[BBC] Naked Nigel, the God Kek and modern politics
80 replies, posted
[IMG_THUMB]http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/5E4E/production/_91324142_gettyimages-606067640.jpg[/IMG_THUMB]
[QUOTE]Richard Spencer invented the term and told me: "The Alt Right stands for a markedly right-wing orientation, and for us, race matters, and race is the foundation for identity."
There is Pepe the Frog - often now seen with Donald Trump hair - and the God Kek - who was born in a convoluted journey from LOL (laugh out loud) through World of Warcraft via the Korean language into a general sign of approval and thence into Egyptian mythology.
[/QUOTE]
I want my memes back
[URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37431509"]Source[/URL]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Don't copy paste entire sections" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
So... you posted an opinion piece why?
[quote]They are usually well educated and love philosophising.[/quote]
Are you sure about that? The_Donald and /pol/ don't strike me as "well educated' places.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51087185]So... you posted an opinion piece why?[/QUOTE]
I posted it because I wasn't expecting the BBC to write about a primarily US politics subject. I didn't think that US politics (particularly this clusterfuck of a presidential season) would be considered important by the UK.
The other reason was that I didn't think dumb /pol/ memes and Pepe the Frog would get covered by yet [url=https://youtu.be/2KHM2FqUfzs][I] another[/I] major news agency[/url]. I honestly can't tell if journalism has declined or if /pol/ and The_Donald have forced memes to become actual political tools.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51087187]Are you sure about that? The_Donald and /pol/ don't strike me as "well educated' places.[/QUOTE]
They're degenerates. It's good in a way that they're getting media exposure - The better that the civilized world at large ostracize them, as they deserve. The world moves forward and times change - Those clinging to old ideas and stupidity, that we not only know to be folly but that science has disproven, deserve to be ridiculed and shunned. Why? Because these are people who would call freedom for themselves the freedom to limit the liberties of others.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51087187]Are you sure about that? The_Donald and /pol/ don't strike me as "well educated' places.[/QUOTE]
I laughed when I read that. They ask decent questions but the answers they arrive at are awful.
bruh dont post opinion pieces
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51087213]I posted it because I wasn't expecting the BBC to write about a primarily US politics subject. I didn't think that US politics ([B]particularly this clusterfuck of a presidential season[/B]) would be considered important by the UK.[/QUOTE]
Are you mental, or something?
Whoever gets elected this November will decide the course of one of the most powerful nations of the world. For better or for worse, this is going to have an impact on everyone fucking else.
Thus, I see no reason why the BBC, one of the most important media groups in the world, would have any interest whatsoever in dropping their two cents. Not at all.
Reading that summary gives me the impression that whoever wrote it did barebones research.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51087244]Now imagine if you instead quoted someone talking about jews and blacks while posting the exact same thing you just did.
Your discrimination against a different set of beliefs is just the same.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. When said beliefs call for the limiting of the freedoms of others based on hereditary factors, something science considers ridiculous, their views have no merit whatsoever. It is not hypocrisy to refuse to tolerate intolerance - it is logical.
One cannot be considered prejudiced when said prejudice is against the act of discrimination. That's a stupid idea.
An individual's rights end where they begin to infringe upon those of others. So either /pol/tards learn how the world works and start growing as people - or they're left in the dust.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51087286]I don't quite understand how they are inferior just because they support Trump, or why they are "intolerant"[/QUOTE]
You know as well as I do that supporting Trump has nothing to do with it. Frequenters of r/TheDonald and /pol/ are known for one thing - bigotry, sexism and racism. When I call them out as degenerates, that's exactly what I'm referring to. Why do so many such specimens of human filth love Trump? Because he's publicly championing their views. Whatever else he may be to the people who support him for purely economic reasons, the fact his views and social policy belong in the 19th century is what makes him dangerous.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51087185]So... you posted an opinion piece why?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Limed00d;51087235]bruh dont post opinion pieces[/QUOTE]
where were you guys when people kept posting thehill.com blog pieces
[QUOTE=Perrine;51087336]where were you guys when people kept posting thehill.com blog pieces[/QUOTE]
Not here, or I'd have called it out for the exact same thing. You'll notice this article isn't exactly friendly to Trump or his supporters either.
[QUOTE=Pops;51087239]Reading that summary gives me the impression that whoever wrote it did barebones research.[/QUOTE]
Actually, they most likely chose their sources to fit their narrative, as they used KYM for 'Kek' while ignoring it for Pepe.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51087352]If their views are bigotry, sexism and racism (and yes, a lot of 4chan and reddit users have those views) then he is not "championing" their views though[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/]Well, shit.[/url] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83]Guess you've got me there.[/url] [url=https://www.queerty.com/heres-donald-trump-said-antigay-rally-orlando-20160815]I don't know why I didn't think of that, it's so simple![/url]
Ladies and gentlemen, behold a Trump supporter in denial - When presented with factual and easily verifiable evidence that proves him to be wrong, he dismisses it and insists I present him with "actual proof".
Must've learned it from the man himself.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51087451]If I also posted buzzfeed-worthy articles you'd say the same thing.[/QUOTE]
Actually one link [I]was[/I] buzzfeed.
But you know what those articles had in common?
All of them gave quotes from the man himself, and dates.
I'd look them up, but I can't be bothered to spend more time and effort than I already have correcting you. Feel free to do it yourself if you've somehow managed to convince yourself they're false. Tell me how many of them are.
