- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3282 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
488 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 89642
I'm pretty sure this is a guerilla marketing campaign for something, which is so 2020 it makes me want to mutilate my own genitals. On Zoom. While hosting a quiz.
|>>|| No. 89643
Maybe its just lockdown madness but this honestly made me laugh until I cried.
|>>|| No. 89645
You can tell yourself that if you want, but as a paid up, balls deep, card carrying lefty, I can tell you the alt right isn't making clever caricatures. This level of mental genuinely exists these days.
As we've discussed before, it's primarily a Yank thing, and a product of the way for them, liberalism takes the place traditionally held by socialism in our political spectrum. Their liberals are getting more and more socially radical, because they refuse to explore the possibility of economic change.
You'd like to hope it's not seeping into British politics, but sadly I think Yank culture has far wider reach than we give it credit it for.
|>>|| No. 89646
>card carrying lefty
I thought you tore that up and posted it back to them?
|>>|| No. 89647
I use my lefty card for racking up massive lines of ketamine.
I'd use my gay card, but it's all soggy with spunk and lube.
|>>|| No. 89648
If you think that "Karen is the same as the n-word" one is real then you are so fucking thick I don't know what to tell you. It's not even plausible that "the left" think that. Do a lot of white women secretly feel that way? Hell yes. But it's more of a Tomi Lahren kind of thing than anything even 1% close to the left.
|>>|| No. 89650
The Twitter account is about two weeks old and some of the tweets have #Trump2020 on them.
They're clearly made up. The fact they're indistinguishable from the bollocks that fruitcakes tend to come out with, they're stupid but plausible, is why they're effective.
|>>|| No. 89652
I never said that picture was real, you dense cunt, anyone can see that's taking the piss.
What I said is that that type of stupidity is definitely real, and posted an example captured in the wild.
|>>|| No. 89653
How are you sure that the stupidity you see in the wild isn't someone taking the piss?
|>>|| No. 89657
One would like to hope so of course. But we both know that's about as true as saying the 4chan brand of anti-semitic dolphin rape is all ironic self-satire.
Right wing types are indeed using it in an opportunist manner, but it's a gift we put squarely in their lap by letting the nutters get out of hand (and then standing up for them because ableism.)
|>>|| No. 89658
>letting the nutters get out of hand
But how do we know the nutters are real? After all, it's known that the intelligence agencies in America infiltrated the Occupy movement and successfully destabilised with it by regularly bringing up identity politics and the like during meetings to hinder progress being made.
How do we know that every time you hear in the news about some loony left idea that's completely out there it isn't an agent of the state lobbing in a grenade, aided and abetted by a group of useful idiots? For all we know a lot of modern lefty thought - the focus on the individual over the collective, getting offended on the behalf of others, the outrage Olympics, intersectionality, the disproportionate focus on fringe issues - has been shaped over time by those who do not want the left to succeed. If you were told that someone like Owen Jones was an undercover agent with the brief to a) make lefties look bad and b) corrupt the way lefties think would you be entirely surprised?
|>>|| No. 89660
It's not just "taking the piss" though, is it? There's a gap in our vocabulary for things that are fake, but in such a way that you aren't necessarily supposed to see them as a joke, and when it is pointed out that it's a joke, or just bullshit, you can say "yeah, well, it's true in spirit" and then society collapses but ironically.
|>>|| No. 89669
Even if it is, in practical terms, what's the difference? They've succeeded in what they wanted to achieve, and most leftist spaces, online and off, are firmly entrenched in a position of supporting these mind-worm sleeper cells.
|>>|| No. 89692
>After all, it's known that the intelligence agencies in America infiltrated the Occupy movement and successfully destabilised with it by regularly bringing up identity politics and the like during meetings to hinder progress being made.
Do you have a source on this? It's always something I've strongly suspected of being true for many "left" movements, and I believe it happens, but I rarely come across good sources.
|>>|| No. 89693
Unfortunately I don't, but the FBI were regularly infiltrating and disrupting civil rights and fisherperson groups from the 50s onwards. I know one lad here has sources that show the use of identity politics to disrupt the Occupy movement was far more effective than they hoped it would be, to the point that it's become an established tactic for them to use.
|>>|| No. 89694
If you want to go back to 1960s movements, it's been well documented that groups like the Black Panthers were infiltrated by creating social tensions between individuals. One tragicomic effort involved sending anonymous letters to the spouses of activists claiming their partners were cheating.
