Talk about anything political here.
Politics: where a week is a long time
- This topic has 1,001 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 4 months ago by
.
Author
-
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
See that’s rather cool, next time start with that kind of story.
I was also going to bring up another point: Given that specific insurrectionist that set up the gallows is “Baked Alaska”, and given his history with Nazism, it is hard not to argue that he had not read the Turner Diaries, and saw Trump’s call for violence as the beginning of “The Day of the Rope” and that there were others who saw it the same way, and that they saw Pence not as a capitulating Conservative, but as a “Liberal”(!). This is an educated guess- I would bet anything that “Alaska’s” FBI file and his interviews after his arrest are filled with references to the Turner Diaries.
I see this as a very dangerous book. A whole Nazi Terrorist group in the early 80s based their ethos on the book, which led to the murder of Alan Berg. McVeigh carried out the OK City bombings based on the book. Dozens have died at the hands of radicals pushed to violence by the rhetoric of the book. Forgive me for making a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory, but I see it as very possible that while QAnon and the Turnerians are separate groups, the later have an influence on the former, and may disguise themselves as QAnoners- which I see as slightly less dangerous (slightly, only because they are more numerous). I am sure Turnerians are emboldened to influence QAnon by the actions of “Baked Alaska” brought up above.
My point is that this signals to me that QAnon is becoming even more radical (I know that sounds nuts enough). Even without this, I think The Turner Diaries should not be considered protected by Free Speech. You know how much I am into Free Speech, so I don’t hold this opinion lightly. It was written in an American Milieu to encourage terrorism. It was responsible for the second deadliest terror attack in American attack, the deadliest domestic terrorist attack, besides dozens of other attacks. And Peirce’s (the author) response to the attack shows the attitude of how he wants it to be read. He condemned it with the caveat that he’d be fine with McVeigh’s actions if he had planned better. That’s hardly distancing from the violence. If I had been an adult at the time, I would have been active in getting the victims’ families to sue Peirce, and I quite frankly don’t understand why they didn’t- he should have been considered civilly responsible, at least.
But now, I think, the danger is so palpable if one analyzes the situation that the book should be illegalized. This is not screaming fire in a crowded theater- this is screaming in a crowded theater “FIRE! And I know all N******s and Kikes around here set it- kill them!”
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
In NYC and elsewhere, there has been a huge rise in violent incidents against Asian Americans.
It just shows that this “model minority” label on them was always conditional, that they stayed in their place and out of trouble.
They were never seen as “equals” and they are finding this out now…2 users thanked author for this post.
-
The party of "Freedom Fries" would like you to know that "cancel culture" is a very serious problem.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 4, 2021
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
Anyway, it’s not something I really want to get into myself. I have been very happy that Trump has invaded my thoughts so little over the past month and a half. Long may it continue.
I was really annoyed at how the media jumped at the chance of covering him again when he appeared at CPAC. Like, you know you don’t have to talk about him anymore, don’t you? Can’t we all just agree to act with this as with all the most embarrassing episodes in life and just behave as though it all never happened?
8 users thanked author for this post.
-
I was really annoyed at how the media jumped at the chance of covering him again when he appeared at CPAC. Like, you know you don’t have to talk about him anymore, don’t you? Can’t we all just agree to act with this as with all the most embarrassing episodes in life and just behave as though it all never happened?
It is similar to scammers. Trump literally was a scammer before he scammed his way into office, and Clinton’s administration was very scammer friendly. A lot of the psychology in relation to their public perception is very comparable to the way people get into these scams (Dan Lok, Chris Cardone, Tai Lopez, Jay Manzini recently) and then remain obsessed with the scammer even after they realize they were a victim of a scam.
It’s troubling in the US – I can’t really say much about UK politics since I don’t live there – as much of our economic policy is directly influenced by the money and lobbying power of scammers.
Lobbying and the financial crisis | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal (voxeu.org)
And now we’re in a situation where the government is itself acts like a scammer. From Parent PLUS to PPP loans (government likes the letter “P”), as much as it has a reputation for just “giving away” money, government lending can wreck your economic security about as your local loan shark.
-
a tu quoque.
Is it really a tu quoque if you’re pointing out the other person’s tu quoque
Lorcan, stop pretending you know what Arjan’s made up words mean.
-
I was really annoyed at how the media jumped at the chance of covering him again
I hear this complainted from my Sainted Wife every day when his name is mentioned on the news.
