Internet Backdraft/Real Life/Politics


 * Politics in general. At this rate, it's harder to find a topic that doesn't cause this.
 * The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) bills, especially the former. When it was announced in Congress that they are trying to pass the bill, the entire internet exploded with rage, which is really understandable, considering the potentially unfortunate side effects it will cause (such as making any International communication nonexistent and putting sites like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and even This Very Wiki at risk). So many users of the internet had signed petitions, called their Representatives, among other things in an attempt to stop the bill from coming into pass. It certainly helps that, in this case, it's not just the ordinary users of the internet that are raging, but many of the companies responsible for running it as well.
 * One of the more interesting examples related to this is the GoDaddy.com boycott. GoDaddy intially supported the bill (they would later withdraw their support). The final result? A massive site-wide boycott of the company led by Reddit, which led to over 70,000 domains being moved from GoDaddy and they even declared December 29 "Move Your Domain Day".
 * And God help you if you actually support the bill, no matter what the reason is. Or even worse, don't even try to say that the opponents of the bill are a Vocal Minority that Did Not Do the Research. It doesn't help that supporters who do the latter (or both) either don't read the fine print or make false claims of people supporting the bill when they aren't just to get their point across.
 * It's always been said never to bring up politics or religion (or the Great Pumpkin) in polite conversation. This holds doubly true on the Internet, where political and religious discussion will often trigger some pretty massive flame wars, more so than any other topic you can think of. It is for this reason that discussions of political or religious topics are frowned upon, if not banned outright, in most forums that are not specifically about politics or religion.
 * Has happened numerous times on this very wiki!
 * Mention anything about The United States of America, and watch the Flame War crank Up to Eleven. Enough said.
 * Interesting to note that some of these argument are not necessarily Americans vs foreigners but Americans vs Americans. Yeah.
 * Generally, say that Ayn Rand has some good points in her Objectivism to anyone outside of that group. Or for a change, go to an Objectivist forum and comment that Alan Greenspan is a staunch believer, and had been following the laws set out by it until he retired.
 * Fox News Channel Or Faux News Channel? Are they really as "Fair and Balanced" as their tagline claims, or are the other news stations just as biased, if not more so? (It's really best if we leave it at that.)
 * Bring up any of the channel's pundits For Massive Damage.
 * Interestingly, most people don't realise Faux is pronounced "Foe", not "Fox."
 * Ditto for MSNBC.
 * The debate over MSNBC isn't about whether or not it's liberally biased (most fans agree it is), but whether or not it's as biased as Fox News. Some think it's a false equivalency as they believe Fox is way more biased. Either way you shouldn't bring the topic up in polite company.
 * CNN is a weird hybrid of both Fox and MSNBC according to some of the network's detractors. It's been accused of having a liberal bias from conservatives, and a conservative bias from liberals. Some Take a Third Option and say they're biased towards the status quo, In fact all the networks not Fox News (who's accused of conservative bias) are usually called biased towards the status quo of popular opinion. Excluding the ones that claim they're liberally biased mind you.
 * CNN has also been accused of pseudo centrism out of fear of being called bias. So they split the difference by being ineffectual journalists. Backdraft comes from arguments regarding whether or not being centrists is actually good reporting.
 * Is Michael Moore the brilliant director who pursues the issues that are being ignored by the media, or is he a talentless one-man propaganda machine?
 * Hell, anything vaguely related to Michael Moore. The only thing that might -- might -- not cause a fight is criticizing his push to have Fahrenheit 9/11 nominated for an Oscar. (It was ultimately shut out.)
 * Initially, this was not as contentious, since Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine were critically acclaimed and went after Acceptable Targets. Post-Fahrenheit, however, Moore has become far more contentious a subject, due to his increasingly Anvilicious documenting and Author Tracts.
 * A more mundane reason is that Moore is a lot more mainstream now compared to his low key indie days. Being mainstream generally = more detractors and defenders given how wider the audience is.
 * Global Warming. And it's not just the Internet.
