|
icantfindaname posted:british MP is not a meaningful position of power. see Brexit for example You say that like he didn't actively campaign for brexit.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2016 05:56 |
|
|
# ? May 10, 2024 02:05 |
|
Uh....Fly tipping?
|
# ? Oct 27, 2016 08:35 |
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Uh....Fly tipping? Like cow tipping but smaller.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2016 11:32 |
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Uh....Fly tipping? Illegal trash dumping. Our British cousins refer to a waste dump as a "tip," and the "fly" refers to running away after you perform the act.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2016 11:39 |
|
some libertopian posted:Growing up in the seventies and eighties I heard the liberal mantra like a synthetic drumbeat. “The ends don’t justify the means.”
|
# ? Nov 1, 2016 20:32 |
|
The real treasure in that editorial is found in the comments and replies from "John Galt" a self-described "Individual Human Rights Activisit" who equates slave labor with principles and describes minimum wage as slavery (protip: it's not how low the wage is that makes him think it's slavery)
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 20:20 |
|
Selachian posted:Illegal trash dumping. Our British cousins refer to a waste dump as a "tip," and the "fly" refers to running away after you perform the act. As in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meOCdyS7ORE
|
# ? Nov 3, 2016 20:27 |
|
Imagine being the kind of person who thinks the golden age of the ACLU was when they were defending Nazis, Ollie North, and tobacco companies...
|
# ? Nov 7, 2016 04:16 |
|
This is my least favorite type of person, people who wrap themselves in a cloak of progressivism to spout bigoted opinions. She cites racism and sexism over and over and repeatedly plays the victim, all in defense of terrible anti-LGBT views. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/juno-dawson-glamour-magazine-terf-gender-identification-feminism-germaine-greer-a7403016.html How can Juno Dawson call herself a feminist when she's labelling women as TERFs? quote:There were furrowed brows last week, in response to a column by author Juno Dawson in Glamour magazine. Dawson identifies as a transgender woman. In a column entitled, “Call yourself a feminist?”, she refers to feminist academic Germaine Greer as a “TERF” explaining that the acronym means, “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.”
|
# ? Nov 7, 2016 20:15 |
|
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/matt-walsh-liberals-if-youd-like-to-keep-losing-please-continue-behaving-like-this/ Via something my stepmom posted on facebook
|
# ? Nov 16, 2016 10:58 |
|
MaxxBot posted:This is my least favorite type of person, people who wrap themselves in a cloak of progressivism to spout bigoted opinions. She cites racism and sexism over and over and repeatedly plays the victim, all in defense of terrible anti-LGBT views.
|
# ? Nov 16, 2016 15:16 |
|
quote:Many undergraduates, their fawn-like eyes wide with astonishment, are wondering: Why didn’t the dean of students prevent the election from disrupting the serenity to which my school has taught me that I am entitled? I like to laugh at overly-sensitive teens too but this guy seems to have a real hate-boner for those elitist wussy youth of today. http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/college-kids-are-proving-trumps-point/
|
# ? Nov 21, 2016 08:10 |
|
Abandoned Toaster posted:I like to laugh at overly-sensitive teens too but this guy seems to have a real hate-boner for those elitist wussy youth of today. Much like knowledge of Nixon's relationship to Harvard, the knowledge that 18-year-old George Will was declined admission to Yale describes much of the adult man's peculiar obsessions and petty grudges. He is a total oval office who the world passed by sometime between 2004 and 2008, but there he is writing to his nonexistent Connecticut blue-blood audience like it's 1973.
|
# ? Nov 21, 2016 18:57 |
|
"How one 31-year-old paid off $220,000 in student loans in 3 years"quote:Back home in Joliet, Illinois, Horton took a job as an operations manager at the nonprofit her mother runs. The salary was comparable to what she made in DC, but the cost of living was drastically less. She increased her student-loan payments, setting the lofty goal of paying them off entirely in a year. quote:To anyone who feels overwhelmed by the prospect of taking on student loans — or paying back any debt they've incurred — Horton has a simple message: "I just want them to feel empowered that they can pay if off. If I can do it, anybody can." It's that easy!
