- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2433 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
332 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 30355
There's the thing though, nobody's twisting a student's arm to make them go see Mr Steak & Xanax speak, but if he's being paid to attend or otherwise using university resources then they are having their arm twisted to subsidise him. Even if Trump is officially removed from Home Alone 2, nobody's going to struggle to find that footage or the whole original cut if that's what they want to do. You're not going to be sent to jail for watching it, nor is anyone legislating against you hearing from Mr Lobsters.
But in Saudia Arabia you may get your head cut off for watching gay porn.
|>>|| No. 30357
>but if he's being paid to attend or otherwise using university resources then they are having their arm twisted to subsidise him.
That's still a slippery slope though. If you argue that because students pay to be at uni, they get to decide what they want to hear in a lecture, then that's entirely missing the point of higher education.
And just how qualified is a 19 year old who is in the beginning stages of a social science degree to decide which scholarly opinions are of merit and which aren't. It's the tail wagging the dog.
And it'd be a bit like that one rural town in the U.S. that I read about, where the local high school wanted to make an overview of Islam part of their social studies curriculum. It led to an angry mob of parents picketing outside the school proclaiming that their children learning about Muslamics would be the end of all that was good and holy.
Again, life doesn't, and should not be allowed to function based on the principle that you get to shut out opinions and shut up the people who have them just because they don't suit you.
|>>|| No. 30358
>If you argue that because students pay to be at uni, they get to decide what they want to hear in a lecture, then that's entirely missing the point of higher education.
Yes, that's why students dread Fresher's week where they're made to spin the Fresher's Wheel of Fate that picks their course for them. What the fuck are you on about?
>And just how qualified is a 19 year old who is in the beginning stages of a social science degree to decide which scholarly opinions are of merit and which aren't.
What university did you go to where you didn't get to choose either your degree or whether or not to attend in the first place? This is just the Dog Star Man problem all over again. "You're going to university so now you have to pay to be subjected to any old arbitrary nonsense". No, that's insane.
|>>|| No. 30359
>What university did you go to where you didn't get to choose either your degree or whether or not to attend in the first place?
Are you deliberately being thick? That's not what those students are getting themselves in a huff about. It's not whether you go into social science or politology and your right to choose between either degree and between different courses as part of your degree, it's that they want individual professors or lecturers removed, or deplatformed as it is now called, because they don't like that person's opinions on an issue.
>"You're going to university so now you have to pay to be subjected to any old arbitrary nonsense".
Again, that's neither what I meant nor how it really works.
I think the real problem is that Generation Z was raised in an environment where you could essentially get an award for being a biological organism that succeeded at fucking drawing air. They were pampered by their parents in a post-9/11 world of uncertainty where it was all about overparenting and giving junior the best possible environment and shield him or her against the bad outside world.
What they were never taught was the idea that you have to defend your views and opinions and be able to do so, or even just the notion that other opinions exist and should at least in general be afforded the same respect and benefit of doubt as your own opinion. So now at uni and in their job lives they are breaking down in a crying fit because somebody has the audacity to disagree with them, and defend their own opinion. Where preceding generations saw a competition of ideas and views just as good sportsmanship, somebody who doesn't share your Generation-Z, bubble wrapped, sheltered world view is seen as an existential threat to your entire little world.
|>>|| No. 30360
Picking, or not picking a degree, is an act of choosing who to, or not to, listen to. You're making a totally arbitrary distinction based on whether it's a few people they're choosing between or many, pretending it's a whole different thing. It's not.
>The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
Yeah nice one.
|>>|| No. 30361
There's one lad in this thread being either as deliberately thick or obtuse as possible, so I'm choosing to believe he's a young Guardian or Independent op-ed writer, having a mid-life crisis now that Brexit and Evil Nazi President are in the past and he might start having to find hew things to virtue signal about.
|>>|| No. 30363
>Brexit and Evil Nazi President are in the past
Your stunning insights into the world stage are matched only by your grasp of what's happening in this thread.
|>>|| No. 30364
>What they were never taught was the idea that you have to defend your views and opinions and be able to do so, or even just the notion that other opinions exist and should at least in general be afforded the same respect and benefit of doubt as your own opinion. So now at uni and in their job lives they are breaking down in a crying fit because somebody has the audacity to disagree with them, and defend their own opinion. Where preceding generations saw a competition of ideas and views just as good sportsmanship, somebody who doesn't share your Generation-Z, bubble wrapped, sheltered world view is seen as an existential threat to your entire little world.
See, I agree with your general side of the debate here, but this is where you've gone off the tracks a bit.
Your fundamental error is that you think a reasonable proportion of these people are actually offended, or even have much legitimate grievance at all with the issues they complain about. Some do, but honestly I don't think it's true for the majority. What they have discovered however, is that the language and perception of victimhood can be immensely powerful.
