Three words: groupthink, confirmation bias.

Two words: damned HTTP!

(Sorry for the duplicate post; having connectivity issues.)

Voted checkbox.

[quote="WootBot"]Whatever side you take, you have to agree they're a polarizing force in American politics: a "love it or hate it" kind of choice in the utmost extreme.[/quote]

Why, no, I do not agree. Anyone who does has merely fallen for the demagoguery.

The Tea Party has labeled 'violent' many times, accused of inciting violence (remember how Gabrielle Giffords started out as a violent tea party story before dying off as soon as facts came out about the shooter), but there has been nothing violent about the Tea party whatsoever. However, now it's okay to put conservatives in a game and literally shoot at them? Who's inciting violence?

typical double standard...i wasn't a real fan of the tea party until the recent rants by maxine (go to hell) waters & jimmy (sob) hoffa jr...then i realized the enemy of my enemy might just be my friend!

If I ever become a zombie, I wouldn't find it offensive for someone to want to shoot me. No hard feelings in that. This game is about extending a hand across the aisle...to grab a shotgun and protect your fellow Americans from the zombie hoard regardless of their political affiliation! If they weren't zombies, then yeah it would probably be a bit offensive.

I would like to know the backstory to this game... why did only the conservatives get infected?

At least it is only a game, unlike letting real guns go to real violent people who use them to kill other people, all to show how easy it is to get guns in America. Which it wouldn't be if the ATF and AG were following the law. There are some elected and appointed civil servants who should be in jail for complicity in murder. The sooner the better.

Nice post, Wootbot. I like your take on it.

I agree with whatshisface up there above me somewheres...nice post. I am annoyed with the whole us v. them mentality no matter what form it takes. When did politics turn into a high-stakes form of high-school football rivalry?

WootBot wrote:And I can say with 100% certainty that if some firm put out the exact same game but swapped out Tea Party Zombies for Liberal figureheads like Obama, Al Franken, et. al. there would be a big discussion about how this is too far and insensitive, etc. etc.

You are 100% correct.

In the same way I am re-thinking my purchase of Pepsi products (StarvingEyes clients), I have to re-think my participation in Woot.

As a Tea Partier, and an ardent Conservative, I'd prefer Woot steer clear of political discussion. However, I appreciate that this blog post was fair and a legitimate examination of a current event which is appalling and should be equally condemned by all, no matter political affiliation.

Look, no matter how much I detest Obama, Pelosi, or George Soros, I'd never advocate violence toward them in any manner, much less revel in their simulated demise. I don't know anybody within my circles who would.

I do appreciate Wootbot recognizing the imbalance in the media. If something remotely similar to that had come from the right, there'd be a Congressional investigation and a loop on MSNBC decrying it.

Thanks.

When is the Woot deal on hyperbole? It seems there's plenty of inventory, I'm sure we can get a volume discount.

JDTucker wrote:In the same way I am re-thinking my purchase of Pepsi products (StarvingEyes clients), I have to re-think my participation in Woot.

Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Seriously, if you think the capitalists at Woot have some political agenda bent on destroying America, either you're delusional or a little too delicate for the real world.

America really needs to do better. This zombie game really is inappropriate. Everybody knows that Democrats make better zombies--they've got the whole they're-giving-your-money-to-the-welfare-masses meme. Republicans are much more like vampires, with a small number of people hypnotizing and parasitically draining the rest of us.

But seriously... as much as I think the Tea Party is America's biggest social/political problem (mostly for the GOP, ironically), advocating violence to settle disagreements--even in jest--is never right.

Gee, when did Wooters turn from apolitical geeks to neo-con Tea party supporters as the bunch above?

