- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:4000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1502 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 23247
Borat 2 is frighteningly good. And also frightening.
Sacha Baron Cohen is a genius.
I commend it to you all.
|>>|| No. 23248
Watched it just now. It's kind of shit. It's nowhere near as funny or entertaining as the first movie.
|>>|| No. 23251
You thickos like to say this like it's some kind of incredible ownage, but the Orange Man is indeed bad, so it doesn't really land.
|>>|| No. 23252
There was a lot of dialogue in "Kazakh" and my copy didn't subtitle it so maybe I missed out on some of it. What's been evident since Who Is America? is that these people aren't ashamed of their behaviour, so the satire doesn't really land the way it used to. There's no joy in tricking people into saying the quiet part out loud, if that makes sense. They don't need to be tricked.
I thought it was decent. It's in the same boat as T2 really; sequels to good films are fairly reliably awful and the context has changed so it's genuinely impressive it's as good as it is.
|>>|| No. 23253
The hand waving dismissal is so patronising.
Trump has repeatedly violates 200 years of presidential convention. Things that were only not laws because it was never thought that anyone would ever not do them, and no one would turn a blind eye if they were disregarded.
Orange man bad doesn't even cover it, orange man has completely eroded the institution of the presidency would be more accurate.
Could you imagine any president before this point when they see a police officer brain someone for handing them back their helmet saying "they were planting a tracking device and deserved it, also they were a crisis actor anyway, also fake news" the idea that the White House would openly lie about even the demonstrably untrue and hand wave any bad press at all as being a lie isn't just incompetence, it is proto-fascism it is normalisation of the abhorrent. It is a complete disregard for the truth and the rule of law.
And that is before we even get into the partisan abuse of position. The betrayal of Allies information to the Russians, and the use of his position for direct personal gain. And the complete mismanagement of the corvid pandemic.
He has done more damage to the institution of the United States and the office of the president than any foreign power ever could.
|>>|| No. 23255
You sound hysterical because every single president for the last twenty years has been a war criminal. Donald Trump has, at the very worst, continued the legacy Bush and Obama started. He hasn't even managed to build a fence, let alone his wall, and somehow you think he's Emperor Palpatine.
America has arguably been a fascist state for a long time now, but people like you haven't seen it until Trump. You were fine with Guantanamo before, but under Orange Man it really isn't on. It's almost like the problem is more that he isn't keeping up appearances like the other war criminals did.
Of course American conservative types say Orange Man Bad to mock liberals, but the phrase itself really does cut to the bone of the issue. The hatred for Trump is worse than it ever was for Bush, good ol' stupid president Bush, ah, remember him? Cosy old Uncle Bush, drawing pictures of horses. Ahh, those were better times weren't they eh? Not like now, under God Fuhrer Trump the Nazi.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
|>>|| No. 23257
I read an insightful comment the other-day that for all the criticism laid against Trump for people in cages he's not the one who built the cages. It took me back to a similar comment about Trump and the use of nuclear weapons in 2016 where nuking ISIS wasn't all that too far removed from the established madness of keeping ICBMs trained on small AA sites in Moscow (don't want to target civilian see, that would be a war crime).
Although we're obviously just going to go around in circles again about how shit the Democrats are but that the Republicans are worse so that makes it alright. I'll probably link to this post in 2024 just to prove a point.
|>>|| No. 23259
Thanks. I do know how to do that it just never seemed important enough while I was watching it. I'm not about to rewatch it just for the five minutes of dialogue I missed, nothing hinged on it.
|>>|| No. 23260
I just saw an article on this where Trump Called Baron Cohen a creep and that he was the only one who called him out in the interview Ali G tried to do with him about the ice cream glove. If you watch that interview, it certainly does shine a light into how Trump operates and to be fair to him, its clear Trump had clocked him from the get go and was having none of it.
|>>|| No. 23261
Accusing them of being creepy seems to be the current whataboutism coming from that lot when they get caught out by comedians like this. It's remarkably similar to the way the Tories are acting like victims when people call them scum.
|>>|| No. 23262
It's not, because the post it was made in response to contains several assertions that what Trump is doing is specifically, exceptionally, and uniquely bad, compared to all the others who have come before him. Nobody here is defending Trump, they are criticising the uniquely hysterical tone of anti-Trump sentiment.
