[ 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
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.
Expand all images.
>> No. 418317 Anonymous
2nd July 2018
Monday 9:52 pm
418317 spacer
Let's see if he can handle the #BANTZ
>> No. 418318 Anonymous
2nd July 2018
Monday 10:03 pm
418318 spacer
>>418316
I will be marking the occasion by being self-obsessed, smothering myself in fake tan, making inappropriate and contradictory comments, and grabbing my female coworkers by their pussies.

Though if by some miracle I manage to shake his hand, I shall make sure to swipe it through my arse crack first.
>> No. 418319 Anonymous
2nd July 2018
Monday 10:11 pm
418319 spacer

Anon_London_Feb10_TCR_Protesters.jpg
418319418319418319
I think its more likely to just be a bit embarrassing.
>> No. 418320 Anonymous
2nd July 2018
Monday 10:26 pm
418320 spacer
>>418319
This. It'd be far more effective to simply ignore his visit. Then again, most protestors seem to be doing it for pure vanity.
>> No. 418321 Anonymous
2nd July 2018
Monday 10:35 pm
418321 spacer
>>418316

Why? What will this do other than further the negative stereotypes about us?

Besides, Trump isn't even particularily disliked anymore.
>> No. 418322 Anonymous
2nd July 2018
Monday 10:43 pm
418322 spacer
>>418320
Couldn't agree more.
>> No. 418324 Anonymous
2nd July 2018
Monday 10:48 pm
418324 spacer
>>418320

That's so true. From everything we know about the nature of the man, it'd be absolutely devastating for him to be met with empty streets and tumbleweeds.
>> No. 418325 Anonymous
2nd July 2018
Monday 10:56 pm
418325 spacer
I don't understand why showing your arse to a germaphobe would upset them, outside of the presumed unpleasantness of seeing lots of arses. Unless someone manages to launch a liquid projectile shit at him, I think he'll just call them some names and not be the least bit bothered.
>> No. 418326 Anonymous
2nd July 2018
Monday 10:59 pm
418326 spacer
>>418321
>Why? What will this do other than further the negative stereotypes about us?

Demonstrate that his presence is not wanted. As opposed to assuming we are entirely tacit though our inaction.

>Trump isn't even particularily disliked anymore.

Fake news
>> No. 418327 Anonymous
2nd July 2018
Monday 11:04 pm
418327 spacer
>>418320
> It'd be far more effective to simply ignore his visit.
How could that possibly be true?
Ignoring is easily confused with silent approval. Boos and jeers aren't.
>> No. 418328 Anonymous
2nd July 2018
Monday 11:07 pm
418328 spacer
>>418327

Trump is a textbook narcissist. He'll enjoy crowds of people getting worked up about him regardless if it's positive or negative.
>> No. 418329 Anonymous
2nd July 2018
Monday 11:32 pm
418329 spacer
>>418328

Then you need to turn him in on himself. Calmly standing there with signs like "You are the worst President" I think would probably get under his skin, screaming and shouting would feed him.
>> No. 418330 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 12:10 am
418330 spacer
>>418328
Ignoring him will piss him off much more. Whatever happens during his visit, he will claim that thousands of us came out to see him.
>> No. 418332 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 5:22 am
418332 spacer
Wasn't Trump already effectively deterred from visiting in the past by threat of demonstrations?

It would seem the OP is right, kicking up a fuss is the better course of action, regardless of whether it affects Trump personally. It expresses disapproval to our own government, which is the one we actually have the greatest degree of influence over.
>> No. 418333 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 5:43 am
418333 spacer
>>418332

>Wasn't Trump already effectively deterred from visiting in the past by threat of demonstrations?

I don't believe so. I can't find any reference to this, at least.

You're right though - we should be protesting our own government. We already got him knocked down from an official state visit.
>> No. 418334 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 6:07 am
418334 spacer
>>418333
How hard did you look?


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/11/donald-trump-state-visit-delayed-president-told-pm-will-not/
>> No. 418335 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 6:49 am
418335 spacer
>>418334
>The American President is said to have told Theresa May he does not want to come if people do not welcome his visit.

Something that could have also been achieved by ignoring him, then. That would have also made him feel unwelcome. Trump has largely waited for the furore to die down following his comments about the London Bridge/Borough Market daft militant wog attack last year.

Anyway, people want to protest about Trump because it's fashionable. They want to go out and protest largely so they can let people know they're protesting and to take selfies of them doing so. They didn't protest about the Saudi state visit because it wasn't cool to do so and they'd earn few brownie points for it. Protesting Trump is a bandwagon they want to jump on.
>> No. 418336 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 6:51 am
418336 spacer
>>418334

But he is coming despite very public plans to protest him.
>> No. 418340 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 9:24 am
418340 spacer
Because Trump is a narcissist, he literally cannot perceive criticism of him. Calling him a massive bell end would just sounding like garbled gibberish to him. That's why he forces his staff to say nice things to him in meetings, because he can't properly perceive anything that doesn't congratulate him.
>> No. 418341 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 9:30 am
418341 spacer
>>418336

But if you read the thread you'll notice there is already a psy-ops campaign to convince those inclined to demonstrate not to show up. Because not showing up apparently sends a clear message as opposed to being assumed to be silent consent like it has every time in the past.
>> No. 418343 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 10:58 am
418343 spacer
>>418341
I don't think people shouldn't demonstrate, paranoia lad, I just think getting your bum out is a bit silly. One of the biggest criticisms of Trump is that he doesn't appear to take anything seriously, so we should moon him? It doesn't make sense to me.
>> No. 418344 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 12:01 pm
418344 spacer
It's fucking embarrassing.
>> No. 418348 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 4:27 pm
418348 spacer

769f561127d3d1c4296df513086003f5355a4159.jpg
418348418348418348
>>418343

I can already see Trump's tweets...

"England (sic) has become a nation of mooners. So sad."

"People mooning the U.S. President while immigrants take their jobs and rape their women. Disgusting."
>> No. 418349 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 5:08 pm
418349 spacer
>>418348

Yeah, he'll throw in a couple of "disgustings" and "shamefuls" too, but he won't actually care. Has no one noticed that yet? Just simply doesn't give a monkeys.

I think the slightly twee "hehe, rump" thing put me off too. Obviously they called it that because it rhymes, but if I properly hate someone, I want them to have to look deep into my Thai birthday suprise and never, ever forget it.
>> No. 418350 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 5:12 pm
418350 spacer
>>418341
> if you read the thread you'll notice there is already a psy-ops campaign to convince those inclined to demonstrate not to show up

WAKE. UP. SHEEPLE.
>> No. 418351 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 5:25 pm
418351 spacer
>>418350

Psy Ops telling people not to demonstrate. Shameful.
>> No. 418352 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 5:43 pm
418352 spacer
>>418351
How influential do you imagine Britfa.gs is? I know we used to be one of the top Google results for a certain beefy phrase, but people calling your protest ideas vacuous on here isn't going to result in thousands of people deciding not to do it.
>> No. 418353 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 5:44 pm
418353 spacer
Is there anything happening for us who want to show our support for him?
>> No. 418354 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 6:42 pm
418354 spacer
Christ this is embarrassing. Shall we have a large, dignified protest? Perhaps one with an echoing silence that would perfectly display how little we think of this childish, petulant, offensive, incompetent boor? No, let's call up the Rentamobs and show the world that when Brits make a point we like to do it like toddlers. Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

I have been to two protests in my life. Both were well-behaved and somewhat successful, since we were, ya know, trying to raise awareness of issues that local politicians could actually do something about. And on both occasions I saw the same twat wearing a rubber pig mask calling himself 'Hardcastle' who had nothing to do with either and who just liked going along to any demo he could find if it gave him an excuse to yell at policemen and be all revolutionary innit. And also presumably to dribble on about it to his mates afterwards as a proud Anti-Whatever Warrior.
As stated above the perfect form of protest would be for nobody to show up. Trump is exactly the sort of person who thinks that if he's riling people up in large numbers then he must be doing something right and he won't distinguish between positive and negative responses; that kind of ego cares only for more, louder, more strident attention. Alternatively a large crowd standing in complete silence would definitely unsettle him and make a point far louder than screaming 'FUCK DRUMPF' while pointing buttcracks at the watching world.