I’m just grateful that Twitter has not allowed him to reactivate his account; at least we are spared his 3am 140-character rants on a daily basis.
-
I certainly get why they all wanted to cover the CPAC nonsense. It was the first public appearance of the twice impeached, social media banned loser former president who incided an insurrection at the capitol since he left office. It is a news story to watch this cult leader speak to his cult and all. But yeah, I agree that I wish they could learn to ignore him. If they’d ignored him in 2015/2016 we may never have ended up in this mess in the first place. Sadly, it seems no one important learned lessons we needed them to learn over the last 5+ years.
The media and the GOP are still obsessed with Trump and the Dems still think that compromise is a thing that’s possible, so even when the GOP refuse to compromise they decide to just make weird compromises within their own party that make them all look kind of stupid. Which only makes it more like that Dems will lose again in 2022.
-
Which only makes it more like that Dems will lose again in 2022.
The Republicans in Georgia aren’t taking any chances with that:
If they can’t win by appealing to non-White voters, they’ll make sure most of them can’t vote.
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
Dogs and fire hoses were more honest.
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
While I disagree with Norton’s reason for opposing cancel culture, if one considers the matter, there is no tu quoque here; It does not stand as an argument for the current form of cancel culture by precedent; There is a difference between a cancelling and a boycott. With the latter, if someone disagrees, they may choose to shop at the targeted store. In some cases, cancelling prevents people who disagree with cancelling in general, or feel that the execution of the cancelling is too extreme from following their beliefs. Consider the case of Rowling: I am a Harry Potter fan. I can attest that their was a group that wished to cancel not just her, but the Harry Potter works in general. Consider the effect: Anyone who wished to engage in a fan group, or post fan content, separate from Rowling herself, even if they have denounced her, would have been considered transphobic, and thus cancelled, by proxy. Luckily, the view of “death of the author” prevailed. There are still people, though, who feel that anything non-political, that is online-only supplemental to the seven books and the three physically published supplements should be treated as canceled. There is a community of fans who theorize about details that were not expounded in the books, and sometimes they use the supplemental online-only material as a starting point. Even if you think that such theorizing is a waste of being a fan, why should they be punished by being considered transphobic, and thus cancelled, by proxy? It is possible even now that such a view may win out, which I fear. If someone condemns her views, but thinks anything she has written about the HP Universe alone, with no political interest, is valid, and separates her author function from her personhood, why do they deserve to be punished and labeled as agreeing with her views? Why should their denouncement be doubted just because they disagree on how she should be cancelled- but they do agree she should? I am afraid of this happening, and people should not be seen as agreeing with her over details of the cancellation.
This is just a case study. I am sure there are cancellings with far more immediate effects. Take Dr. Seuss. I do not know of the racist pictures’ placement in the books, but assuming they are not prominent, what prevents the publishers from using modern tech to edit them out? Does the fact they existed at all taint the whole book? Why shouldn’t future generations be allowed to get any enjoyment from the innocent parts of the work? And I am sure that many cancellations would have the same implication.
-
The problem with that argument is that Dr. Seuss wasn’t “cancelled”, his estate decided to not reprint 6 books last year and made a public statement about it recently.
Cancel Culture doesn’t exist, it’s a buzzword used by pundits to rile up the easily swayed and has basically become a marketing tool, because now Dr. Seuss is selling massively, more people are talking about Mister Potato Head than have in decades – Nike sales went up when they put Colin Kaepernick in ads.
-
-
-
So you deny history……the next step is denying the holocaust.
That is hilarious!
Obviously, it’s not denying history but acknowledging history. It would be denying history to simply continue publishing books for children exactly the same way even though the context for those depictions has entirely changed. Like no one argue that the Criterion Collection should release remastered versions of Jew Suss or Birth of a Nation in exactly the same way they release Citizen Kane or Metropolis with no consideration of the context for that content.
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
The problem with that argument is that Dr. Seuss wasn’t “cancelled”, his estate decided to not reprint 6 books last year and made a public statement about it recently.
Cancel Culture doesn’t exist, it’s a buzzword used by pundits to rile up the easily swayed and has basically become a marketing tool, because now Dr. Seuss is selling massively, more people are talking about Mister Potato Head than have in decades – Nike sales went up when they put Colin Kaepernick in ads.
