The Political Satire/Meme Thread

[Danoff]

so I stand by my point... attraction naturally includes gender, but not fertility

I think you meant sex rather than gender (at least the way I've been informed these words are to be used). I'd agree that attraction can include gender (rather than sex), but this makes my point. If you're attracted to someone who looks female, and people born male can look like attractive females, your attraction is not based on chromosomes - it's highly correlated with chromosomes.

The reason being.... what?

In some cases, not all cases, it might be transphobia, homophobia, insecurity, learned expectations or social norms, religion, fear of retribution from family, entrenched gender roles... I think it depends on the person.

I've pointed out one reason

You have. And within the British royal family at a minimum it has been a legitimate one in the past.

Labelling someone as transphobic without a valid reason is grossly unfair. It also dilutes the seriousness/meaning of the word if you consider people transphobic just because you surmise they must be.

I think it is among the likely possibilities. Wanting someone as a life partner is such a personal decision, with so many factors, that I'm kinda surprised people are going there as a basis for transphobia. I mentioned earlier that I consider it to be similar to interracial relationships. Generally, I'm not attracted to black women. Certainly I am attracted to some black women, but not most of them. I've never dated one. Does that make me racist? I don't think so. Of course if I said I would not consider dating a black woman simply because they were black, then we might be getting into suspicious territory. Now maybe that reason is because I'm worried about retribution from racist family members... hopefully you see the similarities.

For that matter, I'm not generally attracted to males. Sometimes, if they look exactly like women, I am, but for the most part I am not. Does that mean I'm bigoted against men? No. It's just not what I find attractive usually. I don't think people should really have to answer for their "type" when it comes to dating or marriage. It's so personal.

 

[Touring Mars]

In some cases, not all cases, it might be transphobia, homophobia, insecurity, learned expectations or social norms, religion, fear of retribution from family, entrenched gender roles... I think it depends on the person.

Sure, but hopefully we can agree then that transphobia is but one reason a man may not wish to date transgender women, and hence it would be wrong to assume that a man who doesn't date transgender women is transphobic.

 

[Danoff]

Sure, but hopefully we can agree then that transphobia is but one reason a man may not wish to date transgender women, and hence it would be wrong to assume that a man who doesn't date transgender women is transphobic.

Yes.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Alright, enough of the back-and-forth and lets return to political cartoons/images/memes:

 

[JKgo]

Some of those replies are genuinely funny. "I get more oxygen to my brain than yours despite wearing two masks" Gold.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Famine]

How?

Just... how?

 

[UKMikey]

I hope he's not really an attorney. I'd hate to turn up at court and find him in my corner.

 

[TexRex]

There. Is. No. End.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Ok, Karen Scott.

 

[UKMikey]

Christine's tweets disappeared like summer snow...

 

[Touring Mars]

There. Is. No. End.

View attachment 998386

THEN!!!

Do people really not know the difference between 'then' and 'than'? This is actually a fairly rare example of mixing them up the other way. Loads of people say 'than' when they mean 'then', but clearly it can also happen the other way around.

Also, what an absolute imbecile that woman is, and she's running for Congress?? You guys are so screwed.

 

[TexRex]

Christine's tweets disappeared like summer snow...

As in deleted/removed?

That one's still up...



...as are countless other spectacularly stupid takes. A couple of examples:

THEN!!!

Do people really not know the difference between 'then' and 'than'? This is actually a fairly rare example of mixing them up the other way. Loads of people say 'than' when they mean 'then', but clearly it can also happen the other way around.

Also, what an absolute imbecile that woman is, and she's running for Congress?? You guys are so screwed.

Meh. I've lowered my expectations considerably for spelling and grammar on social media. In some cases, such as for Florida Republicans on the Twitter, I've abandoned them completely.

She ran for Congress. She was a candidate for Florida's 22nd congressional district in 2020 but didn't even make the Republican primary due to disqualification.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You missed the other points.

