- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3017 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
583 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 85764
Saying X happening to Y is good because they deserve it, but X happening to Z is bad because they don't is not hypocritical.
|>>|| No. 85765
Yes. If your justification is only quantifiable as I disagree with their opinion. It is entirely hypocritical.
It isn't like Saville is a violent threat or advocating for one. He just holds an opposing position on a supranational treaty.
|>>|| No. 85766
That's only hypocritical if you believe people can't deserve something because of the ideas they hold.
(Or, indeed, because of the ideas they want to make government policy.)
|>>|| No. 85767
>Nobody much likes Saville and his ilk, unless you are one of them, but going around chucking milkshakes on him only makes lefties look immature
What the people who are throwing the milkshakes seem to have forgotten is that Are Nige and Are Tommeh have spent the majority of their political careers playing the victim. Throwing milkshakes at them plays right into their hands.
Also, the people throwing the milkshakes are quite clearly bellends. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
|>>|| No. 85768
People dress different these days, grandpa, it doesn't make them "bellends", no matter how many times you claim it.
|>>|| No. 85769
People who still dress like the whole hipster thing is new and fresh are definitely bellends. Too behind the curve to wear anything genuinely new and daring, too contrarian to wear normal fashion, just fitting into their own little niche of different but entirely the same. It's kind of pitiable.
I went to a donut shop the other day that was recommended to me by friends. From the outside it looked like a tattoo shop. The people inside looked like they were all poly bisexual vegans. Every single lass I saw had a septum piercing.
|>>|| No. 85770
What are you on about m8? Since when were pigtails, crop tops and combat trousers "hipster"? She is, at most, 4 years behind the PC Music 90s throwback thing.
Also, I definitely would.
|>>|| No. 85773
Both of them seem to make character judgements based on politics rather than appearances so I feel like I know who the real twat is.
|>>|| No. 85777
Appearances are a direct manifestation of ones character and political beliefs, and therefore one can safely dismiss the opinions of great swathes of the population without even talking to them.
|>>|| No. 85778
She dresses like Pat Sharpe, her hair styling is innovative of a middle age spinster. But she giggles and body language say she's a naughty 3 year old.
|>>|| No. 85779
And are you suggesting the people who laud this wouldn't be up in arms if say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had milkshake thrown on her?
|>>|| No. 85783
I'm suggesting it's not hypocritical if you only believe it's valid for a certain set of ideas.
If I think you deserve to be milkshaked for supporting rail nationalisation, i don't suddenly become a hypocrite because i'm upset someone has milkshaked Stephen Dorrell. You can argue I suffer from insufficiently general principles, but they aren't self-contradictory. I'd only be a hypocrite if I got upset because someone milkshaked Corbyn and I complained because actually I quite like gardeners.
|>>|| No. 85787
>You can argue I suffer from insufficiently general principles,
Sure lets just call it that. But I feel like your definition means all but the most honest self reflecting sages are incapable of hypocrisy because everyone hypocritical otherwise will believe there is an exception that excludes them from it.
|>>|| No. 85790
Not him, but clearly that word doesn't mean what you think it means.
|>>|| No. 85791
Your feeling is wrong, you just don't fully understand what hypocrisy means.
|>>|| No. 85795
Love it when cunts eat their own.
I wondered why he decided he wasn't interested in continuing the conversation when his career in the armed forces and wouldn't you know it he was in the TA.
|>>|| No. 85799
Playing right into his hands. There's nothing voters love more than a man cowering in a bus, terrified of dairy projectiles.
|>>|| No. 85800
I'm not professing to be some sort of expert at lobbing milkshakes, but I'd have thought hitting him whilst he's on the upper deck of the bus would be quite easy.
|>>|| No. 85802
If he had even an ounce of charisma he'd start showing up to his events in one of those big plastic rain ponchos and holding an umbrella. As much as I'm on the shake chucker side of the political spectrum I'd be very impressed with that.
|>>|| No. 85806
I think it would just come apart in mid-air and rain down back on you.
The problem would be that it's hard to sell that as a joke if you actually start getting bombarded with milkshakes.
|>>|| No. 85813
It was apparently three people at the back of a crowd, who happened to be holding drinks. I don't think any of them had actually "threatened" to throw the drinks.
This whole thing is turning into a shitstorm in a paper cup.
|>>|| No. 85818
That pyramid fundamentally misunderstands how good communication works. It's all well and good "refuting" and "contradicting", but if you look and sound like a total spiv doing so no one will give a shit.
|>>|| No. 85823
It is a framework for academic debate and socratic methodology. If you are persuaded by charm, rhetoric and sophistry you as good as a retard in the minds of the people who invented these principles. They have nothing to do with what actually convinces people only an appeal to the virtue of wisdom and an attempt to obtain truth.
|>>|| No. 85826
The height attainable is limited by the quality and capacity of your opponent. If they cannot understand counter reasoning, you cannot advances beyond contradiction. If they further don't respond to insults then even name-calling is not open to you, and milkshakes it is.
|>>|| No. 85827
People care too much about debate (both improving it or "winning" it by any means necessary) and far too little about substantive policy or even articulating a specific philosophy. Having realised that not only will my preferred policies never be implemented, but my preferred framework for democracy itself (representative democracy as described on the box.) is pure fantasy I've long since resigned myself to viewing politics as team sport for people too weird to get into football. It's quite good to be open with your friends that your approach is to go "Yeah, they've got no idea what they're doing but I still support [colour] team, nobody has a clue what they're doing" without any pretence, or even to admit that other teams have better ideas in small areas but miss the big idea so don't deserve support. It's a great way of working through factionalism too: You're an idiot who should read a fucking book and you'll doom the party if they listen to you, but I still want you to win a seat because you're on our team.
