Do they think he's reading their shÃ*t?
I've answered my own question there, I suppose.
Do they think he's reading their shÃ*t?
I've answered my own question there, I suppose.
Never mind that, someone's rattled Lineker's cage again. :-( He's virtue-signalling like a mofo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
"I will continue to speak up for refugees and immigrants and British values of tolerance and free speech. I won't be bullied by them."
He seems to have developed some sort of Messianic complex, the jug-eared yîd cünt.
did anyone respond to the loathsome **** about him ****ting himself?
They normally do, so I imagine so.Quote:
Originally Posted by IUFG
I'm man enough to admit I have no idea what virtue signaling is.
That's probably a good thing, right?
That might be due to the Daily Mail slagging the tax dodging big eared **** off todayQuote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Think Ian Harvey on Facebook. "Look at me calling Theresa May a nazi and weeping about homeless people. LOOK HOW MUCH MORE VIRTUOUS I AM THAN YOU!"Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
I do sometimes wonder if there's anyone left in the western world who still understands that someone having a political mindset somewhat to the right of yours doesn't actually make them a fascist or a Nazi. Only I've noticed that it's now become just a given in certain circles that Trump definitely IS a fascist and that if you don't agree, that probably means you're one, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
I remember when fascists WERE fascists.
Everyone understands that but the charge winds people up no end. Silly not to lay it on a thickly as possible, under those circs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Yes, they have debased the word 'racist' to me 'someone who disagrees with me', and now the label 'fascist' is bandied with the very gayest of abandon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
It's almost as if it's time for a real fascist to come along and actually empty the swamp. (Kill all liberals, I mean.) Possibly a little extreme.
It can only wind people up if it still means something, though. Using it like this removes its power, I'd have thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
FAKENEWS is also becoming that. Whenever i see it now i can't be sure if it actually is fakenews or someone just using the term to be dismissive of something that doesn't support their views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Not really because the people who say it and believe it are eternally invested in the idea anyway. Maybe one day, things will turn but this one has some legs left still, I feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Oh really? How do I know you didn't just make that up, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Goat Sverige
#FakeNews is great because it actually works both ways, while helping to cement the idea that there's not really such a thing as *real* news, in any case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Goat Sverige
Which, if you are the Donald, say, is the whole point.
Trouble is, everyone's gone mental these days. Social media feels like being trapped at Speaker's Corner with umpteen loonies raving nonsense at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
If Donald continues to divide and destabilise the US at this rate, would it not make sense for us to re-take control of the ex-colocy? I'm sure a few good lads, ex Paras or 21 and 23, should be able to take the Oval Office and the TV station building in an afternoon?Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
What say you r? Want to put a crew together?
:nod: I use it when confronted by my wife with the fact that I haven't taken the bins out. I think the Donald would approve.Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
No, the D will be fine, I reckon. Only worry is his advanced years, imo :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Have you got fake hands r ?
Yes. If he gets elected again, he will be a right old cünt by the time he leaves office.Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
Ah, got it in one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Have to say, that is an absolutely cracking definition, Charles. You chose well there. God I hate Ian Harvey on the internet.
Nice enough chap in person, mind.
I had to remove any link with him on the internet, lest I be moved to track him down and kill him.Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
Glad it's not just me:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
IanH: Theresa May hates the poor!
WES: How do you know this Ian?
IanH: Take a look at her voting record!
WES: Well yes but she might have legitimate reasons for that that are not because she hates the poor
IanH: She hates the poor you idiot, can't you read?
WES: It just lists her voting record, Ian, it doesn't explain her rational
IanH: She hates the poor, you must be stupid!
WES: Bye Ian
:hehe: That brings back memories of arguing with him on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
The immediate ascribing of motive to action is a classic tactic.
I also tried to explain to him that the categories themselves implied bias. There was a 'who has voted against welfare increases' section that was filled with Tories but not a 'who has voted against increased security to prevent terrorism' section that was filled with Corbyn and his allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Ian didn't get it.
Yes, they call it the "megaphone". Everything is so loud and overwhelming that points of view cannot even be heard, let alone discussed. That's why it required the Donald's mainstream celebrity status, not to mention his elephant's hide, to cut through it. Not one of his dozen or more rivals for the nomination could have played it that way. Or would've even wanted or dared to try.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Further, the level of self-censorship among established conservatives is an absurd charade of fearful self-sabotaging (at least since the end of Reagan's second term), to the point that there's no need for progressives to control the opposition themselves, Lenin-style, anymore, because that opposition has essentially neutered itself already. Indeed resistance has become practically indistinguishable from whole-hearted support.
The only way conservatives can win any argument nowadays is by joining the opposition. Nonetheless, they are an important player in the game, if only that their near-constant defeat helps legitimise a competing agenda.
You're bang on about the word racist being over-used to such a degree that it's lost all power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
There was an excellent series on R4 at the start of the year called 'The New World.' One part was made by the Guardian's excellent John Harris (imo the best left-wing journo in the country.)
Among the many experts interviewed, two (starting 23'20" in), from both sides of the Atlantic, discuss this very point. They say that the word has not only become impotent, but that the proles now see the term being used solely when the elite want to silence discussion. It's nothing more than their attempt to press the mute button.
So the PC brigade, by bleating racist all the time, have had a completely counter-productive effect. They have cried wolf so many times that people are no longer silenced by the term, and it means that what used to be taboo is now acceptable for discussion. This means people are saying what they never would have previously, and finding that the far right parties are saying the same.
A poll of ten European countries (incl GB) found 55% don't want any more Muslim immigrants. (And most of the rest were don't know as opposed to disagree.)
And now, the mainstream parties are moving to the right and introducing racist policies. So the PC brigade have made things worse by shouting racist, for immigrants and the countries as a whole.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04m7t49
Racist nowadays means being unwilling to change your lifestyle to that which other more inflexible people want to impose on you. Plus those of us who always suppored equality are also racist now, because we do not accept that whites are inferiors or should be discriminated against by reason of their whiteness.
In the same way as you are a homophobe unless you worship at the altar of the broken rectum and accept that heterosexuality is dirty and inferior and it is ridiculous to suggest that nature requires a male and female to get together for procreation. Or that gender fluidity is as stupid as someone playing at being a different animal each day.
Well said g. I agree with your point about John Harris, as well. A beacon of reason amongst the ideologues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult