Trabisnikof posted:

Reality: 2,996 die including 8 children

Goons: Tribute.avi




Reality: The adult child of a horrible person who used to work at Fox News dies

Goons: Anyone being crass about this death is a piece of poo poo

Trabisnikof posted:

Its called somethibf awful, not somethong swnsitivr.

Ogmius815 posted:

Because if the character traits of apathy and cruelty made Bolling a bastard, they make you a bastard too.


EDIT: Jesus christ this thread is full of psychopaths.

Trabisnikof posted:

Posting a crass post about some horrible person isn't even in the same moral spectrum as a real world impact. It doesn't hurt the kid and it won't hurt the dad since he's not a goon.

Littering is a far worse offense then rude posting about a personal tragedy.

Ogmius815 posted:

Tribute.avi is black comedy. Actively proclaiming that you are glad that an odious person's teenage child is dead is not funny, it's just evil.

Mulva posted:

Your response to "Bad things are bad even if there are worse things" is "But these things are worse". Truly you are the greatest mind of your age.

PhazonLink posted:

Fair weathers : Surely regressives will also give us this courtesy too.

*ignores ton of posts from regressives saying they're glad Biden's son died*

Trabisnikof posted:

Again who proclaimed they are glad the kid is dead? Maybe you can read enraged_camel's post like that, but most of the complains are about people daring to refuse to empathize with a horrible person.

TGLT posted:

And Submarine Sandpaper and you, literally you, saying you think they're gloating and should go ahead and gloat to their heart's content.

Potential BFF posted:

I hope Eric Bolling kills himself.

Crabtree posted:

A really dark part of my mind is wondering if that kid was killed in a fit of rage by his dad or a worse turn of "make myself a bigger victum" than the guy that stabbed himself to blame antifa. I really hope its wrong, but it seems a little odd that he turns up dead as soon as Eric got the full boot.

Trabisnikof posted:

Just because I'm arguing that their gloat-posting doesn't matter at all and isn't actually hurting anyone doesn't make me automatically also gloating about the kid's death.

This thread just loves to circle the wagons whenever it can around horrible people destroying our world because it gives the posting-is-war faction a great chance to be morally superior by declaring they're above gloating about Scalia's death or whatever.

Trabisnikof posted:

Maybe the idea is that mocking a horrible person who just had a sad time in their life doesn't make you as bad as the horrible person?

Posting isn't so important that goons need to come out of the woodwork to say "why should we fight Nazis if you're going to be crass about their personal tragedies." Posting mean things isn't even in the same league as the real world horrible poo poo that's going on.

moostaffa posted:

Eric Bolling: I have made a career out of hating women, gays, blacks, immigrants on TV
This thread: gently caress him
Also this thread: Poor Eric Bolling

Mulva posted:

See, that's the correct opinion.

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

Other people's monstrous opinions and behaviors never, ever justify your own. Like, humanity 101 y'all.

Furnaceface posted:

Dapper_Swindler posted:

no it isnt. you hope he tries, but fucks up, so he has like half a face and has to be kept in home for the rest of his life.

Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

The idea is to not to be less of a oval office than the cunts you oppose, it is to simply not be a oval office at all. Because regardless of degree, a oval office is still a oval office, and simply not being a oval office is a really easy goal to achieve. On this matter, you are being a oval office.

aas Bandit posted:

[/lurk]

You don't get PMs, so I just wanted to thank you for your posts in this thread. You make it better.

And yes, rationalizing that it's okay to act like an rear end in a top hat because (it's just a little/no one cares/people who would be hurt by it won't notice/others are bigger assholes) is still defending acting like an rear end in a top hat and is potentially eroding your own tolerances for rear end in a top hat behavior in the future, from yourself and others.

[lurk]

Trabisnikof posted:

The issue isn't that Republicans and Nazis are cunts, the issue is that they're actively destroying the world, our country and our communities.

Again, we have much larger real world issues than displaying civility in internet posts.

skeleton warrior posted:

I don't know what's scariest about Trump maybe realizing his current path is wrong and that he needs to change up strategies:

* That Trump may actually get terrible legislation passed because he stops being a burden or distraction
* That Trump encourages Democrats to split when he offers Dems a bunch of what they want on healthcare and infrastructure in exchange for them letting him gently caress up minorities
* That this thread will continue to be terrible, unfunny stupidity from people overly convinced of their correctness and moral invincibility because we don't have Trump antics to react to

quote:

“Being mean” is an interesting aversion for an impertinently revolutionary magazine that sells posters of guillotines and regularly invokes the specter of Soviet communism. Are not guillotines a bit—dare I say—“mean?”

