- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3224 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 93958
>Tommy Robinson has been accused of misusing supporters’ money, as he declares himself bankrupt despite receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds in donations and funding, The Independent can reveal.
>The Independent has seen financial documents indicating the huge scale of funding given to Robinson since announcing “going independent” in 2018. In little over two months, he received almost £425,000 in donations from his supporters, documents suggest. He is also believed to have raised a significantly larger amount after being jailed for contempt of court in May 2018, though an American group called Middle East Forum said it had funded his defence.
>“Tommy is a liar. The way he treated me, a lot of it, was just a front. It was an act to grow and make a lot of money. I thought he cared about saving Britain, saving young girls from being raped in Rotherham, but it was about making money."
Do you believe most people in the public domain actually believe what they say or knowing spout bollocks and mislead people because it's very lucrative for them? It seems to happen right across the political spectrum.
|>>|| No. 93959
Steven Yaxley-Lennon, you have pleaded guilty to the charges brought by this court, and it is now my duty to pass sentence. You are a massive cunt...
In reality Robinson would never cop to being a thief. He'd just blame the press for pointing it out in the first place and cry foul.
As for whether people like him, and I presume we're talking about right-wing grifters here, actually believe what they say, I've long reckoned it to be six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. Generally speaking they're right-wingers, but they'll exaggerate and mislead in order to stir up outrage and rake in the cash. It likely becomes harder and harder for them to distinguish between their own BS and reality as time goes on, both as a side effect of constantly having to feed themselves said bullshit and then compounding that with hundreds of thousands of permanently pissed off weirdos repeating it back to them in the affirmative. Saying it's "like a cult" is hack and lazy, but only because it's a psychological phenomenon that plays out in a million different situations far more mundane, it's just more harmful here Robinson's case or in the jungles of Guyana than in small business whose management fail to see the wood for the trees before going under. No one ever thinks they're the bad guy, not in the long term, because when you actually are the bad guy, the brain throws up a million mental roadblocks to obscure the truth or else you'd be on the meltdown motorway in no time.
|>>|| No. 93960
I just realised you weren't talking specifically about right-wingers but whatever, I made my post, I am no slave to OPs.
|>>|| No. 93961
I believe we have discussed it before but if we take a case in a point of Laurence Fox.
He decided to become a professional bellend after being accused of being a white privileged male on Question Time. I know people who like him, knobheads mostly, because he sticks it to the wokies. Last I read his political party had received over £5million in donations because the ongoing culture war is a welcome distraction for some.
If we take the person who called him a white privileged male, Rachel Boyle is a lecturer in race and ethnicity at Edge Hill University. It's in her interests to perpetuate this sort of nonsense because she's carved a career out of it.
They're not grossly different, but one has a veneer of respectability about it.
|>>|| No. 93962
You're not correct about Laurence Fox. He was on Question Time because he'd become a professional dickhead. His Twitter had been nothing but moaning and whinging about the usual rightist pressure points for a long time, and the brain-geniuses at the Beeb thought it'd be a laugh to put him on the telly. He didn't have a Batman villain-esque fall from grace after being called privileged. Which, for the record, he definitely is; 90% of this cunt's family have Wikipedia articles.
The motivations of Rachel Boyle, someone from a mixed-race family who opposes racism and educates people on the subject of race and ethnicity is not really comparable. For one, at the very least she's academically trained in her field and that does count for something. Even if you disagree with her philosophically I don't see how her role as an educator is parallel to the roles of people like Tommy Robinson or Fox, whose aims are to enrich themselves, bear-bait soft targets and spread hatred while doing so. I don't just mean racial hatred either. How many times do you see their supporters calling leftists mentally ill or traitors or an existential threat of some kind? That kind of angry nihilism doesn't exist in political world of Boyle and she probably (I don't know exactly because she's a lecturer and not nearly as famous as Robinson or Fox, but that's rather my point too) doesn't perpetuate it. You dismiss this and her academic background as a "veneer of respectability" but there are real differences between her and how the right operates and what they want. The pre-eminent right-wingers might not openly state they want to kick the Muslims out or beat up journalists who dissent, depending on their chosen pet peeve, but their followers, curiously, take those messages away. The idea that Boyle, or anyone like her, is yang to their ying strains credulity.
|>>|| No. 93963
The difference is politeness and civility.
I'm firmly of the belief that the focus on identity politics and intersectionality is pure brain rot that was catalysed to destabilise the left. It is definitely a lot less vile and in your face than what the likes of Are Tommeh communicate but it's certainly also very divisive.
Many of the people who spout it are undoubtedly grifters, with a lot of the rest being their useful idiots. It doesn't suddenly stop being a grift just because it's done with middle class niceties.
|>>|| No. 93964
>it's certainly also very divisive
Only in the sense that it divides the racists and sexists from everyone else.
|>>|| No. 93965
Oh, yeah. I forgot we'd had some newbies from Rudgwick who think snappy zingers for upvotes are more important than actual discourse.
|>>|| No. 93966
>Only in the sense that it divides the racists and sexists from everyone else.