|
# ? Mar 20, 2017 06:03 |
|
Well poo poo, that's where we hosed up. Should have known ya just needed a condo you received for free to rent out. Also a good paying job from nepotism. Seems so simple now. Edit: can't figure out how to copy from this phone (ha), but love the part where they mention they were only making the low payment each month of 10K. Such an easy and obvious solution really. World Famous W fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Mar 20, 2017 |
# ? Mar 20, 2017 06:08 |
|
Why did they have any student debt at all when they could've just paid for school with a summer job and maybe a few shifts at the dining hall?
|
# ? Mar 20, 2017 06:47 |
|
Nick_326 posted:"How one 31-year-old paid off $220,000 in student loans in 3 years" This sort of thing is one of the few things that makes me genuinely angry and disgusted. Like, I can't even begin to comprehend the mindset that would lead to someone thinking that article and its conclusions are reasonable, especially if the person involved isn't rich (though I imagine they usually are pretty well off if they believe stuff like this is reasonable). Like, I can sort of understand someone coming to that conclusion without the details, but the article specifically lists all these huge advantages this girl had that normal people don't have access to. This reminds me of my friend from college who got this really nice internship with JPMorgan Chase after his junior year and told me that he believed it was because of how bold he was during his interview. I asked him if he had prior work experience. He said "not much" and I asked him to elaborate and he mentioned doing an internship at some hedge fund that he got through a connection of his (ultra rich) father's. I said "well I imagine having a really good internship after your sophomore year probably gave you a bit of an advantage there" and he said "maybe but I don't think it was that important." I believe that the biggest cause of this sort of thinking is that wealthy people are afraid that acknowledging their huge advantages will diminish their accomplishments. edit: loving lol, check out this other article by the same author: http://www.businessinsider.com/teachers-early-retirement-best-advice-for-saving-2017-1 Anyone could become a millionaire as long as they have enough money to buy and sell real estate aside from their own house/apartment! Also, does it even make sense to refer to teaching as their main job if they're obviously make way more money through real estate? Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Mar 20, 2017 |
# ? Mar 20, 2017 07:20 |
|
Ytlaya posted:I believe that the biggest cause of this sort of thinking is that wealthy people are afraid that acknowledging their huge advantages will diminish their accomplishments. In my experience it's less that people are afraid of diminishing their accomplishments and more worried about being perceived as not having worked hard enough. You'll hear this really often from well off people. "Oh, these people, they act like rich people don't have to work for anything, but that just isn't true.." because they willfully misunderstand the points being made about privilege in America. The same thing happens with white privilege. You can find zillions of comments like, "Lol, yeah white privilege exists, like I'm not busting my rear end every day." There's a very very deep belief in American culture that if you work hard then you deserve however much you make, and people who "don't work hard," deserve to lie down in the street and die. This is how the middle class justifies their meager economic security, and how the very rich justify ridiculous wealth. Just like everybody believes they're an "above average driver," or "smarter than most people," everybody also tends to believe, "I work harder than most people so... " and it results in them not feeling bad for whatever classes are beneath them. At the very top you'll get a lot of them to actually acknowledge some measure of privilege like, "yeah, I'll admit I got into <insert Ivy> because of my family, but that's a tough school. I had to work hard. I've had to work hard at Goldman Sachs." It's all "just so" stories and Just World fallacies because otherwise they'd have to come to terms with the fact that pretty much everybody works hard, and the people who work the hardest are the ones that are starving. If they were to realize that they might realize the inherent problems of capitalism, but that kind of thinking is very much "Here be dragons," territory in terms of political discourse. The idea that starvation, in a world that produces a surplus of food and that is ruled by fiat currency, is simply a problem of distribution rather than a lack of available capital never occurs to them. ErIog fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Mar 20, 2017 |
# ? Mar 20, 2017 09:24 |
|
Privileged people often ignore their privilege because they are not comparing themselves to people who had to work three jobs while putting themselves through community college. They are comparing themselves to their peers - other privileged people. If you work hard to get that Goldman Sachs job while your childhood buddy with an even richer father just lazes through life smoking pot and leeching off his parents, you naturally congratulate yourself on being a hard worker. You don't realize that your "intense" working day (plus business lunch) is an afternoon at the spa compared to how the poor have to work because you don't really know any poor people. People are pretty blind outside their own little social circle. Actual struggling people included - Trump got a lot of votes from people who naively thought he was incorruptible because he was already so incredibly rich that he could not be tempted by more money. They had no more idea of how actual rich people think than rich people know how poor people think.