 * Abortion, gay marriage, and every flamebait wedge issue that any and every politician spout about in order to turn out their base for an election.
 * The Romney vs. Huckabee wars went all through the primaries and on up until McCain picked someone else for his running mate.
 * Any kind of opinion on Ron Paul, especially the suggestion that his support was mainly Astroturf. Go into any forum with a political discussion related to the 2012 elections, say you think he's America's only hope who is constantly ignored or sidestepped by the media, the only decent Republican candidate or a manipulative overzealous fanatic who's followers are acting like a cult. Never come out sane again!
 * Within the Republican Party, there is much division on him. On domestic issues, a lot of mainstream Republicans find much to agree with Ron Paul, and respect his uncompromising defense of the US Constitution. But on foreign policy issues....hoo boy, just mentioning his foreign policy views results in a Flame War that could burn down the Amazon rainforest!
 * Unsurprisingly, Ron Paul's foreign policy issues and defense of the constitution and of personal liberties have found more supporters on the left, especially with former democrats who are disillusioned with Obama. However, in this spectrum, his social views(ie: closing the Department of Education and ending the Civil Rights act) results in the aforementioned Flame War.
 * By extension, Libertarians. The right thinks they're Democrats but with more drugs and prostitutes, and the left thinks they're Republicans with more worship of corporate overlords. Mention you are one pretty much anywhere but a Libertarian forum and prepare to be beaten down by both sides who will accuse you of being a sociopath either way.
 * The Newsletters: In the early 90s, Ron Paul's think tank began publishing The Ron Paul Investment Newsletter, featuring a number of articles printed under his name and bearing his signature. These articles included statements that Martin Luther King was a pedophile and that a holiday celebrating him was equal to "Hate-Whitey" day, that "only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions" and most were "barbarians", and that society was much better when homosexuals were forced to hide their activities. While Paul has disavowed the content of your letters, and it seems determined that much, if not all of the newsletters were ghostwritten, if you want to start another Ron Paul argument, try suggesting that A. It strains credulity that Paul didn’t write, didn’t read, and didn’t bother to check what was going out under his name (and making him money) or B. If that is the case, then that makes him a completely irresponsible manager.
 * Speaking of the Newsletters, there's a supposed leak by Anonymous that apparently ties Ron Paul with Neo-Nazi groups. Anonymous denies that they did it(or did they?) and it can't be found anywhere on their "Nazi leaks" site or any Anonymous-based site, which lead to claims that it was a setup by the government to ruin Ron Paul's image. Be extra careful when talking about this, especially when near Ron Paul supporters.
 * Ron Paul's delegate strategy is also a questionable issue. With many of his supporters disregarding the popular vote as a "beauty contest" and focusing solely on proportional delegates. Is it a fair strategy or it it based around cheating the delegate system in caucus states to stack the convention with a Vocal Minority and hope that there will be a brokered convention?
 * Speaking of the 2012 election, let's not forget Rick Perry's terrible(and now memetic) Strong ad. Basically, it amounted to delivering a Take That towards the fact that gays that are able to serve in the military, and somehow relates it back to the fact that Christian children can't pray in school, which would be all kinds of problematic in this day and age because, oh you know, there are people who either worship different religions or don't have one at all. This has caused a major uproar on the internet, as the ad amounted to hate speech to gays (while, hilariously, wearing a Brokeback Mountain-styled jacket) and other religions, and essentially stating that Freedom of Religion is overrated. Perry quickly became the most mocked candidate in America, soon leading to his exit from the race. Considering his reputation, few complained.
 * It should be noted that other than Ron Paul, none of the other GOP candidates are popular in the internet. Claim to support any GOP candidate other than Ron Paul anywhere on the Internet. Watch the thread burn.
 * Especially Rick Santorum. The fact that he was an initial SOPA supporter (he tried to defend certain aspects of the bill in the Florida debate) and his views on race, same-sex marriage, birth control, pornography, college education and women's rights doesn't help things either. Neither does being listed as one of the corrupt politicians in 2005.