So you deny history……the next step is denying the holocaust.
And you trivialise the holocaust for bringing it up so regularly and so tenuously. Especially when you admit
I do not know of the racist pictures’ placement in the books,
You lecture and preach from a place of ignorance, ludicrously tying someone who disagrees with you to an unrelated historical atrocity. A dead author’s estate choosing to retire some of his books is a long way from the mass extermination of a people.
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
6 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
Warning – sexual assault and suicide
It seems potentially flippant and disrespectful to treat this as purely politics news, but there have been some very grave allegations made over the past few weeks, one involving a government staffer having been raped in Parliament House by a fellow staffer in 2019.
It’s quite parochial but there’s such a thing here as “Australian of the year”; this is handed out on Australia Day by the Prime Minister (though the PM doesn’t choose the recipient). This year’s winner was a young Tasmanian lady, Grace Tame, who is a sexual assault victim herself and a survivors’ advocate.
Seeing the Prime Minister praise her and hand her the award prompted staffer Brittany Higgins to speak out. She was at an evening function at Parliament House, was escorted to a minister’s office by a fellow staffer, and doesn’t remember much else apart from waking up on a couch in that office, mid-assault. The (female) minister involved was informed about the assault, had her office cleaned (!), and did not report the assault to the Prime Minister (that minister is now on leave to deal with the fallout) .
The offending staffer was removed from his post but the official reason given was a security breach/violation rather than the assault – since the assault made news, a few other women have revealed that the staffer had assaulted them too – he’s since been admitted to a mental health unit (once his name and photo were leaked on social media) and apparently has left the country. Naturally this has prompted yet another conversation about sexism, misogyny, toxic political culture and consent.
Late last month, it was revealed that the Prime Minister and senior members of the opposition Labor party and the Greens were sent a letter and dossier, alleging that a current government minister had raped a 16 year old in the late 1980s. Speculation was rife, with Twitter trends pointing to a shortlist of suspects. The minister in question, Christian Porter, outed himself last week and vigorously denied the accusations. He is the Attorney General and has now also taken leave. He was 17 at the time of the alleged incident (an international debating contest in Sydney), and complicating things, sadly the complainant committed suicide in June last year, before making any official statement to police. She was due to be interviewed in May last year, but for some reason Covid restrictions were used as a reason by the police to put off the interview (it remains unclear why they weren’t given border crossing exemptions or why they couldn’t simply conduct the interview as a video call).
The woman in question kept diaries and detailed notes over the intervening decades, and many of her friends have spoken out to reveal that she had confided in them about the assault; a high achiever and champion high school debater, she had many close friends in politics, the arts and the media. The Attorney General similarly was the child of a political bigwig, champion debater, attended an elite school and was friends with people who are now top political journalists and commentators – outside of the sexual assault side of things, I think this points to an overly cosy relationship between politicians and journalists, who are finding themselves and their work compromised by personal feelings.
So we’re now in a position where this cloud remains over the Attorney General, the country’s chief law officer, and no apparent way to formally test the claims. He was subject of a TV exposé in November, around essentially being a sleazebag – spotted drunk out at bars with staffers, 2 failed marriages, and very sexist comments and actions back in his university days. Some are calling for the Prime Minister to call an independent inquiry, but so far he’s resisted, and Porter isn’t keen either (which doesn’t help one to look innocent). In the meantime the conservative press is calling Porter’s treatment a “trial by media” even though he outed himself, and that any trial by media is only taking place due to the absence of a legit trial or inquiry.
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
Bye Piers, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
One huffy fit and a bad interview and 41,000 complaints later and Piers Morgan is finally fired by ITV.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Bye Piers, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
One huffy fit and a bad interview and 41,000 complaints later and Piers Morgan is finally fired by ITV.
Best comment I’ve seen is “I left him a message of sympathy on my own voicemail”
6 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Why all this over her?
Piers Morgan, ex of CNN and moved to do doing the Good Morning Britain breakfast show in the UK, has been hammering Markle for years. He basically accused her of lying that she felt suicidal to get attention, that led to 41,000 complaints to the broadcaster ITV – which is a massive number, normally complaints are under 100.