|
# ? Mar 20, 2017 14:57 |
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Privileged people often ignore their privilege because they are not comparing themselves to people who had to work three jobs while putting themselves through community college. They are comparing themselves to their peers - other privileged people. If you work hard to get that Goldman Sachs job while your childhood buddy with an even richer father just lazes through life smoking pot and leeching off his parents, you naturally congratulate yourself on being a hard worker. You don't realize that your "intense" working day (plus business lunch) is an afternoon at the spa compared to how the poor have to work because you don't really know any poor people. Yeah, this is a major element. A large portion, if not most, of wealthy people literally don't have a single person in their social circles who isn't also either wealthy or at least financially secure*. In college I remember some of my friends legitimately being confused that I couldn't hang out with them at restaurants/bars due to the cost (which could easily run 50+ dollars since we were in NYC), and in the case of the friend I mentioned I think he just assumed that getting help from relatives in finding internships/jobs is the norm. That being said, I still feel like you'd have to be a god drat moron to not realize that most people don't live like that. I can understand having a somewhat distorted view of the average person's finances (for example a lot of my peers thought that 60-70k was a normal starting salary in most professions/regions and didn't realize that only applied to a relatively elite minority of jobs), but it seems like you'd still have the sense to realize that your standards of living while making six figures are not the same as those of the average American. I think in most cases it's not so much that they don't know other people live differently, but that they just choose not to think about it. It's easy to only think about the people you directly interact with and never let your mind wander to anything else. * As a side note related to this, I actually found that the biggest differentiating factor wasn't so much the amount of money a person's family had as the sort of jobs they're involved with. I noticed that there wasn't much of a difference between the person whose parents were literal multi-millionaires and the person whose parents were both college economics/finance professors. While I'm sure the latter person was at least upper middle class, I think that the most important thing is that both of those people have a clear understanding of how to navigate within "well-paid professionals" (for lack of a better term) circles. I think that someone whose parents were born poor and made their money through owning a business wouldn't necessarily have the same benefit as someone who had less money but had parents involved in a field like finance, law, etc. So I think there are a few important distinguishing factors when it comes to money/careers. In terms of importance, it's probably something like this: 1. People who primarily make their money through ownership of capital vs. Everyone else 2. Financially secure vs. Not financially secure (i.e. does the person ever have to reasonably worry about money, assuming they don't make excessively stupid decisions like buying multiple houses) 3. Involved in a "professional" career vs. Involved in a more "isolated" career that doesn't involve connections to a bunch of other well-off people Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Mar 20, 2017 |
# ? Mar 20, 2017 17:47 |
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...461a1b#commentsquote:It is apparently not enough for some of the liberal-minded to help those on Medicare and Social Security; now people must be guaranteed eligibility for heaven as well. Or at least be protected from those who believe in the other place. "Of the many evils of civil rights and equality, the ultimate is taking offense at a guy who hates all Muslims." How in the sam-gently caress is this poo poo getting printed in the Post
|
# ? Jun 13, 2017 06:50 |
dont even fink about it posted:How in the sam-gently caress is this poo poo getting printed in the Post This right here is why I don't have a subscription to Wapo or the NY Times. They do good and sometimes great journalism, but goddamn their op-ed pages are a wasteland of dipshittery and evil. Until they fix that they'll never see a dime from me.