What we'll get instead is the usual bunch of paranoid drugged-up shouty refuseniks and obese shrieking acrobat harpies with badly dyed-hair. It will be humiliating for exactly the wrong people and won't change a fucking thing. Except of course, it will give these sorts of idiots the warm, comforting glow of Doing The Right Thing. I don't seem to recall them out in force when America's last president was committing extra-judicial killings on an industrial scale across the Middle East.

But what do I know, I'm just a junior officer in the YMCA's Psy-Op Division, carefully monitoring the hive of organised sedition that is .gs.
>> No. 418355 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 7:02 pm
418355 spacer
>>418352

Maybe we should go to the protests waving a banner with the letters ".gs/b/" on it.

So here is your challenge: Attend the protests, with a banner with ".gs/b/" on it, and then try to make it into the mainstream media's photo coverage of the event.

Make sure that it reads ".gs/b/" and not just "/b/". The paedos good people of 4chan can make their own banner.
>> No. 418356 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 7:09 pm
418356 spacer
>>418355
Just leave out the /b/ entirely. If we need a slash in there, use /IQ/ or /SHED/ instead.
>> No. 418361 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 8:43 pm
418361 spacer
>>418356

Still too on the nose.

I'll only be happy if I see a real deep cut britfa reference. "BAN TRUMP FROM THE CHIP SHOP" "ORANGE DONNY FELT MY MUSCLES" "JUSTICE FOR TEACOCK", that sort of thing.
>> No. 418362 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 8:45 pm
418362 spacer
>>418361
Aren't those all Britchan references?
>> No. 418363 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 9:08 pm
418363 spacer
>>418362
Not the first one I don't think. It was about a mod exiled from here.
>> No. 418364 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 9:14 pm
418364 spacer
>>418362

Now that I think about it Teacock might be, but Chipshop is from here, and are Aki is either from here, or simply so transcendent that it doesn't matter.

I'm fully supportive of a "don't let anyone dull your sparkle" sign, or maybe something to do with axe grinding. Or just half past two.
>> No. 418365 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 9:46 pm
418365 spacer
>>418351

Psy ops, or the genuine opinion that a reasonable, peaceful demonstration against an unreasonable, violent man is not a good option?

Either shoot him or stay at home ffs.
>> No. 418366 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 10:03 pm
418366 spacer

bad-donald-trump-tattoos-funny-face.jpg
418366418366418366
>>418361

How about this whole site's motto...

>"annoyingly elitist, reassuringly expansive"

I was going to say it's a good description both of this site and of Trump, but now that I think about it, in the case of Trump, being a big mouthed senile cunt with shedloads of money doesn't automatically make you elitist. However annoying you may be.
>> No. 418367 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 10:51 pm
418367 spacer
>>418361
Didn't ARE MOATY rob a chippy?
>> No. 418368 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 11:13 pm
418368 spacer
>>418366

>I was going to say it's a good description both of this site and of Trump

...and ARE STELLA of course.
>> No. 418369 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 11:16 pm
418369 spacer
>>418366
>reassuringly expansive

Provided you want to talk about coding, being a chef or hate on womenfolk.
>> No. 418371 Anonymous
3rd July 2018
Tuesday 11:29 pm
418371 spacer
>>418369

What if I am a coding whale poacher chef?
>> No. 418373 Anonymous
4th July 2018
Wednesday 1:42 am
418373 spacer
>>418369
And your experience as an alcoholic or maybe who your guilty crush is.
>> No. 418376 Anonymous
4th July 2018
Wednesday 1:03 pm
418376 spacer
>>418371>>418373
I felt all flushed with fever embarrassed by the crowd.
I felt he found my letters and read each one out loud.
I prayed that he would finish but he just kept right on.
Strumming my pain with his fingers
singing my life with his words
killing me softly with his song
killing me softly with his song telling my whole life
with his words killing me softly
with his song.
>> No. 418386 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 1:34 am
418386 spacer
>>418373
Or that time a bunch of reprobates on an internet messageboard egged you on into shagging your auntie.
>> No. 418387 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 1:38 am
418387 spacer
>>418386


>egged you on into shagging your auntie.

You see far worse on .gs.
>> No. 418388 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 1:42 am
418388 spacer
>>418387
I...whuh...you mean we've done worse than actual incest?
>> No. 418389 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 2:14 am
418389 spacer
>>418388
There was that lad with the phone ...
>> No. 418390 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 2:50 am
418390 spacer
>>418388

I'm sure we had an Auntiefucker around here 2-3 years ago or so.
>> No. 418392 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 8:37 am
418392 spacer
>>418390
It was longer than that lad.
>> No. 418403 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 1:35 pm
418403 spacer

pbs_twimg_com_media_DhVmcxuW4AE_.jpg
418403418403418403
>A giant balloon dubbed "Trump baby" has been given the green light to fly near parliament during the president's UK visit.

>London mayor Sadiq Khan's Greater London Authority has approved a request for the flight after thousands signed a petition and a crowdfunding campaign raised more than £16,000 to get the six-metre inflatable off the ground.

https://news.sky.com/story/trump-angry-baby-blimp-gets-green-light-to-fly-
over-london-during-presidents-visit-11426665
>> No. 418404 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 1:41 pm
418404 spacer

donald-trump-huge-mouth-like-centipede-stack-of-ne.jpg
418404418404418404
>>418403

That's just going to be Twitter gold when Trump finds out and tweets about it.
>> No. 418407 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 2:26 pm
418407 spacer
>>418403

How long before one of our lot shoots it down?
>> No. 418410 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 2:53 pm
418410 spacer
>>418407

You mean somebody from .gs?
>> No. 418411 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 2:54 pm
418411 spacer
>>418407

I'm predicting US secret service will shoot it down, and will spark a national controversy just as insane as the current presidency.
>> No. 418413 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 3:13 pm
418413 spacer
>>418411 

They have a permit from the Mayor of London, and the U.S. Secret Service has no jurisdiction in the UK. All it is allowed to do is avert immediate threats to the safety or well being of the President. Its powers while they are here in Britain do not go beyond a citizen's arrest.
>> No. 418414 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 3:23 pm
418414 spacer
>>418413

They'll still shoot it and plant some crack on it mate. They're Americans.
>> No. 418419 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 8:13 pm
418419 spacer
>>418316
And this is why I can't feel sad anytime the grooming gangs routinely violate the local Chavette slags. Britain needs someone like Trump or Enoch Powell.
>> No. 418420 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 8:15 pm
418420 spacer
>>418419

What, so a different set of people can be oppressed?
>> No. 418424 Anonymous
5th July 2018
Thursday 9:14 pm
418424 spacer
>>418419

Well trolled, lad.
>> No. 418440 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 10:42 am
418440 spacer
>>418424

Why would he be trolling? He's right.
>> No. 418450 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 1:39 pm
418450 spacer
>>418440

Is he? You don't need rivers of blood to correct police handling of situations it shouldn't be that hard of concept for the police to grasp the idea of applying the law as it currently exists.

The most bewildering thing to me is that they don't in these situations.
>> No. 418451 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 1:58 pm
418451 spacer
>>418450
Do you know anything about Enoch Powell other than his name and 'rivers of blood sounds scary'?
>> No. 418452 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 2:07 pm
418452 spacer
>>418451

We know that what he foresaw did not happen.
>> No. 418454 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 2:53 pm
418454 spacer
>>418451

Yes I do. Do you have a point?
>> No. 418459 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 4:09 pm
418459 spacer
>>418452

I've got a pair of glasses here for you, mate.

>>418451

I hate that that speech got the name that it did. Lefty propaganda wins again "but he wants rivers of blood, running in the streets no doubt". Commie bastards, Thatcher should have had them all deported to France.
>> No. 418461 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 5:15 pm
418461 spacer
Owen Jones has endorsed it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/06/trump-baby-blimp-snowflake-right-london

That's the kiss of death, then. It'll probably burst, fly away after the tethers snap, kill an elderly person or something like that.
>> No. 418466 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 5:43 pm
418466 spacer
Is it time to get into a cunt off about Enoch Powell?