 * Rush Limbaugh's opinions on Sandra Fluke and contraception, and his conclusion that she must be a slut if she wants free contraception. The ensuing responses by other Republicans made it worse, with enough Unfortunate Implications that many have concluded that Republicans are actively trying to revert the social standing of women in America to medieval levels. And good Lord if you actually agree with them...
 * Anything having to do with Israel and the Palestinians. Better yet, be Jewish AND critical of Israel. You'll be more or less called a self-hating Jew.
 * Similarly, anything relating to the War On Terror, Islam, The Arab Spring, US-[Insert Country Here] relations, or anything related to the Middle East in general.
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton on...anything, really. Just mentioning her name will summon the hordes.
 * Actually, since the 2008 election she's become a far less contentious figure, especially after the media started framing her as the more "moderate" alternative to ultra-liberal Obama (whether this is actually true, Your Mileage May Vary, and we probably shouldn't get into it here). During the 2008 primaries, she famously accused Obama of being naive and unrealistic, and presented herself as being much more grounded and tougher. Conservatives and moderates who'd previously despised Hillary found themselves gradually warming up to her, much to everyone's surprise...even they were surprised at themselves! Even if they still didn't like her opinions on domestic issues, many people found that they could at least respect her, especially on foreign policy issues, where she was seen as being a tough negotiator (which is arguably a big part of the reason she was appointed Secretary of State). As Secretary of State, she's maintained that tough reputation, and now has a higher approval rating than the President she works for!
 * Her surprising rise in popularity has gotten to the point where in a recent opinion piece, the Huffington Post mournfully fantasized about Hillary running for President again in 2012 and replacing Obama as the Democratic nominee.
 * Whether or not any given currently- or recently-active politician qualifies as a "dictator", particular hotspots being George Bush, Vladimir Putin, Ariel Sharon, Stephen Harper, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, anyone who has led China since Mao Zedong, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak(through since his downfall in the Arab Spring, it's easier to call him a dictator), whose talkpage on The Other Wiki is clogged up by this very debate, including a nice little discussion on whether or not Parade magazine has any say in the matter of who is "officially" a dictator.
 * And speaking of China... just don't bring up China. Ever. Unless you want a China vs. Tibet or China vs. America flamewar, that is.
 * DO NOT bring up Taiwan. Just. Don't. Or the moniker "Chinese Taipei", but the correct terminology is "Republic of China".
 * And please, don't talk about the Holocaust. Especially on a site populated by Central/Eastern Europeans.
 * On the same note, it's often declared that you can't call anything other than the Jewish Holocaust a holocaust, even if it fits the definition and there is a distinction of capitalization. This goes for anything that may have been called such even before World War II. Saying something is remotely near the horror of the Jewish Holocaust will also have others jump on you and call you hateful names. You'll never live it down.
 * Case in point the decimation of Native American tribes, and American Slavery.
 * The Irish Question: Need we say more? Look at these comments, if you dare...
 * David Morgan-Mar once observed that you can't make fun of any politician but you can make fun of politicians as much as you wish.
 * Two words: Sarah Palin. Even if you mention her name in a fairly politically homogeneous setting, you're likely to get blasted across the Web by flames as soon as someone either implies that she isn't the savior of the Republican Party or suggests that she has any redeeming qualities whatsoever.
 * This goes back to well before the 2008 election; she's been a fairly polarizing figure for most of her political career. It's just that the election brought her to national/international attention.
 * Gun control. Whatever side you are on in the debate...You will never win.
 * Bring up 9/11 conspiracy theories, either for or against. Supporters and detractors will come out of the woodwork, and the discussion will get personal within the page.
 * Accusing a politician, or anybody in general, of being a racist. Hoo boy.
 * Alternately, accuse a racist of being a racist. In the ensuing discussion, see how long it takes to fill out the Bingo card.
 * Alternatively wait for some one to call YOU a racist when you point out perceived racism. Which causes a flame war within the flame war.