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2017 19:20 |
|
dont even fink about it posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...461a1b#comments I thought Bernie was Jewish and that Jews don't believe in hell. I'm not a theologian but this seems pretty consistent.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2017 23:44 |
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:I thought Bernie was Jewish and that Jews don't believe in hell. Ehhh some Jews do, some Jews don't. The most orthodox absolutely don't, but Bernie would hardly be classed as Orthodox.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2017 23:48 |
|
fishmech posted:Ehhh some Jews do, some Jews don't. The most orthodox absolutely don't, but Bernie would hardly be classed as Orthodox. Fair enough, like I said not a theologian.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2017 23:51 |
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:I thought Bernie was Jewish and that Jews don't believe in hell. The only thing I know about afterlife beliefs in Judaism is "do you really think God would make a world THIS lovely be the only world?".
|
# ? Jun 14, 2017 00:46 |
|
It's bad enough being lectured on left and right-wing extremism by a right-winger from an apartheid state, but the main problem is that he doesn't even have his facts right. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...m=.056d25fa4501 President Trump, in part, was right. There is blame to go around for the unrest in Charlottesville. There is fear, intolerance, demonization and growing hatred on both the extreme left and the extreme right. But despite what Trump has claimed, repeatedly, in his public statements since the tragic events there, the willingness to employ organized violence to achieve political goals remains a signature quality of only one side. And it’s not the left. Extremism on the left is real. It can be seen in attempts to stifle the free speech of conservative speakers on university campuses (as at Middlebury and Berkeley); in the belligerent attitudes toward corporations and capitalism expressed, for instance, by some fringes of the Occupy Wall Street crowd and anti-globalization protesters; and among anti-Zionist movements that peddle conspiracy theories (such as the contention that Jews control U.S. foreign policy) to delegitimize Israel. Yet all of this falls well short of the methodical, organized and strategic violence and incitement embraced by right-wing extremists, whose leaders profess faith in the necessity of the fight. Nothing the left can do today even comes close to that — and hasn’t for decades. Although the American left was never as fully at ease with revolutionary violence as were its European counterparts (who were reared on Robespierre and Marx), it often took up arms. Labor unions battled constantly with railroad barons, industrial tycoons and mining bosses during the Gilded Age. Even while outnumbered and outgunned, usually by private armies that enjoyed the backing of law enforcement and state militias, workers fought in bloody clashes that left dozens dead on battlefields such as Chicago’s Haymarket Square (1886) and West Virginia’s Blair Mountain (1921). The New Deal helped calm labor-management tensions, but for many younger activists who came of age in the postwar era, violence remained a key strategy — even a way of life. Inspired by the Black Panthers’ embrace of violence for self-defense, and enraged by the escalating war in Vietnam, antiwar protesters from New Left organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) sought to “bring the war home” to end the fighting abroad. This concept culminated in the rioting during the 1968 Democratic convention and on university campuses. Radical offshoots including the Weather Underground and the Symbionese Liberation Army took things even further: The former bombed government buildings, and the latter committed homicide, robbery and, famously, kidnapping. But since the 1960s, left-wing movements in the United States (and in the West writ large) have gradually turned away from violence. There are three main reasons for this. The first is practical: It backfired terribly. The Vietnam War protesters initially believed that their country was beyond redemption, so a revolution was imperative. This alienated the general public, helped unify a deeply divided conservative movement and emboldened Richard Nixon’s “silent majority.” Violence proved counterproductive to ending the war; if anything, it helped prolong it. The leaders of the New Left, who consciously distinguished themselves from the “liberal center” through their obstinate allegiance to a romantic revolutionary spirit, eventually admitted this. Tom Hayden, a founder of SDS and a lifelong social justice crusader, later expressed regret over his uncompromising positions. And Mark Rudd, a leader of the Weather Underground, sounded an unequivocal mea culpa. “Much of what the Weathermen did had the opposite effect of what we intended,” he conceded. “. . . We isolated ourselves from our friends and allies as we helped split the larger antiwar movement around the issue of violence. In general, we played into the hands of the FBI. . . . We might as well have been on their payroll.” The left’s second