Anyone who has a younger sibling knows well how this dynamic works. You remember clearly the first time your little brother or sister hurts themself, and then when mum comes running, they hold out a shaking hand through the tears, and point at you. No matter how much you protest your innocence, mum will never believe you, and you get bollocked for it while your sibling grins like the evil little shit they are.
Somebody somewhere knows what they are doing with all this, the student lot who go along with it are either playing along because they're useful idiots, feel they have to, or else have something to gain from it. God knows student politics was a tedious bore ten years ago, I can only imagine what it's like today.
|>>|| No. 30365
Run along and write an article about how You Know Who might come back in 2024, you might be able to wring a few more years of livelihood out of all this yet.
|>>|| No. 30366
>Your fundamental error is that you think a reasonable proportion of these people are actually offended, or even have much legitimate grievance at all with the issues they complain about
I didn't touch on that because I didn't want to go in a dozen different directions all at once with my post, but you are right. It also goes back and ties into what we said earlier about white middle class activism.
>God knows student politics was a tedious bore ten years ago, I can only imagine what it's like today.
I was in student politics. Being Conservative at uni was a nightmare even twenty years ago. We were deplatformed by angry left-wing mobs even before the word existed. We once invited a Conservative politician to give a public speaking appearance, but his office told us the day before that they had been made aware of threats against him from amongst the student body, and that they feared his safety could not be completely guaranteed.
At least we tried to get a competent speaker on education politics to address issues that actually mattered to students. The biggest achievement of one marxist/left-wing student group that year was a resolution condemning the imprisonment of Mumia Abu Jamal.
|>>|| No. 30367
>We once invited a Conservative politician to give a public speaking appearance
So you wanted to choose who to listen to?
|>>|| No. 30369
Look, like you said, you were at university and the point of being at university is to be exposed to points of view you're not comfortable with. If you're just going to invite speakers who you already agree with then that goes against everything you say university is supposed to be about.
I'm also curious about how you explain
>We were deplatformed by angry left-wing mobs even before the word existed.
with your rant about Gen Z.
|>>|| No. 30370
The people opposing you in your student days wouldn't know what Marxism was if it bit them on their feminine cock and then nationalised their arsehole. Your frustration is with "the left", but I assure you, I am on the left and I hate these pricks.
Which is why the point about middle class appropriation is so salient. A movement led by those sorts of people never can, never will, nor indeed is it even interested in improving the lot of working class people. One can be forgiven for thinking it seems altogether as if that's the whole point.
|>>|| No. 30371
The difference between us and the Left still would have been that we probably wouldn't have made threats against a speaker invited by them. Labour Students could have invited Tony Blair himself, and although I've always thought he was an insufferable git, there would have been a chance that I'd gone there to hear him speak. Maybe even ask a few prying questions. But nobody from our group, or even other more right-wing student groups would have tried to keep him from appearing and speaking in the first place.
In that sense, we would have had no problem at all with a Labour party member presenting their opposing views, which more than likely would have been very different from ours, in a university setting. And that is the point. And in its own way, it's also what I meant by displaying good sportsmanship in the competition of opposing views.
You're right, in that it seems that a good number among the Left's Intelligentsia are so absorbed in their pies in the sky that they will do fuck all to improve worker's rights or working class incomes. Case in point, again, a Marxist student group drafting a resolution to free Mumia Abu Jamal. How the fuck was that going to change anything for the struggling uni student with working class parents who had no support from home, unlike all those sons and daughters of barristers or doctors.
|>>|| No. 30372
>The difference between us and the Left still would have been
True, the right are well known for never threatening anyone's lives in any way.
No, sorry, I don't buy that. I've been arguing both for and against censorship in this thread to try and make sense of it because the arguments on both sides don't make sense, but yours make the least. You're arguing purely that people shouldn't be allowed to choose who to listen to, except when you get to decide they don't, and the difference is to do with scale, until it comes to your choices; where it doesn't.
>good sportsmanship in the competition of opposing views.
|>>|| No. 30373
Having experience both ends of the political spectrum in my uni days, both sides are guilty of silencing voices they don't agree with. Tories/J-Soc kicked off about Young Labour hosting a talk by a guy who was apparently an antisemite. Left Soc kicked off about Tory Association hosting Milo (though he didn't turn up as this was the peak of his fame and he was therefore too important to attend). Saying that only the left take issue with dissenting voices is not fair.
|>>|| No. 30378
>You're right, in that it seems that a good number among the Left's Intelligentsia are so absorbed in their pies in the sky that they will do fuck all to improve worker's rights or working class incomes.
Again, part of the issue is that to call these people "the left" is about on par with calling a creamy pasta dish carbonara, and it twists my ballbag every bit as much as are Gino on This Morning when people misidentify them as such. At best those people are just bland liberals trying to clothe their pet concerns in a bit more dramatic legitimacy, at worst they are active grifters appropriating and distorting leftist discourse to their own end.