It doesn't though, it's perfectly possible to be put off of giving much of a shit about people if those people are incredibly annoying, which the modern online-based left provably are.
|>>|| No. 93967
Wow, zinger! I only have so many upvotes to give, kind sir, please take my narwhal sp0rk
I wonder if you understand how you're being annoying and how people conflate their personal dislike of you with dislike of your cause. It's interesting that comments like this actually create more problems than they solve.
|>>|| No. 93968
>it's perfectly possible to be put off of giving much of a shit about people if those people are incredibly annoying
At the risk of stating the obvious, if something like BLM annoys you, you're probably a racist.
|>>|| No. 93969
That's it, that's the one. Well done, thanks, couldn't quite put my finger on it. Thanks for that incisive commentary. Then I don't care about being a racist, if all it takes for me to be a racist is being critical of BLM.
Do you see the inherent fallacy with saying "If you don't like a movement, then you don't like what it stands for"?
|>>|| No. 93970
Sorry, lad. Please continue with your "if you dislike identity politics it's probably because you're a bigoted racist" line of reasoning. It's really constructive.
|>>|| No. 93972
>I wonder if you understand how you're being annoying and how people conflate their personal dislike of you with dislike of your cause.
But you are also conflating the cause and the people.
>It's interesting that comments like this actually create more problems than they solve.
Ah yes there it is, the ol' "I'm racist because you told me not to be".
|>>|| No. 93973
>Ah yes there it is, the ol' "I'm racist because you told me not to be".
When are you going to acknowledge this is a real issue, and that people can be driven to dislike a cause because of its proponents rather than anything to do with the cause itself?
Are young men of this generation genetically more sexist? No, of course not. But something is making them more sexist, and it's quite clearly people like you.
|>>|| No. 93974
>But something is making them more sexist, and it's quite clearly people like you.
From your article:
>Along with slurs and typical internet 4chan slang she knew like “triggered” and “conservative”, she noted a few she didn’t, including “foid”, something she discovered was an incel term for women (“female humanoid”).
>She explains that much of this represents the younger and younger recruitment of boys by the alt right and generalised spread of its ideology across social media and the internet. “The number of issues that the alt right will talk about and look at has grown, and it's all part of a wider pushback against progressive norms – and in some ways it's scariest because of its mainstreaming.”
>The boys and men she interviewed for her latest book Men Who Hate Women were as young as 11 when they became involved with such communities on 4chan or YouTube by “going down algorithmically supported rabbit holes” until they reached darker content.
>One popular method of teen recruitment is through gaming. Recruiters use sites and games as a “hunting ground”, Bates says, since this is where young men are gathering. “They can reach them without supervision, particularly boys who are playing multiplayer online games over headphones with people they’ve never met before.”
>Bates describes the method as subtle: “They start by dropping sexist jokes into the conversation to see if they’re receptive and escalate it to private chats, which are obviously meant for people to share gaming tactics, but they’re using them to groom boys and eventually direct them to these more extreme communities.”
Stop being a pathetic hand-wringing blame shifter. You're responsible for your own mind. The response to sexism and racism isn't the cause of sexism and racism, no matter how hard you pretend it is.
|>>|| No. 93975
>Are young men of this generation genetically more sexist?
They're not "more sexist". Previous generations are just in denial about how sexist they were.
|>>|| No. 93977
I think you're all missing the point. This place tends to loathe identity politics and associated mindworms because many of the posters are old school socialists who a) see it as a distraction from the real issue of class and b) it compartmentalises people and gets in the way of solidarity for a common cause.
It's got absolutely fuck all to do with disliking identity politics because you're secretly a racist or due to being called rude names by someone on the internet.
|>>|| No. 93978
I don't see that as contradicting the message in >>93974. Identity politics can be bad and that poster can also be desperately trying to blame other people for his own behaviour.
|>>|| No. 93979
I haven't read the article but that quote makes it sound like it is written by a conspiracy theorist. Like it were a deliberate action to be in these locations targeting these people as a predatory action rather than the organic locations of grass routes of where they were anyway.
The irony is that you are telling them they are responsible for their own mind yet the quote implies people are either active recruiters or helpless vessels for indoctrination incapable of controlling their own decisions.
|>>|| No. 93980
Can, but isn't, especially in light of what >>93977 said. The bad faith response on behalf of some daft cunt upstairs has nothing to do with that, it's simply a distraction from criticism.
Yes, and who drives them into the arms of the alt right? That's right, you. I don't really know what you're trying to achieve with this 'blame shifting'. There's joint responsibility, 'only the sith and morons deal in absolutes.
There's an element of personal agency, there's an element of pull from the alt right, and there's an element of push from people like you. You're all culpable.