 * It's called hijacking the topic, or diverting the topic to avoid the discussion.
 * Any political ideology which has been subjected to divergent approaches and/or applications. Examples include communism, socialism (which is a very popular word these days), anarchism and so on.
 * Asking which country is socialist is like bringing a flamethrower. Is communism what China does? What the USSR did? What North Korea (and Stalin) did? Who was a true communist: Lennin, Trotsky or Stalin? Is Kruschev a revisionist for de-stalinizing the USSR or a hero for doing so?
 * Whether or not The War on Drugs is a hopeless battle, racially biased, or even a just cause.
 * The government of Canada recently partnered with Google to allow people to submit questions to the Prime Minister via the Internet. Turns out the Canadian Internet doesn't like the Prime Minister all that much, but absolutely loves weed.
 * Ditto with the American Internet -- when YouTube accepted questions for a live interview with Barack Obama, one of the most popular questions was about his stance on legalization of illicit drugs.
 * Are you in Chile? Do NOT ask people about the 1973 Coup d'etat. Or about Pinochet and Allende. Even the most polite Chileans will go up in arms about what happened in the years that either preceded it or followed it.
 * Sebastian Piñera, as the first right-wing President after 20 years of left wing governments, is becoming more and more of a wank magnet.
 * You want another kind of flame war? Ask anyone living in there which hero of the Independence Process is the Chilean hero: Bernardo O'Higgins, Jose Miguel Carrera, or Manuel Rodriguez. Make the question, sit down, and hope the enormous flames won't reach you.
 * Don't talk about Chile in front of Argentinians, Pervians or Bolivans (and vice versa). Especially in the case for the Peruvians and Bolivians since these two countries have a huge grudge against Chileans for more than 130 years.
 * People playing The Race Card. And the term it self as far as how people use it as a sort of "equalizer" against people who claims racism.
 * Is bringing up race issues a great way to have a open dialog on race? Or are said people "race baiting"?
 * The Death Penalty and any issue that is considered one of the right-to-life issues. Abortion was already mentioned, the others are contraception, euthanasia, war, cruel and unusual punishment, and, sometimes, self-defense (although most RTLers will make an exception for that last one).
 * Anything having to do with Turkey, Armenia, Greece, Macedonia or Azerbaijan. Can't even have an innocent, non-confrontational music video on Youtube from one of the countries sometimes without a flame war in the comments. Of course the countries all have a very complicated history with each other.
 * Whether or not desegregation ended up being actually bad for black cities and neighborhoods in hindsight. Some think it was a double edged sword.
 * The 2009 Iranian election is notable for causing massive Internet Backdraft directed at a single source: the Iranian government. So much that Hillary Clinton ordered Twitter to stay running so that people in Iran could tweet what was happening. Sadly, it was a real life Shoot the Shaggy Dog ending...
 * Are we in a "post racial" society because of Obama's presidency, Or is that some liberal fantasy that naive people desperately wants to believe in so they can avoid confronting racial issues? Or is it a conservative fantasy which is cover for junking all political correctness and giving everyone N-Word Privileges?
 * Or both?
 * Is transcending race about moving past our differences and coming together, Or is that a weasel word that really means ignore the cultural/racial problems and not talk about them?
 * Professional women and working mothers vs. Stay at home moms/homemakers. The latter sees the former as a bunch of self centered, judgmental, elitists. The former see the latter as a bunch of lazy, uneducated gold diggers who have no real ambition and set feminism back due to their acceptance of society's misogynistic gender roles. On the surface this does seem like conservatism and liberalism at war again. But both sides can actually fall on either side of the ideological spectrum, so it definitely goes much deeper than socio-politics. The problem here seems to be that some women genuinely believe that a woman's job is family rearing. (in the literal sense of having a family instead of a career), despite how politically incorrect that is. While Professional women...don't. This caused many a flame war on feminist type message boards.
 * The problem is that when some women got the taste of having a career they liked it, and found it more fulfilling then domestic life. While other women preferred domestic life. The backdraft itself comes from each side trying to prove that one of these decisions is the supreme ultimate goal of women. For whatever reason it can never be both.
