The Political Satire/Meme Thread

[UKMikey]

I'd love to know how fact checking is ego stroking or @Joey D or @Famine are lefties.

 

[RacingGrandpa]

That's all it is - a spectacle. We have just built political discourse into a sickly, characterless, plastic smiled game show of a spectacle.

Tl;Dr: being secure in your beliefs doesn't mean ******** on the beliefs of others. It's possible to be a good person in more than one mould. Quit being ****** to each other

@MaxAttack thank you. You bring me hope for the future.

Free speech doesn't mean free to say what ever with no consequence and that is something society needs to relearn.

 

[novcze]

Except it's not just one person, in the past year there have been over 1,000 people killed by police. While there's a percentage of those that were justified, there's also a percentage where the shooting wasn't. There's also a percentage where the shooting might've been justified, but the officer could've used a less than lethal method at subduing a suspect.

Do we know what percentages we are talking about, out of millions of the police interactions every year?

 

[El_Beardo]

Max makes perfect sense.

If you REALLY need to, you can bullet point it . .

• Stop bickering like children.
• Stop calling everyone communists or nazis, depending on your political leaning. It solves nothing.
• Sensible political debate is dead.
• Nothing will improve, for anyone, until people learn to debate again.

 

[polysmut]

Tl;Dr: being secure in your beliefs doesn't mean ******** on the beliefs of others. It's possible to be a good person in more than one mould.

I agree with that part.

The impression I get from the bit above that bit,

Watching lefties gang up and stroke each other with five responses at a time to a few righties who have made it really clear they're gonna wonder in circles with their fingers in their ear doesn't inspire a lot of faith in your fellow man.

Politics has become such an ego stroking, self back patting device that I just don't want to engage in it. Progressive leftists absolutely refuse any debate, because anyone who disagrees with them on one point MUST have a lifestyle utterly incompatible with the modern world and must be rectified, yokel, rectified with reams and reams of data, and peer reviews, and consensus.

It's very easy to be smug and put someone down when you are on the 15 man side of the 15 v 3 fight. It's not decent to pile onto someone who is making a point that goes against whatever status quo you want to see established.

Right, or left, not everyone will agree with what you see as correct or important. It's just not ever going to happen. What honestly annoys me particularly about the left is that they act as if we are inexorably all heading towards agreeing on all the good, principled and noble things that have been parroted repeatedly.

The right, at least, have not lost their sense of humour (where the left seem capable only of the snarkiest of in-jokes) but have lost grip on reality. Right wing politics used to focus on the prosperity of the state and the preservation of its peoples, the importance of family etc. Now everything seems to hinge on my right to be a violent, indignant piece of **** that doesn't need to move one inch for my fellow man. That's not what conservatism is meant to be.

As for the left wing - well, I thought I was a liberal for the longest time, but I don't seem to be welcome anymore. I don't care to champion every minority - be that skin colour, amputees, or whatever else - I believe we've created a society where those people are capable of standing up for themselves (maybe not certain amputees, but...). I don't think shows of solidarity or celebrations of pride are important. I think they're important for people's egos and sense of community. I think the modern liberal longs, yearns to be part of some massive revolution or social change for the better to the point they are willing to overlook how much better things are than any time in history because they feel like they missed out on fixing the world. The modern "conservative" longs for a fight, a reason to dig the heels in and stick the fingers in the ears because hey, these are the way things have ALWAYS been (again, no, not even 40 years ago) and ain't these triggered liberals a spectacle.

That's all it is - a spectacle. We have just built political discourse into a sickly, characterless, plastic smiled game show of a spectacle.

is that you're seeing sets of people who agree on some things as being in teams. In some kind of battle or sporting game?

And that based on which "team" they're on, they can be assumed to have certain, fairly extreme, traits and motives?

This thread - like the notion of decent, respectful political discourse itself - is on its last legs.

The OP suggests an aside to the funny pic thread where politics isn't welcome.
This thread seems to be a middle area between the rumble strip and the more focussed current event threads. There's a fair bit of nonsense posted here but what's nonsense to some is serious ideas to others. I don't see a problem with people discussing to try to work out/demonstrate which is which. It's actually quite important.

