[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
random

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 418316)
Message
File  []
close
Dgm2BXNXUAAuOyC[1].jpg
418316418316418316
>> No. 418316 Anonymous
2nd July 2018
Monday 9:50 pm
418316 Official Trump visit Thread
So The Tangerine Tyrant is gracing us with his presence, on the 13th of July. Friday the 13th in fact.

Coordinated mass protests are predicted and the met has drafted in reinforcements to "balance" free speech and security.

There's the admirable "Show your rump to trump", the coordinated mooning will if nothing offend POTUS, who is a self-confessed "germa-phobe".

Then there's the venerable "giant Trump Baby balloon". Though are Sadiq has forbidden its flying. Watch this space.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/activists-plan-giant-trump-baby-balloon-protest-uk/story?id=56195667

Buckle up, it's going to be one helluva ride.
185 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 419060 Anonymous
27th July 2018
Friday 11:36 pm
419060 spacer
>>419056

> I see a gradual progression towards them working together over the top of each other (arguably like we have now)

The thing is that neither pure unbridled capitalism nor all out socialism have proved to be effective in using resources efficiently and at the same time providing a worthy standard of living for the majority of the people. Unchecked capitalism tends to have an effect of ever more money and power accumulating in ever fewer hands. There is a famous parable in economics that states that if you distributed all the world's money evenly among all humans on the planet at noon one day and let things run their course without any kind of regulation at all, then by the early afternoon, you would have a mere handful of people again controlling almost all of that money.

History has shown that pure, unbridled, unlimited capitalism has a tendency to destroy itself the same way that socialism does. Because unchecked capitalism not only means many people become or remain poor while few prosper massively, but it also does such things as hinder competition, because unchecked capitalism tends to create monopolies over time. Competition and as a result seemingly neverending technological innovation are one of the key arguments for a capitalist system. Innovation means you aren't (likely) surfing the Internet with Windows 95 on a CRT monitor. Innovation means you have a fridge at home and a car with sat nav in the driveway, and running water in the bathroom and a toilet that flushes. And innovation can also mean an efficient use of natural resources, if steered in the right direction.

Socialism, on the other hand, at least the kind we saw practised in Eastern Europe, China, Southeast Asia and Latin America mainly in the 20th century, has had the problem that the idea of controlling the use of resources on a national level works quite poorly. Most classic socialist economies made or make multi-year plans in some way, shape, or form, in which the output of all kinds of goods is fixed. Industries and services are nationalised, and the whole system basically just works by people receiving orders from above and handing them further down in the chain of command. From politicians and indeed even economists who thought they could efficiently control the use of resources for entire industries and the whole country. The problem was, not only did this not work, and resources were squandered left, right and centre, but it also led to a standstill of innovation and standard of living. And in the later stages of economic failure, the bars for five-year plans were set so low that even an industrial combine that more or less spent those five years just pissing about received honours for fulfilling the five-year plan. There were just no incentives for personal responsibility, or indeed for the efficient use of resources. And when entire countries function that way, you end up with a 1970s Lada in your driveway that you had to wait for for ten years, you had only twenty percent of the population with a landline phone, and having a colour TV at all put you above your neighbours on your muddy unpaved village street.

What controlled (!) capitalism has taught us is that if you put the decisions over what resources to use in what way into the hands of individual companies which privately own thouse resources, then capital and other economic production factors tend to flow where they attain the best possible return of investment. Return on investment, in some ways, is also merely a monetary measure of expressing how efficiently you have used your resources.

You could say that a bit of socialism within a capitalist system takes the edge off it. My conviction as an economist is that only a sound combination of the two enables a large enough share of the world's population to live in relative prosperity and economic security.

And I would actually concur that we have too much capitalism in our world and too little socialism. Or rather, too few socialist elements in our capitalism. But as I said above, pure socialism has turned out to be just as little the right answer to the world's problems as unbridled capitalism.
>> No. 419095 Anonymous
28th July 2018
Saturday 11:44 pm
419095 spacer

socialism.jpg
419095419095419095
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-economy/imf-projects-venezuela-inflation-will-hit-1000000-percent-in-2018-idUSKBN1KD2L9
>> No. 419129 Anonymous
29th July 2018
Sunday 1:37 pm
419129 spacer
>>419052
>You see where I am going with this. I think penalties again would be the right answer. If you make producers of technical and electronic goods pay a considerable penalty if their products aren't serviceable, at least by trained persons, then they have an incentive to avoid hitting you with £350 for a tub and drum assembly.