As it is, I'm not talking about myself here, I'm talking about the young men growing up in this environment. I'll use words like 'tranny' more often on .gs to spite people like >>93974, but I won't treat transgender people any different in real life, or feel any differently about them or their deservedness of human rights. That's another part of why it's ridiculous to assume that ones stance on a movement is the same as their stance on an issue.
|>>|| No. 93981
>Like it were a deliberate action to be in these locations targeting these people as a predatory action rather than the organic locations of grass routes of where they were anyway.
That's not conspiracy at all, I remember when there were posts on stormfront or wherever that they discussed actively targeting 4chan back in 2008 or 9.
>The irony is
Great, say anything but to the point.
|>>|| No. 93982
>Yes, and who drives them into the arms of the alt right? That's right, you.
I didn't make anyone post on 4chan. If the best evidence for what you're saying is an article that directly contradicts what you're saying, maybe you're an idiot?
>I'll use words like 'tranny' more often on .gs to spite people like >>93974, but I won't treat transgender people any different in real life, or feel any differently about them or their deservedness of human rights.
Wow how thoughtful of you, I'm sure nobody who posts here who's transgender or close to someone transgender will be hurt by that at all. Everything you do is in a vacuum, everything everyone else does is the reason for everything bad in the world.
>'only the sith and morons deal in absolutes.
Fucking hell. I bet you were the one accusing other people of being from rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk and all.
|>>|| No. 93983
>I didn't make anyone post on 4chan.
...do you not remember, voat, parler, or any of that stuff? Those people who were driven onto those platforms where they could reach critical mass and organise things like storming the Capitol building? Have you not noticed the overwhelming fashion of telling these people to fuck off and showing no compassion while the alt right show enough to get them hooked?
Do me a favour and entertain the possibility that you're wrong. It'll be interesting.
>Everything you do is in a vacuum, everything everyone else does is the reason for everything bad in the world.
That's a very egotistical interpretation, why do you view things like this?
|>>|| No. 93984
>Great, say anything but to the point.
The 'irony' refers to the irony of saying the article is proof that "You are in control of your own mind" while the article also specifically states that people are being misled by others. I wonder if teenlad understands that the third element of that is people being pushed into those leading arms.
|>>|| No. 93985
I remember all this began long before any of those platforms existed. I'm sure your tactic of "aggressively silence anyone who says anything anti-racist or anti-sexist while projecting that they're guilty of everything you saw in a trans-cringe compilation made by the alt-right ten years ago" will work where they failed though.
I understand what you think you're saying but it's wrong. I know plenty of people who didn't go turn into turboracists, despite being placed in the exact same situation. Choices have been made.
|>>|| No. 93986
I have a reputation to maintain so I'd just like to point out that >>93962 was my last post in this thread and after that I went for a walk and popped into the shops. I'm having hoisin pork shoulder for dinner and none of you cretins are invited.
|>>|| No. 93987
>I wonder if teenlad understands that the third element of that is people being pushed into those leading arms.
I'm not sure anyone can reasonably be expected to understand shit you made up to make a point.
|>>|| No. 93988
>I remember all this began long before any of those platforms existed. I'm sure your tactic of "aggressively silence anyone who says anything anti-racist or anti-sexist while projecting that they're guilty of everything you saw in a trans-cringe compilation made by the alt-right ten years ago" will work where they failed though.
The reason you don't see me bollocking racists is because there really aren't many on here, and the few there are tend to keep quiet, so there's no need, it would be empty the shipping forecast because very few people here need to 'hear' that message.
For cause, I'm saying it's tripartite, not that it's exclusively down to bellends driving them away, or alt rights pulling them in, or just down to the person.
Agency of the individual, which we agree on.
Influence drawing towards, which we agree on.
Influence driving away, which some people seem to think doesn't exist.
>I know plenty of people who didn't go turn into turboracists, despite being placed in the exact same situation.
Absolutely, neither did I as far as I know, but the important thing is whether they become turboracists at a higher rate than the general population, because if so then that's proof of an influence, isn't it? Or is that flawed reasoning?
|>>|| No. 93989
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just taking umbrage with that one poster who keeps aggressively interjecting with this whole "It's YOU who did it it's YOUR fault" which seems pretty nonsensical given that he's just making assumptions about how other posters behave or talk outside of here.
|>>|| No. 93990
The "influence driving away" you refer to is just a projection of the "influence drawing towards" in the opposite direction.
|>>|| No. 93991
>I'm not saying it doesn't exist
>>93990 is saying that though, which is the issue. They're completely in denial that this is a factor.
|>>|| No. 93993
That's fine, we can get back to LaurenceFoxlad now. You're in denial of a fact so you're not longer needed.
|>>|| No. 93994
I've always just assumed he's an undercover police officer. Or at least an informer. Someone to discredit the far-right by being a bellend and quietly having arrested anyone who poses a threat to the establishment.
I mean he is a thuggish representative of the whole 'football lads alliance' that the police are so scared of.
|>>|| No. 93995
>They're completely in denial that this is a factor.