It's baffling and illogical. All the polls show he's on the track to lose. He's fucked it, like anyone sensible knew he would, because he's been a complete moron for four consecutive years and achieved nothing, even as nebulous and vague as his campaign promises were.
I don't get it. I really don't. I mean, just take this bit:
>He has done more damage to the institution of the United States and the office of the president than any foreign power ever could.
It's not like the thousands killed in disastrous US interventions, drone bombing campaigns and CIA backed coups made them look good, is it.
|>>|| No. 23263
The problem with calling Tories scum and trying to shame people for supporting them is that, whilst it may get you cool points in your little echo chamber, it doesn't actually win elections.
|>>|| No. 23264
What election? If you're ashamed of voting Tory then you can't keep blaming people who call Tories scum for it, that was your decision.
|>>|| No. 23265
2010 to present. Tory slogans are overly simplistic but they stick in people's minds. Don't breed them if you can't feed them. Austerity is living within your means. Workers and shirkers. Labour can't be trusted with the economy. It doesn't matter how accurate they are; they're effective at getting in people's heads.
Calling people scum is tired, lazy and most importantly, ineffective.
|>>|| No. 23266
>It's not like the thousands killed in disastrous US interventions, drone bombing campaigns and CIA backed coups made them look good, is it.
Trumps aversion to foreign military campaigns is probably the only bright spot in his presidency, I can definitely agree with you on that. I also agree that bad presidential behaviour isn't unique to him, at all. But I do believe, as many others do, that we've never seen a president so contemptuous of his own people, or so overtly divisive - those bits are new and unique. History might even write his attitude to foreign policy as being unique, and even good in places, but his domestic policy, and therefore the impact the US has on the rest of the world has been disastrous - as most expected.
One of the reasons I loved Borat 2 so much when I watched it last night, isn't that it just pokes fun at obviously stupid people - it's because it shows the scale of the problem, how and why people like Trump get into power. I had to stop/pause it a couple of times, it was so frighteningly uncomfortable to watch.
The Qanon loonies in their house - shows you how that thing has spread. The farming wholesaler, the plastic surgeon, both perfectly happy to take Borats money, whatever he said. The Republican womens group who enable much of this behaviour. The debuttants ball with hick rich Texan dads trying to marry off their daughters in posh surroundings. Each horrifying in their own way, but when you add them all up, Trump makes perfect sense. I found that bit frightening and, thinking about the electon coming, still do today.
|>>|| No. 23268
I don't get why people are so pearl-clutching at the word itself. It's a fairly crap insult, but people get ridiculously bent out of shape either using it or being offended by it.
|>>|| No. 23269
1) It's just something someone said offhand, it's not a party slogan.
1b) It's just something someone said offhand out of emotion, it's not supposed to be "effective" for retroactively winning past elections.
2) It's also oversimplistic and sticks in people's minds.
3) Oversimplistic Tory slogans are also tired and lazy.
4) It's a phrase that's been around for at least the best part of a century, if not longer (see 2), not just since 2010.
5) "People vote Tory because you called Tories scum" is not logical and doesn't seem to be true either; it's the same transparent attempt to shift blame as when Americans claim that they became racist because someone told them not to call people n-words.
|>>|| No. 23270
>"People vote Tory because you called Tories scum" is not logical and doesn't seem to be true either
No, but it makes people double down and entrench their views further.
|>>|| No. 23272
>when Americans claim that they became racist because someone told them not to call people n-words.
I had someone genuinely tell me that they were annoyed that people were claiming that the US is fundamentally racist, while there's literally an ongoing exhumation of a mass grave in Tulsa from that time in 1921 when a bunch of white people burned down a wealthy black neighbourhood and murdered 300 black people just because.
|>>|| No. 23273
The problem being it was originally used in the context of Parliamentary debate and which for obvious reasons is frowned upon along with any other insult. In a fantastic follow-up to this own-goal its now being used by the usual support to bombard opponents. I think the idea is to reinforce a taboo against people identifying as a Tory but if anything it leads to a modern 'fuck you' reaction to browbeating.