I totally agree with your point, but a legal scheme such as this would be very very difficult to administer and regulate - manufacturers would just end up putting prices up to cover the costs of that.
>> No. 419130 Anonymous
29th July 2018
Sunday 1:48 pm
419130 spacer
>>419129

Well there are soft approaches as well. For example, at the EU level, there is an initiative right now to establish the "right to repair" with manufacturers, i.e. the goal is to get the makers of electronic and consumer goods to make their products serviceable by third parties. At the moment, Apple for example only allows repairs of its devices by authorised Apple dealers and staff. Being able to have your devices repaired by a shop down the street at a lower price without voiding the warranty would make repairs much more economically reasonable in the eyes of a consumer.

But it could go beyond that. What's also being thought about is a seal of sustainability that could be awarded to products that are serviceable and therefore don't require you to buy an all new unit if a small part fails. That could exert soft pressure on manufacturers. And at some point, you could then introduce a label on all new goods similar to the EU energy efficiency label, on which a product would then be classed in maybe different categories of sustainability according to how service friendly it is.

Sustainability sells in marketing nowadays, and you have a good number of people paying attention to a product's eco friendliness, which could be turned into a competitive advantage by manufacturers who are able to give you that kind of sustainability if you buy their washing machine or TV. It could become a selling point.
>> No. 419132 Anonymous
29th July 2018
Sunday 2:12 pm
419132 spacer
>>419130
But then how would Big Appliance be able to sell you new shit every other year?
>> No. 419136 Anonymous
29th July 2018
Sunday 3:17 pm
419136 spacer
>>419132
Could Big Appliance do takeback deals and refurb (drop a shiny new front on) for people who want to always have the newest?
Come to think of it, what happens to fridges and stuff that the delivery guys take away? Scrapped, or do they get fixed and flogged, since most failures are easy to fix if you've got the experience and a factory full of gubbins.
>> No. 419141 Anonymous
29th July 2018
Sunday 4:41 pm
419141 spacer
>>419136

They bleed them and repurpose the coolant, but if the Fridge has a modern compressor it is stress tested and recycled. Those things are gauranteed to last at least 10 years, assuming no manufacturing faults, so they can do it with stuff manufactered within the last 5 years and no one even knows, as we are all consumerist whores.
>> No. 419143 Anonymous
29th July 2018
Sunday 5:05 pm
419143 spacer
>>419130

We're looping back to a previous cunt-off about repair, but there already are durable and repairable versions of just about everything you might want to buy. Most people don't buy the durable and repairable option, because it's much more expensive. Industrial users do, because they give products a very hard life and see a meaningful return-on-investment for buying something that's built to last.

Most repairs aren't economically viable because of the cost of labour and the logistics costs involved in providing a spare parts service. We used to fix pretty much everything until it was completely clapped out, but automation drastically reduced the cost of new products relative to wages. Your nan probably knows how to darn a sock; your wife probably doesn't. That's progress.

The environmental impact of consumer goods is much smaller than most people think. A brand new iPhone results in about 60kg of carbon emissions; that's equivalent to a couple of joints of beef or half a tank of petrol. 95% of the environmental impact of your washing machine is the electricity used to run it; doubling the lifespan of your washing machine has a negligible environmental benefit compared to making it more efficient. If you've got an old washing machine with a C efficiency rating, replacing it with a new A+ rated machine will have a net environmental benefit even if the new machine only lasts for three years before being scrapped.

Landfill doesn't have a negative impact on the environment, because we know how to manage it safely. Modern landfill sites don't leak hazardous waste into the water course, they don't ruin the soil, they just sit there. We have practically infinite capacity for landfill, because a sufficiently old landfill site is just a small hill.

