The Political Satire/Meme Thread

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 14,020 comments
  • 830,786 views
1629898410112m.jpg
 
I'm not having any success finding that article, which on one had is good (it's likely faked) and on the other is bad (half the population won't care that it's faked).

Just all around horrible either way.
 
Last edited:
I had a friend that died from covid. She wasn't healthy, no, but she had no choice in the matter. She was elderly. This is making fun of her for dying and blaming her for her death, and I can only think about her husband that survived her reading this.
Truly sorry to hear about your friend.

The picture is satire and a dig at the "Trump supporter regrets not taking the vaccine" posts going around on social media. I've seen it go both ways with "anti-vaxxers" posting stories about vaccinated people regretting getting it or dying and I see "pro-vaxxer" posting stories of unvaccinated people regretting it or dying. I'm not a fan of these kinds of posts.

*Edit see example above my post
 
Last edited:
You obviously know what I ment.. In a previous post I pointed out that I'm not a fan of the "hey look guy on other team suffers because he's stupid" meme's. I've seen them on both sides and I'm just not a fan.
What lies do you think you're fighting??
What? You said I was fighting the truth. Don't turn it around. What truth am I fighting?
 
TB
I'm not having any success finding that article, which on one had is good (it's likely faked) and on the other is bad (half the population won't care that it's faked).

Just all around horrible either way.

Cindy Vela, my 600lb life.

Seemingly still alive and not Sheila Johnson.

 
p78
So when you take a selfie the text is readable.
Not sure if serious.
Cindy Vela, my 600lb life.

Seemingly still alive and not Sheila Johnson.

Weird.
Don't mind me. Just calling out COVID deniers spreading misinformation regarding deaths purportedly being incorrectly or inappropriately attributed to COVID.

screenshot_20210613-114159-png.1017331
Seems that show's a popular source of material to appropriate for this sort of deceitful content.
 
Last edited:
You obviously know what I ment.. In a previous post I pointed out that I'm not a fan of the "hey look guy on other team suffers because he's stupid" meme's. I've seen them on both sides and I'm just not a fan.
Aww, does the bit-player for the anti-vaxxer team feel a little got at?

Mostly I see "oh no... anyway" reactions rather than glee. And I'm fine with that. Personally I actually feel sympathy for the suckers who are encouraged to refuse the vaccine mostly by hypocrites who quietly took the vaccine.

And the one I made and posted? Purely factual. Apolitical. Aimed not to mock the patient but to challenge the notion that 'healthy' is enough to combat COVID. It helps, but nowhere near as much as the vaccine. As I tried to explain to you more politely before.

What? You said I was fighting the truth. Don't turn it around. What truth am I fighting?
What? You're the one posting a despicable faked up 'satire' to fight against something - tell us what that is. And why it's worth fighting for, by posting something you knew would drop like a bag of poop here. Surely you consider something a lie - what else could be opposed by another lie?
 
Last edited:
The picture is satire and a dig at the "Trump supporter regrets not taking the vaccine" posts going around on social media.
Hang on, its not satirising or digging at those people, it's digging at people who think people should have the vaccine that may otherwise not be in peak condition themselves - and more openly satirising the America's obesity problem...

... If you're attempting some kind of noble attack on the unsympathetic that may be smugly posting at the expense of others, it clearly failed, and satire without humour is basically just lies.

Didn't one of them actually just pass away?
No idea. I cropped and reverse image searched the picture to get the name... never heard of the show personally.
 
Last edited:
Is there any point in responding to you? Would it make a difference?
Depends whether you want to make your point clear or not. Not whether I'll appreciate it or agree.

If you read carefully, you'll see that I haven't called you an anti-vaxxer. Your bolding is incorrect. The 'satire' you posted however, is clearly aligned with anti-vaxxers, just as my post was aligned with pro-vaxxers.

I've seen it go both ways with "anti-vaxxers" posting stories about vaccinated people regretting getting it or dying and I see "pro-vaxxer" posting stories of unvaccinated people regretting it or dying.
The main difference being that the former are almost all lies while the latter are almost all true. Playing Mr Unbiased Observer doesnt work when the bias is so clear to see.
 