Although I suppose you can't expect much from a party that has managed to spend nearly 5 years behind the Tories in Scotland and is even losing its grip on Northern England.
|>>|| No. 23274
Did I vote Conservative because the only impact 13 years of Labour had on my post-industrial death town was to make getting the dole even more of a faff? nah
Did I vote Conservative because I just want Brexit over and done with and Labour were promising to drag it out even more? nah
Did I vote Conservative because my area's voted Labour since the days of Empire and always been a bit shit? nah
I voted Conservative because I accidentally retweeted a Tory election advert and a 16 year old girl from Brighton Pavilion called me "Tory Scum." Well, joke's on you, Laura Brighouse #davestrider from Brighton, Earth. Looks like I got the last laugh on that one by using my ballot paper to spite you. Ha Ha Ha.
Postscript: My area still returned a Labour MP.
|>>|| No. 23275
> Looks like I got the last laugh on that one by using my ballot paper to spite you. Ha Ha Ha.
N1 M8 DEM LEFTIES WONT KNO WOT HIT EM
|>>|| No. 23278
Bush was indeed despicable, and almost as bad an orator, but even Bush was either unwilling or unable to brazenly and repeatedly lie to the public about the most trivial facts, to hold journalists in such contempt, to violate the Constitution, to flirt with far-right groups.
I don't understand why people like you think that because the institution of US President has historically been malevolent that there can be no further possible depths to plumb. Perhaps all the people (including Republicans) saying that Trump is uniquely bad are saying that because... he is?
|>>|| No. 23279
You undermine the clarity of contrast when it comes to interactions with journalists and the far-right (both things Bush would never have done) by lumping it in with lies (Where it's a matter of degree and of style) and violating the Constitution (Something of a tradition for presidents since... Nixon? Reagan?)
|>>|| No. 23280
If you really, genuinely think Bush is as pathological a liar as Trump, then I have nothing further to discuss with you on that point.
And yes, presidents have violated the Constitution before, but while the accusations leveled at Bush were to do with an erosion of civil liberties, Trump is... building a wall? Stealing the election? Imposing martial law? As one author puts it, "there is a difference between those presidents of both parties who at times tested or bent the boundaries of constitutional action in pursuit of their self-interest, and Mr. Trump, who time after time has demonstrated that his framework for decisions is merely transactional and that he has little regard for constitutional norms or the common good."
|>>|| No. 23281
I think what you misunderstand is that for some people, there's a line over which you/your office/institution becomes morally deplorable and is taken as malevolent and untrustworthy as a matter of course, and that beyond that point, there's really no purpose in drawing a distinction.
From that perspective, all the pontificating seem a bit absurd- You already know he's signing off drone strikes on innocent Laplandistani kids just the same as the "good one" before him was, so being outraged that he lies to journos as well seems a bit... I don't know, contrived?
It all just makes me a bit suspicious there's an ulterior motive at play, really. If I was to throw my chips in the middle, I'd say that motive has more to do with getting a proper establishment type back in the office, than it is to do with any of the bad things he's actually done.
|>>|| No. 23282
>to flirt with far-right groups
I've yet to find a solid definition of far-right outside of it being a media bogey man. The proud boys was mentioned in the first presidential debate I half heartedly watched while at work the other week, and upon searching into them, It appears as if It's a childish meme lord mens group. Initiation into it by the way included naming five breakfast cereals while being punched in the stomach. They sometimes get into fights with the antifa bunch. There were punk groups doing this in the UK a handful of decades ago.
Who are the far-right exactly?
Can we point to an organised group of some kind here, or are we just talking about people who are ambiguously racist or something?
|>>|| No. 23285
>I've yet to find a solid definition of far-right outside of it being a media bogey man
Do you mean alt-right or are you really struggling to understand what it means for someone to be far-right?
|>>|| No. 23286
Authoritarians who espouse extremist nationalism and nativism. Thar's not a "media bogeyman". These people lie outside of the traditional left-right political model, as do the far left; Authoritarians who espouse extremist anti-capitalism and pro-communist ideals.