The overwhelming majority of our environmental impact is represented by heating, eating and transport. If we want to make any meaningful progress towards sustainability, we need to make major changes in those three areas. Fewer cars, more electric cars, more efficient homes and workplaces, and much less meat.

https://withouthotair.com/

https://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone_7_PER_sept2016.pdf

http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Washing_machine_summary_report.pdf
>> No. 419144 Anonymous
29th July 2018
Sunday 5:53 pm
419144 spacer
>>419143

Interesting post, but I'm skeptical about a few points:

>Landfill doesn't have a negative impact on the environment, because we know how to manage it safely. Modern landfill sites don't leak hazardous waste into the water course, they don't ruin the soil, they just sit there. We have practically infinite capacity for landfill, because a sufficiently old landfill site is just a small hill.

Does this also count for the 'opportunity cost' of having a site dedicated to a landfill rather than, say, woodland or some other natural type of landscape?

(As an aside: I would be willing to accept that people's aversion to landfills would be based more on aesthetic/symbolic ideas related to cultural distaste for consumerism than actual environmental impact.)

Interestingly, your man David MacKay there was cited by speakers in an organisation I'm pretty interested in, who research 'most effective' ways of approaching certain problems:



>Fewer cars, more electric cars, more efficient homes and workplaces, and much less meat.

Fully agreed. Where do you think the bulk of effort should be put? I enjoy novel high tech methods as much as anyone else, thigns like 'clean meat' (lab grown meat) and ever more efficient electric vehicles, but I'm wondering how much of it would really be about changing infrastructure entirely -- better public transport and so on.

Final point on consumables, would durable and repairable options also work out as cheaper for a typical consumer? This surely depends on the type of product.
>> No. 419148 Anonymous
29th July 2018
Sunday 6:38 pm
419148 spacer

Bristol_20161007-7073.jpg
419148419148419148
>>419144

>Does this also count for the 'opportunity cost' of having a site dedicated to a landfill rather than, say, woodland or some other natural type of landscape?

The image on the left is a landfill site one year after being filled and covered over. It's an American landfill site, so you can see the vent pipes for the landfill gas; in Europe, we usually plumb those vent pipes underground and use the gas as fuel.

>Where do you think the bulk of effort should be put?

From the government's perspective, I think the key objectives should be a) a meaningful carbon tax b) ubiquitous electric vehicle charging infrastructure and c) R&D investment in sustainable technology. We have a carbon emissions trading scheme in the EU, but the implementation was completely botched and the market ended up being glutted with cheap carbon credits. I'd prefer a tax pegged to the cost of carbon capture and sequestration. A carbon tax at that level would kill low-cost airlines overnight and add about 30% to your gas bill, but it would raise enough to fund major tax cuts or a substantial investment in public services.

The property market is absolutely insane in this country, but I think that relaxation of planning restrictions would be extremely helpful. If there are more houses in the places where they're needed, that has a significant effect on commuting. We have the oldest housing stock in Europe, which is also the most energy inefficient - stone cottages and Victorian terraces look cute, but they leak heat like a sieve. It's somewhat counterintuitive, but demolishing large parts of our housing stock would be a big win for sustainability.

>would durable and repairable options also work out as cheaper for a typical consumer?

The maths is quite tricky. As a rule, the most economical option is mid-priced - not so cheap as to have massively cut corners, but not overengineered for the sake of it. It's an information problem as much as anything, because most consumers can't tell the difference between overpriced tat and a genuine quality product.

My proposed solution to that information problem would be regulations on warranties to make them easier to claim against. The rate of warranty claims is remarkably low on most products because it's such a ballache to get a repair or replacement. A lot of people just bin the receipt for most stuff, on the expectation that the warranty will be more hassle than it's worth. If it's easier for consumers to make a warranty claim, manufacturers have an incentive to a) give a duration of warranty that reflects the actual quality of the product rather than meaningless "lifetime" warranties and b) design for durability and repairability where it makes economic sense to do so.
>> No. 419155 Anonymous
29th July 2018
Sunday 10:53 pm
419155 spacer
>>419148

>The image on the left is a landfill site one year after being filled and covered over. It's an American landfill site, so you can see the vent pipes for the landfill gas; in Europe, we usually plumb those vent pipes underground and use the gas as fuel.