Last edited:
Somehow the people worried about "divide and conquer" never choose to go with what's popular in order to avoid division. Anyone ever noticed this? "They're trying to divide us!" is always the cry of someone who wants you to change but doesn't want to change anything they're doing.

If you don't care about politics, and are more worried about division, just check the poll numbers and vote for whoever is most likely to win.
 
Do you happen to watch Jimmy Dore by chance?
Can't say I have, no idea who he is. I perfer my local news every morning and night, with MotorTrend TV and FoodNetwork sprinkled in between anything ATL/GA sports related and CNN when wifey gets tired of looking at car shows or food or "just a bunch of men fighting over a ball". Don't care either. I thought it was funny, that's why I posted it. I didn't post it to talk about it.
FB_IMG_1629911805529.jpg
 
Last edited:
Depends whether you want to make your point clear or not.
I don't think my points will ever be clear enough for you..
The main difference being that the former are almost all lies while the latter are almost all true. Playing Mr Unbiased Observer doesnt work when the bias is so clear to see.
Another example of why I doubt there being a point in responding. Feels like constantly having to defend a claim I didnt make. If these articles/images are true or not was not the point. The point was that I think it's in bad taste to use this to make a point.

I'm going to back out of this conversation. Don't have what it takes win an argument against you. I think @Nielsen did a good job of making my points in the other thread and I want to leave it at that.
Do you happen to watch Jimmy Dore by chance?
I know you didnt ask me.. but I love Jimmy Dore
 
Not surprised, LOL.
I forgot to ad the (no suprise) . Not that I agree with a 100%, but I think he's entertaining. I tend to like people that are anti-war.

Whats your take on Dore? I'm guessing on the problematic side? Don't shoot if I'm wrong:D

(Before anyone asks: I'm not a fan of Tucker Carlson)
 
Last edited:
Another example of why I doubt there being a point in responding. Feels like constantly having to defend a claim I didnt make. If these articles/images are true or not was not the point. The point was that I think it's in bad taste to use this to make a point.

I'm going to back out of this conversation. Don't have what it takes win an argument against you. I think @Nielsen did a good job of making my points in the other thread and I want to leave it at that.
@Nielsen made some points around the 'young and healthy' aspect, as the main part of reasoning against pressure / mandatory vaccination for younger people. I heard and understood his point, but didn't agree. (and I think he heard and understood my point, but didn't agree. I wouldn't say that either of us 'won', that was never on the table).

That doesn't appear to be what you are talking about here... unless finding both teams to be acting in bad taste is a pretence, and really you're just objecting to the pressure from the 'pro-vaxxer' side.

I'd say the truth of a story makes an enormous difference to how much it is in 'bad taste'. Whether the subject of a story is the one wanting their story told is also a huge factor - there's no bad taste at all if we're talking about a story where someone now wants to publicly recommend the vaccine after being against it and having a bad time with COVID, which accounts for all of the 'regrets' stories. It's up to them and there's no exploitation "to make a point". At the other end, fabricating a story that someone died from having the vaccine when the truth is they got run over by a bus is much more than just bad taste, it's abhorrent.
 
I forgot to ad the (no suprise) . Not that I agree with a 100%, but I think he's entertaining. I tend to like people that are anti-war.

Whats your take on Dore? I'm guessing on the problematic side? Don't shoot if I'm wrong:D

