|
i am harry posted:These people really need a new title. I know "deceased" is probably the best one but something a little more realistic than "Greatest" would do. The Undiagnosed PTSD Generation 
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
Glenn Beck put cheeotos on his face, and for some reason it's making national headlines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIKhr158cD4
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Not as good as this story. I hope the video goes public. https://www.yahoo.com/tv/fight-breaks-whcd-afterparty-between-fox-news-huffpost-141116086.html
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
I hate that the veneer of discourse in the news prevents them from printing who won.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:I've heard that it's an outgrowth of the old "American dream' that everyone can be a success if they work hard enough. What they don't tell you is that this implies that anybody who is not successful and/or has to rely on others is just a miserable failure who too lazy or dumb to work hard enough. This trains people not only ignore any other factors in life, but to venerate the wealthy as people who "made it" and to feel deep shame for not gaining at least the usual comfortable middle class status. Disenfranchisement becomes a moral failing while wealth is a just reward (nicely dovetailing in with the racist undercurrents when applied to minorities). Nothing makes me angrier than programs to go into schools and tell kids that they can do anything they want in life in only they try hard enough (usually under the rubric of things like "boosting self-esteem"). If you believe, you can achieve! etc etc. What this does is train people, when they don't grab that golden ring, to blame themselves for not trying hard enough or believing in themselves enough to make it, instead of looking around and blaming the structural impediments that are systematically working against them. You ever notice how every puff-piece profile of a rich person has them attributing their success to their "vision" and "belief in themselves" and "passion" and not, say, because their parent were rich enough to send them to a fancy college where they met other rich and well connected people and they took advantage of that? Same thing.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:I hate that the veneer of discourse in the news prevents them from printing who won. They subtly broadcast who the winner is by picking the headshots in the articles.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
XtraSmiley posted:Not as good as this story. I hope the video goes public. Watters is an annoying, smug-faced creep.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
XtraSmiley posted:Not as good as this story. I hope the video goes public. What a little wuss. Reminds me of when Gawker staked out his house to get an ambush interview on him and he ran to his car and tore off down the street doing like 70mph to get away from them. And the sad part is, Watters is still on the way up at Fox. He's gonna have a prime time show in five years when O'Reilly or Hannity retire or Megyn Kelly flames out under the toxic working conditions. Every time I see Watters in any medium I'm reminded of Keith Olbermann's "How to survive a Jesse Watters ambush interview" master class: Talk about O'Reilly's sexual harassment of Andrea Mackris or his divorce proceedings instead of answering any of his questions. The tape will never make it to air. Guaranteed.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
XtraSmiley posted:Not as good as this story. I hope the video goes public. You know, 20 years from now this story is going to appear in some documentary/historical drama/miniseries about this period in time as foreshadowing to whatever sort of dysfunction the Hillary Clinton presidency is going to bring on between the parties. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 20:39 on May 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:Perhaps you are thinking of everyone's other favorite atheist self-caricature Warcorpse666 Jesus Christ, that Archive.is link is not helping my 'Everything bad on the Internet is a carefully crafted lie by 4chan' panic instinct
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Gimme a good link of Matt Walsh being absolute garbage.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Levin, Beck, Hannity and others are beginning to sound like various broadcasters during "Dawn of the Dead" at this point. (the orignal one, not the one by Zack Snyder.). It's incredible to read comment sections in articles relating to Levin, Beck and Limbaugh talking about how various listeners have stopped listening to them once they went on to shill for Ted Cruz. My hope is that they continue to stick with Cruz and such until the bitter end. Causing them to grow increasingly irrelevant due to it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:Gimme a good link of Matt Walsh being absolute garbage. Gimme an example of the sun being hot.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:Gimme a good link of Matt Walsh being absolute garbage. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=matt+walsh+article+-comedian
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
It's kind of amazing that RWM has made people hate Hillary so much that even the most leftist of people will uncritically accept any negative story about her. I've seen the "Koch Brothers endores Hillary!" from so many of my Bernie boosting friends facebooks lately. They didn't even bothered to check the source, or the story they're just "Beep boop, Hillary is just another Trump" and shared it. There was an offhanded comment when asked if they would endorse her, one of the Koch's said "Maybe".