Identity politics honestly seems like a gift to security and intelligence forces.
|>>|| No. 89696
Imagine my shock as a teenager joining the Labour Party so we could increase taxes on those that could afford it (marginally, they deserve to keep the reward of their efforts but should contribute a bit more they wouldn't miss back to the society that made them) so that we could hire new teachers and nurses and help kids at a disadvantage get the chances in life they needed.
It was quite shocking to me to find everybody obsessed with how much we could break down our differences and focus on those aspects than come together.
|>>|| No. 89698
>shaped over time by those who do not want the left to succeed
I'd point out that the Occupy movement started as a libertarian protest against the moral hazard of bank bailouts only to be descended upon by freaks. Same as the yellow-vest movement was originally about the rising cost of fuel and it's impact on the working-middle class.
I don't doubt that radicals are influenced but it's pretty obvious that everyone exploits protest movements for their own gain. The SWP being the classic example.
|>>|| No. 89699
Wasn't Lenin himself sent to Russia as a provocateur by the Germans in WW1? An idea can spread like a virus, and the destabilising effects of sowing the right idea in the right place are well known.
Lenin's agitation was so profoundly successful it took the Russians out of the war. Though of course, it was rather too successful, and ultimately came back around to bite the Germans in the arse during the sequel (and you know, the entire latter half of the 20th century).
I wonder what ironic consequences the identity politics psyop will end up having. I think we're already amidst the backlash, what with Brexit, Trump, and the rise of the alt-right.
|>>|| No. 89701
Momentum and thousands of Labour members have accused Keir Starmer of “failing renters”, calling on him to back an immediate cancellation of rents for those whose income is affected by the coronavirus crisis.
Starmer’s policy is to support an extension of the three-month ban on evictions and give tenants up to two years to pay arrears, which Labour says would help avoid people losing their homes in June.
However, activists are calling for a more comprehensive policy to help renters, saying a deferral of rents will push people further into poverty as they face huge rises in what they have to pay each month.
A letter signed by at least 4,000 Labour members, backed by Momentum, the leftwing grassroots group that supported Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, called on Starmer to improve the policy.
It didn't take long for the trots to turn on him.
|>>|| No. 89702
Isn't she that really young one? She's like 19 or something?
Her heart is the right place, but she doesn't understand her job fully yet (nor, indeed, what a select committee actually is and how the voting process works).
I can't believe her name is really Zarah Sultana, though. That's just not a real name.
|>>|| No. 89703
That's Nadia Whittome. Well done on saying Asians all look the same to you, you massive racist.
|>>|| No. 89704
They're not Trotskyists, and they didn't turn on him- they gave him the benefit of the doubt and he took that and did a big stinking shit on it.
|>>|| No. 89705
A spokesman for Starmer pointed to a defence of the party’s policy by Thangam Debbonaire, the shadow housing secretary, who said: “The five-point plan aims to prevent arrears and debt primarily if possible and to minimise it and prevent evictions if not. There are huge problems with the housing system, which needs fixing. Right now we are trying to make sure people don’t lose their homes.
”The policy is that the government should support and protect people’s incomes to prevent arrears if possible, and prevent evictions if not. That doesn’t solve the whole housing crisis – that needs regulation of private rental sector, investment in truly affordable homes.”
She also highlighted an analysis by a legal expert that warns of unintended consequences if rents are completely cancelled as the state would have to compensate landlords, estimating the cost to the state at up to £6.4bn a month and claiming it would be “deeply regressive, giving the biggest benefit to those who don’t need it, [with] free money for the already reasonably well-off”.
|>>|| No. 89707
That's a fair point, but I wish the government would have the balls to just stand and say loo, if you're a landlord you can sit and fucking swivel mate. You've already had your mortgage frozen, and if you didn't have a mortgage on the property, what in fuck's name are you losing out on. If you're not making any money because letting was your only income, there's always the dole like everyone else.
|>>|| No. 89708
Are you sure they'd even be entitled to join the dole queue? If JSA were still current they'd not be able to get income-based JSA and they might not have the NI credits to claim contribution-based JSA. I did a single Google search and it seems like there exists some no man's land where being a landlord falls short of operating a business and therefore doesn't involve NI. Can't really be arsed to hunt down a definitive answer.