It's because it's literally not a factor. You've offered up nothing other than personal opinions about finding it annoying, and that's on you.
|>>|| No. 93996
Yes, and if I had less conviction or was less stubborn I can absolutely see it getting to me. I've spoken to people who say it's been a factor with them.
The opinion that it's annoying is just that, an opinion that it's annoying. As you can see demonstrated in this thread, me saying "That's annoying" can be misinterpreted as "Anti-racism is annoying" rather than "This specific anti-racism movement is annoying", which then leads you to dislike me, me to dislike you, not engage with you further, and thus be cut off from a potentially positive source of anti-bigotry, purely because I find you personally annoying.
Does that make sense?
|>>|| No. 93997
Not even remotely, no.
It is not the movement's fault if privileged people find it annoying or uncomfortable. That's the entire point of those movements. If you choose to not confront that discomfort but instead dismiss it, that's not on them; it's on you. They didn't drive you away. You drew yourself towards something else.
|>>|| No. 93998
This very thread is a stark demonstration of how counter-productive identity politics zombies are to the left (in so far as they relate to it at all in any meaningful sense.) The tone is never one that will actually persuade or win support, it just provokes hostility and disengagement and everyone leaves with a more negative impression than they started with.
It's the discussion equivalent of being on a bus and someone shits their pants. The smell gradually wafts up to the back seats, and everyone has to decide if they can stomach it or if they're just going to get off early and walk the rest of the way. One by one people surrender, and before long the pant shitter is left as the sole passenger, who then concludes everyone who got off must have been a racist.
The fact is the lefty ones are more annoying because you know somewhere, underneath all their valorising and shipping forecasting, is a valid point that they're making a complete mess of delivering. The right wing ones don't matter, because they're nutters arguing for nonsense; but the lefty ones are actively harmful to the concept of progress.
|>>|| No. 93999
The reason why "it is okay to be white" posters is such a good recruitment for alt-right groups is that woke groups fall into the trap every time and that obviously it absolutely is okay to be white, and by fighting against that statement implies a cryptic racism towards white people is seeded through woke politics and most people aren’t willing to accept that level of self-loathing that they should feel collective guilt, I certainly don’t.
The protesting of the signs by the-woke politics own logic of macroaggressions absolutely demonstrates the-woke groups are racist... *except* (as they will defend themselves) that it is impossible for them to be racist of course. Which is a hypocrisy so transparent all can see, "I'm not systematically racist I am merely think it is not okay to be white"…
Alt right crucially doesn't set itself up as pro-racists merely anti-woke, and the woke groups doubling down that; they are racist, and to be left wing you have to believe in their views, proves the point of those in the alt-right.. That the-woke believe anyone who disagrees with their flavour of politics regardless of their own personal beliefs is a racist.
Until woke groups are willing to accept that it is okay to be white as a benign statement and co-opt such statements for themselves the alt right will have a point.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 94000
>It is not the movement's fault if privileged people find it annoying or uncomfortable.
But that's saying that as long as a movement portends to be about a particular issue, then it's beyond criticism. That's flawed, do you see that?
>They didn't drive you away.
Without their influence these people wouldn't have ended up in the same place. Likewise, if that place didn't exist, they couldn't have ended up there. And of course their own agency plays a part, but you have to acknowledge that your agency does too and you have an impact on other people. You don't need to be a cunt, you choose to be because you believe you're in the right, and if anyone disagrees with you then they're in the wrong, and that clearly colours the way you address them.
|>>|| No. 94001
All lives matter. Wait, shit, I'm a racist. I could of course state "All live matter, but currently we need to focus on black lives, as they are under the most institutional threat at the moment", but then that would imply there was something wrong with the statement 'All Lives Matter', which there isn't. The only people who have a problem with it are those on the left who have made that statement a dirty phrase associated with those on the far right
|>>|| No. 94002
>But that's saying that as long as a movement portends to be about a particular issue, then it's beyond criticism.
No, that's what you're saying. What I'm saying is that "they're annoying" or "I find this uncomfortable" isn't criticism. It's just whining.
|>>|| No. 94003
'Whining' is what people call criticism that they don't like. You're assuming that lack of articulation means that there's a lack of reasoning, which is provably untrue.
That aside, it's still a perfectly cromulent criticism to say "This group is annoying, and I think that detracts from their goal".
|>>|| No. 94004
>'Whining' is what people call criticism that they don't like.
Who was complaining about "zingers" again?
|>>|| No. 94005
>That aside, it's still a perfectly cromulent criticism to say "This group is annoying, and I think that detracts from their goal".
Read the rest of the post. Now note that on the post which was criticised for being a 'zinger', it was simply one line with no further elucidation of any point, and was reductive to boot. Do you understand the difference, you bender?
|>>|| No. 94011
Except, in reality, the only people saying All Lives Matter are actually racists. We all know exactly why. You couldn't possibly not understand this by this point.
|>>|| No. 94012
Could it be because really the situation might be one about American militarization of their police force and that framing it as a purely racial issue might actually distract from discussing that as an issue. It isn't like American police don't go insane and choose to gun down white people too.