The fact that there is an idyllic meadow growing on top of it now means nothing. Even around Chernobyl, you've got picture perfect forests. Show me soil and ground water samples from that landfill and have them analysed, and then we'll talk.


>>419143

>95% of the environmental impact of your washing machine is the electricity used to run it; doubling the lifespan of your washing machine has a negligible environmental benefit compared to making it more efficient.


I have a feeling you're still basing that just on the act of assembling a washing machine. Do you also factor in the carbon emissions of producing the steel and plastic for it, and the cost of shipping the parts back and forth until it undergoes final assembly in a factory in China somewhere, before being shipped to the UK by container?

Also, the main current draw of washing machines is from the electric motor. At least in the last one or two decades, there hasn't been much ground breaking process in making electric motors more efficient. Yes, a motor in a 2018 Bosch machine will probably draw less power than one in a 1990 Hotpoint. But somebody running a ten year old machine will not be able to cut their energy cost for running a washing machine in half simply by buying a new machine.

What has a much greater impact on how much electricity an electrical motor uses is that it is operated at its optimal load. That is, a good rule of thumb is to not overload or underload the machine. If you then break down the energy used per kilogramme of clothing, you will see that it probably has an even bigger effect than buying a brand new machine.
>> No. 419157 Anonymous
29th July 2018
Sunday 11:18 pm
419157 spacer
>>419155

>The fact that there is an idyllic meadow growing on top of it now means nothing. Even around Chernobyl, you've got picture perfect forests. Show me soil and ground water samples from that landfill and have them analysed, and then we'll talk.

A full description of landfill management is well beyond the scope of an imageboard post, but suffice it to say that landfill management is extremely sophisticated. Water runoff is continually captured, treated and monitored. The EU Landfill Directive requires this for all landfill sites, with particularly stringent requirements for landfill containing any amount of hazardous waste.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leachate

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31999L0031

>I have a feeling you're still basing that just on the act of assembling a washing machine. Do you also factor in the carbon emissions of producing the steel and plastic for it, and the cost of shipping the parts back and forth until it undergoes final assembly in a factory in China somewhere, before being shipped to the UK by container?

Full lifecycle analysis, from cradle to grave. Citation at the bottom of that post.

>Also, the main current draw of washing machines is from the electric motor. At least in the last one or two decades, there hasn't been much ground breaking process in making electric motors more efficient.

The best A+++ machines use brushless DC motors, which have only become viable in the last few years. There are energy losses in the drum bearings, seals and pump that can all be reduced. Efficiency in washing machines relies to a great extent on software - intelligent wash cycles use less energy and less water. The design of the drum and the impellers can also contribute substantially to efficiency, by creating more agitation with the same torque. A C-rated machine uses about 80% more energy than a A+++ rated machine for the same beefy poz load.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32010R1061
>> No. 419164 Anonymous
30th July 2018
Monday 2:02 am
419164 spacer

trebuchets.png
419164419164419164
Why don't we just build really big trebuchets?
>> No. 419171 Anonymous
30th July 2018
Monday 6:47 pm
419171 spacer
>>419164

Because it won't matter once our traditional economic infrastructure has been replaced by a small circle of robot oligarchs, who remain the only wealth creators in a market consisting solely of Fabergé eggs and foie gras.
>> No. 419172 Anonymous
30th July 2018
Monday 6:50 pm
419172 spacer
>>419171
I think you mean iFabergé eggs and iFoie gras.
>> No. 419173 Anonymous
30th July 2018
Monday 6:58 pm
419173 spacer
>>419172
AI won't be stupid enough to buy Apple, no.
>> No. 419185 Anonymous
31st July 2018
Tuesday 6:25 pm
419185 spacer
>>419173
That's just what skynet wants you to think.
>> No. 419668 Anonymous
18th August 2018
Saturday 3:05 pm
419668 spacer
>>419148
>It's an American landfill site, so you can see the vent pipes for the landfill gas; in Europe, we usually plumb those vent pipes underground and use the gas as fuel.