If I was a conservative, I would probably say the same about people like Trump or BoJo, who don't represent free market competition in any meaningful sense, in that really they are just corrupt crony capitalists handing out cash to their mates. It's all about nepotism underneath, and dressing themselves in the pretense of a libertarian ideal just lends them legitimacy.
Pic related, here is a man essentially saying "any leftist who is actually a leftist is a white supremacist". To what end he finds this position helpful is your guess as well as mine, but what we can probably agree on is that it's both wrong and fucking retarded.
|>>|| No. 30381
We'd all like to say that, but this thread wouldn't be here were it not for cunts on Twitter.
|>>|| No. 30386
You say you would have been happy to hear Blair speak, knowing he was the figurehead of the most rightward shift in philosophy the Labour Party has ever seen.
What if had been Jeremy Corbyn or Ken Livingstone or Chris Williamson? I bet you would have been front and centre speaking to the student media about how disgraceful it was that the lefties wanted to hear from someone who had been so jolly awful to our chums in Israel.
|>>|| No. 30390
Situations like this just, the best way to show these people up is to agree with their accusations, they'll shut up quickly as they don't really have an argument to back things up they just want to label you.
I was accused of being a racist for some reason or another and the whole conversation was going around it circles. When I eventually said, yes, I am actually, the other lad soon shut up and we went about our day as normal.
|>>|| No. 30404
>Implications for public record and legal proceedings after administration seized or destroyed papers, notes and other information
>White House staff quickly learned about Trump’s disregard for documents as they witnessed him tearing them up and discarding them. “My director came up to me and said, ‘You have to tape these together,’” said Solomon Lartey, a former White House records analyst.
>The first document he taped back together was a letter from Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, about a government shutdown. “They told [Trump] to stop doing it. He didn’t want to stop.”
This Presidency sounds like it was an absolute shitshow. You had senior advisors pulling documents from his desk before he could sign them hoping he would forget that he wanted to leave NATO the day before, and staffers reassembling torn up documents retrieved from trash cans.
|>>|| No. 30408
>This Presidency sounds like it was an absolute shitshow.
I think the whole four years were a - poorly carried out - attempt to implement an autocratic regime in America. At least as far as Trump himself was concerned. In his mind, somewhere.
But he was shit at being an autocrat just as he was shit at many of his attempted business ventures. He's a dabbler, who likes to get into things way over his head without knowing the first thing about something. Just google things like Trump's failed airline or Trump Steaks. And this kind of dabbling mentality also meant that he was essentially out of his depth being a competent U.S. President.
I'm not saying you can't develop an interest in politics later in life and be a good mayor or MP or congressman. But the highest government positions IMO should always be reserved for career politicians who have been in politics for a long time and who have risen through the ranks. Which is still no guarantee that you'll have competent people at the helm, but it should go a long way avoiding unmitigated clusterfucks like Trump's presidency.
|>>|| No. 30409
>the highest government positions IMO should always be reserved for career politicians
I very strongly disagree with this being that the biggest political problem today IMO is not a question of competence, but of the political elite not sharing common interest (or even having empathy for) the people they are elected to represent.
I think your case for the 'career politician' can more strongly be made for having a good Civil Service. As this is an institution that spans generations and ensures stability whilst tempering any major damaging change that could be implemented by any given individual or seasonal public mood. Although I do understand that both wings are pretty anti-Civil Service these days and whilst I agree that the criticisms of it are value I would contend that throwing the baby out with the bathwater has set western democracy back a century or so.
|>>|| No. 30415
>the political elite not sharing common interest (or even having empathy for) the people they are elected to represent.
That is indeed true, and you can't argue against it in a convincing way. But it'll be made worse, as we've seen with Trump, by electing a complete outsider with absolutely no political experience to be President, or maybe in our case Prime Minister.
People like David Cameron certainly had no believable empathy for the common person and their everyday problems. But Trump's style of leadership behind closed doors, if what you read in the media can be believed, was an iron-fisted top-down approach, more like a corporate tyrant than a top-tier politician of a democratically elected government, with little understanding or even regard for the actual options for action that a President has by law.
And in that respect, I think the world will be better of with somebody like Joe Biden, who has worked nearly all his life in politics and knows the political apparatus from within like the back of his hand. Do we still need to watch him closely to see if he shows empathy for the common people as President? Absolutely. But at this point, almost anything is better than the dysfunctional shit show of the Trump years.
|>>|| No. 30416
Is anyone surprised? Say what you want about the American political system, but the way any random arsehole can actually become the president is quite baffling at times like this, but people act as if this isn't exactly the sort of situation it leaves them open to.