Incidentally, here's his infamous speech in full:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09z08w3

Which he made in reaction to the race relations bill. Powell was kicked out of the Tory cabinet following this speech.
>> No. 418470 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 6:04 pm
418470 spacer
>>418466

We all have access to Wikipedia, lad.
>> No. 418474 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 6:47 pm
418474 spacer
>>418459

>I hate that that speech got the name that it did. Lefty propaganda wins again "but he wants rivers of blood, running in the streets no doubt".

"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood" -from the rivers of blood speech.

Yes it was a total misrepresentation it should be called "the preexisting river filled with blood speech" calling it the rivers of blood speech is a totally inappropriate.
>> No. 418476 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 7:07 pm
418476 spacer
>>418474
It didn't help that having developed a solid argument he proceeded to jump off the deep end around two-thirds of the way through, and despite being one of the foremost classicists of his time he got the reference completely wrong.
>> No. 418481 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 8:04 pm
418481 spacer

trumpcunt800x546.jpg
418481418481418481
>>418316
Cleverly scheduled for the day before the World Cup final. Not so cleverly arranged to visit Scotland. I can see the football chant already.

HEEEEY HEY DONALD
I WANNA KNOOOW
WHY YOU'RE SUCH A CUNT
>> No. 418484 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 9:55 pm
418484 spacer
>>418474

> "As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood" -from the rivers of blood speech.

> Yes it was a total misrepresentation

The misinterpretation is all yours, Are Enoch was just being metaphorical, lad. What he really meant was "like the man in Rotherham, I seem to see the River Dearne foaming with much blood of deflowered virgins raped by organized gangs of immigrants that you lefty wankers are letting in".

I'm not saying I'm happy that he was right. I too wish we could all live together in peace and harmony but we can't, because the world is made up of two kinds of people; cunts and mugs. Old Enoch might have been a cunt but it's a damn sight better than being a mug.
>> No. 418486 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 10:10 pm
418486 spacer
>>418484
Back to the other /pol/, lad.
>> No. 418487 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 10:15 pm
418487 spacer
>>418486
> Back to the other /pol/, lad.

We're not even on /pol/, here, you total smeghead.
>> No. 418488 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 10:22 pm
418488 spacer
>>418487

Nobody said we were, you illiterate muppet.
>> No. 418490 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 10:28 pm
418490 spacer
>>418488

> Back to the other /pol/
> the other /pol/

This implies that we are on a /pol/ to begin with. What I think you were trying, in your simian way, smashing your keyboard with your ape like fists, was "Get back to /pol/ on the other place, lad.", but never mind, lad. Some of us have to be mugs, I guess.

Anyway, as you can't even form a sentence correctly I hereby veto any opinion you have on anything else.

There would be little point in going to /pol/ on the other place anyway, because even if I did want to discuss Enoch Powell with a bunch of ignorant yanks and fourteen year old idiots shitposting in between rounds of whatever online video game is flavour of the week, I wouldn't do it there.
>> No. 418491 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 10:41 pm
418491 spacer
>>418490
>This implies that we are on a /pol/ to begin with.
No, it implies that your dreck is so devoid of substance that it falls below the already low standards of our /pol/.
>> No. 418493 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 10:50 pm
418493 spacer
>>418481

No, there is only one true Scotsman taunt for the clothesless Emperor comes a calling.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6qoQ7UvEBk
>> No. 418494 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 10:52 pm
418494 spacer
>>418486
>>418488
>>418487
>>418490
>>418491

ITT: a thread about the world's biggest cunt turns into an entirely predictable .gs cunt off.
>> No. 418496 Anonymous
6th July 2018
Friday 10:57 pm
418496 spacer
>>418493

That clip looks like a paedo's wet dream.
>> No. 418505 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 12:01 am
418505 spacer

hmmmmm.jpg
418505418505418505
>>418484
>> No. 418512 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 1:40 am
418512 spacer
>>418505

I might just be a top lad*, but can you explain exactly which goalposts I'm moving and how?

* Now let's see who remembers that one
>> No. 418513 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 1:41 am
418513 spacer
>>418512

Nice, it even got a word filter in the end I see.
>> No. 418515 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 2:09 am
418515 spacer
>>418392

Really? How long ago was it? .gs years blend into one giant timesink of a year.
>> No. 418519 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 6:37 am
418519 spacer

483102.jpg
418519418519418519
Counter protestors have raised £26,000 for a giant inflatable baby Sadiq Khan.

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/giant-sadiq-khan-baby-balloon-to-fly-over-london/
>> No. 418521 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 6:44 am
418521 spacer
>>418519
I'm pretty sure that this is somewhere in the book of revelations.
>> No. 418530 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 10:19 am
418530 spacer
>>418505
I'll summarize.

"It shouldn't be called the rivers of blood speech, that's just left wing propaganda"

Quote from the speech where he describes a river filled with blood

"Oh you don't understand that's just a metaphor"


Seems to me the name rivers of blood is a perfectly reasonable title and not left wing propaganda. And that my understanding of the metaphor is entirely irrelevant to that point.
>> No. 418531 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 10:25 am
418531 spacer
>>418530

It was spelt wrong though, he really meant "rivers of blud".
>> No. 418539 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 2:15 pm
418539 spacer
>>418530
>>418530
> Seems to me the name rivers of blood is a perfectly reasonable title and not left wing propaganda.

Then you're a fucking idiot. There's no other way to say it. Calling a speech "Rivers of blood" gives the impressionable 90% who will never read it the convenient impression that it was an impassioned call to violence, when in fact the words "river Tiber" and "blood" were merely part of a throw-away reference at the end of the speech that had almost no impact at all on its overall message or content. A man of Enoch's education probably thought it added weight and gravitas to his words, while the average spanner who wouldn't have known the Tiber from his Khyber Pass cack-handledly calculated "conservative" + "rivers of blood" + "the word 'negro'" = "racist nazi brown shirt, boooooo".

And that, sir, is your basic definition of propaganda. The fact you are here and it is now and you are still under the its spell all these years later, despite posting on an internet full of academic explanations of why / how the name "rivers of blood" was used to deconstruct and ridicule ideas that were actually legitimate concerns only goes to show us all how powerful such propaganda is and that all Freuds should be put to the sword .

Anyway if you'll excuse me I've got to go and finish shaving my head in my limited edition Jimmy Saville shaving mirror and polishing my granddad's Dr Martins so I can kick some laplander heads in when England lose in a couple of hours.

>>418531

Possibly the best name for a grime track never recorded, "they tell me the Thames is just white folks and mud but all I can see is just rivers of blud [base drops] / Got yats in my yacht while I'm smoking my blunt / an all I can see is just rivers of blud"......
>> No. 418543 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 3:25 pm
418543 spacer
>>418539

>WHY IS IT CALLED RIVERS OF BLOOD/THE ST CRISPINS DAY/ I HAVE A DREAM/NEVER HAS SO MUCH BEEN OWED BY SO MANY TO SO FEW SPEECH! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A RIVER OF BLOOD/ST CRISPIN/SLEEP/OWING PEOPLE THING IT IS JUST A REMEMABLE LINE FROM THE SPEECH NAMING IT THAT IS A DELIBERATE TACTIC TO MISLEAD THE SHEEPLE, YOU ARE SO STUPID FOR NOT KNOWING THAT!

