The Political Satire/Meme Thread

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 13,800 comments
  • 788,177 views
Child labor isn't exclusive to capitalism, nor is there really anything wrong with the concept in itself. Or are you against things like lemonade stands, lawn mowing, dog walking, babysitting or any other thing people regularly encourage and pay minors for? Because those are all forms of child labor.
You could’ve left it at “Child labor isn't exclusive to capitalism”, since the tweet isn’t critical of some vague notion of “children working” but instead explicitly calls out the exploitative practices that necessitate protective laws. Obviously not talking about lemonade stands and the like, so it'd probably be better to not derail your good point by going on a bit of a strawman-ish tangent.
 
Last edited:
b0wqe1jzelo51.jpg
All these posts just read as "but I don't WANT to work for a living for 60 years" and, to be honest, tough luck.

You can point out the flaws in a system all you like and that's valid, but until you can propose a workable alternative (which, considering we're talking about the functionality of international economics here, I find unlikely), you're just going to have to suck it up.

I'd like to appendix this by saying; there's never been a functional socialist or far left state whose economy was not propelled by classic capitalism. All the comforts you know in life - including the shiny phone you likely posted this from - are unimaginable without the competition of innovation that capitalism creates.
 
All these posts just read as "but I don't WANT to work for a living for 60 years" and, to be honest, tough luck.

You can point out the flaws in a system all you like and that's valid, but until you can propose a workable alternative (which, considering we're talking about the functionality of international economics here, I find unlikely), you're just going to have to suck it up.

I'd like to appendix this by saying; there's never been a functional socialist or far left state whose economy was not propelled by classic capitalism. All the comforts you know in life - including the shiny phone you likely posted this from - are unimaginable without the competition of innovation that capitalism creates.
Capitalism is a great producer of value. It's not a great ruler of society. We need both capitalism and an overall set of rules to control said capitalism.
 
4fyvtv.jpg



Would you like some lube with that?


:sly:
 
Last edited:
When your ideology becomes so ridiculous that you cannot distinguish it from satire! :lol:


Bronco Woke Fail.jpg



For those who don't get it, the book 'WOKE: A Guide To Social Justice' is written by UK comedian Andrew Doyle. He wrote it under the fictional character of Titania McGrath, who he uses to mock the nonsensical ideology that drives much of the Social Justice movement today via 'her' Twitter account (link). You can read some of the book on Amazon's Look Inside feature below, it's absolutely hilarious!

Language Warning! https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1472130847/?tag=gtplanetuk-20


:mischievous:
 
bwm97oxkg5o51.jpg
All these posts just read as "but I don't WANT to work for a living for 60 years" and, to be honest, tough luck.

You can point out the flaws in a system all you like and that's valid, but until you can propose a workable alternative (which, considering we're talking about the functionality of international economics here, I find unlikely), you're just going to have to suck it up.

I'd like to appendix this by saying; there's never been a functional socialist or far left state whose economy was not propelled by classic capitalism. All the comforts you know in life - including the shiny phone you likely posted this from - are unimaginable without the competition of innovation that capitalism creates.
If you believe posts demonstrating why capitalism needs regulations = this person wants to freeload, I wonder how many other wrong assumptions you're operating with.
 
bwm97oxkg5o51.jpg

If you believe posts demonstrating why capitalism needs regulations = this person wants to freeload, I wonder how many other wrong assumptions you're operating with.
I'd love to know what you reckon some of them are! I love sheer uninformed reckoning - it's my favourite kind of discourse.

Your posts (at least not the one I've quoted and the one or two prior) don't "demonstrate" bugger all. They're just surface level observations that fail to address any of the reasoning behind the way (economic) things are.

Pointing out problems without providing solutions is generally not seen as constructive.
 
wus40w35jco51.jpg
I'd love to know what you reckon some of them are! I love sheer uninformed reckoning - it's my favourite kind of discourse.

Your posts (at least not the one I've quoted and the one or two prior) don't "demonstrate" bugger all. They're just surface level observations that fail to address any of the reasoning behind the way (economic) things are.

Pointing out problems without providing solutions is generally not seen as constructive.
Another wrong assumption or strawman you posted was about socialism and the far left.
 
This was in response...
What was? You've conveniently not quoted me directly, so not only did I not get an alert, but I also can't click the little blue arrow in the box containing the words that I used.

Also, justifiable use of force by police isn't murder. It literally cannot be. And while excessive force (which is to say use of force that exceeds what is justifiable) that results in a victim's death is more likely to be referred to as murder, it doesn't necessarily involve shooting.


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:
The movement doesn't have a website. A particular subset of those who have some stake in the movement may have created and may frequent such a website, but there are lots of people who have a stake in part of the movement but who don't agree with everything everyone else who has a stake in part of the movement says. I'd wager this lack of unanimity is quite common in such movements, and it's a weak point for detractors to hit with bad faith arguments.

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.
Ah, I suspect this is like whatever "boohoo" is supposed to have done and you saying that people involved in protests are hypocrites for placing orders through "boohoo." But you still haven't cited that article directly or established any actual link between those protesting and those placing orders. You can add these, but I suspect you won't.

In the absence of any substantiated link, this is a bit like me calling you a hypocrite for railing against inaction by police over child sexual exploitation while being a child molester yourself. It's a super bad faith argument.