|>>|| No. 89709
I hardly imagine they've been questioning it considering the current application. It'll be tracked down later if there are fraudulent applications, but I'd imagine they're just approving near enough everything with out much investigation right now.
|>>|| No. 89710
>the state would have to compensate landlords
Why? The state can do what it likes by passing laws.
|>>|| No. 89711
UC online doesn't need much vetting, as you need to sign in with a digital identity and it's basically all based on income which they can clearly see via HRMC. Really you can only cheat it with cash in hand.
|>>|| No. 89717
The risk is that over-leveraged buy-to-let investors would have to sell up or go bankrupt. The banks agreed voluntarily to offer three-month mortgage holidays for people in financial distress, but they're under no obligation to extend that to BTL investors. A large proportion of private rented property is owned by investment funds which are in turn owned by pension funds, which creates a serious risk of unintended consequences - you might get out of paying your rent, at the expense of your work pension scheme collapsing. Average rental yields are only about 6% in most markets, which doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.
|>>|| No. 89718
>A large proportion of private rented property is owned by investment funds which are in turn owned by pension funds
I thought they could only hold commercial property rather than residential property, with a bit of a loophole for student accommodation?
|>>|| No. 89719
Residential property owned by a pension fund is subject to taxation, but investing in a REIT isn't taxable as long as the fund owns less than 10% of the total shares.
This effectively mandates a degree of diversification, but a lot of pension schemes were running on fumes before COVID, have taken an almighty whack due to the collapse in the equities market and could be pushed over the brink if REITs start failing.
|>>|| No. 89720
Why don't they just sell that fucking house that's been appreciating for decades? It's about time those parasites learn that investments can go down.
|>>|| No. 89721
I'm sure that tenants won't be affected in any way by their home being sold from underneath them. I'm sure there'll be no economic fallout whatsoever if hundreds of thousands of homes (most of which are indirectly owned by pension funds) are suddenly dumped onto a distressed market.
|>>|| No. 89726
I'm sure it'll be an unmitigated disaster when suddenly thousands of renters can afford to buy instead, yeah. It's almost like having so much of our economy tied into property was a bad idea to begin with.
|>>|| No. 89727
Sounds like it's for the greater good. Maybe I'm just a loony, but my gut feeling is that the short and medium term chaos would give way to something less utterly stupid than bleeding renters dry and having houses become more unaffordable year on year just to fund pensions. Even a ridiculous, extreme solution like having the state nationalise the rental properties and take on the responsibility for paying those pensions itself (jacking up taxes in the process) would be less stupid. At least you'd be moving money around in a sane way. (From working people to pensioners, rather than from everyone who needs a place to live to pensioners.)
Of course, my views may be coloured by the fact I fully expect to die without seeing a penny of my pension. Even if I care about the people in my family who can expect to retire sooner rather than later.
|>>|| No. 89728
It's the basics of Momentum. Make unrealistic demands without thinking through all of the potential consequences. Be constantly belligerent and aggressive, to the point that most people switch off, then you need to 'other' anyone who disagrees with you.
|>>|| No. 89729
>“deeply regressive, giving the biggest benefit to those who don’t need it, [with] free money for the already reasonably well-off”.
Progressive types love to break out this line whenever people advocate throwing a lifebuoy to anyone in need; "sure, them lot are drowning, but look at that cunt, he's got a speedboat" and then they do diddly squate for anyone.
|>>|| No. 89730
Odd to lay that at the door of progressives considering it's been the standard right-wing tabloid line against dolescum for longer than the average internet user has been alive. Unless you're using "progressive" in the sense of a euphemism for "the most economically right-leaning segment of the centre-left.", in which case carry on then.
|>>|| No. 89735
Thank you, for not banning me for saying "squate" earlier.
I did indeed mean that, yes. The difference with right wing opposition to any kind of non-means tested handout, in very crude terms, is that they think you ought not to give anyone anything Whilst the "progressive" opposition agrees that yes, people do need help, but to make sure that Mr Speedboat doesn't see any undue benefit we should erect barriers around accessing aid, but this results in delays and at a time like this that's just not acceptable. I also think it feeds into the all too common mindset that sees people believing they aren't owed anything by the state, financially or otherwise, even when they're struggling, when in actual fact that's supposed to be the reason we have a state, or one of the reasons anyway, a big one too.
I'd rather not, but they are increasingly forcing my hand (mouth?).
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]