Originally Posted by hodgy0_2

Ok, but the Cultural Marxist meme seems a cheap lazy philosophical and rhetorical hook tbh

and essentially trying to give a pseudo intellectuality to the "shouty left/political correctness" meme

I suppose there is a short and a long answer

the very short answer is that the first person to post the "shouty left" meme in SN was Warrenm2 - so forgive me if i give a wry smile to the hypocrisy - more of which later

and blaming LBGT for the worlds problems seems a bit of a stretch, I did not notice legions of limp wristed mincers machine gunning their way through Falluja Badgad and Najaf - and then announcing

"misson accomplished - darling" - on the deck of a brightly decorated crusie liner

environmentalist - yes their earnestness can grate - but they are essentially right (we ARE changing the climate in such a rapid time frame we are doing damage that will last centuries)

remember Carl Sagan when he spoke about the history of our planet/nature "the pale blue dot"

"Extinction is the norm, survival the exception"

science tells us that it is not biblical floods that wipe out entire species but rapid climate change (rapid in geological timescales)

"Shouty lefty" is just easy to say when you have run out of arguments

and political correctness is simply about power, (as I said in an earlier post on the EU thread)

people claim that other people are being political correct when they are trying to exert power, usually in the form of being arrogant, rude, dismissive about the other persons sexuality/culture/race etc - and get called out on it

it is a defense mechanism - that allows them to project what they see as intellectual / cultural superiority

in the Batty thread, I made a comment about brummies sounding thick - I knew what I was doing (I understand the rules of the game), I expected someone to call me a **** and they dually did (and I apologise )


now I could simply go back and say " oh stop being so politically correct" and "where is your sense of humour"

because I am a tall white, educated, middle class, male with a London "received pronunciation accent"

no one could really insult me, apart from calling me a white, educated middle class, male with a London "received pronunciation accent"

to which I would simply reply that they have a massive chip on their shoulder

I am cultural powerful (by "I" I mean people like me)


watch a Milos interview - he uses classic "bait and switch" techniques when the interviewers (from the main stream media) calls him out on is ignorant cr4p about Islam being a religion of rapist yada yada he simply says

"oh stop being so politically correct" and "where is your sense of humour"

but he wont say that to hs audience because they are too busy nodding their heads

such hypocrisy

I can see their ridiculous rhetorical techniques a mile off

Originally Posted by JTaylor

Agreed. Nonetheless, the man in the street hasn't a clue what you're talking about and simply wants to call a spade a spade. What we're witnessing, here and abroad, is a backlash against the lib.left. Can we agree on that?

Originally Posted by gary77

All that and all you have is .aggreed . Im still trying to work out what his point was

Originally Posted by gary77

since trump became president elect . i think the main points of discussion should be . is the usa presidential election system flawed and undemocratic and should something be done about it . and why is the president not or clinton not saying anything about / to the rioters (or have they and its not been on bbc radio news ,and i missed it.

not sure anything else matters at this exact point with regards to trump and the election.

and any speak of religion should be punishable by death . i think that would be a good thing

it would cause a problem in that people couldnt be taught the correct way to live they would have to rely on good morals . surely thats better though . a fairer way to decide who deaerves to get to heaven or not .
why is it just those that picked the right religion and the right interpretation of it and that studied it there whole life. that get to heaven .

and

the good religious people will get to heaven and the bad ones are just dead

and we might be able to fight against nutcases without religious bollocks clouding matters .

am i going to hell now ? suppose that depends how smart god is if he's a bit of an arsehole and if it exists

Originally Posted by hodgy0_2

Lol, yes absolutely

Originally Posted by hodgy0_2

I don't think anyone's suggesting the U.S. Presidential system is flawed

In fact the electoral college usually favours the Democratic Party

It also does not seem much different from our first past the post

The same rules have been in place for years

Originally Posted by gary77

is the fact more people voted for hilary than trump and she lost not a bit unfair and not democratic ?

as i understand it . one side gets a majority in a state they get all the electiral colleges in that state .

for example . say two states . 1st has 10 EC (population 100000 ) the 2nd 8 Ec( population 80000)

1st red votes 49000 blue 51000
2nd red votes 70000 blue 10000

blue gets 10 electoral colleges and 61000 votes
red gets 8 electoral colleges and 119000 votes

blue wins the election

is that how it works?

this has only happened 4 times when the person with the most votes lost. the last time was in 2000 when george bush jnr won and then way back in 1880 i think.

if i understanding of it is right . would it not make more sense that the colleges get split as they are voted for instead of winner gets them all regardless how narrow their majority?

also considering the huge amount trump won by why didnt everybody see it coming ?

the percentages that they kept bangin on about were pretty much exactly right but in reality ,due to this electoral college thing , the percentages didnt matter. i never heard anybody saying that in the run up.why not ?