The Tea Party is simply representative democracy at work, possibly at it's best, like minded people banding together because they share common ideals. If anyone has unresolvable issues with Tea Partiers, or Liberals or Conservatives, or Libertarians, maybe you should go live in some backward thocracy where everything is perfect and there's no need for any different ideas. I don't agree with shooting zombified Tea Party leaders, but I will defend to the death your right to do it....

jordteic wrote:The Tea Party has labeled 'violent' many times, accused of inciting violence (remember how Gabrielle Giffords started out as a violent tea party story before dying off as soon as facts came out about the shooter), but there has been nothing violent about the Tea party whatsoever. However, now it's okay to put conservatives in a game and literally shoot at them? Who's inciting violence?

you are 100% correct.

The "Targets" the author mentioned about Sarah Palin...what a joke. Either he's completely ignorant to campaign/election lingo or he's intellectually dishonest. Sadly, he's like so many other people on the left. For YEARS people in opposing districts have been "targeted". Google it yourself, people. Democrats have used the exact same target symbols that Palin used. Heck there is even one democrat who actually made a campaign video where it shoes the republican from the barrel a sniper rifle.

And now a game about murdering republicans? Seriously...just imagine if some young Republicans made a video game where they were shooting democrats with shotguns. Liberals and Democrats (and most likely the author of this article) would go absolutely APESH**.

olperfesser wrote:Gee, when did Wooters turn from apolitical geeks to neo-con Tea party supporters as the bunch above?

What exactly is a "neo con Tea Party supporter"? Do they even exist? Isn't a neo-con someone who believes in nation building and spending billions to restructure other countries? Aren't tea partiers more like Libertarians in that they want to cut government spending and pretty much leave other countries alone unless confrontation isn't avoidable?

rrusson wrote:

But seriously... as much as I think the Tea Party is America's biggest social/political problem

It's people with your mindset that will be the downfall of this country. Government spending needs to be slashed across the board.

The Tea Party is absolutely correct about this. You are one of those who bought into the media characterization of who the typical "tea party" person is and what they stand for.

chadchadderson wrote:you are 100% correct.

The "Targets" the author mentioned about Sarah Palin...what a joke. Either he's completely ignorant to campaign/election lingo or he's intellectually dishonest. Sadly, he's like so many other people on the left. For YEARS people in opposing districts have been "targeted". Google it yourself, people. Democrats have used the exact same target symbols that Palin used. Heck there is even one democrat who actually made a campaign video where it shoes the republican from the barrel a sniper rifle.

1. Learn to comprehend what you read before you decide to be offended by it. You "attacked" my post by making the exact same point my post did.

2. I know it's the Internet and all, but just because you say some stuff and maybe even believe it doesn't make it true.

It would be pure entertainment if it encompassed all of the zombies that infest DC, not just those on one side of the aisle. Curious lack of coverage of this in the national press, though.

"you have to agree they're a polarizing force in American politics:"

Um, no, I don't. The term "polarizing" is thrown around by the left-leaning media because they are polar opposites of Palin/Bachmann. Obama is seen as a uniting figure, once again, because of their left-leaning politics. In reality, Obama is polarizing to half of the voters in the country, but like a fish who don't know he is wet, the media cannot understand that.

Or, more decidedly, they understand EXACTLY what they are doing - and CAN'T BELIEVE they're getting away with it! Ya' big dummies...

For the record, my personal ideology falls somewhere between Pat Buchanan and Ayn Rand and I have no particular problem with this game aside from the fact that it does look utterly terrible. But I definitely agree that a) even if they have a point, Tea-haters--like Dawkinite atheists--manage to be far more obnoxious than their opponents and b) had the zombies been left-wing figures there would be a massive, utterly sanctimonious outcry from the scions of Marat (the OP's allusion to the immediately-fabricated "link" between Palin and the Giffords shooter being an excellent example of mass media confirmation bias at work).

I do like rrusson's idea of Democrat zombies versus Republican vampires. That game would be pretty sweet.

mschulte59 wrote:"you have to agree they're a polarizing force in American politics:"

Um, no, I don't.