Trump is the quintessential blagger. He's no idea what he's doing at anything, but over the years it's worked out well enough for him regardless when he's just decided to have a go anyway. What's the worst that can happen, right? This is just one of the instances where it turns out you can't pick it up as you go along. There's a great number of things in life this attitude will serve you very well in, and a great number of fields where the "experts" are basically all just in it together to prevent others finding out it's all nonsense. Running a country isn't really one of them.
How many of us have incompetent bosses who we wonder how the fuck they possibly got there? Trump's presidency has just been four years of that, except it's the boss of the Oval Office, not the Durham Stationary Supplies Ltd office, and the way he got there is exactly how one is meant to get there, not just because he's mates with the director.
|>>|| No. 30421
I don't believe you misspelled "Stationery" intentionally even if it does fit the scenario.
|>>|| No. 30424
It's a pun that I made especially for you, grammarlad. The supplies they sell don't move.
|>>|| No. 30430
I reckon Biden will get Covid under control in Yankland faster than we manage it here.
|>>|| No. 30437
Republicans are framing the second impeachment as a vindictive gesture by the democrats as if inciting a coup wasn't a worthy of response, and defensible. They are vermin.
|>>|| No. 30438
For a country that only exists because of a coup, that's not really a valid argument.
|>>|| No. 30439
There was a basis in reality for that "coup" though. It's really important that no one forgets what happened on January 6th was birthed from nonsense and lies. Not even halfway lies, but completely made up "my girlfriend goes to another school"-tier lies.
|>>|| No. 30440
If there was a hypothetical next time perhaps they could work on actually winning the thing so they don't end up an embarrassing naive laughing stock and getting the president impeached again.
But until that happens I don't think 'they overthrew the government in the past' is a sound defence.
|>>|| No. 30441
There's all sorts of ways you can criticise them and point out why their reasoning was invalid, but the basic premise of it being an attempted violent revolution (if indeed you can really call it that) is not one of them, in the context of America. Remember why they have that precious second amendment of theirs in the first place, right? It's right there baked into the constitution.
I'm not defending them, just being a bit of a pedant. It seems a bit hypocritical to me that Americans who value their liberty and all that so much, even the lefty ones, are so up in arms about the idea of citizens actually putting that rhetoric into action.
|>>|| No. 30442
>but the basic premise of it being an attempted violent revolution (if indeed you can really call it that) is not one of them
Overthrowing democracies, because you didn't get your way is generally regarded as poor form regardless of where it was.
The American founding argument that you have misrepresented was "we have no representation" you can't apply it to a free and fair election.
|>>|| No. 30444
>we have no representation
That's an exceptionally naive interpretation of the reasons behind the America revolution, I must say.
|>>|| No. 30445
>Overthrowing democracies, because you didn't get your way is generally regarded as poor form
Has anyone let the CIA know this?
|>>|| No. 30446
Not really, representation is a word for control/power but without the pejorative connotations. It is rather smug of you to think everyone else is stupid.
|>>|| No. 30447
they didn't need to, the CIA used MKUltra to beam the information out of their heads obviously.
|>>|| No. 30449
Jefferson was quite adamant actually that all revolts are good things and made this clear following the Shay Rebellion. You can broadly summarise his thinking as 'the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.' As American commoners will but he leaves no real illusion:
>The American founding argument that you have misrepresented was "we have no representation" you can't apply it to a free and fair election.
It's no taxation without representation - a carry over from the English Civil War. It's also much more convoluted covering other factors that American propaganda papers over such as geographic sentiments that an island shouldn't rule a continent.
I'm really not sure how deep you want to go on this. The best approach to understand the American psyche is probably the writing of Adam Smith speaking of the detrimental role state monopolies played in the era (in particular the East India Company which caused the whole mess with bailouts etc.) and the idea that Parliament should maybe move to North America.
I wonder what they're doing now.
|>>|| No. 30454
>The tipster "also claimed to have spoken to friends of Williams, who showed (the tipster) a video of Williams taking a laptop computer or hard drive from Speaker Pelosi's office," the affidavit says. The tipster "stated that Williams intended to send the computer device to a friend in Russia, who then planned to sell the device to SVR, Russia's foreign intelligence service."
The Russians probably already obtained all that information with their recent cyber attacks on the U.S., so I doubt they'd be interested.
Also though, that's treason and/or espionage. Wikipedia says that as a federal offence in the U.S., it can even carry a death sentence.
|>>|| No. 30455
As various infosec types have pointed out, the network in the capitol was never well hardened to begin with, anyone who wants has been in there for a long time.
Doesn't mean the guy knew that.
|>>|| No. 30463
>Doesn't mean the guy knew that.
He did have balls of steel, if that story tracks. Or he was just incredibly dumb, depending on your view point. Breaking into a government building and causing disarray is one thing. But nicking a government official's laptop and attempting to sell its contents to a less-than-friendly foreign country is quite another.
Probably thought he was some sort of poor man's James Bond.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]