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:It's kind of amazing that RWM has made people hate Hillary so much that even the most leftist of people will uncritically accept any negative story about her. I've seen the "Koch Brothers endores Hillary!" from so many of my Bernie boosting friends facebooks lately. They didn't even bothered to check the source, or the story they're just "Beep boop, Hillary is just another Trump" and shared it. There was an offhanded comment when asked if they would endorse her, one of the Koch's said "Maybe". Never be confident that you're a part of a smart group of people because they're just as full of idiots as anyone else.  But then you Snopes it aaaaand... http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-suppressed-haitis-minimum-wage/ quote:So it's true that the State Department (then led by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State) strongly opposed a minimum wage increase in Haiti in 2009. However, the State Department's efforts did not occur in a political or economic vacuum, and Clinton wasn't the sole architect of efforts to quash a minimum wage hike (as the meme suggests). It was a concerted effort on the part of Haitian elites, factory owners, free trade proponents, U.S. politicians, economists, and American companies that kept the minimum wage so low, and to lay the blame squarely at the feet of any sitting Secretary of State would be an incomplete assessment, and thus inaccurate.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Prosperity Gospel... See also: Amway, MLM scams. Or any mega church.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:Never be confident that you're a part of a smart group of people because they're just as full of idiots as anyone else. I mean that's the same thing though? If anyone says Hillary did it solo is clearly wrong, but the point is which side you were on, not whether you had the power to do it by yourself. It's like blaming her for voting for the Iraq war. If she voted no it means literally nothing on whether the war goes ahead, but you can still use the side she took against her. I don't have a stake in whether or not it is true, but what you posted does not seem like it affects the point from my bystander view.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I mean that's the same thing though? If anyone says Hillary did it solo is clearly wrong, but the point is which side you were on, not whether you had the power to do it by yourself. It's like blaming her for voting for the Iraq war. If she voted no it means literally nothing on whether the war goes ahead, but you can still use the side she took against her. I don't have a stake in whether or not it is true, but what you posted does not seem like it affects the point from my bystander view. And this is the thing alot of people who seem to defend Hillary don't seem to want to point out. She's been on the wrongs side so many drat times, sometimes pushing and lobbying for it, that it boggles me how people can trust her judgement. I also have not real stake in this race other than being a member of the Human species who would quite like to see it continue into the future.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I mean that's the same thing though? If anyone says Hillary did it solo is clearly wrong, but the point is which side you were on, not whether you had the power to do it by yourself. It's like blaming her for voting for the Iraq war. If she voted no it means literally nothing on whether the war goes ahead, but you can still use the side she took against her. I don't have a stake in whether or not it is true, but what you posted does not seem like it affects the point from my bystander view. Uh, my point was that people on the right and left won't read articles beyond the headlines and immediately believe it if it says 'person you don't like is bad, here is bad thing they did' even if it's not true.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:And this is the thing alot of people who seem to defend Hillary don't seem to want to point out. She's been on the wrongs side so many drat times, sometimes pushing and lobbying for it, that it boggles me how people can trust her judgement. I also have not real stake in this race other than being a member of the Human species who would quite like to see it continue into the future. I support Hillary because she's the better candidate and can win and can maneuver well enough to get something done once she's actually in. People keep making this deeply weird argument that we should take every decision that she's made and vote that she's cast and put it in a vacuum outside of the context in which it took place. It's strange and it's one of the reasons that I've steered further and further away from the Bernie wing of the party over the last few months.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
It really is amazing to read the freep thread, and watch how they're systematically obliterating themselves with their ideological purity bullshit, and then come to this thread and see the same loving poo poo; "this candidate didn't vote the way I wanted them to on these issues, therefore they're actually just another tool of big business!" Because as everyone knows, you don't need to make compromises to accomplish your goals in a democracy, you just have to stomp your feet and scream until the other side gives you everything you ask for with no strings attached out of exasperation. Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 02:39 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I support Hillary because she's the better candidate and can win and can maneuver well enough to get something done once she's actually in. People keep making this deeply weird argument that we should take every decision that she's made and vote that she's cast and put it in a vacuum outside of the context in which it took place. It's strange and it's one of the reasons that I've steered further and further away from the Bernie wing of the party over the last few months. Yeah, I agree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that Snopes article basically say "it was a really complicated issue with a lot of people involved?" I don't know the details and I doubt anyone sharing it does either, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that can be fairly boiled down to a quick soundbite.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:It's kind of amazing that RWM has made people hate Hillary so much that even the most leftist of people will uncritically accept any negative story about her. I've seen the "Koch Brothers endores Hillary!" from so many of my Bernie boosting friends facebooks lately. They didn't even bothered to check the source, or the story they're just "Beep boop, Hillary is just another Trump" and shared it. There was an offhanded comment when asked if they would endorse her, one of the Koch's said "Maybe". It's also amazing how about 2 years ago, before Bernie or Trump, those same leftist said/knew that Mr. Ben Ghazi and the email thing was just another crying wolf/smear attack. They said they would vote for any D just to make sure the Rs didn't win the White House.