(Before anyone asks: I'm not a fan of Tucker Carlson)
Yeah, I would say Jimmy Dore is a pretty objectionable character. I believe that he is actively (whether intentional or not) moving over a generally left-wing audience (many the same types who watch TYT, Kyle Kulinski, Sam Seder), into completely disaffected cynics who cannot meaningfully engage in the political system. Dore is a self-proclaimed populist who is for Medicare for All, wealth distribution, climate change reform, free college, a vocal critic of cronyism and corrpution, and as you mentioned already, anti-war. But although he claims to support these initiatives, he has done nothing substantive to make them more viable. Most of the videos on his channel involving him criticizing Democrats, especially left-wing ones like Bernie, AOC, and other members of the squad ironically. He has called them "cucks", "hacks", created the hashtag #FraudSquad, claiming that they are only progressive in rhetoric and are just tools for "corporate Dems" like Schumer and Pelosi, and is so disaffected by the Democratic party that he now believes a real progressive or populist couldn't be a Democrat at all, as being corrupted by the "establishment" of the party is inevitable. Curiously, he does not seem to give Republicans anywhere close to the amount of criticism, and is buddy-buddy with Tucker Carlson, a fake populist who is actively moving the discourse closer towards fascism and farther from democracy. Furthermore, his history of backing 9/11 conspiracies, being an apologist for Assad, and claiming that Hillary would be a far worse candidate than Trump, only weakens the cause that Dore is someone who should be taken seriously when it comes to politics.

My point overall is, I don't consider him to be a very open-minded or nuanced pundit, nor does he have a realistic understanding of the political process. He plays armchair quarterback constantly, and loses his mind because well-meaning progressives like Bernie and AOC who are actual populists, cannot implement Medicare for All or the Green New Deal with a magic want. Nor does he seem to understand that given the small number of leftists in Congress, coalition building amongst Pelosi and more moderate Dems is necessary in order for them to achieve these policies. His advocacy for "Force the Vote", in which hypothetically, progressive Dem. representatives would withhold their vote for Pelosi as Speaker of the House unless she allowed a floor vote for the Medicare for All bill, authored by Bernie Sanders and Pramila Jayapal, is further proof of this. Not only is this proposal just a vacuous virtue signal, as there is zero chance that M4A would pass thru the House, it would only make more moderate Dems at odds with progressives in the future, and stymie M4A's chances of being implemented down the line, as the failed floor vote would only make the policy look less realistic. Even though Dore may say things I agree with from time to time, his poor political instincts, overly pessimistic and unconstructive rhetoric, and his modus operandi being to make people feel betrayed by actual populist progressives and propping up conspiratorial lunatics like Tucker Carlson and Glen Greenwald makes him much more of an antagonist then ally.
 
Yeah, I would say Jimmy Dore is a pretty objectionable character. I believe that he is actively (whether intentional or not) moving over a generally left-wing audience (many the same types who watch TYT, Kyle Kulinski, Sam Seder), into completely disaffected cynics who cannot meaningfully engage in the political system. Dore is a self-proclaimed populist who is for Medicare for All, wealth distribution, climate change reform, free college, a vocal critic of cronyism and corrpution, and as you mentioned already, anti-war. But although he claims to support these initiatives, he has done nothing substantive to make them more viable. Most of the videos on his channel involving him criticizing Democrats, especially left-wing ones like Bernie, AOC, and other members of the squad ironically. He has called them "cucks", "hacks", created the hashtag #FraudSquad, claiming that they are only progressive in rhetoric and are just tools for "corporate Dems" like Schumer and Pelosi, and is so disaffected by the Democratic party that he now believes a real progressive or populist couldn't be a Democrat at all, as being corrupted by the "establishment" of the party is inevitable. Curiously, he does not seem to give Republicans anywhere close to the amount of criticism, and is buddy-buddy with Tucker Carlson, a fake populist who is actively moving the discourse closer towards fascism and farther from democracy. Furthermore, his history of backing 9/11 conspiracies, being an apologist for Assad, and claiming that Hillary would be a far worse candidate than Trump, only weakens the cause that Dore is someone who should be taken seriously when it comes to politics.