I see. Firstly I doubt Powell or anyone of the same inclination ever had an issue, with that name for the speech otherwise he would have never used that imagery, clearly it was his intention to portray unchecked immigration as having horrific consequences i.e. rivers of blood, and secondly I have never misunderstood what the intent of the metaphor was, nor do most people who talk negatively about it, they and I, aren't spooked by the idea rivers of blood like what he is suggesting is a violent solution but disagree with the philosophy contained within you long term Dunning–Kruger sufferer.
If you have an issue with the title you should have taken it up with Powell at the time, because no one gives a shit now on either side of the fence apart from you since you got your infowars tinfoil hat and supplements in the post and decided it is a conspiracy 50 years after the fact.
>> No. 418544 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 5:05 pm
418544 spacer
>>418543

> you long term Dunning–Kruger sufferer

The irony here is palpable. I understand it's match day and you're probably 8 tins down but come back tomorrow when you're sober and try to 1) not use 4chan style "meme quoting" 2) make proper use of paragraphs and punctuation. Now go have a nap. There's a good lad.
>> No. 418545 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 5:38 pm
418545 spacer
>>418543

> Firstly I doubt Powell or anyone of the same inclination ever had an issue, with that name for the speech otherwise he would have never used that imagery

Then, again, you're a total idiot. Just because you make one reference doesn't mean you expect for your speech to be referred to by it any more than you would expect it to be referred to be any other aspect or part of the speech. Why wasn't it referred to as the "I spoke to a member of my constituancy speech"? Well, because that doesn't scare the mugs.

> and secondly I have never misunderstood what the intent of the metaphor was, nor do most people who talk negatively about it, they and I, aren't spooked by the idea rivers of blood like what he is suggesting is a violent solution but disagree with the philosophy contained within [SIC]

What a glorious snippet of a long and powerful run-on sentence that is!

> they and I, aren't spooked by the idea rivers of blood like what he is suggesting is a violent solution but disagree with the philosophy contained within

This part is almost parsable. We disagree. You think that he was suggesting "rivers of blood" as a violent solution. I think that that is what the popular use of that name was meant to make people think, and that what he actually would have preferred was a much more sensible solution; only that no one was doing anything to help bring that about. His reference to the river Tiber was more of a warning of what could come to pass (and has come to pass) if more sensible immigration policy was not put in place (which it wasn't, and hasn't been).

> If you have an issue with the title you should have taken it up with Powell at the time

You honestly think that Powell got to decide on the popular name given by the media to his speech, and yet I'm the one who suffers from the Dunning–Kruger effect? Christ on a bike, lad.

> decided it is a conspiracy 50 years after the fact.

You honestly manage to conflate propaganda and conspiracy, and yet I'm the one who suffers from the Dunning–Kruger effect? Two Christs on the same bike, lad.

Have a word.
>> No. 418546 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 5:45 pm
418546 spacer
YEASTY CUNTS
YOU'RE ALL ON BRITFA BEING YEASTY CUNTS
YEASTY CUNTS
WASTING SUNSHINE BEING YEASTY CUNTS
>> No. 418547 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 6:11 pm
418547 spacer
>>418545
>Why wasn't it referred to as the "I spoke to a member of my constituancy speech"?
That wouldn't distinguish it from the dozen or so such things that happen during almost every sitting in Parliament.
>> No. 418548 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 6:24 pm
418548 spacer
>>418547

I'll give you that, but the speech was utterly full of differentiating remarks and anecdotes, not to mention imagery. A more conservative media could easily have branded it the "Great betrayal" speech, for example.
>> No. 418550 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 7:33 pm
418550 spacer
>>418545

>You honestly manage to conflate propaganda and conspiracy, and yet I'm the one who suffers from the Dunning–Kruger effect? Two Christs on the same bike, lad.

We call believing something must be a piece of political propaganda with no evidence a conspiracy theory.
>> No. 418551 Anonymous
7th July 2018
Saturday 8:50 pm
418551 spacer
>>418545
>His reference to the river Tiber was more of a warning of what could come to pass (and has come to pass) if more sensible immigration policy was not put in place
His reference to the river Tiber was a quote from the Aeneid, referring to a prophesy that the Trojan immigrant Aeneas would see violence and war before peace and prosperity in what would become Rome. It's the complete opposite of what Powell was trying to use it to express.
>> No. 418552 Anonymous
8th July 2018
Sunday 1:04 am
418552 spacer

GettyImages-878274898.jpg
418552418552418552
>>418316


HEY GUYS, HOW DO I GET LEFTY WING VIRTUE SIGNALS, NO BEHEADED WOMAN BALLOON WHEN I ARRIVE, IS IT BECAUSE I'M BROWN

AAGH i SEE YOU ARE IGNORANT, LIKE pale demons from beyond the ice STUPID, LIKE WOMEN.
>> No. 418556 Anonymous
8th July 2018
Sunday 3:08 am
418556 spacer
>>418552
Have you gone and had a stroke, you delerious twat?
>> No. 418557 Anonymous
8th July 2018
Sunday 4:06 am
418557 spacer
>>418556

I think this is Trump shill Whataboutism.
>> No. 418558 Anonymous
8th July 2018
Sunday 4:35 am
418558 spacer
>>418550
> We call believing something must be a piece of political propaganda with no evidence a conspiracy theory.


No, we don't. That's not what a conspiracy is you total fucking automated lunar cooking appliance. It might be a bit nutty, or even a bit thick, but it has absolutely fuck all to do with conspiracy. Christ, you really are as thick as dogshit in Doncaster.
>> No. 418559 Anonymous
8th July 2018
Sunday 4:38 am
418559 spacer
>>418551

Interesting. I assume that this was what was being referred to in >>418476 ?

Would it be utterly naive of me to suggest that it throws doubt on what he actually was trying to express?
>> No. 418560 Anonymous
8th July 2018
Sunday 4:41 am
418560 spacer
>>418552
Don't be silly, the radical left are far too scared to protest people that aren't white. Accusations of dolphin rape, no matter how febrile, could shatter their self-perception of inarguable moral superiority. Presumably that's why they can never bring themselves to march against, oh I don't know, Female Genital Mutilation.
>> No. 418561 Anonymous
8th July 2018
Sunday 5:27 am
418561 spacer
>>418558

Thats just what a left wing shill WOULD say.
>> No. 418562 Anonymous
8th July 2018
Sunday 7:27 am
418562 spacer
>>418561
That's just what a right wing shill WOULD say.
>> No. 418563 Anonymous
8th July 2018
Sunday 10:31 am
418563 spacer
>>418562

I know you are, but what am I?
>> No. 418564 Anonymous
8th July 2018
Sunday 10:53 am
418564 spacer
>>418559l

Other lad was being deliberately slightly misleading with the way he explained the story. When Virgil wrote the text he was very deliberate in the challenges that they over come to found Rome. Enemies of the Romans had defeated in real life litter the encounters and they are rejected because their cultures are not the Romans way, the Romans are not a group that yield to others values they set the terms and their culture of laws, religion and not being afraid to fight for it is drilled in as being sacred they are uncompromising in their values.


That is what Powell probably intended in the speech. To express the need to hold on to the idea of keeping Britain British.
>> No. 418565 Anonymous
8th July 2018
Sunday 11:17 am
418565 spacer
>>418564
Apart from when they suddenly change to Christianity.
>> No. 418569 Anonymous
8th July 2018
Sunday 1:26 pm
418569 spacer
>>418565

That was hundreds of years later. And it wasn't that sudden, the romans had a culture of belief that might makes right and victory shows that the gods are in your favour, so when Constantine started winning whilst proclaiming his Christianity, the Romans considered it was a sign that was the correct belief, in many ways it is one of the smallest social shifts to happen to the romans. Especially when you consider that within 10 years of Virgil’s writing during the Roman Republic that had lasted for 500 year a man called Caser would get stabbed in the senate and a young man called Gaius Octavius Thurinus would become known simply as Augustus.
>> No. 418571 Anonymous
8th July 2018
Sunday 3:53 pm
418571 spacer
>>418564

Thanks lad. That's food for thought for me because while I obviously abhor the idea of the "there's gonna be a race war lads" interpretation of the phrase "Rivers of Blood", I was also largely brought up to abhor the "keep Britain British" train of thought (and to follow more of a "live and let live" philosophy) but when abroad to follow the dictum "when in Rome do as the Romans", which this obviously links back too.

Sage for confused half-nonsense posting, but thank you for your post lad.
>> No. 418573 Anonymous
8th July 2018
Sunday 5:20 pm
418573 spacer
>>418571
There is a hint of the race war narrative in the original at the point where Powell quoted it, but the key aspect is that it is not specific as to whose blood it is. One can assume that as this is given as a warning to Aeneas, who is an outsider, that it's not native Lavinian blood. Remember that the Aeneid is sort of an origin story for Rome (Aeneas is an ancestor of Romulus and Remus), so at the time of its setting there are no Romans yet.