Gotta disagree here, the mere fact that this game exists is ample evidence that they are at least somewhat polarizing. Not that there's any shortage of other polarizing entities these days, as sane decision-making and management aptitude seems to have been entirely replaced by nothing but rhetoric. Which, incidentally is why I must also applaud Woot for bringing the issue up...the tendency for normal people to avoid talking politics is one of the biggest reasons the system is now infested with idealogues. It's like the French Revolution, if people are afraid or unwilling to address the issues in the open then nobody will keep the zealots in check.

Do you know why most businesses don't make public political statements? Because you always honk off at least half your customer base.

When you feel you have to make excuses and apologize for defending people subject to murder OMGOMGOMGPONIESOMG PONIES!, you had better examine your own political beliefs seriously, not to mention the political allies you were so afraid of offending that you felt the need to engage in your own divisive rhetoric and spread lies.

Yes, the level of mislead in "when Sarah Palin was putting crosshairs on government officials' homes" rises to that of a "lie." You're referring to ideologically-driven coverage of campaign maps showing districts the group intended to target for extra effort - a process and a metaphor that is common to any party and goes back decades if not centuries.

Whatever position you claim to take on the increasing anger of the political process, you're not helping.

I'm sorry but that is a OMGOMGOMGPONIESOMG PONIES! word to censor out.

Sure doesn't help communication any.

thebruecks wrote:typical double standard...i wasn't a real fan of the tea party until the recent rants by maxine (go to hell) waters & jimmy (sob) hoffa jr...then i realized the enemy of my enemy might just be my friend!

+1

Hypocrisy running wild. If they made Barack and Michelle Obama zombies the OMGOMGOMGPONIESOMG PONIES! stream media would be crying bloody murder. We need to curb the violent talk within both parties. Politics is supposed to incite 'conversation' not violence. meh.

This reminds me of a favorite science fiction world where there were only 2 crimes:
1. to offend anyone
2. to be too easily offended
I like these rules and I'm pretty sure that at least one is being broken.

Woot, Thanks for a non-opinionated post on a topic related to a political issues. It is refreshing and rare on the interwebz these days.

mschulte59 wrote:"you have to agree they're a polarizing force in American politics:"

Um, no, I don't. The term "polarizing" is thrown around by the left-leaning media because they are polar opposites of Palin/Bachmann. Obama is seen as a uniting figure, once again, because of their left-leaning politics. In reality, Obama is polarizing to half of the voters in the country, but like a fish who don't know he is wet, the media cannot understand that

"Polarizing" does not mean what you seem to think it means.

Isn't that the exact same rhetoric they took so much heat for when Sarah Palin was putting crosshairs on government officials' homes?

Interested about this line since it never happened. Trying to figure out if it was a subtle joke that I missed.

As for the game, it's just another desperate reaction to the fact that the left is losing the power they assumed they'd be holding for generations just three years ago.

VivianC wrote:Interested about this line since it never happened. Trying to figure out if it was a subtle joke that I missed.

I'm not super informed on the issue, so maybe you can help. Wasn't Palin aware of this map:

bsmith1 wrote:why did only the conservatives get infected?

Perhaps the zombie virus only works on people with brains?

I keed I keed....

mschulte59 wrote:"you have to agree they're a polarizing force in American politics:"

Um, no, I don't. The term "polarizing" is thrown around by the left-leaning media because they are polar opposites of Palin/Bachmann. Obama is seen as a uniting figure, once again, because of their left-leaning politics. In reality, Obama is polarizing to half of the voters in the country, but like a fish who don't know he is wet, the media cannot understand that.

Or, more decidedly, they understand EXACTLY what they are doing - and CAN'T BELIEVE they're getting away with it! Ya' big dummies...

QFT

disagree? == polarizing
agree? == uniting

Too true...

dilbertdogbert wrote:Perhaps the zombie virus only works on people with brains?

I keed I keed....

Ha ha, nicely done! I was thinking they all caught it from a bad batch of mountain oysters at one of their rallies.