 

[Sander 001]

 

[McLaren]

I don't care to champion every minority - be that skin colour, amputees, or whatever else - I believe we've created a society where those people are capable of standing up for themselves (maybe not certain amputees, but...).

The largest grouping of "skin color" minorities in the US population is currently arguing for fairer treatment once again, whilst the current President:

• calls their movement a symbol of hate.
  
• Wants diversity training removed from work & schools, and replaced with a Patriotic program to show how great America is which comes across incredibly tone-deaf.
  
• Believes he's done more for black people than any President besides Lincoln all because the economy was supposedly at its best for the black community under his presidency.
  
• Believes the high point for America's black community was before the pandemic because of again, the economy in response to, "When was America great for black people".
  
• Even after the man who asked that question elaborated on it by claiming that there was on going race issue that has plagued his, Obama's, Bush's, & Clinton's administrations, he responds, "Well, I hope there's not a race issue" because again... the economy was so great for black people & can't be compared to past administrations.
  
• just gas lights the hell out of his supporter base by remarking America is not safe with BLM around b/c of riots, even though 90% of the displays have been peaceful.

Makes it very difficult to believe said society allows any minority to stand up for themselves when the leader of the country is actively speaking out against you.

I think the modern liberal longs, yearns to be part of some massive revolution or social change for the better to the point they are willing to overlook how much better things are than any time in history because they feel like they missed out on fixing the world.

Or maybe it's because the modern liberal knows that they're the only major ally minority groups have in this society b/c without them, the conservatives who think everything is fine just the way it is would just as rather eradicate them of having any input in society at all. The whole, "things are better now than any time in history" doesn't mean any thing to minority groups b/c "Hey, things are better now than before" is not a proper response to a minority group asking for more/equal representation & the modern liberal seems to acknowledge society doesn't only revolve around "how much better" their life is.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Providing statistics on officer involved shootings, which are largely (if not exclusively) offered as examples of justified use of force, doesn't actually confront allegations of disproportionate excessive force against a particular demographic. It can't possibly. It's deflection.

Wait a sec.

This was in response to a post saying "white cops were murdering black people" created because I asked if there was any evidence for this - it's a post showing viewpoints that say this is/isn't the case. Minorities are dis proportionally represented as victims of police shootings, so it's worth investigating in more detail. I still don't see how it's deflection when researchers looking into the issue of police brutality and how minorities are affected use the same statistics? As I said before it would be even better if we looked at use of force and complaints against the police but no-one (including myself) made a follow up post.

Criticizing people for protesting against police brutality while purportedly not protesting against atrocities on the other side of the globe is irrational. It's deflection.

It's not just about police brutality though is it. If it was, then it would be irrational to compare it to things happening in China, but the movement (in the UK at least) is fighting for a more broader goal.

Taken from their website:

Those of all ethnicities and from all nations who believe in racial equality are anti-racists, they stand together, can choose to kneel together in peace and solidarity asserting black people are treated as equals to white people and is a human right to receive racial equality, social and criminal justice.

We are operating as non-political, non-partisan, non-violence Black Lives Matter platform. Some content published on this website may have political elements by the nature of a society and state governed under a system of democracy; however we operate in a humanitarian capacity and concern.

Which is fair enough, but I call bull**** on people who unite under that while ordering their clothes from a place that treats its largely foreign workers as modern-day slaves, subscribe to Disney+ to watch a film giving thanks to officials in Xinjiang or are happy to see the biggest football event in the world played in stadiums built on the backs of modern day slaves.

It's all such blatant hypocrisy/double standards as (most) people just don't want to inconvenience their lives in any way. It's also why I asked about your views on Extinction Rebellion, as the charge of hypocrisy among its celebrity supporters (and even their leader) doesn't mean people are deflecting from climate change.

 

[Joey D]

Also re your argument that every person killed by the police has had their Constitutional rights taken from them, this imo is a point worth exploring further.
You claimed always when an officer kills this is the case.
I’d like to ask you if this is the hard claim you are making in your argument?
Is the always always or mostly?
For example let’s say police encounter an active shooter and killing the suspect can prevent innocent citizens from being shot.
Do you also agree in this case that the police were in the wrong?

