The Political Satire/Meme Thread

[Blitz24]

I couldn't not picture this written in red ballpoint. It transported me right back to school and made the hair on my arms stand up.

It's also not about Kwanzaa as apparently Ainsley has no clue about history OR religion.

 

[TexRex]

It's also not about Kwanzaa as apparently Ainsley has no clue about history OR religion.

It's hard to imagine she'd ever think about Kwanzaa. Odds are nobody named Ainsley has ever thought about Kwanzaa.

 

[UKMikey]

It's hard to imagine she'd ever think about Kwanzaa. Odds are nobody named Ainsley has ever thought about Kwanzaa.

Ainsley Harriott - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

[EDIT] It looks like a fair few folks from the Caribbean have that first name. Not saying that Kwanzaa is a thing out there, but it's not outside of the bounds of possibility.

 

[Famine]

Ainsley Harriott - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Dennisch]

Well then I certainly didn't expect the official Twitter account of Ukraine to be so...cheeky.

Taiwan takes over the stick to poke West-Taiwan.

 

[Jezza819]

 

[TB]

 

[TexRex]

Ainsley Harriott - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

[EDIT] It looks like a fair few folks from the Caribbean have that first name. Not saying that Kwanzaa is a thing out there, but it's not outside of the bounds of possibility.

🤐

That was one of the best half hours of telvision in my life. Right up there with the Kenny Rogers' Roasters episode.

 

[Joey D]

 

[UKMikey]

 

[MIE1992]

View attachment 1098598

But the dinosaurs did survive the asteroid. All extant bird taxa are theropod dinosaurs.

 

[Danoff]

But the dinosaurs did survive the asteroid. All extant bird taxa are theropod dinosaurs.

Rino-saurus*

*This is a joke

 

[TB]

 

[Pupik]

But the dinosaurs did survive the asteroid. All extant bird taxa are theropod dinosaurs.

Explain the Nissan Saurus, then? And was the Saurus Junior hatched from an egg, or driven out of a factory after several months of mechanical gestation?

 

[Baka_Marimo]

View attachment 1098540

It's just sad how fitting this is. Also, props for coming up with that anagram. It is an excellent illustration of people smelling conspiracies where there's nothing at all.

 

[Liquid]

It is an excellent illustration of people smelling conspiracies where there's nothing at all.

Here's a real one doing the rounds in the UK:

OMICRON B
NO CRIMBO

1) It's not called Omicron B. It's either Omicron or B.1.1.529.
2) Why would 'they', the conspiritors, use a slang term for Christmas that's only used in certain areas of Britain and nowhere else?
3) Why would they even leave a 'clue' like that even if it was true?

 

[GranTurNismo]

Youtube kinda headed downhill with the intro of tons of ads if you ask me.

I hate YouTube ads with a passion- lately, I've been getting two ads at the beginning of most videos. The first being unskippable, and the second being skippable after six seconds. It really sucks, and it only seems to be getting worse. I even think I read somewhere that Youtube now puts ads on videos from inactive accounts that original had set the settings to no ads on a video.

But at the end of the day, myself, and millions of others, still watch YouTube on a daily basis. Yes, ads suck and they are a (mild) inconvenience, but that's all. It's not enough to make anyone rational completely abandon the platform, mainly because there's no direct alternative to such a diverse, popular, and profitable video sharing platform like YouTube. I and many others would rather watch YouTube with their annoying ad policies than not watch at all. The same can be said for removing the "dislike" feature, likely to appease corporate news channels that share their videos there. Virtually everyone disapproves of this- both creators and viewers, but again, very, very few people will actually leave the platform over it.

And that is precisely why YouTube does what it does. They know their audience is complacent. They will continue to become more and more annoying and intrusive to their users, but in the grand scheme of things it won't really matter since these annoyances don't seem to be causing anyone to quit YouTube or hurt their profitability. At the end of the day, they are just mild conveniences, and the extent of it's users rebellion will be complaining online.

 

[Danoff]

I hate YouTube ads with a passion- lately, I've been getting two ads at the beginning of most videos. The first being unskippable, and the second being skippable after six seconds. It really sucks, and it only seems to be getting worse. I even think I read somewhere that Youtube now puts ads on videos from inactive accounts that original had set the settings to no ads on a video.