reason for rejecting violence was even simpler: There were better ways to get things done. The civil rights and feminist movements showed that nonviolent protest could achieve tangible political goals. When the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. made the case for civil disobedience in his Letter From Birmingham City Jail, it was not based only on ethical principles of Christian brotherly love but also on shrewd political calculations. “The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation,” King wrote. By provoking a crisis of conscience for ordinary Americans, civil rights leaders made the political system work for their cause, leading to the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and other anti-discrimination laws. The lesson: There was no point in challenging the legitimacy of a government that enabled them to accomplish many, albeit not all, of their goals through the democratic process. The third and most important reason for giving up violence can be found in the new makeup of the American left. Emerging out of the rubble of the 1960s, the modern left, which coalesced around George McGovern’s quixotic 1972 presidential run, effectively represented a gathering of fugitives. African Americans, Hispanics, women, gay men and lesbians, Native Americans, and workers: These long-ostracized groups, which came to replace the New Deal coalition anchored by the white working class, were the very peoples against whom violence had been done for so long. Their painful histories made them instinctively averse to, and intolerant of, political violence. Those who had survived lynchings, beatings, bombings, sexual violence, forced removals and economic exploitation were least disposed to employ them in return. In 1972, those groups were often on the far left, but they eventually became the spine of Barack Obama’s electoral coalition. Although the American left’s transition away from violence was as much a strategic choice as a moral one, the seeds of violence are still embedded in its historical consciousness. That is why lone-wolf attackers like James T. Hodgkinson , who shot and critically wounded GOP Rep. Steve Scalise during a baseball practice in June, and occasionally violent groups such as antifa, which have clashed with right-wing protesters, are worrisome. But they are not the same as their counterparts on the right. Antifa is mostly anarchist in nature; its members are suspicious and dismissive of the left’s embrace of government institutions. More important, it is loosely banded, disorganized and low scale. Brawling on campuses, throwing rocks or vandalizing property is reprehensible and illegal. But it is incomparable to the scope and breadth of organized violence demonstrated by the extreme right. While the far left has distanced itself in recent decades from political violence, the far right has headed in the opposite direction: The more activists have failed to preserve their waning political influence and achieve their goals through the democratic process, the more inclined they have become to take up arms and challenge it. The left has successfully integrated into most political, economic and cultural facets of the country, but members of the extreme right say they have been devastated by the economic effects of globalization, disempowered by multiculturalism and disenfranchised by the election of the nation’s first African American president. This sentiment has led to the rise of militia culture and violent resistance on unprecedented scales since the 1990s; it sparked the deadly standoff in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, 25 years ago, climaxed in the Oklahoma City bombing and has persisted, more recently, with the massacre of African American worshipers at a Charleston, S.C., church. Organized militias that are well armed, well trained and well networked have seen a particular spike since the beginning of the Obama presidency. The Southern Poverty Law Center reported last year that 276 militias operate in the United States, a 37 percent increase from the previous year. Although they are not monolithic — the groups include white supremacists, Christian millenarians, Second Amendment champions and self-appointed border guards — they all revile the federal government. “Sovereign citizens” are armed to the teeth and willing to challenge officials, as they did in last year’s armed standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. Many such militiamen have killed or injured local police. They pose a greater threat than the Islamic State or al-Qaeda, according to a 2016 U.S. government report: “Of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent).” This doesn’t mean the left is inherently superior. But it has cleansed itself through a painful process of introspection. And if American democracy has any chance of convalescing from the fever of intolerance that has seized it since Trump’s election, people on the right must take a similarly long, hard look in the mirror. If not for their party’s sake, then at least for the country’s.
|
# ? Aug 20, 2017 20:51 |
|
|
# ? May 10, 2024 02:05 |
|
Who needs facts when you can just snort a huge loving line of masturbatory Whig triumphalism and spray words on a page?
|
# ? Aug 20, 2017 21:11 |