General consensus among actual classicists, as opposed to us pseudo-intellectual pretenders on the internet, is that Powell's characterisation is either misleading or wildly misapprehended.
>> No. 418655 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 7:34 pm
418655 spacer

Dh_qXssW0AAkhMf[1].jpg
418655418655418655
Disappointing lack of rumps but overall a good turnout.
>> No. 418658 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 8:14 pm
418658 spacer
>>418655

Like >>418335 and others said, this is definitely a protest solely for the cause of making yourself look/feel superior. Look how clever our signs are, look how funny we are, look how righteous we are.

I'm all for protest and Trump is obviously a fuckwit, but having a 'wittiest placard' parade feels just as self serving as his twitter feed.

Apparently the giant baby thing made him feel unwelcome, so at least there's that.
>> No. 418659 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 8:29 pm
418659 spacer

4E31A74200000578-5949985-image-a-34_1531488144027.jpg
418659418659418659
That Trump balloon looks utterly pathetic. I'm starting to suspect that it cost about £200 and someone has pocketed the rest of the donations.
>> No. 418660 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 8:33 pm
418660 spacer

untitled.jpg
418660418660418660
>>418655
>overall a good turnout

Wasn't the prediction for thousands to turn up?
>> No. 418661 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 8:35 pm
418661 spacer
It's the most pathetic protest I can remember.
>> No. 418662 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 8:36 pm
418662 spacer

4E336F5500000578-5949985-Ed_Miliband_participates_.jpg
418662418662418662
>>418661
Typical crusty rent-a-mob.
>> No. 418663 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 8:42 pm
418663 spacer

08c97cd25b482cf67bf00f33ab68ac5e.png
418663418663418663
>>418659

I don't know if it's deliberate depending on which paper each photo is destined for, or just a consequence of telephoto vs wide lens, but different images have made it look either much smaller or bigger than it really is.

It's apparently 19 foot tall.
>> No. 418664 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 8:43 pm
418664 spacer
>>418660
Good to see the zombie pride movement is making good progress.
>> No. 418665 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 8:55 pm
418665 spacer

Dh_O0hUW4AA_t8L.jpg
418665418665418665
>>418660
And they did. What's your point?
>> No. 418667 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 9:00 pm
418667 spacer
>>418659

There were smaller replicas doing the rounds too, mate.
>> No. 418670 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 9:12 pm
418670 spacer

Dh-0ZjyW0AIvjdq.jpg
418670418670418670
>>418667
Small... Far away.
Small... Far away.
>> No. 418671 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 9:13 pm
418671 spacer
>>418660

Christ. Can't wait to see this in foreigns papers with the caption 'Ordinary Brits out in force against Trump'. If the Tangerine Tyrant saw this himself you can bet he'd be even more confident than ever that he's on the right track.
>> No. 418673 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 9:17 pm
418673 spacer
>>418665
That you and your filthy pals wasted everyones time (including those of the police) on your nonsense that was never intended to do anything but aggravate Britain's diplomatic relations.
>> No. 418674 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 9:24 pm
418674 spacer
>>418660

That photo is fucikng disgusting. What are those things?
>> No. 418675 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 9:27 pm
418675 spacer
>>418673

>including those of the police

Do you suppose the police wouldn't have been knocking about for a presidential visit otherwise?
>> No. 418678 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 9:39 pm
418678 spacer
>>418675
Considering they have been mobilised in numbers not seen since the 2011 London riots, yes. Do you somehow think that protests don't impact police numbers?
>> No. 418679 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 10:08 pm
418679 spacer
>>418678

I thought nobody showed up?
>> No. 418680 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 10:40 pm
418680 spacer
>>418671
You frightened of the big scary drag queens lad?

You realise these people are out in all their finery precisely because Trump represents the kind of Christian-value fascism that considers them abominations?
>> No. 418681 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 10:44 pm
418681 spacer
>>418680
Because they are.
>> No. 418682 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 10:49 pm
418682 spacer
>>418681

How does it feel to be so embarrassingly outdated?
>> No. 418683 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 10:54 pm
418683 spacer
>>418680
>you frightened?

Seriously, lad?

Dolling yourself up as a drag queen is a madcap, gender-bendery lark. They look ridiculous. This protest revolved around a depiction of Trump as someone childish and screaming for attention. Is it really a good idea to make yourself look as laughable and infantile as possible while making this parody?

If I want to make a serious point in a protest I'll dress seriously, not so everyone will instead be gawping at my 3AM Sunday Best. This doesn't do much to challenge the criticism that the protesters are just a bunch of vain, empty-headed rentamobs hoping to get instagram likes for being right-on and [i]fabulous.
>> No. 418684 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 11:00 pm
418684 spacer
>>418683
What does enforcing a dress code have to do with opposing bigotry and hatred? Why would anyone care what someone who wanted them to be discriminated against and to live in fear (or worse) for who they are care at all about what that person thought of their outfit?
>> No. 418685 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 11:07 pm
418685 spacer
>>418684
Somewhat autistic really.

'Well I for one don't think I look silly! So the millions of people I hope will watch my protest will in no way take me less seriously!'

Look, I'm sure you ended up in a few photos and enjoyed a few drinks while doing nothing that will affect Trump or his actions or his perceptions in any way whatsoever. You got what you wanted. Mission accomplished, report back to base.
>> No. 418686 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 11:22 pm
418686 spacer
>>418685

The reason they protested is because Trump and his ilk don't want people to be able to dress in drag or be trans or even be gay because they think it's an abomination or whatever you want to call it, so dressing like that is part of the protest, you numpty.

I honestly can't believe I've had to explain that to you.
>> No. 418687 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 11:35 pm
418687 spacer
>>418686
When has Trump ever said anything derogatory about drag queens then, you bigger numpty?
>> No. 418688 Anonymous
13th July 2018
Friday 11:38 pm
418688 spacer
>>418682
You weirdos are the odd ones out mate.
>> No. 418689 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 12:15 am
418689 spacer
>>418685
You're still not getting it. It's a puzzle that solves itself. Anyone who would tell someone else what to wear is a person whose opinion of what people wear doesn't matter and couldn't ever matter. It's that simple.
>> No. 418690 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 12:25 am
418690 spacer

1531517975910m.jpg
418690418690418690

>> No. 418691 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 12:27 am
418691 spacer
>>418686
>>418687

Yeah, being against Mexicans and Musulmanics roonin your country doesn't automatically mean you want to send the gays to the gas chambers.

What really makes me wonder is why there aren't more gay racists. It would be in their interests to keep eskimos and other migrants from 3rd world countries out because they tend to be deeply homophobic and their medieval ideologies don't really mix well with our progressive and wonderfully tolerant society.
>> No. 418692 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 12:30 am
418692 spacer

1531501688899m.jpg
418692418692418692
>>418691
Cultural Marxism, innit. I wonder who could be pulling the strings in the background?
>> No. 418693 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 12:32 am
418693 spacer

screamingqueens.jpg
418693418693418693
>>418683

Have you ever heard of the gay charity Stonewall? They're named after the Stonewall Inn, a Mafia-owned gay bar in New York that became the epicentre of the first substantial protests for gay rights. The bar had been regularly and violently raided by the police, but on the 28th of June 1969, the patrons fought back. The police cleared the bar with batons, then barricaded themselves inside.

A crowd of hundreds gathered - gays, lesbians, drag queens, street kids and miscallaneous outcasts, all fighting back against the police force that had abused them time and time again. By all accounts, it was the drag queens who fought the hardest. One group formed an impromptu chorus line, dancing the can-can and singing "we are the Stonewall girls, we wear our hair in curls, we wear no underwear, we show our pubic hair".