There is another element to the far left that they are also obsessed with the politics of individual identity rather than national identity.
These aren't ambiguous concepts, lad. You could literally just read up on it.
|>>|| No. 23287
>In a fantastic follow-up to this own-goal its now being used by the usual support to bombard opponents.
Here's Nicky Morgan trying to pull that exact same bullshit:
She's tacitly admitting she thinks that what she voted for was wrong, but implying that it's the opposition's job to make her do the right thing by brown-nosing her.
>The problem being it was originally used in the context of Parliamentary debate and which for obvious reasons is frowned upon along with any other insult.
Yes, because being disrespectful in Parliament is Labour crossing an otherwise unbroken line. What utter bollocks.
|>>|| No. 23288
>solid definition of far-right
You have to define the components. Right wing in a literal sense means 'not left-wing' I know that isn't very helpful but that is its origin.
Left wing being defined by a belief in a Hegelian dialectic struggle (meaning a belief that all historical conflict is defined by a struggle between the oppressed and the status quo (although this doesn't have to be a physical conflict originally this meant ideas)) and more specifically Dialectic materialism (i.e. Marxism the idea that that struggle is defined by classes of people).
What 'far' is is usually taken to mean a rejection of liberal values (the center), which includes rejection of liberal methods of achieving ones goals (Crucially this isn't the same as operating outside the law or violent, in fact liberals can be outside the law and violent, but since western societies are considered by and large to adhere to liberal values, it is easy to slip into short handing political groups who use methods that involve breaking the law or violence as being 'far' as it is typically accurate), liberal in the broadest sense meaning an entitlement of everyone to personal autonomy.
So in the broadest sense anyone who isn't liberal or a Marxist, is by definition far right.
|>>|| No. 23289
Can you really define the far-right? Is it even a real entity? If it doesn't exist what do they get out of pretending it does? I'm just a normal person asking normal questions with no ulterior motives.
|>>|| No. 23292
He doesn't have to be as pathological a liar as Trump. The point is, he was still a pathological liar. Worse, he was a pathological bender of the truth.
After decades of acceptance of politicians bending the truth, there's almost a perverse catharsis to seeing everyone caught off guard by a man who snapped it. I would be so bold as to suggest it was the natural conclusion of everyone else's actions.
The same, broadly, is true of violating the constitution. "Oh, I only violated it a little bit" hardly shows great reverence for constitutional norms. Hell, even election stealing has a (weaker) precedent.
At the risk of being partisan, I'll go further: Any appearance of concern for constitutional norms or the common good in post-Nixon American politics has been the results of the Democrats being unwilling to fight as hard as the Republicans. (And even then, they're not clean.) Trump is just the natural conclusion of that mindset spoken in a particularly vulgar fashion.
But my primary point was the same: On treatment of journalists and on engagement with far right groups, it's a yes-no question. Yes, Trump does this and Bush would not. On lying and constitutional violation, it's "uhh... yeah, but he wasn't this bad" which undermines the point by being handwringing and pointless. You could say the same about Bush Jr. vs Bush Sr, it's been one long downhill plunge for a long long time. I'm not trying to get Trump off the hook here, what I'm saying is: If you think the nightmare of American politics ends with Biden becoming president, you're dreaming.
|>>|| No. 23293
>If you think the nightmare of American politics ends with Biden becoming president, you're dreaming.
Biden wouldn't have a hope of getting elected if he wasn't running against Trump; a seriously large margin of Biden votes are explicitly just anti-Trump rather than pro-Biden.
|>>|| No. 23294
You're being disingenuous.
>So in the broadest sense anyone who isn't liberal or a Marxist, is by definition far right.
