- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3155 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
171 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 88931
Your loss m8. I don't know why people are so proud of having a narrow, one-dimensional sense of aesthetics.
|>>|| No. 88932
> If I gave you a few hundred quid you'd shag any one of them.
6 pints and a few shots would do it
|>>|| No. 88933
I was having this conversation with someone recently, I think your tastes generally broaden as you get older.
|>>|| No. 88935
I'm increasingly finding I appreciate the looks of older female acquaintances despite not really having any desire to sleep with them.
|>>|| No. 88937
I'll bet you're one of those people who thinks that the term "feminine penis" is an oxymoron.
|>>|| No. 88938
Watched her video about leaving the race, Christ she has a very boring, droning voice. It doesn't help that she looks like a shrunken head, either.
|>>|| No. 88941
Yes, she also got incredibly complacent and made some stupid decisions and approached the election with a stifling sense of entitlement. She won the popular vote, but that's not what matters, and not what she should have been aiming for if she'd taken the election seriously.
I changed all my gaming servers to the US on the night of the election to bathe in the salt. DNC fucked over their chance of winning.
What's your opinion on how he's polling? I saw an image of 'Who would you vote for if the election was today' nabbed from...CNN, maybe, with Biden at 29%, Buttigieg, Warren, and Klobuchar (never heard of the last one, shows how much I know) at 6% each, Trump at 20%, and 'Other' at 33%. Why is the media trying so hard to ignore Bernie? Admittedly Yang's figures are mixed in with his, and I can't remember how many other candidates are involved off the top of my head, but he's got a stellar record in Vermont and has his heart in the right place. Why do you think he's not a sensible candidate?
"I've got a girly willy" doesn't really roll off the tongue.
|>>|| No. 88945
How long ago was that? Was it the IRC clique? Is there still an IRC clique?
|>>|| No. 88946
So I've had the afternoon off and spent most of it arguing with morons on r/Labour. Why is the left so prone to infighting compared to the right, and why is it so polarising?
The reason I hate most of the Blairite candidates Labour has had so far is because they have mostly been either terminally boring or complete wet flannel looking spastics. See: Ed Miliband. Against someone like David Cameron, that shit would never fly, he was too slick and polished for them to stand a chance.
But that's not the case any more. The opposition is Boris fucking Johnson, an absolute clown. A boring, but well presented and strong looking managerial kind of Blairite would probably do very well indeed against that.
The problem with the likes of Long Bailey is she looks more like a primary school teacher than a leader. Look at Nicola Sturgeon as an example of a female party leader- An absolute fucking battleaxe of a woman you can't even try to have erotic fantasies about. Look at Angela Merkel. RLB simply can't carry it off.
|>>|| No. 88947
It was on the main boards a fair few years back, perhaps five or six. They couldn't decide whether they were to be called ladylads or lass mates, but they were annoying as fuck.
I think it's because when it comes to the left it's more do with emotion and morals rather than reason. If someone has a different view then it's not uncommon to see them being painted as evil and morally wrong.
|>>|| No. 88949
That's like so prescriptivist. Ladylads, lassmates, ladlasses, lasslads and other have the right to choose their own pronouns without having their pronouns chosen for them by a majority stale, pale and male collective.
|>>|| No. 88950
No, not /bint/. Female posters on the main boards regularly pointing out they've got a clopper.
|>>|| No. 88952
Could I please petition the modlads to make tragic Facebook memes an instant ban? They really bring the tone of the place down.
|>>|| No. 88964
Obvious bigot is a bigot, shocker. Let's face it she's always been a no-hoper, because all you can imagine if she won is Vangate in every paper from here to eternity. No chance of winning the next election in a million years.
Long Bailey, as much as the Corbynites love her, is a non-starter because she's obviously a mentalist god-botherer and it's only a matter of time until she slips up and says something like "I unreservedly support reproductive rights for women across this country, of course I do- But the Bible is very clear that all abortions go directly to hell".
What have they got on Kier? And what have they got on Nandy?
|>>|| No. 88966
Starmer is tied to Labour's Brexit fudge. He was also involved in the decision not to prosecute the man responsible for the death of Ian Tomlinson and the decision to prosecute the Twitter airport bomb hoax.
Nandy is more under the radar, but she's said some very silly things about how Spain has cracked down on Catalan separatists.
It's low-grade populism to the Labour faithful. If someone disagrees with you brand them Tory. Greens? Tories on bikes. Blairites? Red Tories. SNP? Porridge Tories.
|>>|| No. 88968
I mean, the thing is all the "dirt" I've seen anyone bring up about Starmer is stuff that would go down very well with the kinds of voter Labour needs to get back.
It's the BACK IN MY DAY YOU COULD LEAVE YOUR DOORS UNLOCKED crowd. The sort of people who unironically enjoy those paedo-vigilante Facebook pages. Both your examples sound like music to their ears.
|>>|| No. 88969
I disagree. I'd have thought the whole Twitter Joke Trial would see Starmer easily painted as LEFTY PC SNOWFLAKE WHO CAN'T TAKE A JOKE.
|>>|| No. 88970
Could go either way I suppose. Look at the response to that bloke with the Hitler pug. Very few people were outcrying the fact he got sent down for a joke, more of them saw it as YEEERRR SERVES 'IM RIGHT, MY GRANDAD DIED FIGHTING THAT HITLER, HE NEEDS TO LERN SUM RESPECT
|>>|| No. 88971
The guy who subsequently joined UKIP along with Paul Joseph Watson and Carl of Swindon? Oh yeah, definitely just good old boys having an innocent laugh. Ironic dolphin rape, like Carl's ironic anti-feminism. Like all the ironic dolphin rape on 4chan. You stupid prick.
|>>|| No. 88972
That's utterly and completely irrelevant to the point I was making though, you inbred little cretin. Fuck me.