Then the weatherman on the show had a go back at Morgan saying he’s only attacking her because they used to be friends and she cut him off after dating Harry. Morgan walked off the show live on air and they later announced he’d resigned.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
Walked off Good Morning Britain and presumably straight into a show on Andrew Neil’s GB News when it launches. Which will at least (presumably) have a smaller audience than ITV’s breakfast show, but still, I doubt this is the last we’ll have heard of Morgan, unfortunately.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
Then the weatherman on the show had a go back at Morgan saying he’s only attacking her because they used to be friends and she cut him off after dating Harry. Morgan walked off the show live on air and they later announced he’d resigned.
That was such a strange moment, I half suspected it was staged. It was like something out of WWE.
Loved the line “This behavior is diabolical.” I mean, how often do you hear “diabolical” in your day?
-
-
I can’t see any reason to have personal opinions on the royals or celebrities in general. Any emotional attachment to famous or wealthy people, whether positive or negative, seems obviously detrimental to mental health.
Primarily, I do think it is hard to make a case that these extremely wealthy, undeservedly privileged and globally famous people can ever be representative of any group of the majority of common people struggling to make a living today. As far as the actual effect on people’s lives, the celebrities are about as real as characters on a television show (and often are characters and/or actors on television shows) and investing any part of one’s personal life or identity in their presentation in the media seems ill-advised.
It’s like fans gambling excessively and increasingly on their favorite sports team irrespective how well that team actually plays.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
My personal stance is I really don’t care what they get up to, none of it seems at all illegal or anything, so carry on.
What I do care about is that Andrew was involved with a sex trafficking ring and is seemingly getting away with it by making up outrageous lies like he can’t sweat.
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
I have nothing whatsoever against Meghan Markle as a person. But she married into royalty, and my thoughts on all things pertaining to monarchy and all aristocracy and royalty… how to put this… oh, I know:
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
So, again, what do some here have against her?
As an uninterested onlooker with no real horse in the race either way, I think a lot of the criticism around the pair comes from the fairly cynical way they’re deploying an obvious media strategy to reposition themselves as valuable celebs outside of the context of the royal family.
Doing that by trading off a lot of personal and deliberately embarassing/damaging revelations about the royal family while simultaneously complaining about invasions of your own privacy and media stories whipping up sentiment against you is a tricky line to walk without coming off as hypocritical.
Having said that, I’m sure they have had an unpleasant time within the royal family, I can fully believe that there are unpleasant restrictions to bear and regressive attitudes to deal with (within the royal family? Never!) and certainly some of the press treatment of them has been unnecessarily nasty with more than a tinge of racism/classism in the coverage.
Ultimately my attitude to it has been to ignore it as best I can, as I’m not particularly drawn to either side. I have no love for the royals and I’d rather we didn’t have a monarchy in the UK, but I’m also not interested in participating in a media circus that seems designed solely to bolster Harry and Meghan’s stock as individual celebrities outside of the royal family.
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
It’s like fans gambling excessively and increasingly on their favorite sports team irrespective how well that team actually plays.
I’m pretty emotionally tied in to supporting the Irish Presidency, we have significantly fewer sex scandals and much larger dogs than the Royals.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
6 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
Now if we can all discuss what the British monarchy, wealth, and pageantry was built on…
ALL wealth is built on slavery.
Full stop. Discussion over. Send nudes.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Now if we can all discuss what the British monarchy, wealth, and pageantry was built on…
-
-
a media circus that seems designed solely to bolster Harry and Meghan’s stock as individual celebrities outside of the royal family.
That’s not what it’s designed for. It might be doing that as side effect, but it’s actually designed to fill up prime-time news so it has an excuse for not spending any time dissecting the latest government cock-ups.
That’s basically the main function of the royal family these days. Distraction. “There’s been another Brexit fumble, quick, get Phil into hospital!”
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Send nudes.
He didn’t mean send your nudes.
Oh, wait, it’s Anders. He probably did
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
Some was built on murder, too. Let’s be fair.
It’s quite a menu really. Slavery, murder, imprisonment, bribery, deceit.
The island I live on now was mostly uninhabited in the 18th century. A man from the East India Trading Company, Sir Francis Light, decided it would make a great trading outpost alongside Singapore. The land belonged to another royal, the Sultan of Kedah, so he went to speak to him. At the time the Siamese were threatening war from the north so the Sultan said Light could have the island and another chunk of the mainland next to it if he defended them from the Siamese with warships.
The deal was agreed, Light got Penang which is now home to a large trading post and 1.8 million people. He never had any warships though, he just lied, luckily for him the Siamese also believed the lie so there was never an attack. The British got access to rubber and tin and all other kinds of resources on the cheap.