Rioting and protests continued for several days; within a week, a group of activists formed the Gay Liberation Front, the first organisation in the world for openly gay people to fight openly for their rights. Within months, branches of the Gay Liberation Front had opened across America and Europe. A year to the day after the Stonewall riots, the first ever gay pride marches were organised in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

We will never forget the Stonewall girls. Every LGBT person in the western world owes a debt of gratitude to the sissies and queens who landed the first blow in the fight for equality. The drag queens fought for us, so we will fight for them. If you have a problem with them, then we have a problem with you. We are not asking for your approval - we are demanding our rights.

Trump has made numerous overtly homophobic statements. His cabinet is filled with overtly homophobic staff. He has supported homophobic policies. If the queens want to protest his visit to Britain, then they have my full support.
>> No. 418694 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 2:04 am
418694 spacer
>>418693
Brings a tear to me japs eye.
>> No. 418697 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 7:24 am
418697 spacer

4E35B09A00000578-5952671-Donald_Trump_has_sparked_.jpg
418697418697418697
Not even Brenda is immune from Trump. 15 minutes late to meet her then he walks off ahead of her to inspect the troops.
>> No. 418698 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 8:12 am
418698 spacer

177361.jpg
418698418698418698
>>418682
There is a difference between being gay and dressing yourself up as a sexual deviant at 10am while also being gay.
>> No. 418700 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 9:46 am
418700 spacer
>>418698

If you're always a sexual deviant even even you're not doing sexually deviant things, and when you're not you're dressed like everyone else, then that means that that's what a sexual deviant is dressed like which means everyone is always dressed like a sexual deviant.
>> No. 418701 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 10:25 am
418701 spacer
>>418698
'Deviant' is a social construct, an othering term. Pride marches are, in part, to show people of diverse sexualities and genders that they aren't alone. Hence, if loads of people are being deviants then logically they can't possibly be considered deviants.
>> No. 418703 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 10:27 am
418703 spacer
>>418698


You still don't get it do you? LGBT isn't about 'changing peoples minds', gay people couldn't give less of a fuck what middle american christians think of them at this point.

You are one of the people they are setting out to piss off, and it's working perfectly. You're being trolled by the gays.
>> No. 418705 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 10:52 am
418705 spacer
>>418701
>Pride marches are, in part, to show people of diverse sexualities and genders that they aren't alone.

As a bi-lad Pride does more harm than good. It's brilliant at perpetuating the image that people who aren't straight are freaks and oddballs.
>> No. 418706 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 11:08 am
418706 spacer
>>418703
Stop fucking crying if its intentional then.
>> No. 418707 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 11:22 am
418707 spacer
>>418705
Pretty much this
>> No. 418711 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 1:42 pm
418711 spacer
>>418705
You're probably also the bi-lad who thinks that a song that portrays bisexuality as 'being straight and having gay sex as a kink' isn't harmful so your opinions are pretty bunkum anyway.

It's apparently really important to you that you know your place as a well-behaved bisexual who can pass as straight when necessary and keep your disgusting same-sex perversions behind closed doors where it belongs.
>> No. 418712 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 1:51 pm
418712 spacer
>>418711
>It's apparently really important to you that you know your place as a well-behaved bisexual who can pass as straight when necessary and keep your disgusting same-sex perversions behind closed doors where it belongs

I'm a person who happens to be bisexual, rather than letting my sexuality define me.

There is a huge world of difference between unashamedly having a sexual preference for other men and walking around in public in bondage gear whilst being adorned with several plastic cocks. I have a bit of a thing for rimming but I have no desire whatsoever to wander around in public decorated with an array of puckering arseholes.
>> No. 418714 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 2:19 pm
418714 spacer
>>418712
>I'm a person who happens to be bisexual, rather than letting my sexuality define me.

I am a person who happens to be black, rather than letting my blackness define me.

Unfortunately, other people will define me by my blackness whether I ever decide to "play the race card" or not. I can either kid myself that they don't and sit there agreeing with the "He's alright, but why can't he shave his hair off, it'd look so much more professional" crowd doing tricks for them in the hope of winning their approval.

Or....

I can tell them to go fuck themselves and do whatever I was going to do anyway.
>> No. 418716 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 2:58 pm
418716 spacer
>>418712
It doesn't matter whether or not you choose to express your own sexuality in a different fashion, you should be expressing solidarity with your community, not divisively pouring scorn on it. Because you know damn well they will come for you next.
>> No. 418721 Anonymous
14th July 2018
Saturday 4:38 pm
418721 spacer
>>418716
They're not 'his community' though, they're just other people who happen to be bisexual.

Who is 'they' anyway?
>> No. 418891 Anonymous
22nd July 2018
Sunday 12:33 am
418891 2020
764193547.jpg
418891418891418891

>> No. 418893 Anonymous
22nd July 2018
Sunday 12:57 am
418893 spacer
>>418891
I do remember reading, perhaps in Stasiland by Anna Funder (which is a great book), there were a few people who crossed from west to east - often soldiers who wanted to be with a bird they had met, or people wanting to disappear from their lives in the West.

As I recall, they were sent to labour camps at best, executed at worst.
>> No. 418894 Anonymous
22nd July 2018
Sunday 1:48 am
418894 spacer

svcxz.jpg
418894418894418894
>>418893

GULAG
>> No. 418968 Anonymous
24th July 2018
Tuesday 11:21 pm
418968 spacer
>>418893

I vaguely remember seeing something on TV that certain intellectuals also crossed from the West into the East, because they felt more in line with the ideals of socialism and wanted to help build East Germany's socialist society after WWII.

It's worth noting that in the first few years of the East German state, things were much more permissive than in the dying days of the Communist Bloc. The standard of living was also much closer to West Germany than in 1989. It was only when the capitalist market economy of the West fully took hold in West Germany that the West started leaving the German Democratic Republic dead in the water. Once East Germany was fully integrated into the Communist Bloc's economic system, including things like five-year plans and a far-reaching nationalisation of production means, the divide between West and East Germany grew bigger with every year that passed.

And that's also when the East German regime became increasingly oppressive in order to keep its dissatisfied citizens in line. The Berlin Wall was also just a desperate measure to curb the brain drain of very often young, highly educated East Germans who were able to leave the country with no hassle at all simply by crossing over into the Western sectors of Berlin. Until the early 1960s, over one million predominantly young East German people with their families had left the country that way. Faced with the prospect of simply bleeding out as a country, the East German government decided to lock its citizens in and give border patrols shoot to kill orders.
>> No. 418969 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 2:15 am
418969 spacer
Gee it's almost like socialism is actually a great idea and letting Russia colonise and enslave wherever it wanted was a bigger issue than whatever ideology they happened to follow.
>> No. 418974 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 8:10 am
418974 spacer
>>418969
Commie.
>> No. 418975 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 9:01 am
418975 spacer
>>418969

Socialism is, ultimately, the logical conclusion of ideal economic development. Communism has failed in the past simply because the world was not ready yet, and it was forced I to place revolution, but much like feudalism we will inevitably outgrow capitalism.
>> No. 418982 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 12:03 pm
418982 spacer

N2XcD.png
418982418982418982
>>418969
>>418975

Fundamentally, socialism really isn't such a horrible concept in theory. It goes a little something like this: Wouldn't you like to live in a world where the dinner plate on your table is always full and magically fills itself up again and always gives you just the amount of food you need?

That sounds rather nice when you think about it, until you ponder the fact that that food has to come from somewhere, it has to be produced, people have to work to make that food, and it needs to be delivered to you, and somebody has to pay the cost of making that food. In the real world, food simply will not just magically appear on your plate without you doing anything for it.

Socialism's flaw is that its ideas are simply too much against human nature as a whole and are not able to support an economic system permanently that prospers and affords its citizens a land of milk and honey. In the end, as Margaret Thatcher said (who I hate with all my heart, but she really had a point here): the problem with socialism is that you eventually always run out of other people's money.

Also, you have to remember where people like Karl Marx were coming from in the 19th century. This was a time when industrialisation had led to an unbridled capitalism which was exploiting the poor to no end and only benefiting the wealthy. Wages for lowly workers were minimal, health and safety was nearly non-existent, as was healthcare, work hours were appalling with people often working seven days a week, including children, and living quarters were slums by another name. All this happened right here in Britain in our cities. If you dig into the 19th century history of pretty much any city in Britain, you will find parts of that city where these people lived, in conditions that we only see in third world countries today. And being the son of a well to do industrialist himself, Karl Marx saw first hand all the effects that this was having on workers.