Have you seen the footage of Daniel Shaver's death that resulted in a verdict of not guilty for the police. There should be rioting but there isn't, because and this is the crucial part, Daniel isnt black.
|>>|| No. 94015
>resulted in a verdict
Oh so the policeman was put on trial? You're right, that's just like every other time a black person is murdered by US police.
|>>|| No. 94016
Are you purposely trying to be a provocative edgelord here? fuck off zinger cunt.
|>>|| No. 94017
The reason liberal (in the Yank sense of the word) cretins like the one currently shitting up this thread don't agree with the statement "all lives matter" is because... They don't. To them, lives don't matter. The lives in question aren't the important bit, at all. That's why it will still be good and dandy when Saint Joe sends Israel a fresh batch of laser guided bunker busters to use on Palestinian schools. Black lives are only temporarily elevated thanks to their potential as a source of political capital.
|>>|| No. 94018
No, he's just some bent retard who has mistaken sound and fury for substance.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 94019
Are you spastics really arguing "All Lives Matter" is a phrase that means what it says on the tin? As if anyone saying it gives a monkey's bollock about shite like >>94012 ? If you believe they do you were either born yesterday or, well, you already know.
|>>|| No. 94020
I believe the position being put forward is that if you frame a problem one way, you frame the debate and thus frame what solution could be, and potentially ignore the genuine solution to the problem.
You have fallen into the saying 'it is okay to be white' is a racist statement trap.
|>>|| No. 94022
So, lads, what do you think about those grifters then, eh?
|>>|| No. 94024
Well they managed to get themselves an entire TV channel this week so they can't be doing that badly.
|>>|| No. 94025
There's a difference between the literal reading of a sentence and the context applied to a political slogan, especially one originating from a notoriously clandestine and dog-whist-happy group such as the far-right. I'm a sad enough cunt to remember that exact phrase popping up overnight, so don't try to slip one by me, my little friend. If you're not a racist then you're so profoundly ignorant on these matters that it'd be in your best interest to waste your time doing basically anything else.
|>>|| No. 94026
>Are you spastics really arguing "All Lives Matter" is a phrase that means what it says on the tin?
Of course not, but there's no reason it can't mean that or be used in that way, and the phrase (when not capitalised, or used in relation to BLM) does indeed mean exactly that. It's just that like "Work will make you free", the phrase now has *another* meaning.
It's a dog whistle now, but the there's nothing fundamentally racist in the statement 'all lives matter', which is where the problem is.
I think maybe prescriptivism is becoming a political movement rather than a literary one...
|>>|| No. 94028
I'm not sure what the value of coming into a conversation to say "Well actually, decontextualised, it can mean something perfectly harmless" when it's not being used in a decontextualised way. Yes, #NotAllMen, we know. This contribution is neither helpful nor relevant.
|>>|| No. 94029
Because there's at least one poster here who doesn't seem to acknowledge that, and draws a direct parallel between these phrases and racist intent.
The main point is that it can't be used to accurately identify racism to any meaningful degree, which some people seem to be implying. The defining line between being a racist isn't whether you agree with a dog whistle statement, it's how you feel about forriners and the non-pink, and the actions you take. Not your endorsement of a particular sentence.
Ah, you're one of those. That can have its own topic, stop throwing grenades on this one.
|>>|| No. 94030
If you want a coloured for a neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour!
It's not racist, maybe I do want a non-white neighbour, ever think of that?
|>>|| No. 94031
Or how about this one: just because we're marching in a column along the Apennine Mountains on my way to fight the Wehrmacht forces in Italy, does not mean that our rendition of "Bella Ciao" is an anti-fascist anthem. Perhaps we are literally just syaing "goodbye beautiful", you great sodding berk.
|>>|| No. 94032
And if you were singing it a few decades before it apparently would have been a simple anti-labour song.
What's so hard to understand? It's not the words, it's the intent and the context. If your post was meant to demonstrate that, then we're in agreement that these dog whistles are just that, and have no more power than we give them.
|>>|| No. 94033
The phrase exists to counter a phrase used for racial justice. It's racist.
|>>|| No. 94035
The phrase exists because the words exist and the concept is pretty fair, "lives matter". The phrase isn't racist, but its usage can be. I'm not denying that, it just seems that you're thinking "Can be" means "Always is", which is wrong.
The phrase is *controversial* because of people who have intentionally been using it to deny the relevance of BLM. The phrase in and of itself should not be controversial, because it could have just as easily been 'All Lives Matter' as a slogan rather than specifically 'Black'.
Personally I just see it as further calcifying the division between races, which is a distraction from the much more significant issue of classism.
|>>|| No. 94039
You might understand the concept, but it was very clumsy and indicative of a certain mindset.
|>>|| No. 94040
And your mindset is indicative of you being a massive racist, so you're saying I can dismiss your argument for that. Maybe you're not, who knows? It doesn't matter! Your typing is indicative of being a carpet-bagger. Anyone can say anything is indicative of anything and it be totally irrelevant to the conversation.
|>>|| No. 94042
Quite honestly? I think we have come to a position where the edgiest and most abrasive thing you can possibly do is to wholeheartedly and unquestioningly agree with and argue in favour of the media/establishment status quo.