Ban me...

I'm seriously getting tired of others and I being talked down upon here just cause I voted for Trump. It's none of your business why I voted for him and I don't care who you voted for. Y'all call us idiots and everything else. There was a period of almost a week y'all were using every trending word to mock us. I'm not saying I have been perfect but I do try to communicate till it turns into a circle of repetitive questions. I know, I know it's a debating style forum. But damn how many times does someone have to say something? That's why I don't waste my time.

I've talked down of him and even said I wasn't voting for him again.
He ain't perfect, I'm not nor are any of y'all.
Just let people live man. You don't like what they say move along. Y'alls post counts compared to mine show how I have no problem not commenting and simply moving on...

I'd say goodnight but it's technically morning 3am. Let's see what today holds for me in the real world.
Conservative victim complex.

He actually brings up post count!

:lol:

Amazing.

"the left can't meme"
"We have the best echo chambers."

That look is priceless.

"What I think I do."

:lol:


All these posts just read as "but I don't WANT to work for a living for 60 years" and, to be honest, tough luck.
No need to pile on...

That's reasonable - you must be in the wrong thread.
...or stroke ego.

...

EidDWIzXYAQXbQ4.jpg
 
No need to pile on...
Addressing him directly over his post with my own opinion whilst someone else happens to do the same thing with a different post hardly constitutes piling on, but sure, I guess, if you like.

As for ego stroking, the chap I was quoting is a friend. It's an in joke between us. It has bugger all to do with ego stroking.

You're smart enough not to have to stretch this hard.
 
You've got to love how Crusader LARPers and PUAs have adopted a term coined by two trans-women.
 
Than what?
Than getting your sly comments in.
Seriously are you gonna keep going on about me being a conservative? First time I voted Republican in my life and I already said who I'm voting for this election. And Trump isn't even a damn Republican!
You are the definition of a troll. You've openly said you have me on ignore, yet you conveniently unignore me long enough to get some stupid jab in.
I honestly don't get you, one day we can have a civil discussion the next day you gotta find something to get a jab in on to stroke your ego.
Why don't you respond to @MaxAttack ?
 
Last edited:
Than getting your sly comments in
I have better things to do and there are probably worse things that I could be doing. If I've ever done anything, it's probable that I have chosen to do it over something else.

Seriously are you gonna keep going on about me being a conservative?
No, but I'll keep going on, as I see fit, about your propensity to play the victim. You opting to do so may or may not have anything to do with being a conservative, but that you are one is often relevant to your victimhood, as it was when I was compelled to remark in the most recent instance, andI was compelled to indicate as much in said remark.

First time I voted Republican in my life and I already said who I'm voting for this election.
Okay.

You are the definition of a troll.
Perhaps you'd be willing to actually define it for me then, because I don't believe that's the case. I concede that I regularly have snarky responses to others' comments--it's in my nature to be a smartass--and I acknowledge that it's not particularly conducive to civil and meaningful discussion, which is why I make a genuine effort to curb my impulse, but I don't post with the deliberate aim to flame and/or bait.

You've openly said you have me on ignore, yet you conveniently unignore me long enough to get some stupid jab in.
I have had you on ignore.

Not that it's particularly important to explain, but every month or so I purge my list of individuals that I actively ignore so that I can decide whether or not I want to continue not seeing their postings without taking additional steps to do so when it's apparent that I'm not seeing all sides of a discussion. I've re-ignored individuals since my last purge, but you're not among them.


I honestly don't get you, one day we can have a civil discussion the next day you gotta find something to get a jab in on to stroke your ego.
It's...it's as if I'm responding to the things you say.

Why don't you respond to @MaxAttack ?
To your mind, is there an expectation of a response from me? What do you think such a response should look like?

I said what I said. They responded to what I said in disagreement and without solicitation to continue discussion. I wasn't compelled to continue discussion.
 
Except Biden isn’t going to a damn thing to expand healthcare, guarantee clean water and air, or provide all Americans a living wage. And certainly you would not get a “competent and ethical government” from a guy who voted for the Iraq war, has taken in egregious amounts of special interest money especially from the healthcare industry, and has made “working together with the Republicans” a centerpiece of his political career. Do you really think Joe Biden is gonna be the guy who gets money out of politics and wants transparency in government? If the woman was wearing a Bernie shirt then maybe you’d have a point. You seem to think that the Democratic Party under Biden is going to do all these progressive reforms, when in reality the current Democratic party’s interests are completely antithetical to the Left’s interests. It’s quite sad honestly.
 
To your mind, is there an expectation of a response from me? What do you think such a response should look like?
Just for everyone's peace of mind here - I wasn't really expecting a response, retort, counterpoint or baited insult. Generally if I want someone's input on something I'll ask a question.
 
Just for everyone's peace of mind here - I wasn't really expecting a response, retort, counterpoint or baited insult. Generally if I want someone's input on something I'll ask a question.
And I appreciate your clarification. Truly.

For what it's worth, I actually did get to work on a response. It wasn't especially cutting, mind, but the likelihood of diminishing returns prompted me to walk it back.
 
But it says loads about Republican administrations.
I don’t disagree. From that data it’s safe to assume that Republican administrations are more corrupt. I’m just saying that it doesn’t make Democrats good by default, nor does it say anything about their actual policies.
 

Latest Posts

Back