Last edited by uziq (2019-09-26 03:13:06)
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-09-26 03:24:44)
I saw an opportunity to change one word in a sentence and took it.uziq wrote:
i don't know why you keep making out i am some ultra-remainer or corbynite type. i have never voted for corbyn and have been willing to move forward with brexit, so long as saner heads prevail than those who are currently leading things off a cliff at present.
Last edited by uziq (2019-09-26 03:40:39)
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-09-26 03:43:18)
tl;dr: my friend, who is a really swell guy, should be treated with decency when being called out for dismissing a person with asperger's as a 'mentally ill child being exploited', because, after all, we all have flaws!While debating the progressive pundit Christopher Hahn on Fox News, Knowles described Greta Thunberg (who, as is well known, has Asperger syndrome) as a “mentally ill Swedish child who is being exploited by her parents and by the international Left.” Hahn immediately interjected, “Shame on you.” The network later admonished Knowles, dubbing his remarks “disgraceful” and releasing a statement that apologized to Thunberg and viewers.
But were the comments awful?
...
Moreover, common sense and decency require that we respond in good faith when we do think that someone has used the “wrong” word. Because this stuff is tricky, folks. And each of us is flawed.
Last edited by uziq (2019-09-26 03:56:35)
Last edited by uziq (2019-09-26 04:41:25)
Oh my days that last piece is so beyond terrible. The analysis, the writing, whatever point he's trying to make. Just what the F?uziq wrote:
hilarious to me that jay is accusing me of being somehow a crypto-anarcho-syndicalist, or biased and partial in my criticisms of the government's behaviour, and then he is meanwhile all the time getting his commentary on brexit from an openly partisan, proactively political mouthpiece like the national review. i mean a rag whose authors hold 'william f. buckley' chairs at nowhere universities/think tanks. what an incredible lack of self-awareness.
cute presentation though. it is a LITERAL demonstration of what i was talking about vis-a-vis people receiving their information online and via social media, by subtly (or in this case, not so subtle) political sources. no wonder jay took such issue with my comments about 5-second soundbite videos influencing people's politics. look at the fawning presentation here (just look at the careful choice of header images):
stories about johnson from recent events
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/uk- … -unlawful/ (plucky, smiling, unperturbed)
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ … just-done/ (deferential, decent, in good humour)
mention corbyn!
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ … -politics/ (mad, hysterical, irate, scary bloke!)
still, there's always a handy digest written by the serial fraudster conrad black, who has been thoroughly rejected by the british establishment for his unsavoury behaviour. just in case this whole brexit thing gets too confusing and you want a précis:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ … of-brexit/
some amazing analysis here, including that this goes back to the 'spanish armada' and that the great powers of nationhood since the '16th century' have been 'britain, france, spain' and ... 'turkey'. i mean i guess this all makes sense and good reading if you're historically illiterate and a moron.
as i said, this is the world we are living in now, accelerated by new technologies, which old establishment politics is not keeping up with. who cares about the old democratic ideals of open information, rational debate, checks and balances on power, etc? the right-wing are in a race to the bottom to galvanise clickbait, reaction-hungry articles, and will handily accuse the courts, judges, official science, and hopelessly out of date ‘traditional’ journalistic or academic sources to get at it. the colleges are full of cultural marxists! the green movement is an international leftist conspiracy! socialists are trying to undermine direct democracy! it all reads like the political pamphlets of the 1930s only given a new online, web-based, social media feed proliferating form.Larssen wrote:
Oh my days that last piece is so beyond terrible. The analysis, the writing, whatever point he's trying to make. Just what the F?uziq wrote:
hilarious to me that jay is accusing me of being somehow a crypto-anarcho-syndicalist, or biased and partial in my criticisms of the government's behaviour, and then he is meanwhile all the time getting his commentary on brexit from an openly partisan, proactively political mouthpiece like the national review. i mean a rag whose authors hold 'william f. buckley' chairs at nowhere universities/think tanks. what an incredible lack of self-awareness.
cute presentation though. it is a LITERAL demonstration of what i was talking about vis-a-vis people receiving their information online and via social media, by subtly (or in this case, not so subtle) political sources. no wonder jay took such issue with my comments about 5-second soundbite videos influencing people's politics. look at the fawning presentation here (just look at the careful choice of header images):
stories about johnson from recent events
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/uk- … -unlawful/ (plucky, smiling, unperturbed)
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ … just-done/ (deferential, decent, in good humour)
mention corbyn!