I mean even your own source cautions against using it in the manner you are...

"Fahy also warned of caution in over-interpreting the figures. He said that the 24 white victims also included those who were Jewish, 'dark-skinned' Europeans or gypsies. In addition, seven of those were killed by white attackers, four by black, six by Asian, with seven whose racial background was not identified.

Police have suggested that some white-on-white killings may be a result of attacks between Scots, English, Irish and Welsh people.

Overall, there have been 10 black victims and 16 Asian victims. Of the 58 race murders, 18 have been where a white attacker has killed a black or Asian individual and another 14 where one member of a minority group has murdered another for racial reasons.

'This shows the complex society we are policing,' said Fahy."

...empahsis mine, as you clearly missed it!


Nope, it’s not



Nope, the DoJ dropped the suit, which was never ‘found’, but an allegation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/03/doj...criminating-against-white-asian-students.html


So your claim is untrue in two counts.

Remind me again who was President when the DoJ attempted that, would it be the same person behind the 1776 project?



Because like the Yale one it was an unproven allegation.

The scale behind racism and the possibility that a tiny number of people are biased against whites are so staggeringly different that it’s absurd to conflate them in the manner you are attempting. That’s true of many non-white majority countries as well.


Because, the likely motivation behind the two are rather different, particularly given that by default dating apps are already ‘white’. Which I already pointed out with the observation that white history month and straight pride are not required.

I dunno, some of those don't make sense but I'll leave it with this article which says more articulately what I was trying to show

-------

Spoiler

Back story to this

 

[UKMikey]

As in deleted/removed?

That one's still up...

I must have been looking in the wrong place.

 

[Famine]

I hope he's not really an attorney. I'd hate to turn up at court and find him in my corner.

View attachment 998325

What I don't get with the whole thing there is that two people are arguing completely opposed viewpoints about the same thing... and both of them are totally wrong. It's actually impressive stupidity.

 

[Danoff]

What I don't get with the whole thing there is that two people are arguing completely opposed viewpoints about the same thing... and both of them are totally wrong. It's actually impressive stupidity.

I'm not clear on what one side is wrong about. Can you walk through it briefly?

 

[TexRex]

I must have been looking in the wrong place.

👍

All good.

What I don't get with the whole thing there is that two people are arguing completely opposed viewpoints about the same thing... and both of them are totally wrong. It's actually impressive stupidity.

The first one initially comes off as really well crafted satire. Social media platforms are largely protected from content they host through law passed by Congress. These protections provided by government make social media platforms an extension of government, therefore censorship by the platforms violates the First Amendment.

 

[Famine]

I'm not clear on what one side is wrong about. Can you walk through it briefly?

The first chap says it's "absolutely unconstitutional" for government to allow companies to violate free speech.

The second chap says Twitter is a "quasi-governmental entity", due to Section 230, and is subject to 1A for this reason.

 

[Danoff]

The first chap says it's "absolutely unconstitutional" for government to allow companies to violate free speech.

Like @TexRex, I interpreted the first post to be sarcastic. Maybe I got that wrong.

The second chap says Twitter is a "quasi-governmental entity", due to Section 230, and is subject to 1A for this reason.

...and of course this part is hilariously wrong, for so, so many reasons.

 

[TexRex]

Like @TexRex, I interpreted the first post to be sarcastic. Maybe I got that wrong.

It reads that way, to be sure, but it's so in line the right's narrative in media as low as The Gateway Pundit all the way to bad faith ****s like Jim Jordan that I can't really take it as such.

 

[Famine]

Like @TexRex, I interpreted the first post to be sarcastic. Maybe I got that wrong.

It reads that way, to be sure, but it's so in line the right's narrative in media as low as The Gateway Pundit all the way to bad faith ****s like Jim Jordan that I can't really take it as such.

I saw the cross, the flag, and the heffalump emojis in his username and drew a different conclusion

His profile reads very... Trumpish: https://twitter.com/ph_estrada4167

 

[Touring Mars]

Yeh, there's no way that is satire... he's deadly serious.