The British Empire is often presented as an altruistic venture compared to the more violent conquests of the Spanish and Belgians but even at the most positive parts they were running a con job.
6 users thanked author for this post.
-
Ironically, I’d have to say the one island nation that suffered the most from British colonialism throughout its long history has been the one right next to Britain.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Isle of Man?
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
Isle of Man?
It’s clearly the European/Asian/African supercontinent
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
I’d have to say the one island nation that suffered the most from British colonialism throughout its long history has been the one right next to Britain.
I’d argue there’s a couple inside of Britain.
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
Two victories for Joe Biden today:
-
-
What I would like to know is what does @todd, @christian, and a few others here have against her?
I wish them the best but I do think it’s tiring that these stories get so much attention, there are far more important things.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
“A total of 65 countries have claimed their independence.”
“Claimed”
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
0 Republicans voted for the $1.9 trillion Covid relief bill.
278 Republicans voted for Trump’s $1.9 trillion tax cut for corporations and the rich.
This tells you everything you need to know about the GOP.
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) March 10, 2021
-
What I do care about is that Andrew was involved with a sex trafficking ring
…how did you find out about that? I thought I covered my tracks well.
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
I would like to make a request. Like Johnny said no one is ethics police so this is just a request.
Over on twitter among the people I follow they are saying stop posting about yahoos saying stupid things and promoting them even if it is just to make fun of them. Almost all of these people have no real power and can not accomplish anything so the only power they have left is to convince others to follow them so let them spout their nonsense into the void.I think this is a great idea and would like to try it here. I realize this is the politics thread and that might be what this is for but like I said, they have no power so lets just ignore them because they can’t do anything anyways. I’m cool with you ignoring me. I went over a decade ignoring the politics thread and am happy to go back to doing so.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I think this is a great idea and would like to try it here.
It’s a good idea on Twitter, but it’s a bit pointless here. We have a stable, small userbase here. Sharing a story of someone being stupid is only going to have limited reach. Sharing someone saying something stupid on Twitter plays into algorithms. Twitter can’t discern between a quote tweet approving something and one dunking on it; it just takes it as being popular and so increases its prominence in searches and trending topics, which increases engagement etc.
-
-
-
Just keep in mind that most people are at least a little buzzed while posting. Or more than a little. After all this is the Pub Chat, right?
Or is that just me?
Aren’t we supposed to be hopped up on the goofballs?
I mean, that’s what I thought the memo that was delivered to me by giant flaming flamingo skeleton said.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
I get that, but some here are taking cheap shots and running away instead of explaining themselves.
Oy, I just have a life to live sometimes!
As for the question: With regards to her argument with the Royals, I don’t care and if I’d have to pick sides, it’d probably be Meghan’s. At the same time, I am kind of annoyed that anyone pays attention to all of this yellow-press crap at all and think the world would be better off without not only royalty, but also without celebrities whose only claim to fame is being famous in the first place, which goes for all monarchy including Harry and he’s still living off of that. Not that he had a choice in the first place, to be fair.
But honestly I don’t give much of a crap either way, my comments upthread were completely honest: I just hated her on Suits. Perfectly decent show, great dialogue writing, all the other core actors were good, Gina Torres was great and Rick Hoffmann was fucking brilliant, but I hated every scene with Meghan Markle. And that’s what I have against her.
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
Over on twitter among the people I follow they are saying stop posting about yahoos saying stupid things and promoting them even if it is just to make fun of them. Almost all of these people have no real power and can not accomplish anything so the only power they have left is to convince others to follow them so let them spout their nonsense into the void.
This reminds me of a podcast I recently listened to about George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party and white supremacist. Jewish organisations at the time successfully fought him with a “quarantine” strategy, making sure that there were no counter-demonstrations when he marched, no violence, nothing for the newspapers to report. Any kind of attention would enable him to grow; quarantining successfully shrinked his base and income.
We could use some of that strategy these days.
-
It is difficult though as there are a couple paradoxical considerations here.
Obviously, the strategy for George Lincoln Rockwell kinda worked because it was an age where there was a great deal of control over the news and not as many media types and sources. To actually quarantine that sort of thing today, we’d need absolute control and cooperation of the media outlets and control over all the individuals who are ready to lash out at anything. Also, naturally, often those taking offense at something are intentionally bringing an isolated event to wider attention for their own political aims, and many political activists have a network of media contacts that are able to ensure their events get a lot of attention. There are PR style corporations designed to bring that attention and they are making millions doing it. I think that’s an important point too.