 * A microcosm of this is whether or not there's truly a glass ceiling anymore, and whether or not the lack of women in high positions and high paying jobs has more to do with lack of interest among women.
 * There's also a double standard regarding stay at home fathers, this tends to be perpetuated by both genders. Is it ok for a man to be a stay at home parent or not?
 * Do people (specifically minorities, especially blacks) who exclusively date out side their race just have a "preference"? Or perhaps people who just date what ever race is of convenience due to their job, and or environment not having any significant amount of men/women of the same race? Or are they just a Boomerang Bigot whom are just making up excuses as to why they don't date their own race?
 * Alternatively is there a Double Standard when it comes to black men who date outside their race? Which is to say it is seen in a negative light. As oppose to black women who date out side their race? Either answer you give will melt your face off. The Blame Game around I.R. dating in the black community can get rather disgusting. To wit:
 * A microcosm of this is the debates over who dates whites the most (or any none black people), black men or black women?
 * Do MOST well off black men date white women?, or is people cherry picking examples?
 * The reason some black women give for overlooking BW/WM couples is because as hetero women they're naturally more concerned about the loss of potential black male partners to white women, more so than the loss of black women to white men. But is this a valid reason?, Or a waaay too convenient cop out?
 * Then there's the debate over whether or not black women are "whining" about it too much vs the "STOP TRYING TO TELL BLACK WOMEN TO SHUT UP ABOUT THIS!!" crowd.
 * Black men give sexist, racist, reasoning for not wanting to date black women vs "BUT BLACK WOMEN DO THE SAME!!!" debates.
 * Is it ok for blacks and browns to mix?, or is that no different then dating a white person?
 * Then there's debates on whom has a monopoly on suffering in the black community men or women? Some Take a Third Option and say this argument is like 2 one legged athletes complaining about how harder they have it then the other person in a ass kicking contest.
 * preference or self hatred?, depending on your gender this could be acceptable or a deplorable excuse.
 * The same can be said for White people with a strong preference for another race - whether they truly just find certain features attractive or if it's based on ethnic stereotypes. People generally don't like when you suggest their personal preferences in romance/sex are based on some sort of -ism.
 * Never, ever, post anything even tangentially related to Chechnya or Chechen people on Youtube. Even if it's the bubbliest, most benign Chechen language pop song you could possibly conceive of, it will turn into a huge flamewar over the Russian-Chechen wars. (Actually, same applies to just about any other post-Soviet area, especially if it's being contested like Kosovo.)
 * What side of the political spectrum the Nazi's were.
 * In Germany rightwing-extremism (Rechtsextremismus) is used as a synonym for nationalsocialism and fascism. Just saying.
 * Bringing up the Nazi's in general is a bad, bad idea. Even mentioning them in passing is the small spark that starts fires.
 * Trying to place any specified culture, or people of a specified skin color, on a single part of the political spectrum. A huge chunk of southern black voters have been called DINO's by others, including by other blacks, as many of the former have conservative Christian social views which the latter believe are more in line with the GOP. Some claim that these voters have come out in droves to vote against gay marriage, and that doing so involves undermining issues concerning African Americans by proxy when they vote republican. This issue can be a HUGE inferno if brought up in the right places.
 * Then there's the issue of homosexuals, and homophobia which the black community generally don't like to talk about openly.
 * This polarization within the black community reared it's ugly head the moment Obama came out in support of same sex marriage. The mushroom cloud could be seen from sub-orbit.
 * By extension some female and minority groups (and even some white people) cant comprehend that there are females and minorities who will vote with their political/Moral beliefs in mind, over issues specifically related to their Gender/Race. But of course vise versa as well. This can cause nuclear fall out when discussed. Mostly people arguing over whether or not issues regarding their gender/race/and sexual orientation are more important then voting for "moral values" or any other conservative agenda. Which is why some have considered themselves to be "closeted" republicans/social-conservatives, and refuse to give their true political beliefs. Almost like a version of Beneath the Mask of sorts.