That's clearly bullshit. Let's help with some simple examples:
Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell: far left
Kier Starmer, Tony Blair: moderate-left
Ken Clarke: moderate-right
(Boris Johnson used to be considered in this group)
Nigel Farage, Tommy Robinson: far right
I can't name a current Liberal-Democrat of any note who might be put somewhere in the middle - which says a lot about the position they're in.
|>>|| No. 23295
Yeah that's pretty damning. Certainly not the best way to solve problems anyway. I must say though, that clipped video looks questionable to say the least, I mean, It's not hard to soundbite to make people look bad with a sinister track playing over it.
|>>|| No. 23296
I don't think you understand what the words marxist or liberal mean (even though an explanation was contained within the text provided). You certainly haven't made any point someone who doesn't read your thoughts could understand.
|>>|| No. 23297
It's often used as a term to smear people with reasonable views on immigration, Muzzy terrorism and the like. I've stopped reading the word Nazi in the same way as a consequence. The terms are over used and watered down when it applies to people who clearly aren't far right or a Nazi. I hear Douglas Murray and Andrew O'niell called both and having read a number of their articles over the years in the Spectator, they're clearly not, they're pretty boring conservative farts.
This is not at all how many see the political spectrum as far as I can tell. If we consider Locke to be left wing, then how are liberal values central? I miss the days when people would argue over moral right over moral wrong, rights along with duty. A lot of this just appears to be tribalism. Team left versus team right. Politics for people who just read news paper articles and attack the other team.
>Nigel Farage, Tommy Robinson: far right
No manifesto written by a party Nigel has been in seemed far right by any stretch of the imagination to me. And although I can't say I'm particularly fond of the chap, after seeing Tommy's speach at Oxford Union, reading the book 'Easy Meat' by Peter McLoughlin, and a few of Majid Nawaz's books, he seemed to be a working class uneducated guy concerned about an extremist religion that lead to the gang raping, pimping and killing of tens of thousands of girls as young as six throughout the UK. Not somebody with fascist authoritarian views. One of the biggest scandals in recent British history, that many of the police have been arrested for, being complicit and taking part. Bolton got a wake up call recently. A scandal which is on going, you still see the odd article here and there.
Curious how people don't call the laplanderstani Muzzy, Majid Nawaz, far right. Tommy is an easy target with his accent and appearance. It's easy to call people names without even attempting to understand that they're real people with real problems. His 'activism' is questionable too be fair though, I'm still not over the traffic diversions that happen in London because of the fucking protests.
Here's a toe curling video if you're interested in knowing some of the unpleasant truth that Tommy was early on calling out. He displayed publicly the utter incompetence of the authorities and home office.
|>>|| No. 23300
I tried to use examples everyone had heard of.
Tommy Robinson being "right" about Bradford grooming gangs doesn't excuse him prejudicing active trials or any of the other views he holds. He has latched onto that, in the same way the Qanon loonies have, because child-abuse draws in the maximum number of by-standers and is difficult to argue against.
|>>|| No. 23301
>If we consider Locke to be left wing, then how are liberal values central
You seem to be implying that to be an impasse when I don't see how it is.
There is nothing to say liberals have to be/can't be left or right wing. and being liberal does not put you in the dead centre of values, but you are by definition a centerist.*
Liberal is more to do with the limits of how an agent asserts its beliefs onto others, that is a concept divorced from being specifically either right-wing or left wing.
But we use the prefix 'far' to mean illiberal.
It is worth pointing out also that it is the delusion of many left wing, and minority groups in society that they are automatically liberal and often they aren't.
*yes this means most British politicians, and in fact western politicians are centrists, because on the larger spectrum of world poltics and their shared values, they are.
|>>|| No. 23302
Goodness this thread has gone off on one.
The waters have been horribly muddied in 21st century political discussion, because not only is everyone rather tribal about their politics, but nobody can really agree on what the left/right even is. To further exacerbate the situation, we've almost entirely disregarded concrete economic policy when it comes to deciding which side someone is on, in favour of nebulous social policy, and often not even policy, but simple ideas about perceptions of it.