What Sunkara is talking about here is much more specific than “mean,” a rather vague word that he pairs with “snarky” (behead the kings of course, but don’t dare snark against them!). What he is actually talking about is vulgarity, the crass, ugly dispensation of judgment with little to no regard for propriety. Vulgarity is the rejection of the norms of civilized discourse; to be vulgar is to flout the set of implicit conventions that create our social decorum. The vulgar person uses swears and shouts where reasoned discourse is called for. Someone like Saul Alinsky for example, might be considered vulgar, for considering protest tactics like his famously unrealized “fart-in” at the Rochester Philharmonic. (One might question the efficacy of a flatulent protest during a symphony, but it is certainly the sort of vulgarity that cannot be ignored.)

It is understandable for a magazine aspiring to respectability to eschew vulgarity in its pages. To poach the New Republic’s readers may require poaching the New Republic’s restraint in tone, and one does not impress Vox by childishly taunting the bourgeoisie.

Yet to dismiss vulgarity as a tool for fighting the powerful, to say that being mean is “ridiculous,” is to deny history, and to obscure a long and noble tradition of malicious political japery. In fact, “being mean” not only affords unique pleasures to the speaker or writer, but is a crucial rhetorical weapon of the politically excluded.

Vulgarity has always been employed in revolutionary rhetoric, perhaps most notably in the propaganda leading up to Jacobin’s own beloved French Revolution. Forget snark, the pamphleteers of France were all too happy to satirize and smear the upper class with the utmost malice. Clergy, royals, and anyone else in power were slandered and depicted visually in all manner of crass and farcical political cartoons.

Of all the public figures subjected to such vicious derision and gossip (often highly inaccurate gossip at that), Marie Antoinette was singled out for especially inventive and vicious taunting. True to French tradition, the slanderous pamphlets, called libelles, were fond of wordplay. For the Austrian-born Antoinette, they coined Austrichienne, meaning “Austrian bitch,” but also resembling the French word for “ostrich.” Thus, layering a visual pun upon a verbal one, one artist actually portrayed Antoinette stroking a massive, ostrich-like penis, complete with legs and a saddle. Mounted upon the penile steed was progressive royalist Marquis de Lafayette, who sympathized with the peasants but was eventually denounced as a traitor by Robespierre (revolutionaries tend not to be terribly fond of diplomatic fence-straddlers). In another of the ostrich-themed cartoons (it was evidently a series), Marie actually bared her own genitals to the phallic beast and its rider. It’s a stunningly vulgar image, and without a doubt, quite nasty and mean. One couldn’t imagine a Beltway professional depicting the ruling class so crudely today; even the most offensive of right-wing political cartoonists haven’t yet dared to explore the satirical possibilities for giant ostrich-dicks.

(https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/05/the-necessity-of-political-vulgarity)

Chilichimp posted:

Why is it posters always figure this out FOR THE FIRST TIME every time a tragedy befalls a right-wing personality?

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/906380216255352832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Trabisnikof posted:

The issue isn't that Republicans and Nazis are "cunts", the issue is that they're actively destroying the world, our country and our communities.

Again, we have much larger real world issues than displaying civility in internet posts.

aas Bandit posted:

[/lurk]

You don't get PMs, so I just wanted to thank you for your posts in this thread. You make it better.

And yes, rationalizing that it's okay to act like an rear end in a top hat because (it's just a little/no one cares/people who would be hurt by it won't notice/others are bigger assholes) is still defending acting like an rear end in a top hat and is potentially eroding your own tolerances for rear end in a top hat behavior in the future, from yourself and others.

[lurk]

Xae posted:

Hatred is the primary motivator for a ton of people. And not just the Alt-Right.

The difference between wingnuts on the left and wingnuts on the right is what group(s) they hate and want to punish. They are completely unified in having hatred as their primary motivation.

Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

It isn't about civility in any way. I'm not being at all civil to you, but I'm also not being a oval office. The criticism aimed at you is not about you being rude, it is about being a poo poo person. If you are going to crow that some random innocent you've never met, or were harmed by committed suicide, just because you have (justified) antipathy towards his father, then you have some actual serious issues with your personality.

Take a look at yourself and try to be less of a oval office.

QuoProQuid posted:

you're a good person

TGLT posted:

Honestly all that hinges on Trump being competent which would be one hell of a shift. And really it's not like he can give Dems what they want since he doesn't actually have control over the House and pretty meager power in the Senate. I wouldn't be too worried about it, he's still following his same basic strategy of chasing praise. If anything it makes him more malleable and leads to stuff like the DREAM act getting passed.