So, in today’s environment and for the foreseeable future where connectivity will only increase, the strategy of disengagement is more likely to leave you with your point of view or perspective losing ground on a stage where the central political and social debates are taking place. Also, the basic philosophy or ideals of that sort of strategy could only function in a social order that is already fairly functional. It’s akin to proposing that the solution for a person who has a heroin addiction is that they should stop using heroin. The problem is that addiction means they can’t control it. If they could, they wouldn’t have the problem.
If people could refrain from responding to intentionally inflammatory speech, then they would. In fact, I’d say 99% of people probably do. However, socially, there is no way to keep everyone from responding exactly the way the offending parties want them to. I often read many articles about “How are people responding to…” whomever is the offender of the day, and in the articles they’ll print 10 to 20 tweets to paint a picture of the response, when, of course, we all know there were probably hundreds of thousands of responses, and there will be a dozen other articles out there using other responses to make completely different or opposite points.
That’s the way society functions today. If there is a danger to media, it’s not the content. No connection between violence in media and violence in the real world has been proven to exist, nor is there any likelihood it does exist – in fact, I think the obvious assumption is that the content in many media – factual and fictional content – acts as a cathartic pressure release for pent up social tension. Orson Welles once was quoted saying “the stage is a safe place for dangerous things.” Meaning that it is much better to have these acts playing out in pretend on stage that for real on the streets. However, our stage today has expanded to encompass our streets, our homes, our bedrooms, our pets, jobs and government offices. It’s becoming more difficult to let go of our roles and be a private person — or to just be a person. Instead, at best, we are like bit part players in the wings constantly going over our lines in our heads before we “strut and fret our hour on the stage.”
That’s similar to the “alienation” Christian brought up in another thread. We are alienated by the scripts provided in this new environment, but it’s not going to be changed. This is going to be something we’ll need to contend with going forward. We won’t solve it. Eventually, we’ll all die and the next generation will simply be a little better at it.
Now, going back to the political debate “industry,” there is so much money in politics and political activism that it is simply impossible to control the media environment except with money. If you want to shut people out, you just make a bigger noise somewhere else – if you have enough money – and people will pay attention to that rather than the thing you don’t want them to pay attention to.
-
-
As for the question: With regards to her argument with the Royals, I don’t care and if I’d have to pick sides, it’d probably be Meghan’s. At the same time, I am kind of annoyed that anyone pays attention to all of this yellow-press crap at all and think the world would be better off without not only royalty, but also without celebrities whose only claim to fame is being famous in the first place, which goes for all monarchy including Harry and he’s still living off of that. Not that he had a choice in the first place, to be fair.
But honestly I don’t give much of a crap either way, my comments upthread were completely honest: I just hated her on Suits. Perfectly decent show, great dialogue writing, all the other core actors were good, Gina Torres was great and Rick Hoffmann was fucking brilliant, but I hated every scene with Meghan Markle. And that’s what I have against her.
Fair enough. I never saw the show Suits…
Personally, I don’t really care for the monarchy (or other monarchies and royal families), but some of the smears and attacks in the media about her did hit home. “She is a gold digger, Straight out of Compton”… I said before, she should have known what she was getting into.
Also, to be honest, there are some black people I can’t stand: Candace Owens, Omerosa, Herschel Walker and his son, and I am none too crazy over Tiger Woods among others.
One thing this interview did was have a lot of people rethink about needing a monarchy, what it was really built on, what it really stands for, etc. Tik Tok is having a field day….
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Nothing wrong with being a gold digger. Money’s the most important thing in the world. It’s more important than life. If it wasn’t, food would be free.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Our King screwed up by going on a holiday to Greece with covid going on though. He apologized for that.
Texans are still waiting for an apology from Ted Cruz. Those that didn’t die during the deep-freeze/power-outage fiasco, that is…
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Our King screwed up by going on a holiday to Greece with covid going on though. He apologized for that.
Texans are still waiting for an apology from Ted Cruz. Those that didn’t die during the deep-freeze/power-outage fiasco, that is…
And to top it off, he made a joke about it at a conservative conference.
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
That’s terrible.