In fact, if anyone else here is curious about the truth to the claims made in the articles, please, do look them up. If they happen to be lies, I'll admit I made a mistake.
You Trump supporters are like a cult. When your views are challenged in a way you can't handle, you just pretend it never happened.
[url]http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jul/28/gavin-newsom/true-mike-pence-advocated-conversion-therapy/[/url]
truly the progressive candidate of our generation
[QUOTE=Cructo;51087481]Those quotes are majorly taken out of context or spun into a different meaning that they want to use.[/QUOTE]
Yep. Uh-huh. Very convincing.
[QUOTE=Fangz;51087370]Actually, they most likely chose their sources to fit their narrative, as they used KYM for 'Kek' while ignoring it for Pepe.[/QUOTE]
wow, i didn't even click on any of the sources and yet my first thought was "i bet this dude went to kym".
[QUOTE=archangel125;51087406][url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/]Well, shit.[/url] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83]Guess you've got me there.[/url] [url=https://www.queerty.com/heres-donald-trump-said-antigay-rally-orlando-20160815]I don't know why I didn't think of that, it's so simple![/url][/QUOTE]
That first link is pretty bullshit.
Trump divorces wife - doesn't go well - says mean things about person taking lots of his money = fucking sexist pig
Trump says woman would make a good wife (without saying anything about what that entails apparently) = intolerant asshole
[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/politics/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud/"]O'Donnell says mean things about Trump and he fires back[/URL] = literally Hitler.
Don't get me wrong some of the statements are sexist. But saying negative things, or even positive, about a person does not make that comment sexist just because Trump has a penis and the other person does not.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51087481]Those quotes are majorly taken out of context or spun into a different meaning that they want to use.[/QUOTE]
I can't even count how many times I've heard this said in relation to a verbatim quote from Donald Trump. You're so steeped in delusion that you even discount [I]direct fucking quotes[/I] as liberal spin.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51087428]Eh, I'm not going to bother responding to you with real arguments until you start providing actual proof to back up your claims[/QUOTE]
Your candidate is a racist sexist xenophobe who has only gotten as far as he has on the backs of this nations lowest common deminator and /pol/ and /r/the_donald are both cesspool examples of the cause of his popularity.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;51087528]That first link is pretty bullshit.
Trump divorces wife - doesn't go well - says mean things about person taking lots of his money = fucking sexist pig
Trump says woman would make a good wife (without saying anything about what that entails apparently) = intolerant asshole
[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/politics/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud/"]O'Donnell says mean things about Trump and he fires back[/URL] = literally Hitler.
Don't get me wrong some of the statements are sexist. But saying negative things, or even positive, about a person does not make that comment sexist just because Trump has a penis and the other person does not.[/QUOTE]
No, I agree. The examples you gave, plus his response to Cher, not that bad. But there's enough there that's damning enough to prove my point.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;51087528]That first link is pretty bullshit.
Trump divorces wife - doesn't go well - says mean things about person taking lots of his money = fucking sexist pig
Trump says woman would make a good wife (without saying anything about what that entails apparently) = intolerant asshole
[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/politics/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud/"]O'Donnell says mean things about Trump and he fires back[/URL] = literally Hitler.
Don't get me wrong some of the statements are sexist. But saying negative things, or even positive, about a person does not make that comment sexist just because Trump has a penis and the other person does not.[/QUOTE]
It's a shit source with some bad examples, sure, but some of the shit is just impossible to misconstrue or spin. Donald Trump accusing Megyn Kelly of being on her period during the debate, because she was asking him tough questions about his treatment of women?
The fuck do you spin that?
I feel like this conversation is missing a laugh track.
You know what, sorry for being an asshole to you. But you've been grasping at straws this whole time, dismissing some nasty quotes from Trump that couldn't possibly be taken out of context and saying they are.
You're not going to win this argument unless you can show us some proof of your own. Let's start with a good one. His attack on the Muslim family whose son died fighting for America. Please, tell me how the evil liberals spun that one out of context.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51087564]Eh, I'm not dismissing his actual quotes as "liberal spin". He said those in specific contexts that are clear when you see the full picture.[/QUOTE]
The "full picture" is no different, and no better. Some examples may be shit taken out of context, sure. I'll grant you that. Those aren't great sources, and the media loves to hate Donald Trump. But in what fucking way does the context improve the following quote?
[Quote] The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families.[/quote]
Just as an example? He's advocating blood crimes. The murder of entire families of people involved in terrorism. No context changes this. No spin changes the fact that these words came out of his mouth
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51087213]I posted it because I wasn't expecting the BBC to write about a primarily US politics subject. I didn't think that US politics (particularly this clusterfuck of a presidential season) would be considered important by the UK.[/QUOTE]
we're talking about a country where a politician sneezes a bit weird and the whole world is watching
you have a fuckton of nukes and scary power over the global economy. literally everyone in the world has a stake in this shitshow of an election
christ this piece reads like a man from the fifteen hundreds attempting to describe fiber-optic broadband. why are opinion pieces written by people with very little fucking idea what they're talking about? whenever i get a physical paper they're always the one fucking page i can do nothing but grimace at because they're always written by such clueless stuck-up eggcup cunts.
Trump winning the election would be the greatest social experiment to ever be conducted,I look forward to it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