Capitalism's flaw is that it puts a price on everything. On the goods that you can or cannot buy, same as on the people who produce these goods. Your ability to feed yourself and provide for your children depends entirely on your value as a member of the production factor of human capital. While those who own the capital really don't do much of the actual work at all. Capitalism in its purest form really does have a tendency to benefit mainly the wealthy.

On the other hand, especially since the mid-20th century, capitalism has been a success story around the globe in terms of the creation of sustainable market economies which gave the citizens of capitalist countries a standard of living never seen before in history. Oftentimes though, this was not the result of capitalism being given free reign. Most countries, including Britain and Europe, have institutional frameworks in place which protect workers and employees from exploitation and transfer money from the wealth that capitalism generates to those who aren't wealthy enough to help themselves. Things like free healthcare, by and large free education or even public transportation are all a result of transferring wealth from those who generate it to those who couldn't afford expensive treatments out of pocket or who don't have a car to go to work in the morning. This, in turn, actually benefits the productivity of those countries, because you have a healthier, more educated and more mobile workforce than you would if those things didn't exist.

So in a sense, what most developed nations have today is a mixture of elements of capitalism and socialism. Part of the wealth that is generated by those who own the production means is transferred to those who had very little to do with it. And yet, few people cry foul and complain about socialism. And if they do, just ask them if they would rather pay their kids' schooling, medical treatment and bus money all out of their own pocket.
>> No. 418984 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 3:55 pm
418984 spacer
>>418982
Fascism looks good, sign me up!
>> No. 418986 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 4:40 pm
418986 spacer
>>418984

In every other scenario the red seems to be the antagonist. From the looks of it facism means liberty and freedom from their violence.
>> No. 418988 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 6:41 pm
418988 spacer

quote_don_t_you_see_that_the_w.jpg
418988418988418988
>>418984
>>418986

>Fascism looks good

>From the looks of it facism means liberty and freedom from their violence


Never change, .gs.
>> No. 418989 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 6:47 pm
418989 spacer
>>418982
>Part of the wealth that is generated by those who own the production means
Perhaps you have more in common with Thatcher than you realise. I've never heard anyone but Thatcherites use the term "wealth creators" as a euphemism for capitalists.
>> No. 418990 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 7:02 pm
418990 spacer
>>418989

>I've never heard anyone but Thatcherites use the term "wealth creators" as a euphemism for capitalists.

Margaret Thatcher was in the end only parrotting what neoliberal economists instilled in her. She may have heard the term "generation of wealth" somewhere or read it while leafing through an economics book.

"Wealth" has been a standard economic term just the same way as capital itself has been for centuries. If you just think of Adam Smith's book The Wealth of Nations, for example. Using that term outside of political nonsense talk within strictly economic ideas that you express, it has nothing to do with Thatcherism as such unless you really make that connection.
>> No. 418991 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 7:03 pm
418991 spacer
>>418989
I'm a wealth creator. What the fuck do you do?
>> No. 418992 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 8:38 pm
418992 spacer

1-ZUqQo7OyZ6YCw3Nmx_yYRA.jpg
418992418992418992
>>418991

>I'm a wealth creator

Pfft.

Parasite.
>> No. 418993 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 8:57 pm
418993 spacer

9585BB1B-F151-4EF6-ABDA-05A2962B0C7A.jpg
418993418993418993
>>418991
I saved this bee from a bucket of water, gave it a flower and nursed it back to health. Top that, you smug, Rushmore paraphrasing, gimp.
>> No. 418994 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 9:13 pm
418994 spacer
>>418993
That's clearly more than one flower.
>> No. 418995 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 9:20 pm
418995 spacer

1532531510917.jpg
418995418995418995
>>418992
The focus on the 1% seems like a bit of a distraction. They're an intangible boogeyman who can be used as a scapegoat for all sorts of ills, which isn't too different from blaming immigrants for everything. It'd be far more effective to focus on things like improving workers rights, greater protection for tenants, etc.
>> No. 418997 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 9:57 pm
418997 spacer
>>418994

>That's clearly more than one flower.


Exactly.

Socialism in a nutshell.
>> No. 418998 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 10:10 pm
418998 spacer
>>418995

> It'd be far more effective to focus on things like improving workers rights, greater protection for tenants, etc.

All of these things mean less profits for the 1%, and they will always actively try to fight against them.

So to fight FOR these things always also means you are fighting AGAINST the 1%.
>> No. 419000 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 10:49 pm
419000 spacer
>>418998
I wouldn't say so, specifically. Most of their wealth is tied up in investments, which they leave up to fund managers rather than controlling themselves. They aren't consciously setting out to strip back workers rights; that's more incremental changes as companies look to increase their profits.

The issue is corporate greed across the board rather than some super rich bogeymen specifically setting out to fight the poor.
>> No. 419002 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 11:16 pm
419002 spacer
>>418982

>Fundamentally, socialism really isn't such a horrible concept in theory. It goes a little something like this: Wouldn't you like to live in a world where the dinner plate on your table is always full and magically fills itself up again and always gives you just the amount of food you need?


Ah yes the famous definition of socialism espoused by theorists since Marx.

Where do people get these such bizarre ideas from?
>> No. 419003 Anonymous
25th July 2018
Wednesday 11:26 pm
419003 spacer
>>419000
I own a major international people-trafficking enterprise but I'm not consciously hurting anyone I'm just sitting at the top counting the money. It's the street thugs you should focus on, ignore me.
>> No. 419004 Anonymous
26th July 2018
Thursday 1:03 am
419004 spacer
>>418995
Really not feeling these new Jurassic World monster designs.
>> No. 419006 Anonymous
26th July 2018
Thursday 1:18 am
419006 spacer
>>419000

>The issue is corporate greed across the board rather than some super rich bogeymen specifically setting out to fight the poor.

What's the difference?

Someone like Bill Gates may be a very nice guy individually. He may be a genuine philanthropist even, not just the tax-dodging PR kind.

But he has no doubt made decisions in order to get into his position that have fucked over less fortunate people. As a member of an executive board, no responsibility of guild is felt for a decision that could see hundreds out of a job, that's just business. It's the company, not the person.

I don't think it actually excuses any of the individuals involved.

>>418982

The human nature you talk about only really matters because of scarcity of resources. That's the fundamental (and arguably, in most first world countries, artificial) reason an economy exists- You have to decide who gets what when there's only a limited about of whatever thing. Humans have built a very complex self regulating system to distribute those things, but the natural trend is toward an ever increasing abundance of things.

When there are enough things to go around, we will have no more need of capitalism as an economic system. Keynesian economics assumed this would happen in the latter half of the 20th century as automation and increases in production allowed people to work shorter hours for the same pay, and still maintain the same level of production output.

What has happened instead, however, is that those productivity and efficiency increases have been funnelled entirely into profit margins, and we all still have to work the same long hours for pay that crumbles with every year's growing inflation.

Socialism becomes more and more inevitable the higher inequality grows. There will come a turning point where high productivity and an abundance of food, healthcare, etc renders the distinction between the haves and have nots as entirely artificial.
>> No. 419009 Anonymous
26th July 2018
Thursday 11:40 am
419009 spacer
>>419006

>The human nature you talk about only really matters because of scarcity of resources. That's the fundamental (and arguably, in most first world countries, artificial) reason an economy exists- You have to decide who gets what when there's only a limited about of whatever thing. Humans have built a very complex self regulating system to distribute those things, but the natural trend is toward an ever increasing abundance of things.

Not in general. Most natural resources which are still one of the backbones of many economies are quite scarce, no matter how many millions of tonnes of them are extracted each year. Geopolitical conflicts continue to be fought over oil and gas resources. Rare earths are also a finite resource that is going to become a problem with the increasing shift to electrically powered vehicles. The list goes on.