Something has just occurred to me thinking back to your post.

This is a topic of huge interest to me, still. So, what about landfills in countries with looser regulations? Given other countries like China produce a massive amount of our goods, what is the environmental impact there?
>> No. 419669 Anonymous
18th August 2018
Saturday 5:05 pm
419669 spacer
>>419668

Manufacturing produces remarkably little landfill waste. By design, every process is ruthlessly efficient and any useable scrap will be fully recycled wherever possible. Your inputs are all delivered in bulk, so the ratio of packaging to material is absolutely tiny. A half-ton roll of steel sheet only requires a couple of straps to stop it unravelling and two wooden blocks to stop it rolling off the truck. Plastic pellets for injection moulding arrive on site in 25kg sacks or unpackaged bulk. All your waste is kept separate throughout the production process, so it's very easy to recycle - offcuts from a steel stamping machine go straight in the scrap metal bin, sprues and runners from injection moulding go straight back into the machine etc. Chinese manufacturers are to some extent outsourcing their landfill problem to the west, because consumer goods are heavily packaged to protect them during shipping and retail.

Broadly speaking, the main waste problem in middle-income countries is all the stuff that doesn't end up in landfill. After fishing equipment, the main source of marine plastics pollution is consumer waste in Asia. Truckloads of waste just gets thrown in rivers or dumped at the side of the road, because enforcement of environmental legislation is lax and corruption is high. It'd rarely happen in the supply chain of a multinational corporation, but local businesses and householders just don't give a shit.

Air and water pollution is still a major problem, mainly due to poor regulations and enforcement. China are serious about fixing it, but India is just getting worse and worse. Unless you've got competent and trustworthy regulators, it's very easy to turn a blind eye to what goes up a chimney or down the drain.

It used to be the case that we sent a lot of post-consumer waste to China for "recycling", but they've largely put a stop to that. They realised that the paltry profits from the process didn't compensate for the environmental damage.

It's interesting to note that Silicon Valley is horrendously polluted. Before the dot-com boom, Silicon Valley mainly produced high-tech hardware for the military. A lot of those defence contractors were using some properly nasty chemicals as part of their manufacturing process and were very sloppy about preventing leaks. Large areas of Mountain View and Palo Alto are still severely contaminated.
>> No. 419706 Anonymous
20th August 2018
Monday 1:31 pm
419706 spacer

spd0816_garbagepatch_1_0.jpg
419706419706419706
>>419669

>After fishing equipment, the main source of marine plastics pollution is consumer waste in Asia.

This would not explain the North Atlantic Garbage Patch though. And the way sea currents flow, it also doesn't explain the North Pacific Garbage Patch, which is fuelled mainly by the tail end of the Humboldt Current, which flows all the way up the South and North American Pacific coast from the Antarctic.

I think another source of marine plastic pollution that is overlooked is millions of sea vessels great and small which just throw their rubbish overboard in the middle of the ocean.
>> No. 419730 Anonymous
21st August 2018
Tuesday 11:00 am
419730 spacer
>>419706

Most ships I've worked on sequester plastic waste and only throw food waste and cardboard overboard. That surely pales in significance against shore waste that ends up in rivers.
>> No. 419733 Anonymous
21st August 2018
Tuesday 4:53 pm
419733 spacer
>>419706
>is millions of sea vessels great and small which just throw their rubbish overboard in the middle of the ocean.

Insignificant compared to what we dump in rivers and sewers.
>> No. 419734 Anonymous
21st August 2018
Tuesday 6:37 pm
419734 spacer
>>419733
If by "we" you mean east-Asians, and by rubbish you mean the shiploads of rubbish which we pay various Asian countries to take off our hands because we don't like landfills.
>> No. 419735 Anonymous
21st August 2018
Tuesday 8:14 pm
419735 spacer
>>419734
Strictly speaking, we're paying them to recycle it. If they're dumpng it instead, then that's hardly our fault.
>> No. 419736 Anonymous
21st August 2018
Tuesday 10:56 pm
419736 spacer
>>419735
It is a bit though. Pretending like you don’t know what’s going on isn’t exactly plausible deniability. If you keep selling an arsonist petrol and matches and schools keep being burnt down then you’re complicit by your inaction at the least.
>> No. 419738 Anonymous
21st August 2018
Tuesday 11:59 pm
419738 spacer

27D5FE3E00000578-3049457-Damaging_The_mountains_of.jpg
419738419738419738
>>419735

There are millions of acres of toxic landfills in Africa where our supposedly recycled waste gets shipped and just dumped onto the ground. Electronic waste from computers, TVs and other devices and appliances in particular.