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:Yeah, I agree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that Snopes article basically say "it was a really complicated issue with a lot of people involved?" I don't know the details and I doubt anyone sharing it does either, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that can be fairly boiled down to a quick soundbite. It said that the decision to lower Haiti's daily wages like that was borne of a great deal of people cooperating towards the same goal and to lay the blame solely on Hillary is boiling the issue down to such a degree that it's like boiling someone alive to the point that there's only a bleached white skeleton left.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Also, I guess the constant drumbeat of tax thieves and lazy employees and how private industry is always better and more efficient because the profit motive creates workplace purity or some poo poo. If the private sector is so intrinsically better and efficient at everything, why is there a whole god drat motherfucking industry who makes hundreds of millions of year selling their efficiency/teamwork/coaching/whatever bullshit to the private sector? I mean, really. Every time someone spouts poo poo like that I just bring that up and free marketeers face freezes up weird like they're having a stroke. Best response they are able to come up with is: "Well... well.... well.... they sell that stuff to the public sector too!"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:It really is amazing to read the freep thread, and watch how they're systematically obliterating themselves with their ideological purity bullshit, and then come to this thread and see the same loving poo poo; "this candidate didn't vote the way I wanted them to on these issues, therefore they're actually just another tool of big business!" yeah that's pretty ridiculous people won't vote for a person who does things they disagree with.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:It said that the decision to lower Haiti's daily wages like that was borne of a great deal of people cooperating towards the same goal and to lay the blame solely on Hillary is boiling the issue down to such a degree that it's like boiling someone alive to the point that there's only a bleached white skeleton left. And also the fact that as Sec of State she would be bound by the interests of the US and the Obama administration, which opposed the minimum wage increase for a variety of complex reasons. The only thing should could have done was resign.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Flectarn posted:yeah that's pretty ridiculous people won't vote for a person who does things they disagree with. Yes, that is exactly what I said. Your talent for building strawmen is exemplary. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Armani posted:Jesus Christ, that Archive.is link is not helping my 'Everything bad on the Internet is a carefully crafted lie by 4chan' panic instinct Disingenuous argumentation, yes, in the service of real racism.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
It's easy to be coldly calculating with your vote and accepting of a little corruption in politics when you're in a group that's currently benefiting/coming out ahead. Lord knows that I have that issue myself.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:It's easy to be coldly calculating with your vote and accepting of a little corruption in politics when you're in a group that's currently benefiting/coming out ahead. It's hard for me because while I understand that these things are wrong, at the same time I don't know what the mediating factors are and how context plays into all of this and how much control does she really have without potentially damaging something else down the line and does that make me a bad person to view things as acceptable losses or is that the cold reality of political life and how am I supposed to determine what is and is not a moral failing and what is more complicated when I'm faced with a limited access to the relevant information oh god why am I trying to understand politics at all someone help. And of course, the absolute worst place to figure that out is with a bunch of very zealous people in a political candidate's thread who are ready to tear you to shreds for making one wrong move. That's pretty much why my posting time in YCS was short-lived
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Flectarn posted:yeah that's pretty ridiculous people won't vote for a person who does things they disagree with. Let me know when you find a candidate who has never done anything objectionable, and I'll be happy to vote for them.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:Let me know when you find a candidate who has never done anything objectionable, and I'll be happy to vote for them. I think the thing is things they find objectionable. Not voting for someone who's policy you don't like isn't crazy. I don't like Republican policy so I don't vote for them, am I being insane and not reasonable for doing that since I live in a heavily republican area?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Armani posted:Jesus Christ, that Archive.is link is not helping my 'Everything bad on the Internet is a carefully crafted lie by 4chan' panic instinct Y'know, I still can't accept it. The fact that 4chan is now, somehow, a kind of political force. It doesn't seem real, despite all the evidence. I was never a channer myself, even if I had a lot of friends who were, but for a long time I still respected the site as a place where some very silly stuff could happen. (Even if Sturgeon's Law still applied.) I might've been younger then, but I could still respect that. The image of that place is so cemented in my mind that I'm not sure how the evolution could've happened. It's like I blinked, and in that brief moment it all changed. I had just finished reading Whitney Phillips' book on Anonymous too, and even when her account of the chan culture is much less biased than Gabriella Coleman's, I didn't see any evidence of how it could've happened. It's like it occurred at the very point where her book ended in 2014/2015. Yeah sure, there might've been an ongoing fracture between "big-A Anonymous" and "little-a anonymous" at that time, but... it was just about white supremacy all along? ... really? ... on the Internet? ... where nobody can even see your face? It feels like a bad joke, and that at least fits the subject, but bad jokes don't feel real.