My point overall is, I don't consider him to be a very open-minded or nuanced pundit, nor does he have a realistic understanding of the political process. He plays armchair quarterback constantly, and loses his mind because well-meaning progressives like Bernie and AOC who are actual populists, cannot implement Medicare for All or the Green New Deal with a magic want. Nor does he seem to understand that given the small number of leftists in Congress, coalition building amongst Pelosi and more moderate Dems is necessary in order for them to achieve these policies. His advocacy for "Force the Vote", in which hypothetically, progressive Dem. representatives would withhold their vote for Pelosi as Speaker of the House unless she allowed a floor vote for the Medicare for All bill, authored by Bernie Sanders and Pramila Jayapal, is further proof of this. Not only is this proposal just a vacuous virtue signal, as there is zero chance that M4A would pass thru the House, it would only make more moderate Dems at odds with progressives in the future, and stymie M4A's chances of being implemented down the line, as the failed floor vote would only make the policy look less realistic. Even though Dore may say things I agree with from time to time, his poor political instincts, overly pessimistic and unconstructive rhetoric, and his modus operandi being to make people feel betrayed by actual populist progressives and propping up conspiratorial lunatics like Tucker Carlson and Glen Greenwald makes him much more of an antagonist then ally.
Well, I asked for your take on Dore and thats what I got :cheers:
 
"I frequently don't agree with comments these celebrities have made concerning current events, so I'm going to attack them for having made comments as celebrities."

Celebrities, regardless of their political and/or social bent, get to use their platforms to speak on subjects of concern to them. Of course, comments they make aren't unimpeachable by virtue of their celebrity.

The list itself is curious. I get LeBron and Alyssa Milano. I think I might get Jimmy Fallon as well, though I'm curious what specifically led to his being selected--I'd probably understand Jimmy Kimmel more.

I know The Rock endorsed Biden as his first and as far as I'm aware only political endorsement, though I'm not aware that he's been vocal otherwise. His endorsement of Biden is probably sufficient for condemnation.

I guess I can maybe understand Chelsea Handler, since she's probably a "leftist" (a term that has lost nearly all meaning in modern parlance), though I get the sense that she's intelligent and doesn't frequently give in to knee-jerk reactions. I know she's critical of Trump, which is probably sufficient.

I know exactly nothing of Chrissy Teigen's political views and commentary, and precious little overall. If others on the list are anything to go by, I'd wager she's also been critical of Trump.

Cardi B is generally off-putting. She gets to use her platform to address issues as much as anyone, but the less I hear from her the better. I don't have the slightest idea what she's said politically to draw such ire. Is this a "WAP" thing?

Oprah makes little sense here. Yes, she's mind-bogglingly famous and has earned tremendous wealth due in no insignificant part to her celebrity, but it would be difficult to peg her as uninformed and irrational.

Mark Cuban's presence makes the least sense. His celebrity is a direct result of his business savvy and tremendous self-made wealth. Isn't he a Libertarian? Little "l," atleast? I know he's fond of Ayn Rand. What has he said that would give anyone cause to wave off his remarks due to his being a celebrity? Is this because the national anthem was observed as having not been played at the start of untelevised off-season Mavs games with bare minimum attendance due to COVID? It wasn't something the general public would have been aware of but then word of it got out and it certainly made the right-wing outrage cycle. It then resulted in legislation that certainly runs afoul of unconstitutional conditions doctrine if it isn't unconstitutional in and of itself. Compelled speech isn't free speech, even when speech is compelled as a condition of a business transaction with government actors.

Really, the list strikes me as deeply tribal. Where's Mike Rowe? Kevin Sorbo? Jon Voight (not the dentist)? Chachi? The kid from Silver Spoons?

Why didn't Clint Eastwood make the list? Clint was at the 2012 Republican National Convention where he spoke to an empty chair.

t_1470319222817_name_clint_eastwood.jpg


That was weird. Maybe I just don't get art. Mystic River was crazy good, though. (Why isn't Sean Penn on the list? Surely he would have to be.)

I digress. The point is that Clint Eastwood is huge.

No, wait, the actual point is that this "stay in your lane" bit from the right is totally asinine. It's also wildly hypocritical, of course. It has never been about celebrities using their platforms for a social or political agenda and instead it has always been about the things some celebrities are actually saying. You don't have to agree with them, but attacking them because of their celebrity instead of addressing the things they're saying is lazy and just ****ing pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Back