And the poorest scrape out a living sifting through the rubbish for anything they can sell on the black market, while risking their health and while the environment gets polluted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3049457/Where-computer-goes-die-Shocking-pictures-toxic-electronic-graveyards-Africa-West-dumps-old-PCs-laptops-microwaves-fridges-phones.html

> Defunct televisions, computers and keyboards (pictured) are transported to west-African countries like Ghana because 'it is cheaper than recycling it properly in European Union nations'
>> No. 419758 Anonymous
24th August 2018
Friday 1:22 am
419758 spacer
BBC Four have just done a documentary on landfill, if anyone is interested.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bgpc2f/the-secret-life-of-landfill-a-rubbish-history
>> No. 419759 Anonymous
24th August 2018
Friday 8:10 am
419759 spacer
>>419758

Hmm! I’ll have a gander tonight on the iPlayer.
>> No. 419761 Anonymous
24th August 2018
Friday 10:08 am
419761 spacer
>>419758
I watched it last night and I can say I was thoroughly depressed at the prospect of having to reuse the fossil fuels we've dumped into landfill. It's a sound idea, but it makes me think of an alky swigging back mouth wash and white spirit. It's just more unsustainability.
>> No. 419763 Anonymous
24th August 2018
Friday 12:43 pm
419763 spacer
>>419761

>having to reuse the fossil fuels we've dumped into a landfill

Haven't watched it... but most of that waste consists of hydrocarbon polymers. There has already loads of research been done into how to retrieve the hydrocarbons and transform them into near virgin plastic again. Given that plastic takes centuries to fully break down, there is stll ample time to keep pursuing the idea. And once there is a sufficiently large scale economically viable process of doing that, landfills could become the gold mines of the future. And all the rubbish floating in the oceans' garbage patches could become a profitable raw material.
>> No. 419931 Anonymous
1st September 2018
Saturday 1:47 pm
419931 spacer

1798.png
419931419931419931
Does this being allowed to happen not entirely undermine their belief that the "baby Trump" balloon was sanctioned as part of a political beef between the POTUS and Mayor Khan? And is it not deeply cynical and actually quite horrible to claim this is being done to raise awareness about knife crime? Or am I several decades too late to be ascribing logic and ethics to the actions of right wingers? And if the Khan Balloon is a baby, why's it wearing a bikini? Is this flagrant crypto-carpetbaggery?

I have so many questions.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/01/sadiq-khan-balloon-takes-flight-in-london
>> No. 419932 Anonymous
1st September 2018
Saturday 2:01 pm
419932 spacer
>>419931
The real issue here is that they are too spineless to admit their motive. This reminds me of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear but at least they were honest about what they were doing.
>> No. 419933 Anonymous
1st September 2018
Saturday 2:07 pm
419933 spacer
>>419931
The bikini is a reference to that advert on the tube that got banned.
>> No. 419934 Anonymous
1st September 2018
Saturday 2:24 pm
419934 spacer
>>419931
Why's he got a hook nose? I saw some comments on a RT video about this, and they said they got the nose right. But I'm sure Sadiq Khan doesn't have a hook nose. Is it coded antisemitism?
>> No. 419935 Anonymous
1st September 2018
Saturday 2:43 pm
419935 spacer
>>419933
Oh aye, that momentous turning point in the world of knife violence.

>>419934
Well the lad behind it has had Tweets resurface where he says something like "you know the Jews are in charge because you can't slag them off".

