|
Echo Chamber posted:
oh. great.
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
mcbexx posted:"No no, this is a depiction of a compassionate nazi guard leading a family of jews to an ACTUAL shower, so they can clean up before he helps them escape the hell of the concentration camp. And he's smiling because he's so happy because he knows he'll save them." i'm quoting this post just so, when you look back on it a year later, you realize how deeply, deeply embarrassing this is
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:I'm glad the seal was changed because despite a (surprisingly) reasonable explanation that (surprisingly) checks out, it's important to consider how it looks regardless. It's sort of like people who get swastika tattoos for Buddhist reasons (which, by the way mcbexx, would have been a much less asinine comparison). Like sure, maybe you're not racist and maybe it's a symbol of peace in your mind -- but you sure as hell look like a racist rear end in a top hat. the manji isn't the swastika and has extremely important religious connotations (it's why hitler co-opted it and reversed the arms in the first place) i get your implication but that's the worst possible comparison you could have made, considering that a religion all about peace and love that used a symbol for literally hundreds of years before a german douchebag stole it and critically changed it to mean the exact opposite of what the symbol stood for shouldn't have to kowtow to assholes who don't understand that pointing left != pointing right
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:Yeah that's what most Americans think of when they see a swastika. it's not a loving swastika, it's a manji are you not aware that right and left are different directions
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Coates did write a piece on reparations, specifically Sander's unwillingness to even discuss it, that's caught traction with "perfect is the enemy of the good" concern trolls who insist that a political and financial impossibility in America is something actually worth discussing beyond a philosophical context Sanders' refusal to acknowledge that yeah, blacks deserve reparations is weird, but it could very easily be a totally pragmatic move since he mine as well insist on wiping out the debt of the bottom 50% of Americans and/or make all educational services free if people actually think that blacks will get reparations ever
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
for reference, Sanders insists on the (in my opinion totally true) opinion that race relations in America is more a class issue than an overt racism issue (and as a result strongly advocates for wealth redistribution) which ruffles a lot of tumblr-esque feathers Coates is p much the only guy I've read whose voiced opposition beliefs in a fair and reasoned way, since most anti-Sanders beliefs seem rooted in an insistence that Sanders is somehow delusional or a secret racist or some poo poo. It's weird
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
The issue is very much an eating their own thing like Clinton is an oligarchical shill who is so deep in Corporate America's pockets that no light can reach her, so as a result she easily ignores the BLM movement beyond the most saving face of saving face addressment of issues on the other hand Sanders has made himself very accessible, and been willing to engage BLM on a level that no other candidate has or will, so as a result he's subjected to constant purity tests from BLM as they insist that he's doing not enough or he's a secret racist or he's dismissive of BLM or or or.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
I mean, he knows conservative estimates for the cost of reparations run in the hundreds of billions if not the trillions right? Not to mention that if the U.S. government were to ever start issuing them, the punitive damages (including literally the largest class-action lawsuit the world has ever seen) would be an order of magnitude worse, on top of literally grinding government to a halt? edit: raddits, at this point I'd suggest you read Coates' editorial. I think it's incredibly critical but also incredibly fair, and I have a hard time disagreeing with any real aspect of it (beyond the flat insistence that improving the livelihood of the lowest-class Americans wouldn't have a knock-on effect on race issues - which is the chief point on which Sanders and Coates differ, obviously) NieR Occomata fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Jan 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:I want to ask again for anyone who might answer: If you all hate Trevor and the new show so much, why do you keep watching and posting in this thread? There are those of us who still enjoy it. Can't you just leave the thread so we can discuss the actual content? i don't watch the show, i don't post about not watching the show, but please don't pull this metamodding bullshit that reads as "i just want a hugbox"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Making fun of Bernie and his supporters is a punch down, especially considering everyone with eyes and ears knows that Hillary's the candidate and everyone's gonna vote for her, mostly grudgingly because wowzers she's a terrible loving candidate. Making fun of Hillary is a punch up considering she's the odds-on favorite hand-picked by the oligarchy and the literal rich cabal of people in power to be one of the two candidates we'll be allowed to vote for that have a realistic shot at winning the election. Make fun of Bernie or his supporters if you want, but be aware it's a punch down and especially don't take the perspective that "Hillary's gonna be the candidate so stop expressing your dissent with how godawful, how absolutely loving horrifically awful of a candidate Clinton is". Because that's basically exactly what I get on my Twitter timeline from The Most Insufferable People Of All Time, Hillary supporters. Again, I'm not a Bernie bro or what-the-gently caress ever, I don't tweet in support of him or work for his campaign. I'm not an idiot, I'm gonna be voting for her in November and I'm under no delusions she's the candidate - and will win. So telling me that just makes you one of the myriad smug assholes crowing about "party unity" or whatever the gently caress when the party I'm forced to ally with because the other side are Literal Fascists has hand-picked someone who is about to enable the continued corporate dominance of this shoddy impression of a democracy we call America. And if your ostensible comedy television program continues to hector me superliciously, reminding me what I already know to be true, you're a smug rear end in a top hat basically telling people to give up and not express their opinions. Hope this helps.