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ … -politics/ (mad, hysterical, irate, scary bloke!)
still, there's always a handy digest written by the serial fraudster conrad black, who has been thoroughly rejected by the british establishment for his unsavoury behaviour. just in case this whole brexit thing gets too confusing and you want a précis:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ … of-brexit/
some amazing analysis here, including that this goes back to the 'spanish armada' and that the great powers of nationhood since the '16th century' have been 'britain, france, spain' and ... 'turkey'. i mean i guess this all makes sense and good reading if you're historically illiterate and a moron.
Last edited by uziq (2019-09-26 05:28:35)
it's almost like these 'patriot' right-wingers, talking about 'progressives undermining real democracy', are almost always 1%'er financiers who stand to profit from disruptive politics and deregulation ...Brexit party members earn more from second jobs than any other group in the European parliament, according to transparency campaigners who are warning about potential conflicts of interest.
An annual study by Transparency International showed that Nigel Farage is no longer the best-paid British MEP by second job. Now in seventh place among the 227 MEPs with outside earnings, Farage earns about €360,000 (£319,000) a year from his media company, Thorn in the Side.
The Brexit party’s London member Ben Habib is the EU’s best-paid MEP. Elected in May, Habib declared €960,000 annual earnings from First Property Group, the property fund manager he founded.
Three other Brexit party MEPs make the top 10 ahead of Farage. At No 3 is Ann Widdecombe, who declared a second income of €240,000-€480,000 a year. The former Tory minister and reality TV contestant makes between €5,000 and €10,000 a month writing her Daily Express column, with a further €20,000 a month coming in from speaking and broadcasting.
The Brexit party chairman, Richard Tice, has annual earnings of between €264,000 and €360,000 from his business interests.
Trump was basically a democrat in the 1990's, man.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Trump is the punishment for our sin of not totally capitulating to the Republican party in the past. If only we had done everything the GOP wanted in the past, they would have never had had to resort to unleashing him on us all.
And what if this whole thing doesn't end in disaster?SuperJail Warden wrote:
I bet that will be the republican excuse in 6 years when he is out of office and this whole thing ends in a disaster.
I honestly just read it for Kevin D. Williamson and Jonah Goldberg. Dougherty is ok sometimes. The rest are meh.SuperJail Warden wrote:
National Review is on my news site rotation including The New York Times, The Atlantic, and Slate. I mostly just like reading the comments on National Review to see what the subscribers to the "largest conservative magazine" actually think.
The amount of articles about campus free speech issues is annoying. And I am really bothered by the fact that they just have to a run articles about how whatever awful thing a famous figure said "wasn't actually awful and their freedom of speech needs to protected". Like they ran at least 3 articles about how it was wrong to fire the guy from SNL because he said racist things about Asians. Is being crude and putting people down really how you get to a culturally conservative nation?
Their articles on history especially foreign history border on historical abuse too.
Oh and Kyle SmithJay wrote:
I honestly just read it for Kevin D. Williamson and Jonah Goldberg. Dougherty is ok sometimes. The rest are meh.SuperJail Warden wrote:
National Review is on my news site rotation including The New York Times, The Atlantic, and Slate. I mostly just like reading the comments on National Review to see what the subscribers to the "largest conservative magazine" actually think.
The amount of articles about campus free speech issues is annoying. And I am really bothered by the fact that they just have to a run articles about how whatever awful thing a famous figure said "wasn't actually awful and their freedom of speech needs to protected". Like they ran at least 3 articles about how it was wrong to fire the guy from SNL because he said racist things about Asians. Is being crude and putting people down really how you get to a culturally conservative nation?
Their articles on history especially foreign history border on historical abuse too.
Kevin and David French are the only ones I make sure to always read. I also listen to French's podcast.Jay wrote:
Oh and Kyle SmithJay wrote:
I honestly just read it for Kevin D. Williamson and Jonah Goldberg. Dougherty is ok sometimes. The rest are meh.SuperJail Warden wrote:
National Review is on my news site rotation including The New York Times, The Atlantic, and Slate. I mostly just like reading the comments on National Review to see what the subscribers to the "largest conservative magazine" actually think.
The amount of articles about campus free speech issues is annoying. And I am really bothered by the fact that they just have to a run articles about how whatever awful thing a famous figure said "wasn't actually awful and their freedom of speech needs to protected". Like they ran at least 3 articles about how it was wrong to fire the guy from SNL because he said racist things about Asians. Is being crude and putting people down really how you get to a culturally conservative nation?
Their articles on history especially foreign history border on historical abuse too.
French annoys me with his be like me I'm a real man because I do triathlons or whatever schtick. I agree with him maybe 25% of the time.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Kevin and David French are the only ones I make sure to always read. I also listen to French's podcast.Jay wrote:
Oh and Kyle SmithJay wrote:
I honestly just read it for Kevin D. Williamson and Jonah Goldberg. Dougherty is ok sometimes. The rest are meh.