 * Doubly so if the person is a minority, female, and or homosexual dem/liberal who is voting conservative solely because of a Single-Issue Wonk.
 * In Mexico, mention that Andrés Manuel López Obrador should have been president in 2006 in any news portal or at any forum with a large Mexican presence, and prepare for a good Carne Asada, as threads will always get derailed back and forth by the sole mention of his name.
 * Who was the best president of Mexico? Just the question (implied or directly asked) is arson in forums. Also, NEVER mention the presidents Gustavo Díaz Ordaz to Carlos Salinas de Gortari. And don't talk about the "change" (that in itself is debatable) in Mexican politics after Fox became president. And don't mention Felipe Calderón with the War on Drugs: is he making a fairly good job at being president or is he failing for not being able to stop the drug lords? In fact, never mention Mexican politics ANYWHERE.
 * Whether or not the legal/justice system is just, fair and or unbiased. This especially gets volatile when class, gender, age, and race is brought up. People think if you don't have money for good defense you're basically screwed (especially if your a poor minority), If your a female people tend to think you'll just get a slap on the wrist (unless it's one of those equally controversial lengthy drug sentences). There's tons of Flame Bait arguments for and against these debates.
 * For fun, mention the phrase "activist judge(s)" and watch the fireworks.
 * Racial Profiling
 * Whether or not the news media can be effective while being objective, Or is objectivity a Golden Mean Fallacy that benefits no one?
 * Some winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, especially if they're not exactly known for being peaceful.
 * In particular, Al Gore and Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 and 2009 respectively are the biggest examples of Internet Backdraft in this issue. However, this is only because the internet was in its infancy in 1994, when the prize was more properly the "did not kill each other half as much this year as you did last year" prize and went to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin.
 * Going back to pre-Internet times, the awarding of the prize to Henry Kissinger was described by Tom Lehrer as proof that satire could not keep up with reality.
 * Speaking of politics in the black community: There's also contention within the black community over whether or not Obama is shortchanging blacks because he knows they're gonna vote for him anyway.
 * In general there's also polarization on whether or not he's compromising too much. And whether or not he's more of a moderate than a real liberal. Or is he just weak, and afraid to look like he's not being bi-partisan?
 * This is also polarizing among his black voting base as well. With some black Hillary Clinton supporters and black independents saying "I Told You So" to the black dissenters. And others whom are still loyal to Obama no matter what vs the ones whom are starting to be vocal against him because of the aforementioned reasons. This can get REAL nasty on and off the internet. Even among black journalists/political analysts etc it gets dicey. A jarring example would be the backlash from some blacks against Cornell West. A guy that was at one point very respected in the black community, now he's a polarizing figure because of his critique of Obama.
 * Is it racist to be a progressive critic of Obama who happens to be white?
 * This is incredibly ironic cause as it's been already pointed out above, Clinton supporters think Obama's too liberal. Just don't go to a liberal message board and say that to disgruntled Obama supporters.
 * Call something "communist" in Europe, (especially Germany) or "socialist" in the US. And don't say that raising the age on which you can retire is a good idea.
 * Ask whether life has changed for better or worse in post-Communist Eastern Europe.
 * Bring up the role of the Balkans in WW 2 in any online outlet vaguely related to the Balkans, Germany or (perhaps most specifically) Russia. Lithuanians and the like will point out that Russia's treatment of the Balkan states pre-war was so bad, that it made Nazi collaboration the best option. Russians will retort with the fact pro-Nazi militias from the Balkans were so enthusiastic about the Holocaust, they were sent to commit mass murders the German command felt would de-moralize even the hyper-loyal Waffen SS units.
 * Lithuania and the Balkans? You sure mean the Baltics, where Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia lies.
 * The Occupy movement as a whole, and Occupy Wall Street in particular. Say you agree or disagree with it's motives on a political site. Have fun!