The only thing that surprises me about politics anymore is how little cynicism there is, or how misguided the cynicism is. People would rather believe they were lead by villains than by idiots.
|>>|| No. 85829
Listen mate, most of us haven't got time to be a bloody anorak about the intricacies of legislating cattle feed additives or the width of railway cabling specifications or whatever shite it is you spend your evenings reading about. We've got better things to do than be a policy wonk, and for that matter so have politicians we vote to wonk on our behalf- Hence why it falls on the shoulders of beleaguered civil servants and everything goes tits up.
In today's fractured, apathetic world of Twitter meltdowns and TV debates, the only thing that matters, fundamentally, is getting the reds or the blues in. You can't draw parallels with the past because we didn't have this set of circumstances. We've never been in this political situation, with this radical change in information and media at the same time. The last three, maybe four elections are the only ones that are relevant to our new and poorly understood cultural era, and if those ones are to go by we're going to live in a bitter stalemate for many years to come, with the only constant being the electorate throwing the shit at the fan whenever somebody is stupid enough to give them the chance.
I strongly suspect none of our discussion here will matter a bit in ten years time. I'd like to say I was right ten years ago when I tried to tell people making fun of the Gay Racists won't make them go away; and here we are. S Club 7 are poised to take over the EU. But it doesn't matter- Ten years ago we didn't have the alt right, we didn't have twitter, we didn't have flashmobs milkshaking people. The very worst we had was a few gimps in Guy Fawkes masks, and they were the good guys then.
Bloody minded tribalism seems like something we're going to have to get used to. The centrist has been thoroughly rejected.
|>>|| No. 85830
You don't need to care about those intricacies. Those are by and large administration problems, not political problems. A failure to adequately distinguish between the two is one of the reasons we deserve our current mess. Politics became dormant the moment we decided that big (often philosophical, irreducible to 'evidence based policy') questions of "Who gets what, when and how?" weren't really up for debate, let alone letting the public have any agency over them at the ballot box. There were perfectly moderate ways to avoid the mess we've been careering towards since the 90s but nobody took them. They had a duty to lead and they failed us. Call that wonkery if you want, but it's better than the freak who wants to help with the legislative process of changing cattle feed additives.
Wonks who obsess over minutiae signify the death of politics, not the worship of it. Say what you will about now versus 10 years ago, at least wonkocracy is collapsing. Sure, it might collapse back into feudalism and the black death but even that can't be as tedious as a politician handing you a pledge card less inspiring than the average supermarket discount coupon. Maybe if our old so-called politics had anything worth preserving, it wouldn't be coming to this. I mean the changing media landscale has a big role (though really, i doubt the electorate are worse informed than they were in 2007. perhaps worse than 1987.) and the public are terrible as always but it's a woeful failure of leadership that we've allowed our public life to decay so far. Why have our leaders not lead? Why has the country that produced so many good leaders started sticking itself with Mays and Corbyns? Perfectly nice people I'm sure, but I doubt they'd have made PPS 40 years ago.
You can say it's inevitable due to technological change if you want, but plenty of other countries haven't fucked themselves up the way we have, even in the same global economic circumstances, even with the same cowardice, even with the same public loss of faith in politics, even with a different order and number of wins for red or blue team. Even the USA looks like it has more opportunities for a bright future than we do.
|>>|| No. 85831
I know this is about the Seppos, but I'd have thought part of the issue stems from going from quite a lot of common ground and overlap between their two main parties to drifting to the extremes.
|>>|| No. 85863
Parties drifting to the extremes is a symptom rather than a cause of our problems. Brexit didn't come about because Cameron was an extreme brexiteer hell-bent on dragging the country right, it came about because he was complacent that the rules of the games were fixed within a narrow centre ground, that being an inch off it would doom you (Hi Ed!), that you could accurately predict the behaviour of the electorate and that people were basically inherently small-c conservative. Only after those assumptions were proved to be nonsense did the Conservatives begin to move sharply right. Equally, Corbyn was only nominated by the leadership because a few Labour MPs who didn't actually want him to win nominated him to broaden the debate confident that he couldn't win. Ridiculous, ridiculous complacency.
The common ground between the parties during the 90s-2000s is illusory. It represented an artificial consensus brought about by circumstance and electoral tactics which didn't really satisfy people (or metaphorically, parties.) in the long term. Just as the 1945-76 consensus was fine until it was broken, the 1987-2007ish consensus was dominant until it was doomed by the circumstances it created for itself. It's just shambled on for longer because the circumstances it created equally make it harder to think beyond it even though both major parties acclimatised to it pretty poorly. Blair and Cameron were both perfectly happy to portray themselves in opposition to their parties at large, is it any wonder their parties would come to see them as an outside force and reject their legacy?
If you want my prediction: Things will get worse, but in 10-20 years the parties will have converged again and it will all seem perfectly sensible and normal, except to a few people who object to elements of the new consensus. There is the possibility they converge on political style rather than substance, though.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]