American politics is particularly fucked exactly because of this. The Overton window of Yank politics is a good deal to the right of ours, both the Democrats and Republicans are more conservative than our own Conservatives. But what's different is that the economic consensus is unilateral- The Democrats might put a bit more money into social programs, but it's not guaranteed, and it's still hardly even what you could call social democracy. Instead political battles are fought on abortions, racism, gun rights, and so on.
What nobody wants to grapple with is that sometimes, these two sides of the political coin can land on both ends of the spectrum. There's a left-wing case for tighter immigration, and indeed parties like the old S Club 7 (remember them?) were considerably to the left of Labour at the time. Gun rights? Karl Marx himself was adamant that "under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered."
Let's not even start on the state of the term "liberal" and it's modern day connotations, largely in part to the Americanisation of political debate.
|>>|| No. 23303
>Yes, because being disrespectful in Parliament is Labour crossing an otherwise unbroken line. What utter bollocks.
Yes. Having a kip is fine, jeering is par the course, what you don't do is disparage another MP. It's a very simple rule that everyone else seems to follow. Perhaps a rule that matter now more than ever seeing as how people can't even agree on the facts.
Nicky Morgan isn't the sharpest spoon in the drawer but Labour obviously completed failed to argue their point. I'm not even sure the public is on side.
I don't know, in 2016 Biden seemed to scare both the Republicans and Hillary with the very fact he was Obama's VP being enough for a shoe-in. I think its still held as common wisdom that Americans prefer the continuity candidate.
He seems to have lost his edge since then but I don't doubt he could still give Jeb a kicking.
Unrelated point but I do remember that it was the new fake news establishment that broke the story on the Cologne attacks. There's clearly a vacuum that these types have been able to fill even if it is more of a backlash than a coherent way forward.
|>>|| No. 23304
>Having a kip is fine, jeering is par the course, what you don't do is disparage another MP. It's a very simple rule that everyone else seems to follow.
You clearly don't follow parliament. The Speaker routinely invites someone to withdraw a remark that they deem to be in breach of Standing Order 42. Dennis Skinner has been suspended from Parliament on at least six occasions for refusing to withdraw unparliamentary remarks.
|>>|| No. 23307
Nobody said anything about convention. I recommend not trying to move goalposts.
|>>|| No. 23308
I don't see why a convention of not disparaging other MPs should be maintained. Politics is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous.
If a majority government in a Westminster system decides that the sky isn't blue, it's not blue. No amount of appeals to the evidence will change their mind if they don't wish for it to be changed. In an environment like this, where you're really dealing with brute force, I don't see why it should be coached in kindly language and a pretense of mutual respect. (With rare, cynical exceptions.) The opposition should be bastards, they should stop at nothing to take power. The government will stop at nothing to hold it.
Nice words and mutual respect are for countries like Sweden or New Zealand, friendly little places with PR electoral systems and a population less than 70% cunts.
|>>|| No. 23309
Surely parliament, which is always short of time, is more efficient if they don't (soley) keep calling each other cunts or saying that the right honourable gentleman for <blah>'s mother fucks dockers for crack?
Some semblance of order seems appropriate, it's almost all we've got, certainly competence or integrity seem in short supply.
|>>|| No. 23310
If derogatory comments are commonplace then they mean nothing. Currently, any MP is able to defy the convention and this is notable because the convention has been defied. If you don't have the convention it spirals further into the shit-flinging contest that it already is. Remember that rules are made to be broken.
This convention is there to empower MPs. Without it they wouldn't have the ability to break that convention. You'd have to go a step further and have one of those parliament fights like they do in Taiwan. This is the same reason you (hopefully) don't swear at colleagues, because if you did it would indicate a serious matter.
>The opposition should be bastards, they should stop at nothing to take power.
The Germans tried that once and it didn't go very well. Less seriously, you don't get the girl by badmouthing your competition. It's nearly 20 years since labour won anything and it's been an open goal 50% of the time.
>The government will stop at nothing to hold it.