 * Want to add insult to injury? Claim to support the movement on a Conservative or Right-Wing fourm if you're brave enough and see what happens....(you might be able to get away with saying it in a Ron Paul-related fourm through, given the fact that some of the occupiers are Ron Paul supporters and that he himself supports the movement.)
 * Alternatively, say whether it works as a leaderless movement or that it needs a leader, or claim that it's dead or that it's become no more than a recurring nuisance following the eviction notices.
 * Likewise, The Tea Party for the same reasons. The backlash generated to both of these groups has lead to some people(mostly Ron Paul supporters) claiming that both groups should unite against a common, shared enemy(big government and corporations). However, the "unification" argument is another heated point of debate on it's own....
 * If you assert that it is fundamentally racist because Obama is less strongly Liberal than Clinton but Bill Clinton didn't get called a Socialist, then you obviously don't understand how things really are. But if you assert that the Tea Party is not racist because its membership really is fed up with a government and a Republican Party which seems to take them for granted and never pursue things that they'd lie to see done, then you're a lying apologist.
 * Mention the idea that the last President of the United States to be a Conservative was Bill Clinton, because he didn't spend money the country didn't have.
 * Asser that the Tea Party is or is not about race.
 * Gentrification...
 * Internet Piracy as a whole, ties into the backdraft for SOPA/PIPA (see above).
 * ACTA and the TPP can cause topics to heat up like wildfire. And NEVER panic and post when you see this video about ACTA.
 * Thing is, both ACTA and the TPP's effects on the US internet are slightly overblown - ACTA's been watered down to be less effective than America's DMCA (itself a cause of Internet Backdraft), and the TPP is essentially an export of the DMCA - considering that the Copyright Alert systyem is going into force, its own disconnection laws are likely to be removed just like ACTA's were. Both are bad, make no mistake, but both are much, much less worse than SOPA and PIPA.
 * Was the shutdown of Megaupload justified? Be extra careful when talking about this in forums.
 * Anything about Anonymous. More specifically, The Internet "hacktivist" group known as Anonymous. Have fun being utterly burned by discussions about whether they are a good cause rebelling against an Corrupt Capitalist Empire, or a bunch of destructive Ax Crazy overzealous, cult-like cyber-terrorists only trying to get Media Attention. Don't ask!
 * HR 1981, which was written by the same person who wrote SOPA. The bill is meant to fight child porngraphy, but many fear its true purpose is to collect information every time you use your credit card, every time you read your bank statement, ALL of your IP information, and your search history for the last 18 months, making it incredibly vulnerable to hackers. The many people who saw though the Think of the Children facade were not pleased.
 * The bill seems to be one of the last things on any Congressman/woman's mind, fortunately. Smith tried to get a similar and worse bill that would retain the same information for far, far longer, a few years ago, and it wasn't even given a full hearing in the house. The same fate seems to have befallen HR 1981. And no, the Union Calendar isn't a full scheduling of what they'll vote on. It's actually ANOTHER committee, which will probably change the bill.
 * Oh, and one Redditor took it upon himself do actually do the research on the bill - Turns out a lot of the stuff people panicked about either wasn't there or is in laws that are already in effect. Whether this is relieving to know it's not the Big Brother analog people who Did Not Do the Research claimed it was, or if it's Paranoia Fuel that a lot of the parts that seem awful in it are already in effect is up to you. All it will do is harshen the penalties for anyone caught distributing child porn and set a baseline for IS Ps to keep info. There is nothing in the law that says IS Ps must/can voluntarily give info to the government - the protection given to IS Ps is protection from lawsuits by users if/when the info is stolen by hackers or identity thieves. Corporations also can't look at said info. A warrant or subpoena is still required if the government wants to see someone's data - which is exactly how it is now, and still requires a court order and probable cause - and there will be no-one in the IS Ps or government who will be tasked with looking over each and every piece of data for something suspicious. Make sure you spread the word about these actual facts on HR 1981. It's bad, all right, since it has the "precrime" attitude written all over it, but it's not SOPA 2.0. Also, the EU and UK have similar data retention laws, and yet most EU and UK tropers haven't been arrested - hell, those laws are being repealed as we speak.