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Or, if you want to see actually good and prescient and funny comedic news coverage, here you go: Here.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I don't know, I feel like you can't really be "punching down" on a guy who basically made the 3rd best campaign to be the most powerful person in the world. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the political system that you honestly think being third best in a race in a two-party system means jack or poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Bernie Sanders made a surprisingly strong showing in a primary that was never in his favor and fought nose to nose with Hillary for a good part of it. Even today he has a mathematical/technically correct argument that he could still win which is something none of us would have ever imagined 12 months ago. It just seems like a really high bar for the "punching down" idea. ...because all of that means jack poo poo when the nominee won't actually do anything about the issues Sanders made central to his platform, at all, when she's elected president. And if you think Sanders' surprisingly strong showing means he'll effect any positive change at all within the people truly in power in either the DNC, the Democratic party in general, or the people who collectively made Clinton the nominee above the whims of the electorate you're more delusional than Bernie supporters. Support means nothing without power. Bernie has no power. The disenfranchised continue to be disenfranchised. Again, hope this helps.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
raditts posted:
Trump's populist anti-establishment message is how he gained the hardcore and impassioned fanbase that he has (and it's how he gained the nomination while running in a party who utterly despised him from beginning to when he clinched it), alongside a boatload of charisma and fascist/racist/xenophobic statements that give the hateful in this country a voice. It isn't just racist hicks, although that's a large part of who votes for him. It's that he's framed himself as an outsider willing to challenge the status quo (on top of the crazy racism and fascism and xenophobia), and this has translated into a LOT of people who truly believe in his message. And, basically, Hillary's the ur example of the establishment and continuation of the status quo, on top of the fact that she's a charismaless void of personality whose entire outward-facing persona is very clearly manufactured and malleable. So, basically, to Trump's platform Hillary's the exact candidate he wanted to face off against, because she represents everything he's campaigned against, just like Cruz and Bush before her. I mean, she's probably gonna win. Let's make that clear. But it won't be easy and probably won't be definitive considering how terrible she was at fending off the socialist Jew who ran that same populist campaign, while having many times more funding than he did and the same foregone conclusion campaign in the primary since the Dem nom was supposed to be a glorified coronation, and she won't have the benefit of a literal cabal of highly-paid Democrats who handpicked her over the whims of the electorate in the general. NieR Occomata fucked around with this message at 03:57 on May 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Mars4523 posted:Mind you, the idea that Hillary is having trouble defeating Sanders is a myth, constructed by the media who bandy around M word "momentum" like that is a thing that exists. Sanders has been benefiting from the calendar giving him lots of small, predominantly white states and caucus states, which he excels at winning. But in states with a large populations, lots of minorities, and primaries of any kind, Clinton has been stomping all over Sanders. Her delegate lead became insurmountable when Sanders failed to win over Southern African American democrats, and it's only gotten worse since. Sanders massively overperformed and we would have had a genuinely competitive race if superdelegates didn't exist, and it extra stings considering that superdelegates were literally invented to prevent populist campaigns from getting the Democratic nomination. And, yeah, this wasn't exactly a steamroll win for Hillary - she ran the primary campaign with her main platform essentially being "I'm gonna win anyways so you mine as well vote for me". She should've locked up the nomination many months beforehand, she didn't, and she's limping her way to a convention where she'll end up the handpicked appointee by the DNC. Her winning the nomination was never in doubt but she didn't exactly coast to a victory, despite running her campaign as if it were a coast. I mean, we shouldn't be surprised considering she ran the exact same campaign in 2016 that she ran in 2008, down to the massive war chest and funding a campaign that attempted to delegitimize the populist outsider candidate campaigning on a platform of change, with the same "It's a foregone conclusion so you mine as well vote for me" attitude, and she very nearly lost it. Again.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 16:41
|
|