It is very plainly and obviously true that the BLM, critical race theory, etc cultural zeitgeist has surpassed any genuine revolutionary intent it once had, and has been assimilated into the machinations of the establishment political machine. That alone is enough to mistrust it and the ideological zealotry it promotes.
Being part of the vocal minority promoting shite like white fragility (gosh, look how much of it there is in this thread) and the ingrained original sin of white supremacy is more effective of a trolling technique than any blunt, childish 4channer use of the N-word epic nazi frog memes.
If you really want to see the world burn, pushing woke ideology is where it's at.
|>>|| No. 94043
> If you really want to see the world burn, pushing woke ideology is where it's at.
I've always assumed that's the only reason stuff like that is pushed.
|>>|| No. 94045
Yeah, man, totally, defintely, dude. It's like... the globalists or something, yeah, man, totally.
|>>|| No. 94046
Isn't the Sun running 200 million in the red or something precisely because of stoking this kind of controversy?
|>>|| No. 94048
I see where you're coming from, but there's a critical element underpinning all this. I think we have sophisticated media systems that co-opt, neuter, or derail revolutionary messages well before they have a chance to truly take off. The result is that we only see those social movements that are most palatable to the status quo. Only the silliest, most maligned, or misrepresented versions of popular politics are allowed to surface because they make easier targets for criticism.
On a related note, I am fairly sure that whenever there's a demonstration, even those with eminently sensible messages like Extinction Rebellion, corporate media will instinctively go to the weirdest looking crusty and snap that fucker's pic for the website. I don't really care if you're a bloke with a dyed blue beard or a white girl with dreadlocks, but you'd have to be massively naïve not to see what's happening, there.
|>>|| No. 94077
Just the worst, most embarrassing kind of post right here. Too many angles for me tackle it all before bed so I'll just say it's shite; don't be this poster.
|>>|| No. 94078
Extinction Rebellion really was all crusties and children though. I know because I had to deal with them
last year in 2019 every time I left the office. Even if you took the position that it was normal people you wouldn't be looking normal after a week living in some bush in St James's Park.
|>>|| No. 94079
Extinction Rebellion in London wasn't even crusties, it was frankly embarassing. It was social media fuelled junkies doing stunts that would get them attention. The kind of people that had the time to be arseholes. No solutions in sight, just "protest" for its own sake.
|>>|| No. 94080
It's a daft meme posted with no small dose of irony, accompanied by a question. I'm not sure what exactly you think is so deep about it to require "tackling", but whatever it is, I would wager is almost entirely projection.
I just thought it was a nice jab at people who care too much about imported American issues without acknowledging or seeming to even be aware of the wildly different circumstances over here.
|>>|| No. 94082
We've known what the solutions are for decades, what's missing is political will to do anything about it, which comes from public pressure to do it.
|>>|| No. 94083
Of the ones I know personally rather than just glancing at them and making assumptions, they're mostly teachers, academics, social and healthcare workers. Some are obviously retired but most aren't, working incredibly hard to fit it around their schedules. Obviously the Fridays 4 Future kids are more photogenic.
|>>|| No. 94087
Because effective public pressure is contingent on the public having free time. Canning Town lads wouldn't have been so fucked off at the people on the train if they weren't mostly living week to week. The prominent members of XR wouldn't all be middle class media darlings if those weren't the only group that could really sack off work for a few weeks.
Is effective public pressure even possible in this current climate, where so many people are basically unable to protest and living in what equates to indentured servitude?
I'm sure he's lurking around, working on his next clapback tweet.
|>>|| No. 94089
Not what I saw at all, especially the ones trying to give me flyers. Unless you mean academics as-in students in which case there were plenty.
>Obviously the Fridays 4 Future kids are more photogenic.
Those were actually the properly young sort in college at most, especially at the start when it was 6-7 kids showing off to the girls in their group by laying in the road and that - well, the assigned older boy laid in the road, the other's looked bemused and then police escorted them away.
I get that you want to defend the movement but I'm saying there's a reason they looked the way they did on the news. If it was some city men waddling over with spreadsheets and bags of cocaine things would've gone and looked very differently.
|>>|| No. 94094
>Is effective public pressure even possible in this current climate, where so many people are basically unable to protest and living in what equates to indentured servitude?