But at the end of the day, myself, and millions of others, still watch YouTube on a daily basis. Yes, ads suck and they are a (mild) inconvenience, but that's all. It's not enough to make anyone rational completely abandon the platform, mainly because there's no direct alternative to such a diverse, popular, and profitable video sharing platform like YouTube. I and many others would rather watch YouTube with their annoying ad policies than not watch at all. The same can be said for removing the "dislike" feature, likely to appease corporate news channels that share their videos there. Virtually everyone disapproves of this- both creators and viewers, but again, very, very few people will actually leave the platform over it.

And that is precisely why YouTube does what it does. They know their audience is complacent. They will continue to become more and more annoying and intrusive to their users, but in the grand scheme of things it won't really matter since these annoyances don't seem to be causing anyone to quit YouTube or hurt their profitability. At the end of the day, they are just mild conveniences, and the extent of it's users rebellion will be complaining online.

It does create an opening for alternative content sites though. Youtube wasn't always part of the google ad-fest, and competition in that realm is only getting easier. TikTok wasn't a thing not that long ago.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I hate YouTube ads with a passion- lately, I've been getting two ads at the beginning of most videos. The first being unskippable, and the second being skippable after six seconds. It really sucks, and it only seems to be getting worse. I even think I read somewhere that Youtube now puts ads on videos from inactive accounts that original had set the settings to no ads on a video.

But at the end of the day, myself, and millions of others, still watch YouTube on a daily basis. Yes, ads suck and they are a (mild) inconvenience, but that's all. It's not enough to make anyone rational completely abandon the platform, mainly because there's no direct alternative to such a diverse, popular, and profitable video sharing platform like YouTube. I and many others would rather watch YouTube with their annoying ad policies than not watch at all. The same can be said for removing the "dislike" feature, likely to appease corporate news channels that share their videos there. Virtually everyone disapproves of this- both creators and viewers, but again, very, very few people will actually leave the platform over it.

And that is precisely why YouTube does what it does. They know their audience is complacent. They will continue to become more and more annoying and intrusive to their users, but in the grand scheme of things it won't really matter since these annoyances don't seem to be causing anyone to quit YouTube or hurt their profitability. At the end of the day, they are just mild conveniences, and the extent of it's users rebellion will be complaining online.

I've had a video on youtube for more than 10 years that has over 100,000 views. It has never met the criteria to be monetized, but there are still ads on it lol

 

[Baka_Marimo]

I hate YouTube ads with a passion- lately, I've been getting two ads at the beginning of most videos. The first being unskippable, and the second being skippable after six seconds. It really sucks, and it only seems to be getting worse. I even think I read somewhere that Youtube now puts ads on videos from inactive accounts that original had set the settings to no ads on a video.

But at the end of the day, myself, and millions of others, still watch YouTube on a daily basis. Yes, ads suck and they are a (mild) inconvenience, but that's all. It's not enough to make anyone rational completely abandon the platform, mainly because there's no direct alternative to such a diverse, popular, and profitable video sharing platform like YouTube. I and many others would rather watch YouTube with their annoying ad policies than not watch at all. The same can be said for removing the "dislike" feature, likely to appease corporate news channels that share their videos there. Virtually everyone disapproves of this- both creators and viewers, but again, very, very few people will actually leave the platform over it.

And that is precisely why YouTube does what it does. They know their audience is complacent. They will continue to become more and more annoying and intrusive to their users, but in the grand scheme of things it won't really matter since these annoyances don't seem to be causing anyone to quit YouTube or hurt their profitability. At the end of the day, they are just mild conveniences, and the extent of it's users rebellion will be complaining online.

There's also the fact that background playback used to be no issue (i. e. listening to your playlist on your phone while doing other things). When YouTube Premium came around this was disabled for free users. They deliberately introduced a problem to then "sell back" the solution to you. They aren't charging for any added value, they're charging simply for the sake of monetization.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Liquid]

Carlson doesn't look like he's crapped his pants enough.

 

[Adamgp]

 

[TB]

 

[Danoff]

"You'll be sorry when you don't have a bunch of unvaccinated people at your event!"

 

[UKMikey]

Lawwll.

🤣🤣

 

[TexRex]

 

[Spacegoat]

 

[Danoff]

Oh is that what attorney client privileged means? That nobody else can disclose it? I had no idea. I thought attorney-client privilege was to prevent attorneys from having to divulge what their clients tell them in court. That way someone need not fear that what they tell their attorney can be compelled by the court in testimony against them. I had no idea that it meant that if a publication gets ahold of that document that the publication is legally bound to not publish it. [/s]

Next you're going to tell me that freedom of speech means that if I say something you can't fire me for it.