 

[Danoff]

I saw the cross, the flag, and the heffalump emojis in his username and drew a different conclusion

His profile reads very... Trumpish: https://twitter.com/ph_estrada4167

Fair point!

 

[TexRex]

Holy moly.

 

[Scaff]

I dunno, some of those don't make sense

They make sense, they simply don't support your claim, or are biased to such a degree that they support the opposing argument.

but I'll leave it with this article which says more articulately what I was trying to show

Did you actually read that with a critical eye at all?

Even given the hoops that piece jumps through to define racism in a manner that allows it to then be linked to a degree of anti-white discrimination (which is the wrong way around to approach something, you don't work towards a conclusion that you force to support your position - it's poor critical thinking) it still acknowledges that it doesn't exist in anything like the scale you need to support your claim, and clearly states as much...

"The arguments formulated here do not entail of any such equivalence. Clearly, racial discrimination – be it direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional, or even “systemic” – does not equally harm Whites and non-Whites."

Rather it has to rely on reactive attitudes and even then has to acknowledge...

"Clearly, racial discrimination – be it direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional, or even “systemic” – does not equally harm Whites and non-Whites."

In fact, ironically the piece falls victim to a line it contains within it "if everything is “racist”, then ultimately, nothing is."

In short, that article has to change the definition of racism to force it to meet a pre-determined outcome, uses weak examples, and even then fails to demonstrate what you were claiming.

 

[UKMikey]

Maybe the real racism was the blacks we killed along the way.

 

[HenrySwanson]

They make sense, they simply don't support your claim, or are biased to such a degree that they support the opposing argument.



Did you actually read that with a critical eye at all?

Even given the hoops that piece jumps through to define racism in a manner that allows it to then be linked to a degree of anti-white discrimination (which is the wrong way around to approach something, you don't work towards a conclusion that you force to support your position - it's poor critical thinking) it still acknowledges that it doesn't exist in anything like the scale you need to support your claim, and clearly states as much...

"The arguments formulated here do not entail of any such equivalence. Clearly, racial discrimination – be it direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional, or even “systemic” – does not equally harm Whites and non-Whites."

Rather it has to rely on reactive attitudes and even then has to acknowledge...

"Clearly, racial discrimination – be it direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional, or even “systemic” – does not equally harm Whites and non-Whites."

In fact, ironically the piece falls victim to a line it contains within it "if everything is “racist”, then ultimately, nothing is."

In short, that article has to narrow the definition of racism to force it to meet a pre-determined outcome, uses weak examples, and even then fails to demonstrate what you were claiming.

I'm not sure what to say. You speak of narrowing definitions but he approaches it from 3 different concepts. Did you mean to say he had to widen the definition to make it fit?

I also said it was merely a problem, not that it is comparable in size to the problem minorities face. I think we can agree on that?

 

[Scaff]

I'm not sure what to say. You speak of narrowing definitions but he approaches it from 3 different concepts. Did you mean to say he had to widen the definition to make it fit?

The narrow should indeed have been widened, but change may well be a better word. However, that doesn't change the point at all. I said exactly what I meant.

If you have to force a definition to the point that reactionary comments are the same as widespread historic racism, you are forcing the definition to obtain a pre-set conclusion, which is exactly what I said, twice!

"which is the wrong way around to approach something, you don't work towards a conclusion that you force to support your position - it's poor critical thinking"

"In short, that article has to change the definition of racism to force it to meet a pre-determined outcome, uses weak examples, and even then fails to demonstrate what you were claiming"

I also said it was merely a problem, not that it is comparable in size to the problem minorities face. I think we can agree on that?

You used it to argue that if white-only dating apps are racist, then ones for minorities must also be racist. That's equivalence.

 

[Danoff]

Maybe the real racism was the blacks we killed along the way.

too soon.