I'm inclined to think that even if people were better off, it wouldn't be very effective. Before the social media era you had those in power building their worldview around what the media was saying was going on, so a protestor just had to get the attention of the media and it would be relayed to them. They might well see a big crowd protesting in Orkney and think, goodness, we might have a Viking insurrection on our hands if we don't act. But nowadays they can go on Twitter and look behind that protest and see: Oh, actually, 90% of Orkney is getting on with life as usual. And even if 100% of Orkney agree with the protestors, you can then quickly run through that no serious problems will arise from ignoring them. They aren't likely to do direct action, the number of people who do will be lower than the current number of protestors and will be easy to arrest, and they can't even appeal to not voting for you if you're nasty to them, since they're a safe Liberal constituency anyway.
That's before you run into another problem of modern life: who are you protesting to? In the age where nationalisation was a beloved policy solution it was all well and good to protest to the government because something was causing you problems, but nowadays that's often not the government's problem - it's the private sector's. If you go out protesting gas prices, are you appealing to the government or to the energy companies? For climate change this issue gets even worse because you're appealing to practically every company, and practically every company can say "We're just doing what our shareholders want." Then you can't even really appeal to shareholders because a lot of them are things like pension funds, not individual human beings with consciences and a desire to not die. They've just got their duty deliver pensions for pensioners, most of whom aren't even paying attention to the fund. So you wind up on a climate protest that is ultimately addressed to nobody, because nobody's in charge, and the idea that the government should take charge is viewed as either quaintly antiquated or laughably insane.
And even with that all said, it's possible you can put this sort of cynicism back a bit further - if you look at the Iraq War protests for example. A pretty simple, reasonable demand (don't attack Iraq) clearly addressed to the entity responsible (the Government) and the government still correctly calculated that it would easily remain in office if it pursued this unpopular policy despite massive protests against it.
|>>|| No. 94095
>No, I mean university professors and scientists.
We're talking about whether they looked like they did on the news, which I was able to find first hand that they in fact did. Stop trying to gaslight me you filthy communist.
|>>|| No. 94096
>who's being protested to?
The XR protests caused enough economic disruption that the MET knowingly made thousands of unlawful arrests after being pressured to end it, then more recently the chief constable of Hertfordshire police was put in a position where he's had to destroy evidence to avoid a court seeing that he was acting on behalf of Patel rather than his actual job. If it were able to continue with that momentum (and the government was remotely accountable - remember this started before the Tories got properly into power).
The tactic from the start was to get so many people arrested that they jam up the courts, forcing action to be taken so the judicial system can go back to normal, not simply protesting in the way you're describing. It got quite close to working.
|>>|| No. 94097
I saw protesters in suits on more than one occasion. If they had all been in suits, that would also be used to "other" them, same as this is.
It's really unimportant what you think of the way they dress, the question that actually matters is if action needs taking. We know what needs doing, we know how to do it, but the narrative is just getting upset that they're cringe when you need them to be poggers to be seen with them. The general public's too busy going to football or anti-lockdown protests or protecting the plaque put up of Lord Gibbonswick in the Frinton-on-sea village hall.
|>>|| No. 94098
>It's really unimportant what you think of the way they dress
We're literally talking about how they appear on the news v. reality. Go back up your tree.
|>>|| No. 94099
Yes, and I'm literally saying that doesn't matter. Like, gag yourself with a spoon.
|>>|| No. 94100
Then you are very silly.
>It's really unimportant what you think of the way they dress, the question that actually matters is if action needs taking.
Yeah, that's exactly why no-one reacted to Ed Milliband and the bacon, it's all about the issues and not the optics. Regardless of how worthless the optics are objectively, they have a huge impact on how anything is perceived.
Now granted I've not been paying attention and could only be bothered to follow this back several posts, but you seem to be saying that the optics don't matter. They shouldn't, but they absolutely do.
|>>|| No. 94102
I wonder if they'd has less Canning Town incidents they would have annoyed fewer of the wrong people and actually had a bit of success. But clearly if they are annoying they are doing something right, even if that 'something' is shooting their own movement in the foot.
That said, if you hate XR, then you hate the environment. They are a manifestation of Mother Gaia and if you are annoyed then that is merely your privilege showing. If you're annoyed or inconvenienced, well then that's your fault for being privileged.
|>>|| No. 94103
I'm saying the issue matters. If you think the optics need to be different then do it yourself instead of whining that the people putting in the effort aren't doing it the way you want them to.
|>>|| No. 94104
Nobody's said anything like that, go eat some steak or waste petrol to show how unbothered you are.
|>>|| No. 94105
Are you kidding? I can criticise Jason Statham's diving form without putting on a bald cap and some speedos, why are you getting snitty about someone daring to point out that XR fucked up? 1) XR needed public opinion on side, 2) public opinion is influenced by the 'optics', 3) their optics were gash. I'm sorry if you see acknowledging fundamental facts of life as 'whining'.
I was pissing on BLM lad for saying that if you don't like BLM, you're a racist. Your ire is well deserved, it's an utterly moronic stance.
|>>|| No. 94106
>I'm literally saying that doesn't matter
We're not even talking about that you thick twat. We're talking about how the news distorts protests by the people they choose to interview in this example I am talking about right now I noted that, contrary to the original claim, it was broadly representative of what I was able to see on the ground.