This is my fault for rushing the post and not explaining clearly, so for that, I apologize.

Anyone who is killed by police where police used an unreasonable amount of force has had their Constitutional rights violated. The Supreme Court had ruled the police may use a reasonable amount of force and that using a reasonable amount of force does not violate someone's Constitutional rights. When someone is killed through an unreasonable amount of force, such as an officer using their firearm to kill an unarmed person, that is unconstitutional. If someone is killed where a reasonable amount of force is used, then that is Constitutional.

Killing any suspected criminal through is still potentially a violating of the Sixth Amendment since law enforcement is still denying the accused a right to a trial by jury. They are determining that person's guilt and enacting the punishment. I agree it's a gray area and there are circumstances where it could go either way.

So with regard to your example, I think it really depends on several different circumstances so I can't really give you a clear answer.

Watching lefties gang up and stroke each other with five responses at a time to a few righties who have made it really clear they're gonna wonder in circles with their fingers in their ear doesn't inspire a lot of faith in your fellow man.

Since I don't know who you're addressing particularly, you post does seem to infer that I'm in this group of "lefties ganging up on righties". I'm not anywhere near the left side of the spectrum.

Tl;Dr: being secure in your beliefs doesn't mean ******** on the beliefs of others. It's possible to be a good person in more than one mould. Quit being ****** to each other.

Where are people being terrible to one another? There are a few instances of this, but for the most part, the discussion on this section of the forum are well reasoned and backed up with sources and data. Disagreeing with someone and providing a well reasoned argument backed up with data isn't being awful to someone. It's all part of having a discussion, which is right in the wheelhouse of this area of GTP.

Also, there's more than one mod who participates in these discussions too. If they felt that people were being unreasonable, they'd do something about it.

Do we know what percentages we are talking about, out of millions of the police interactions every year?

I assume it's not a high percentage. However, all Americans are guaranteed the rights granted to them in the Constitution. So whether it's 1 or a million, it doesn't matter. If they're an American citizen, they're granted certain rights outlined in the founding document of the country.

This is by no means to condesend either, but I get that it's difficult to understand the American Constitution if you're not American. Even Americans argue over it. It's the same way I wouldn't have the slight clue as to what rights are granted to someone from Czechia.

 

[UKMikey]

The largest grouping of "skin color" minorities in the US population is currently arguing for fairer treatment once again, whilst the current President:

• calls their movement a symbol of hate.
  
• Wants diversity training removed from work & schools, and replaced with a Patriotic program to show how great America is which comes across incredibly tone-deaf.
  
• Believes he's done more for black people than any President besides Lincoln all because the economy was supposedly at its best for the black community under his presidency.
  
• Believes the high point for America's black community was before the pandemic because of again, the economy in response to, "When was America great for black people".
  
• Even after the man who asked that question elaborated on it by claiming that there was on going race issue that has plagued his, Obama's, Bush's, & Clinton's administrations, he responds, "Well, I hope there's not a race issue" because again... the economy was so great for black people & can't be compared to past administrations.
  
• just gas lights the hell out of his supporter base by remarking America is not safe with BLM around b/c of riots, even though 90% of the displays have been peaceful.

Makes it very difficult to believe said society allows any minority to stand up for themselves when the leader of the country is actively speaking out against you.

Now those are some bullet points which actually mean something.

 

[VBR]

 

[Sander 001]

 

[Leo Thorne]

 

[Sander 001]

 

[huskeR32]

The right, at least, have not lost their sense of humour (where the left seem capable only of the snarkiest of in-jokes) but have lost grip on reality.

And this to me is where the “both sides” argument always breaks down. Debate should start from a point that acknowledges facts and reality. If that’s where we were starting from, then yes, I endorse the rest of your post.

But as you are saying, that’s not where we’re starting from. Nobody should be required to accommodate dishonest arguments. Or, as Mikey put it:

I'd love to know how fact checking is ego stroking

Expecting people to base their arguments in fact isn’t “piling on.” Pointing out for the umpteenth time how somebody is making an unfounded claim, only to watch them run away and hide yet again is frustrating, but it’s necessary to keep trying. The minute we start treating lies and facts as equally defensible, we’ve lost. All of us.