I kinda like our King Willy. He gets made fun of, but he is just an alright dude. I wouldn’t want him to have an actual important job in government, he really has a symbolic function.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Obviously, the strategy for George Lincoln Rockwell kinda worked because it was an age where there was a great deal of control over the news and not as many media types and sources.
Just to clarify, there wasn’t control as such. The guy who’d invented the strategy just wrote letters to everybody – begging the newspapers and media outlets not to report on GLR, and to activists and Jewish organisations asking them not to go out and confront him. And because they didn’t and there really wasn’t a lot to report, the media followed suit and didn’t, and he didn’t get the attention he craved. Just to point out that it really wasn’t that easy, and it worked because a lot of very different people agreed to try the strategy.
I do agree with everything else, though, it’s probably just not a realistic option anymore. Not as long as the social media algorithms are based on pushing outrageous stuff because it’ll get a reaction and attention that can be monetised. This is something that probably has to be regulated by law in some form, but that’s going to be tricky.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
More importantly today is the question if the approach was really effective. There is an obvious flaw in that let’s say someone somehow manages to convince the media to blackout any coverage of Nazi rallies and marches. Think about what their response could be. First, of course, there is the ironic response that the Nazi’s will accuse people of being fascists – which is tragically hilarious – totalitarians complaining about totalitarianism. However, it would support assertions that there is a conspiracy against them. That the “power that be” don’t want you to know the truth. That’s fairly similar to how the Twitter, Instagram and Facebook bans have backfired recently.
However, and this is what Rockwell’s organization did, the most likely strategy is to simply show up at your rallies and marches and cause trouble. If the spotlight won’t go to them, then they’ll take your spotlight and show up at everything where you do want attention and they’ll have to be even more sensational to assure that they, not you, are the story.
Evolution and escalation is the nature of political conflict. Honestly, it is instructive to look how Rockwell formed friendly political alliances with the Black Nationalist movements especially Elijah Mohammed – all movements where there was strong anti-Semitism. In those cases, the more direct action that was taken against the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam was far more effective and the same seems true of the Civil Rights movements and the Vietnam War opposition around the same time. These were much larger movements that were fractured and neutralized by direct mainstream action to undermine them. They were not ignored, they were villainized and every negative viewpoint that could be applied was broadcast widely to discredit them.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
It’ll be interesting to see how the GOP fares in a post Trump election. Because so many of them seem very emboldened by Trump. He said whatever he wanted, did whatever he wanted, and got away with it (mostly because the GOP congress let him). Now you’ve got douchebags like Cruz joking about abandoning his state in the middle of a huge crisis and racists like Paul Gosar and Ron Johnson just going out and attending white nationalist conventions and saying blatantly racist things while complete whack jobs like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Bobert prance around like lunatics saying whatever crazy shit comes to their minds. They all feel like, because they gave Trump a pass that they too will be invincible.
Perhaps they’re right, perhaps not. But it does speak to how consequential the 2022 mid-term elections will be. Dems basically need to figure out how to motivate people to show up when it’s not just to say screw you to Trump. Maybe this blatant racist and crazy behavior from more and more GOP members will help with that. Or maybe watching another year plus of GOP obstruction will motivate people, but who knows. It could have the opposite effect.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
“… and honestly, I’ve never laughed longer or harder,” Mrs Patel continued.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Today is the 10th anniversary of the war in Syria.
There’s a war in Syria? You wouldn’t know it from watching the US news reports. We only know about the war at Buckingham Palace, and the one at the house J-Lo shares with A-Rod.
-
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
Last night's shooting & the appalling rise of anti-Asian violence stem frm a sick society where nationalism has again been stoked & normalized. Anti-Black & anti-Asian racism & violence run in tandem in the U.S. Both grps were brought here for labor but never meant to be citizens
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) March 17, 2021
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Wonder why conservatives like Candace Owens is going after Cardi B on Twitter over that WAP song? Wonder why the GOP is attacking the song and other things while contrasting it with those banned Dr. Seuss books?
It’s all a strategy to engage in this culture war. Here is an interesting article:
There are no “banned dr Seuss books”.
This whole thing is more entertainment than politics I think. People like to pretend to be outraged by this stuff. Yes a lot of popular culture is dumb, but that doesn’t mean a return to traditional values like the right pretends to be in favor of would be a good thing.
2 users thanked author for this post.
