cheek
-
#bringbackBenirschke
I'll get right on it. :-P
-
I told myself I'd never defriend someone purely because of their political leanings.
I absolutely have, and I'd do it again. Why should I just sit there and let someone shit all over my news feed because I "friended" them once? Why do I owe it to them to read their crap?
Nope, if your content is repeatedly subtracting from my Facebook experience, you're gone and I'll feel no remorse about it.
-
I think this nicely demonstrates who can take a joke and have a good laugh, and who chafes at it.
/bigger controversy is return of Bet on Your Baby.
This. Those words are thrown around all the time by both sides of the political spectrum and Pat was just poking a little fun at that.
Where's the fun? Where's the joke?
-
I absolutely have, and I'd do it again. Why should I just sit there and let someone shit all over my news feed because I "friended" them once? Why do I owe it to them to read their crap?
Nope, if your content is repeatedly subtracting from my Facebook experience, you're gone and I'll feel no remorse about it.
I've done it with people I agree with because they're so one-note about it.
I'll put up with a whole lot if the person is interesting or entertaining. I've also made extensive use of unsubscribe and "don't want to see" and the like, for people whose contributions seem to be limited to image macros and social game updates.
One of the challenging things is to be sufficiently interesting or clever on a regular enough basis to find things to post about that I think a quorum of people will care about. And I'm not quite sure I make that hurdle.
-
I've also found 'block' to be useful on FB in cases where I'm in a group and non-friends post content that is value-subtracted.
-
It takes a lot for me to defriend you, and if you usually offer something else that I'm okay with, then I might Unsubscribe. However, me disagreeing with you politically isn't enough to push me to that point. If I merely disagree with you, I can just scroll past. It's when I find your posts repetitive or offensive that I use Unsubscribe.
-
I remember Pat did a WOF-themed schtick on Twitter when Health Care Exchange started. That was actually kinda funny.
-
This may be a stretch, but it could be possible that "racist" entered the taunt because of a classic philosophy used by people who don't want to listen to any more of an exchange of ideas. Certain words are almost always debate stoppers, changing to arguments or angry silence on both sides. "Are you losing the debate? Shout "racist"!" Or "bigot". Or "homophobe". Or "Nazi." Having worked in a radio building that included an urban station, once someone didn't like you or your ideas and decided to call you "racist", even if the issue at hand had nothing to do with race, it was just a way of getting you to shut up because they were done listening. Both extreme sides of the climate issue have their minds set in cement and will not be open to different ideas. Pat may have just been using a variation of the tool he's probably been told when he disagrees with a zealot. After all, it wasn't that long ago that an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology suggested those who push and finance anti-climate change philosophies should be imprisoned. That's the only was I could see Pat's comment making any sense. Otherwise, he just may be a few letters short of a full alphabet.
-
I don't find that a valid excuse at all. Words Have Meanings.
My brother's girlfriend was killed in an accident three and a half years ago. Around that time one guy on a forum who doesn't get along with me (and is largely psycho) got into a heated discussion with me and because he didn't like my response, he called it an atrocity and a tragedy. I went off on him for using those words like they don't mean anything and specifically brought up the actual tragedy. Never used those words out of context again.
If you're gonna toss words like those around you better be damn sure those are intended properly.
-
Pat has tweeted and issued a statement (http://www.mediaite.com/online/pat-sajak-clears-up-twitter-controversy-i-was-just-trolling/) saying "Of course I was joking. Just mocking the name-calling that is directed at global warming skeptics within and without the scientific community.”
So BrandonFG was right in calling this a poorly executed trolljob. As someone who agrees with Pat politically, I even found the tweet to be uncharacteristically brash. His political tweets are usually more subtle and feature his trademark dry wit. But this one wasn't obvious that it was satire, especially to anyone who doesn't know Pat's sense of humor.
-
Pat has tweeted and issued a statement (http://www.mediaite.com/online/pat-sajak-clears-up-twitter-controversy-i-was-just-trolling/) saying "Of course I was joking. Just mocking the name-calling that is directed at global warming skeptics within and without the scientific community.”
So BrandonFG was right in calling this a poorly executed trolljob. As someone who agrees with Pat politically, I even found the tweet to be uncharacteristically brash. His political tweets are usually more subtle and feature his trademark dry wit. But this one wasn't obvious that it was satire, especially to anyone who doesn't know Pat's sense of humor.
Poorly executed ain't the word. Woefully underestimating the ability of the user to get the joke is more my speed.
The Internet and sarcasm aren't always interchangeable. :)
-
Thing is, I've always been impressed with Sajak's sense of humor. This one was a bizarre misfire, but the beauty of the polarized world that we live in is that you can still blame both sides. A lot of people are still going to say that Sajak crossed a line with his comments, no matter what the intent. Meanwhile, you can be sure that Sajak is thinking that a bunch of thin-skinned liberals didn't get the joke.
-
I like how one tweet is enough to qualify as a "rant" or "online outburst."
-Jason
That's actually the whole Internet for ya. I've been accused of whining just by saying hi, believe it or not