Nobody was standing up for Nazi Pug Guy's freedom of expression at the time, before anybody who doesn't posses the gift of foresight knew he would go on to join UKIP and become an actual real life Nazi; so don't hold out much hope for Northern boomer voters to have much sympathy for people making totally epic jokes about bombing airports either.
|>>|| No. 88973
It's not irrelevant, he was always clearly doing it not as a joke but because he's actually racist and your characterisation of people who could see that when you couldn't is straight up deluded.
|>>|| No. 88974
Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm walking into this; are you saying it would be okay if I (not a Nazi) taught my dog to do a little Nazi salute, filmed the result, and then posted it online? Because I assure you that this isn't the case in the way CPS appears to operate. The case wasn't about being a Nazi, it was about a particular video that caused offence.
Essentially attacking Nazi Pug Guy on his character doesn't absolve the massive waste of police resources or the worrying precedent it sets. If anything it makes you a bootlicking idiot.
|>>|| No. 88975
When will we end this childish notion that saying racist things on the internet is bad?
|>>|| No. 88976
It is irrelevant, but you don't seem to be able to understand what the actual point of debate was. We're not talking about whether or not it's good or bad to arrest people for saying things on the internet, much less whether those people were in the wrong for the things they said and/or did.
The point at contention here is voter's attitudes, and how it bodes for our next Dear Leader. Otherlad suggested that Kier Starmer will get a bad rep as a "snowflake lefty" who bans people IRL for saying mean things on the internet; I posited that to the contrary, your average voter loves a bit of pointless authoritarianism, so it actually reflects well on him.
Nazi Pug Guy represents a good counter example because he sets the precedent that yes, you can bang someone up for Saying Things On Internet, and the public likes it. So much the better if it turns out they actually might have deserved it- But I think you and I both know that locking up actual criminals is more of a side effect than an intention of our justice system.
|>>|| No. 88977
I’m going to blow my fucking brains out if you idiots are still relitigating this shit come the morning.
Do “Should Clarkson Have Been Sacked” again, YOU DAMNED ANIMALS!
|>>|| No. 88979
The decision to prosecute someone or not for doing something racist based on whether or not you believe they are actually racist or not is just another way of saying 'thought crime'.
I basically agree with your sentiment but in practice it's a very dangerous precedent.
|>>|| No. 88980
Precedent? Mate it's current police policy. Precedent drowned itself long ago after it realised what it had done.
>Harry Miller is a former police officer and co-founder of Fair Cop. He set up the campaign group after being investigated by police over a limerick he posted on Twitter
|>>|| No. 88981
You might have been talking about that, I was specifically talking about how you still think that the guy who did a racist thing did it entirely innocently and not because he's racist, which you agree he is, but that's just a coincidence.
|>>|| No. 88982
Yeah but you're a bit of a prick mate. It's like you want to make a pragmatic discussion about which bloke is the best labour leader all about unrelated dolphin rape. You can lament X, Y and Z all you want and I'm sure the bloke you're replying to will agree with you, the problem is the discussion wasn't about X, Y or Z at all, it was about how the public perceived the response to simultaneously-racist-and-non-racist-nazi-pug guy's arrest and prosecution and how that plays in to the approval rating of the bloke who's going to be leading the labour party come April.
If you want to have a different discussion maybe you should not do that in a thread and conversation purely about how the public perceives Blair 2.0 based on his support for various public dramas, which happened to tangentially graze the racist bloke your gash is frothing over. Is it because he has a green screen now?
|>>|| No. 88984
I'm not taking part in the conversation about the labour leaders, I'm specifically talking about how
>Very few people were outcrying the fact he got sent down for a joke, more of them saw it as YEEERRR SERVES 'IM RIGHT, MY GRANDAD DIED FIGHTING THAT HITLER, HE NEEDS TO LERN SUM RESPECT
is a pants-on-head retarded statement, separately.
>If you want to have a different discussion maybe you should not do that in a thread
How about you suck my dick, derailing threads is entirely acceptable outside of /emo/ and you don't get to pretend it isn't just to try and avoid seeing how thick you're being.
|>>|| No. 88985
Yeah god no mate it's well acceptable it's just you look like a massive cock doing it in this case.
|>>|| No. 88986
You're a very sore loser, have you considered anger management counselling?
|>>|| No. 88987
I had a meeting this morning with someone who looked like a fitter version of RLB, except with a voice that didn't make her sound like a moron. Right petite and a little bit minxy. I'd have shagged her until I was raw.
|>>|| No. 88988
>I was specifically talking about how you still think that the guy who did a racist thing did it entirely innocently and not because he's racist
Except I don't and didn't think that. I never offered my own opinion on it, I was instead giving a low grade parody of a Mail reader's opinion, because that was what was relevant to discussion.
Even if you do want to get into it, it makes absolutely no difference wether a racist man made a sincere racist joke or a non-racist makes an insincere one, the principles that led to him being arrested and imprisoned for something he said on the Internet are the same. If you don't see how that represents a threat to freedom of expression, and you can articulate a reason why it shouldn't that doesn't boil down to BUT HATE SPEECH ISNT FREE SPEECH, then there's no point in me continuing to engage with you.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]