If he had claimed that the news distorted Britain First protests by interviewing people in tracksuits then we would be talking about how that is actually what they're like. Mods need to wordfilter XR to something else, it's become like the words 'age of consent' mysteriously attracting pedos.
I have it on good authority that if we throw tantrums and generally act like arseholes then people will cave just to shut us up - it works with my parents and on twitter.
|>>|| No. 94107
I was the one that made the original claim about the "crusties", and I regret doing so, now. It probably wasn't a good example to start a discussion.
Perhaps what's more interesting are the protests that media ignores entirely. There were numerous protests against the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which virtually every major medical association denounced as privatisation through the backdoor. Here's a pretty good piece about all the serious protests that received minimal to no coverage on the BBC:
More briefly, it includes four major 'Drop the NHS bill' protests in the heart of London, one of which was led by doctors, and another of which blocked traffic for an hour in Whitehall. These kind of things can't possibly be missed.
Contrast this with footage of the XR protest in which angry, stressed commuters pulled people off the top of a tube train was repeated ad nauseum.
The point I'm making is that popular unrest will not be presented favourably in the news (or, indeed, at all) unless it is in the interests of government and corporate power to do so. This can cut both ways politically, as earlier in the thread in which a journalist was being chased about by a scary mob. That footage is made available because it harms no one to present the public as a thick mob that needs to be controlled for its own good, and journalists are poor truthsayers being hounded just for doing their brave, brave work.
|>>|| No. 94108
>I have it on good authority that if we throw tantrums and generally act like arseholes then people will cave just to shut us up - it works with my parents and on twitter.
I have my reservations about the scalability of this tactic, but I'm prepared to offer you 5,000 bones if you can prove that this works.
>Mods need to wordfilter XR to something else, it's become like the words 'age of consent' mysteriously attracting pedos.
I don't want to be a prick, but filtering 'BLM' to 'ALM' would trigger the shit out of some people and that would greatly amuse me.
|>>|| No. 94109
>filtering 'BLM' to 'ALM' would trigger the shit out of some people
I love how people imagine lefties react to things.
|>>|| No. 94112
Even our most prolific right wing poster, stormfag, turned out to be some sort of loony psyops false flag, which was fun. I assume you're the newlad and just don't really understand this site yet.
|>>|| No. 94114
People here don't typically rage about political world filters. People only really seem to be angry when the filters pop up in the middle of other words.
|>>|| No. 94117
>I have it on good authority that if we throw tantrums and generally act like arseholes then people will cave just to shut us up - it works with my parents and on twitter.
It worked with the poll tax.
> in this example I am talking about right now I noted that, contrary to the original claim, it was broadly representative of what I was able to see on the ground.
That's weird because the other poster noted that it wasn't crusties. Unless you're able to guarantee that nobody will ever take a telephoto picture of you eating a sandwich in which you look a bit awkward, which they'll then use to frame a narrative, it's all a bit moot. "Optics" in this context are, as people seem to be agreeing, basically uncontrollable from the side of the public. You can't show me the photos of Miliband beside the one of Johnson dangling from that high wire waving flags and tell me it's about the subject of the photo and not the narrative around it.
|>>|| No. 94121
Fair enough. How come you think it's a trolling tactic then? I've only been here a few months, I thought the board seemed full of irreverent lefties who have a specific sense of humour.
|>>|| No. 94122
Because sometimes their leftiness angers me, so I assume it must be trolling. Surely people can't be that lefty.
|>>|| No. 94851
>Tommy Robinson has been given a five-year stalking protection order after he shouted abuse outside the home of a journalist and threatened to repeatedly return to her address. The founder of the English Defence League, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, went to the property of the Independent’s home affairs correspondent Lizzie Dearden and her boyfriend, Samuel Partridge, in January of this year.
>The deputy chief magistrate Tan Ikram said Robinson’s behaviour “crossed the line between mere harassment and stalking” at a hearing on Wednesday. The court previously heard Robinson had hired a private investigator to find information out about Dearden after a request for comment she made, through his solicitors, on a story alleging that he misused money donated by his supporters. Ikram said that after obtaining Dearden’s address, Robinson had arrived around 10pm, calling for her to come to the door and shouting claims that Partridge was a paedophile.
>The magistrate “wholly rejected” that Robinson had attended the address to “exercise his right to reply” to the article, saying that he had been there to intimidate her and adding there was “not a shred of evidence” that the claims about Partridge were true. “The complainant refused to come out or engage with the defendant,” he said. The defendant reacted by saying that he would come back to her address ‘every night’. In my judgment, that crosses the line in this case between mere harassment and acts associated with stalking in that he threatened to repeatedly return to her home address. The defendant was arrested before he could carry out his threat. I find that the intention of the defendant turning up at a journalist’s house at past 10pm was clear: to intimidate her.”
>Ikram also rejected Robinson’s claim he had been “calm” throughout the incident, saying that it contradicted other undisputed witness accounts from neighbours.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]