Also I've found out he's from Northampton, which might be why he feels Khan, as the Mayor of London, doesn't represent him.
>> No. 419936 Anonymous
1st September 2018
Saturday 2:46 pm
419936 spacer
>>419932
>This reminds me of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear
Sorry, I don't follow. If I recall that was an event run by two comedians in order to have a lefty festival, satirize Glenn Beck, and make a point about the sensationalised media. What does it have to do with the balloons?
>> No. 419956 Anonymous
2nd September 2018
Sunday 10:36 am
419956 spacer
>>419936

They are both counter protest with no real political point of their own, just as a response to some other action. This is a right wing equivelent. All be it on a smaller scale and less coherant in order to have a righty festival.


Glenn beck had a rally to restore honour - we should have a rally to restore sanity

They had a trump baby - we need a Khan baby.


>>419934
>a RT video about this

The fact that they considered this international news worthy when I barley consider this local news worthy makes their bias painfully obvious.
>> No. 419957 Anonymous
2nd September 2018
Sunday 11:08 am
419957 spacer
>>419956
I suppose you can argue the Rally to Restore Sanity was a reaction but Jon Stewart did make the point at the end that it was about being opposed to being overpartisan and making political enemies. We may have a recent example receiving renewed media attention of someone who didn't buy into that, when John McCain said Obama was "a decent man who I just have fundamental disagreements with".
>> No. 419958 Anonymous
2nd September 2018
Sunday 3:53 pm
419958 spacer

1535894084168.jpg
419958419958419958
The Sadiq balloon is a STEP TOO FAR
>> No. 419959 Anonymous
2nd September 2018
Sunday 5:13 pm
419959 spacer
>>419958
It's almost as if different writers have different opinions, or something.
>> No. 419960 Anonymous
2nd September 2018
Sunday 6:48 pm
419960 spacer
>>419959

That isn't how journalism works unfortunately, you follow the party line of the editor.
>> No. 419961 Anonymous
2nd September 2018
Sunday 6:56 pm
419961 spacer
>>419960
Yes, mainstream publications function like a Stalinist state. This is a FACT well documented by some YouTubers I listen to while washing up.
>> No. 419962 Anonymous
2nd September 2018
Sunday 7:29 pm
419962 spacer
>>419961

Do you really think the editor of, say, the Daily Mail would let someone publish an opinion piece about how good brexit is and how much they love immigrunts?
>> No. 419963 Anonymous
2nd September 2018
Sunday 8:09 pm
419963 spacer
>>419961
Dear god you only need to open a copty of private eye to know it is true, one of the key reasons it exists is so journalists can write the articles they want to write under a fake name that their editor blocked them from publishing.
>> No. 419965 Anonymous
2nd September 2018
Sunday 11:02 pm
419965 spacer
>>419962
I'm sure if the person you're replying to saw an example of such blatant double standards from the Mail's official Twitter account they'd just shrug and think 'well, I'm sure it's just different writers with different opinions'.
>> No. 419967 Anonymous
2nd September 2018
Sunday 11:18 pm
419967 spacer
>>419965
Because Paul Dacre's infamous stance on immigration is just like what the Metro's editor thinks of protest balloons... Fuck me.

I haven't visited here in a while, and now I remember why.
>> No. 419971 Anonymous
2nd September 2018
Sunday 11:33 pm
419971 spacer
>>419967

Fuck off then.
>> No. 419974 Anonymous
2nd September 2018
Sunday 11:49 pm
419974 spacer
>>419971
.gs has become populist humourless, dim and escapist in a boring sort of way.

Brexit has gotten to you.
>> No. 419976 Anonymous
3rd September 2018
Monday 12:51 am
419976 spacer

truth.png
419976419976419976
>>419967

>is just like what the Metro's editor thinks of protest balloons

What if I told you it goes waaay beyond the protest balloons- That newspapers like the metro and the mail, actually support different political parties, agendas, and ideologies. And that they deliberately filter all of the events of the world and focus on specific ones from a particular perspective to try get you to share their view of them.
>> No. 419980 Anonymous
3rd September 2018
Monday 9:17 am
419980 spacer

22575F80-B650-43BF-9D95-CD8A2758BFC8.jpg
419980419980419980
>>419976

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password