 

[MaxAttack]

A few of you have taken issue with what I've said and felt it was directed at particular members. I'd just like to say that's not the case - although I might have predicted that outcome - and I'll apologise to anyone who feels misrepresented or wronged.

@McLaren all your points are valid but just to contextualise, as a Brit from the middle of nowhere my posts aren't quite perhaps as intrinsically related to US politics or whoever is or isn't president as others might be.

I'd like to point out that I do actually like this thread, and I laugh at stuff from all across the spectrum. I've laughed at some of the conservative stuff and some of the liberal stuff. Some light-hearted hyperbole can be a good way to discuss things if people show each other respect. What I don't think is needed is sly running jokes about members, or pages and pages of one person having a debate with five people wording the same responses differently. I don't think that's fair or good spirited.

That is - as the sub-forum title would imply - all opinion. I'm not outright telling you how to post, and I don't think it's my job to lay down the law or moderate anything - I'm just sharing an opinion that's been bouncing around my head more and more as I visit this thread.

 

[Joey D]

 

[Lain]

Short but sweet political ad

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Short but sweet political ad

I watched that peaceful protest. I laughed when he said that.

The ad is brilliant.

 

[UKMikey]

I watched that peaceful protest. I laughed when he said that.
The ad is brilliant.

I'm glad you can appreciate a good zinger but, while 93% of protests are peaceful, I'm not sure a rally held by a president who's actually in power counts amongst those protests. What would he actually be protesting against? His own regime?

 

[JKgo]

...So, this popped up in my twitter feed a couple of days ago.

Probably for the first time in my life, I echo His Donaldness's sentiment. What the heck is this?

Edit: I'm pretty sure it's a doctored image.

 

[UKMikey]

...So, this popped up in my twitter feed a couple of days ago.


View attachment 959099

Probably for the first time in my life, I echo His Donaldness's sentiment. What the heck is this?

Edit: I'm pretty sure it's a doctored image.

Personally I wouldn't let President Trump anywhere near my Twitter feed but as near as I can tell after a couple of minutes' googling, it's one of these with Lars Ulrich's face on. Some kind of "dank meme".

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/mr-orange

What do the tweet replies say?

 

[VolkswagenX]

 

[JKgo]

Personally I wouldn't let President Trump anywhere near my Twitter feed but as near as I can tell after a couple of minutes' googling, it's one of these with Lars Ulrich's face on. Some kind of "dank meme".

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/mr-orange

What do the tweet replies say?

View attachment 959104

...I don't follow Trump. It's actually from Paolo Gregoletto's twitter. He's the bassist of the band Trivium (that's where I get my profile pic from).



The replies are pretty good, actually.

 

[Sander 001]

 

[GranTurNismo]

View attachment 959117

I guess it’s time to bring out this post again.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I'm glad you can appreciate a good zinger but, while 93% of protests are peaceful, I'm not sure a rally held by a president who's actually in power counts amongst those protests. What would he actually be protesting against? His own regime?

North Carolina is still under covid restrictions. Outdoor gatherings are limited to 50 people. So, political rallies are out.

Peaceful protests are guaranteed in the first amendment. I suppose they are protesting lunatic leftists.

 

[UKMikey]

North Carolina is still under covid restrictions. Outdoor gatherings are limited to 50 people. So, political rallies are out.

Peaceful protests are guaranteed in the first amendment. I suppose they are protesting lunatic leftists.

Protesting against the losing side seems redundant and insecure to me. Is this an official protest or just a snarky turn of phrase?

 

[McLaren]

Protesting against the losing side seems redundant and insecure to me. Is this an official protest or just a snarky turn of phrase?

Just the usual "gotcha" phrase his supporter base likes to use.

"Just tell the restaurant you're protesting when not wearing a mask. Hehehehehoohoohaaha, got dem libs good."

 

[UKMikey]

Just the usual "gotcha" phrase his supporter base likes to use.

"Just tell the restaurant you're protesting when not wearing a mask. Hehehehehoohoohaaha, got dem libs good."

I hesitate to use the word privilege but this sounds like the kind of behaviour that'd be exhibited by people who've never had genuine cause to protest anything in their lives before.