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Morroque posted:Y'know, I still can't accept it. The fact that 4chan is now, somehow, a kind of political force. It doesn't seem real, despite all the evidence. When you realize that a bunch of people between 13-30 make a bunch of super edgy friend of the family and heil hitler jokes on the internet because they can and then white supremacists noticed and started to mold these people into the future Aryan Nation, it's not surprising at all.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:If the private sector is so intrinsically better and efficient at everything, why is there a whole god drat motherfucking industry who makes hundreds of millions of year selling their efficiency/teamwork/coaching/whatever bullshit to the private sector? Unions. Get rid of them and it'll finally be legal to fire people again.  Rick_Hunter posted:When you realize that a bunch of people between 13-30 make a bunch of super edgy friend of the family and heil hitler jokes on the internet because they can and then white supremacists noticed and started to mold these people into the future Aryan Nation, it's not surprising at all. Exactly. It's recruiting 101. A few of them are serious, and they start to get to know the others and every now and then you can get someone to go along with you and say, "yeah, these blog posts on Stormfront make a lot of sense." HackensackBackpack fucked around with this message at 05:07 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
The thing about the Hillary hate is that many of the people who are Bernie boosters, are souly for Bernie. They won't even think of voting for Hillary. The problem then becomes a huge segment of the popular gets an all or nothing apporche and we get 8 years of President Trump because they didn't vote and the racist idiots came out in droves. Yes Bernie is getting major support from people who normally don't vote, but if they are a one candidate group, does it really help? When you stay home and don't vote because the candidate doesn't line up perfectly with your views, you're essentially casting a vote for the other guy. As i said, I blame RWM for the ease of hate for Hillary, because we've heard nothing but how she is the worst person in the world, how she hates America and freedom, personally had millions of people killed, wants to make abortion mandatory, and so on. PhazonLink posted:It's also amazing how about 2 years ago, before Bernie or Trump, those same leftist said/knew that Mr. Ben Ghazi and the email thing was just another crying wolf/smear attack. Yep. BUt that has all vanished now. I have heard the same people i'm talking about say "well, maybe there was something to this Ben Ghazi thing...". And in no way am I saying we need to accept the corruption of our political system, it's just you cannot say you won't vote for someone when they are the only thing that is literally stopping a horrible dark age from coming. Seriously, if Trump wins, I will blame every single person who said "no Sanders, no vote".
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Rick_Hunter posted:When you realize that a bunch of people between 13-30 make a bunch of super edgy friend of the family and heil hitler jokes on the internet because they can and then white supremacists noticed and started to mold these people into the future Aryan Nation, it's not surprising at all. There was a bit in Phillips' book about how the chans were handling things when the Cheezburger Network was founded, and started stealing a lot of the pure humour aspects away the chans and more towards a bigger audience. There was some hemming and hawing about how trolling subculture "sold out," but the thing I'm slowly piecing together reviewing some of the material again is the unsaid side of it. As the pure humour and internet memeing moved elsewhere, all that was left were the parts that couldn't leave 4chan and venture very far. I suppose I could see it by reading between the lines, but... even white supremacy feels like a betrayal of what the old Anon would've meant. This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things, Page 150 posted:Within the ranks of little-a Anonymous, resistance to the political gains made by Big-A Anonymous was widespread. In his article chronicling the first days of the Occupy Wall Street protest, reporter Saki Knafo interviewed a group of self-described lulzfags who had gathered outside the Church of Scientology New York branch, located just off Times Square. Rather than expressing support for the OWS arm of Anonymous, they decried the protesters as "annoying, deluded hippies" and "challenged their claim to the mantle of Anonymous." This sentiment was common on /b/, precipitating a great deal of subcultural self-reflection. Many anons even discussed adopting a new mascot, as the Guy Fawkes mask had been appropriated by "new anon." One anon explained: They went from that, to white supremacy, very quickly. I guess ideals based on nothing don't cost anything to betray.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
twistedmentat posted:The thing about the Hillary hate is that many of the people who are Bernie boosters, are souly for Bernie. They won't even think of voting for Hillary. The problem then becomes a huge segment of the popular gets an all or nothing apporche and we get 8 years of President Trump because they didn't vote and the racist idiots came out in droves. Yes Bernie is getting major support from people who normally don't vote, but if they are a one candidate group, does it really help? When you stay home and don't vote because the candidate doesn't line up perfectly with your views, you're essentially casting a vote for the other guy. Polling puts the number of Sanders supporters who would happily vote for Clinton at 80%+, and similar numbers for Sanders from Clinton supporters. This is while things are still bitter and divisive mind you. The actually number of splitters will be much lower. It's pretty much just a handful of frothing weirdos spitting out Breitbart headlines at this point, and if you follow s4p at all you can see they're already chasing people off with their blind aggression. That doesn't make for a good story though so HORSERACE IT IS! Reminder that Ben Ghazi went down like a month before the 2012 election and Romney still got fuckin bounced. The RWM is its own little sphere with less and less bearing on the real world every day edit - for perspective, in 2008 the number of Clinton supporters (PUMAs aka People United Mean Action aka Party Unity My rear end) saying they'd never vote for Obama was ~30% around this time and he seemed to do alright
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 05:12
|
|