Economic science generally assumes that resources tend to be scarce and that therefore they have to be used efficiently. Not just because you might one day run out of a resource, but even if a resource isn't scarce, that still doesn't mean it's not sound economics to treat it as if it were. Take water, for example. Britain is one of the most water rich countries in the world, so there doesn't seem to be much point saving water, right? Well, water still has a price as a production factor, you pay for the water that you use in your production process or in a service you provide. So if one of the primary goals of your business is to earn a profit (not necessarily to maximise it, that's a tired old cliché pulled out of context by many people who really don't know much about economic science at all, and which you won't hear much from actual economists), then it makes only sense to keep an eye on your water bill.

And then when you look on the global scale, there are regions of the world where water is so scarce that it is the most precious resource of all, enough so that political and military conflicts have been fought over it.

Certain resources become more abundant as an economy and a society develops. That is true. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa just do not have the technical public infrastructure that we enjoy here in Britain. They also just don't have the number of skilled workers that we have. But even so, resources cost money. Which brings us back to my point that when something costs money, it's wise to use it efficiently.


>What has happened instead, however, is that those productivity and efficiency increases have been funnelled entirely into profit margins, and we all still have to work the same long hours for pay that crumbles with every year's growing inflation.

The fallacy of many theorists in the 1970s and 1980s was that they didn't factor in productivity's relation to the market value of your goods and services. They failed to foresee that as productivity would increase, this would increase supply on the markets, and market prices for your goods and services would go down , as they often do in a polypolistic market. And advantages in productivity enjoyed by one supplier always tend to be used to undercut the competition in terms of price per unit, which then puts pressure on competitors to follow suit. Therefore, it's all well and good that productivity has grown exponentially. But this productivity does not earn more money. Instead, productivity is needed on the production side to cut costs and to stay competitive. So in summary, it was a flawed idea from the word go that people assumed productivity would mean more profit which could be distributed more generously among workers.
>> No. 419051 Anonymous
27th July 2018
Friday 8:39 pm
419051 spacer
>>419009

Well, you make some very good points I can't deny that. But then, I suppose one could argue that those resources are only so scarce because we operate such an incredibly wasteful society. We could use far less fuel and I don't think that's really something that can be disagreed with, we just don't want to because it would be less convenient. We could build electronics to last instead of exploiting planned obsolescence and expecting people to buy a new one every year. We could start trying to control the frankly absurd population growth we've experienced over the last century or so.

As for the productivity issue, do I really have to bring up the issue of The Robots? I feel socialism is inevitable as a dominant social structure once we reach the point that automation has rendered the vast majority of the populace effectively unemployable. Even fields you'd think are safe are at risk- One of the hospitals near me has had a machine put in that automatically performs tests you'd previously have had to employ a full lab of 20+ highly skilled and qualified biomedical scientists. It's too costly and unreliable to really replace anybody at present but that will change. Already, most of our chemistry work is done by simply putting tubes on a conveyor belt.

What say you will happen to us when traditionally large employment sectors like transport and manufacturing are simply no longer existent beyond a handful of robot caretakers?
>> No. 419052 Anonymous
27th July 2018
Friday 9:50 pm
419052 spacer
>>419051

You make some very good points yourself, I have to say. But let's start from the beginning.

> But then, I suppose one could argue that those resources are only so scarce because we operate such an incredibly wasteful society. We could use far less fuel and I don't think that's really something that can be disagreed with, we just don't want to because it would be less convenient.

A lot of it is simply cost and profit comparison. If you've read the news in the last few days, there was (quite muted) outrage over the fact that Burberry was destroying millions of £ worth of unsold new old stock. Why would a company do that, you ask. Well, it's called price-based brand dilution. In short, Burberry was/is worried that its new old stock would be sold off cheaply on eBay and other places at a discount, thus damaging Burberry's profits from its currently selling, moderately to high priced lines of clothing and accessories. From a marketing perspective, this makes perfect sense. The loss that you will incur by destroying your unsold new old stock, which still has residual market value even if it's last season's, is seen as being smaller than the loss of profit from your current lines of products that you would suffer by letting it compete against last season's clothes that can be had for half. And then if your desired brand image is also that you want it to appear like more of a luxury brand, that only adds to it.

In the end, a loss is a loss, and if I remember correctly, Burberry said that it aims to reduce its volume of new unsold stock over the years. But still, nothing stopped them from destroying perfectly good clothes, which had to be produced, for which cotton had to be farmed, using loads of agricultural land, water, and pesticides, or synthetic fibres had to be made in a chemical factory. All of this consumed natural resources and cause pollution, and it was for nothing. And companies get away with it because it means more profit on the whole than selling the new old stock.

An idea would be to create penalties for companies who destroy their perfectly good stock. At some point, these penalties could be put so high that avoiding those penalties altogether is the cheapest way to operate your business. If put into action the right way, this would mean there would hardly any overstock be produced, and companies would have a very strong incentive to avoid waste.

Same with electronics. I'm the lad who said on here recently that he was proud as punch that he managed to change £25 worth of drum bearings on his age-old washing machine instead of buying a new one for 500 quid. This repair was only possible because the so-called "tub and drum assembly" was serviceable in that the tub hemispheres (which are the outer shell of the tub and drum assembly, if you will) were held together by a dozen bolts and a large O ring seal. This was the usual way of designing a washing machine for decades. But nowadays, washing machines tend to have tub and drum assemblies where the plastic tub's hemispheres are fused together. This means you have no more way of changing the drum bearings, because you cannot get to them by disassembling the tub anymore. Therefore, you will have to buy an entire new tub and drum assembly, which some upmarket brands will have on offer, but they will cost in excess of £350. So most people will naturally buy an all new washing machine, the production of which will consume natural resources, while the old washing machine will rot in a rubbish dump somewhere.

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.


>What say you will happen to us when traditionally large employment sectors like transport and manufacturing are simply no longer existent beyond a handful of robot caretakers?

That is indeed a very serious problem of economics for decades to come. You cannot simply put millions of those people on the dole, or in chip shops or behind newsagent counters. From a microeconomics standpoint, the consequences will be disastrous if private households no longer have disposable income to spend on goods and services. Because it is held that in the end, even business oriented goods and services that are as removed from the end consumer as far as ever thinkable ultimately depend on demand from that end consumer somewhere at the end of the profit chain. A consultant firm providing marketing strategy services for a supplier of electronic components that go into Samsung or Apple smartphones and tablets still depends on people like you and me buying and using phones and devices. If there are no longer end consumers who can afford to buy those phones, that consultant firm will suffer as well. And if entire industries put workers and employees out of a job by automating and digitising everything, then that is going to be felt disastrously on the demand side.

What's the solution? We need to get back to a culture of realising that employees and coworkers aren't a pesky cost factor. We need to keep remembering that they, too, need money to spend on goods and services. That, in turn, could stop the vicous circle of the public as a whole having ever decreasing disposable income, which means they have ever less money to spend on goods and services, which puts ever more pressure on the suppliers of these goods and services to cut costs and automatise ever more.


However, you will never find me agreeing that socialism is inevitable. Yes, as an economist, if you really paid attention in class at uni, you will see capitalism and socialism simply as competing economic systems which both have their pros and cons. And you will wisely leave it to showboating politicians to make a dog's dinner of sound economic theory. But still, I believe that the right answer is a sustainable market economy, with safeguards against overconcentration, and overexploitation both of natural resources and the human factor. With profits not only going to those who fuck others out of their fair share, but to those who duly deserve them.
>> No. 419056 Anonymous
27th July 2018
Friday 10:38 pm
419056 spacer
>>419052

Very good post. I'll just say finally then:

>Yes, as an economist, if you really paid attention in class at uni, you will see capitalism and socialism simply as competing economic systems which both have their pros and cons

I don't really see them as competing. I see a gradual progression towards them working together over the top of each other (arguably like we have now), but with much deeper integration. I believe we can, if we put effort into it, harness the benefits of an efficient market to lift the burden of labour from the common man and share the wealth with ever greater equity.

Or, if the coin falls the other way, the entire world looking like Rio de Janeiro; with an ever shrinking cycle of hyper-rich elites buying ever more expensive watches from each other's robot factories, while the peasantry fight over soylent rations.
>> 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