Evidenced by the free press, a formal opposition, and your ability to vote them out at regular intervals.
|>>|| No. 23311
Look, I know I sound like a cunt here. Really, there are too many things blended together in this post. Legitimate frustration, a hostility to the idea being an MP should just be another office job, a frustration with party systems where one party runs rings around the other, a wish that if politics must be bullshit, it could at least be interesting bullshit, and thoughts on the nature of power that it's impossible to express without sounding like a wanker or a cunt (I picked cunt). It fits together horribly, so you really ought to read all of this in the light of a partially failed rhetorical experiment.
Efficient at what?
If Labour wanted to prevent a piece of legislation passing, fucking up the timetable by having each of their 200 MPs ejected one by one by interjecting that the speaker is a cunt would be much more effective than politely offering comment, abstaining, and then doing a little comment from the BBC about the new law that's just passed.
It's the absence of competence or integrity, I'm all the more keen to do away with order. On some level it's the pretension that this is all actually okay that I'm upset with.
Would a parliament fight like they have in Taiwan really be such a bad thing? I for one would like to see our politicians believe in something strongly enough that they'd go to such lengths. Even if that belief is just that the honorable member for Taipei West has run his mouth one time too often.
>you don't get the girl by badmouthing your competition
History is replete with counterexamples, from the insanity of the American right to the Saatchi and Saatchi posters from the Thatcher years. Clearly it's just a matter of degree, and in that degree I'd say: Bring the norms of parliament closer to the norms of other forms of human interaction.
>Evidenced by the free press, a formal opposition, and your ability to vote them out at regular intervals.
This presupposes that suppressing those things would help them rather than hindering them. I've always taken the view that repression is the mark of a weak ruler, not a strong one. Why silence the free press when you can leave the Guardian impotently whinging while the rest of them echo your message?
|>>|| No. 23312
>Would a parliament fight like they have in Taiwan really be such a bad thing?
I had no idea about this recent one, it's hilarious - particularly the bit where they start lobbing water balloons at each other.
|>>|| No. 23314
The bit I don't get is how he still finds people who fall for it. Surely he's big enough people know his shtick by now? Then again, I suppose America is exceptionally ignorant and it's easier finding backwater hicks who have more or less allowed the whole world to pass by unnoticed since 1985.
But then that begs the question within itself, what are we really laughing at? If you subscribe to a materialist view of the world these people are not ignorant, racist and backwards out of any inherent essential characteristic, but because they have one of the poorest education systems in the developed world and live in a place that has been all but forgotten by time.
Is Borat satire or are we merely laughing at them out of smug superiority? Is it any better than the likes of Jeremy Kyle?
No I haven't seen it. I do genuinely wonder what kind of people he has to find for it to work though. I doubt it is what it is on the face of it.
|>>|| No. 23315
>I do genuinely wonder what kind of people he has to find for it to work though
I wondered that at that time - there were a couple of moments where I figured the people concerned must have been in on the joke/film, but he sort of mitigates that because he adopts a radically different Borat disguise.
|>>|| No. 23316
>Efficient at what?
I like this paragraph. If someone's trying to pass a law that fucks people over and even kills, fuck convention. Break their nose.
|>>|| No. 23317
Just seen it and it all feels staged apart from a handful of scenes (interviews, in the toilets, parts of the rally and on the street). Shame as I remember the first one had a lot of hidden camera and real reaction stuff.
It was fine overall I suppose, I got a couple of chuckles but it was slow for a short film. Can't imagine watching it again.
|>>|| No. 23319
The name "Borat" is far more recognisable than "Sacha Baron Cohen" so it's hardly an effective test.
|>>|| No. 23320
I like the bit where he says MAI WAIF haha it's so true makes you think
|>>|| No. 23321
They were obviously shown pictures you dumbo. You can't identify someone from their name alone, do you not know what identify means?
|>>|| No. 23322
The appearance of "Borat" is far more recognisable than that of "Sacha Baron Cohen" so it's hardly an effective test.
|>>|| No. 23323
You do know that Borat is Sacha Baron Cohen wearing a wig and moustache? They are the same person?
|>>|| No. 23325
Cohen is barely recognisable as the same dude as Borat without the moustache, hair, and silly expression.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]