 * Also, the fact that ABC, which is owned by Disney, which was one of SOPA's key supporters, ran an article on it back in 2011 means that even the big media corporations are against this bill.
 * Oh, and it doesn't store people's browsing history.
 * Also, an "unregistered sex offender" - which is the only thing an administrative subpoena, which does not require probable cause, is allowed to be used on - is someone who has been convicted of a sex crime, but failed to place themselves on a registry, which is another crime entirely and unrelated to someone suspected of being a sex offender - most often, it's someone who moved to a new state, but failed to put themselves on that state's sex offender registry. This means most of the internet is in the clear.
 * As of now, it seems to have been removed from the Union Calendar - meaning it's not scheduled for any debates.
 * Whether or not the Democrats is a true liberal party, Or are they Republican-Lite.
 * And by extension has the Republican party moved too far to the right. Even among Republican this ls polarizing. Interestingly enough some think the repubs purged the party of moderates. Whom are now in the ranks of the dems moving the party to the center right. Much to the chagrin of progressive/liberal dems.
 * The Tea Party. Is it a bunch of racists who are angry that a black man is President, or do they have legitimate grievances? Nothing like them happened last time a Democrat was president, and Clinton pursued and enacted more staunch Liberal policies than Obama, yet he didn't get called Socialist, Muslim, or have news networks and political movements dedicated to defeating him.
 * Bring up how the average Tea Party member is older, white, better educated, and wealthier than the average American and then call them out on being a bunch of bigots who are more upset over race than having any legitimate political grievance.
 * Major IS Ps, effictively July 1 will act as hollywood's personal guards. People are not happy.
 * It's not as bad as Europe's existing "three strikes" laws, fortunately. In addition, an article here states: "Those not engaging in file-sharing on P2P networks will probably notice very little (cyberlocker sharing is not covered), apart from ultimately having to help finance the scheme through their ISP bills." That said, since a lot of users DO use torrents...
 * Ironically, the Copyright Alert System is one of the biggest reasons why ACTA isn't going to be as bad as it once was, and will likely prevent similar measures to SOPA/PIPA from surfacing any time soon. It's the lesser of three evils, one might say.
 * To put it bluntly, the CAS will make civil copyright infringement something that IS Ps will police - without disconnecting or arresting people.
 * Any effort by a politician or lawyer to effectively tie mature media (especially video games) with real-life violence and/or sexual deviancy and the corresponding moves to restrict or ban such mediums are met with rather livid responses, particularly among gamers or anyone well-versed in the fact that there's no correlation between the two.
 * Bill Clinton. Good president? Great president? Worst president? Unfairly hurt by something not at all related to his policies? Bring some marshmallows.
 * Like SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA, CISPA has come under fire, although the current version of the bill is far less bad than the original. The worrying Quayle amendment is also overblown, as A): ISPS can already voluntarily share data relating to the the abduction and/or abuse of minors and the threat of bodily harm or death to an individual, and B): Much like the rest of the bill, ISPS and the government cannot mine data for these. However, if data relevant to the abduction of and/or abuse of a minor or a death threat appears in legitimately obtained cyberthreat data, it can be used to bolster it.
 * In addition, the Democrat-controlled senate and President Obama aren't too fond of the bill, and are unlikely to pass it in its current form. The one that's likely to pass, a bill by Joseph Lieberman, is, while far from being perfect, far better when it comes to privacy protections. All that one needs is its own "Quayle Amendment" to narrow its scope.
 * And Lieberman-Collins doesn't seem very likely to pass - the Republicans are opposing it, albeit for the wrong reasons, and even the Democrats are fractured about it. As for CISPA? It's not even likely to be put on the Senate floor.
 * Simply say "George W. Bush" and start digging your grave.
 * The Brazilian political cartoonist Carlos Latuff, especially if you bring up his views and cartoons on the US and Israel.