Originally Posted by gary77

is the fact more people voted for hilary than trump and she lost not a bit unfair and not democratic ?

as i understand it . one side gets a majority in a state they get all the electiral colleges in that state .

for example . say two states . 1st has 10 EC (population 100000 ) the 2nd 8 Ec( population 80000)

1st red votes 49000 blue 51000
2nd red votes 70000 blue 10000

blue gets 10 electoral colleges and 61000 votes
red gets 8 electoral colleges and 119000 votes

blue wins the election

is that how it works?

Originally Posted by gary77

also considering the huge amount trump won by why didnt everybody see it coming ?

the percentages that they kept bangin on about were pretty much exactly right but in reality ,due to this electoral college thing , the percentages didnt matter. i never heard anybody saying that in the run up.why not ?

Originally Posted by JTaylor

Good. You talked about Warren's favourite site Breitbart earlier:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Bannon

Originally Posted by hodgy0_2

yes, I am have been aware of the Breitbart site for a couple of years - it is verging on an Alex Jones style conspiracy blog

if you can stand it, it is instructive to read the comments section, it is clear they exist in a self valedictory bubble, no outside thought/interpretation is allowed or deemed necessary.

interestingly Raheem Kassem the former UKIP leadership candidate is the UK editor of Breitbart

also interestingly he was forced to standown from the UKIP leader race because of abusive threats he made on twitter (can you see a pattern here)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0672ea688ddc0

"Ukip Leadership Candidate Raheem Kassam Apologises For ‘Violent, Crass, Unacceptable’ Sturgeon Joke"

"But he accused his interviewer of ‘acting like... the outrage brigade"

the bait and switch

the hypocrisy

it is so transparent to me

anyway what will be interesting is that we have a real live experiment in what alt.right politics will/can do to a country over in the US

my general thesis has been thet the UK tends to follow the lead from the US (culturally, economically (thought wise)) etc etc

so with the alt.right in some ascendancy here - think Fox, IDS, UKIP etc

We can get a good forewarning of what life will entail under alt.right influenced politics

meanwhile in other news - the prosecutors in the Jo *** case state that the motives where political

so we have a case for the shouty left and the shooty right - take your pick JT

Originally Posted by JTaylor

I don't choose either and there's no reformed libertarian or Christian Anarchist groups of note in the UK, so I'm politically homeless. Perhaps I should build my own 'home' like Tolstoy.

Did you note that Stephen Bannon (top boy at Breitbart) has been selected by Trump as chief strategist? Your crazy website now has the ear of the POTUS! Warren must be elated!

Lastly, what are your thoughts on 'minarchism':

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

Originally Posted by hodgy0_2

Ok, but the Cultural Marxist meme seems a cheap lazy philosophical and rhetorical hook tbh

and essentially trying to give a pseudo intellectuality to the "shouty left/political correctness" meme

I suppose there is a short and a long answer

the very short answer is that the first person to post the "shouty left" meme in SN was Warrenm2 - so forgive me if i give a wry smile to the hypocrisy - more of which later

and blaming LBGT for the worlds problems seems a bit of a stretch, I did not notice legions of limp wristed mincers machine gunning their way through Falluja Badgad and Najaf - and then announcing

"misson accomplished - darling" - on the deck of a brightly decorated crusie liner

environmentalist - yes their earnestness can grate - but they are essentially right (we ARE changing the climate in such a rapid time frame we are doing damage that will last centuries)

remember Carl Sagan when he spoke about the history of our planet/nature "the pale blue dot"

"Extinction is the norm, survival the exception"

science tells us that it is not biblical floods that wipe out entire species but rapid climate change (rapid in geological timescales)

"Shouty lefty" is just easy to say when you have run out of arguments

and political correctness is simply about power, (as I said in an earlier post on the EU thread)

people claim that other people are being political correct when they are trying to exert power, usually in the form of being arrogant, rude, dismissive about the other persons sexuality/culture/race etc - and get called out on it

it is a defense mechanism - that allows them to project what they see as intellectual / cultural superiority

in the Batty thread, I made a comment about brummies sounding thick - I knew what I was doing (I understand the rules of the game), I expected someone to call me a **** and they dually did (and I apologise )


now I could simply go back and say " oh stop being so politically correct" and "where is your sense of humour"

because I am a tall white, educated, middle class, male with a London "received pronunciation accent"

no one could really insult me, apart from calling me a white, educated middle class, male with a London "received pronunciation accent"

to which I would simply reply that they have a massive chip on their shoulder

I am cultural powerful (by "I" I mean people like me)


watch a Milos interview - he uses classic "bait and switch" techniques when the interviewers (from the main stream media) calls him out on is ignorant cr4p about Islam being a religion of rapist yada yada he simply says

"oh stop being so politically correct" and "where is your sense of humour"

but he wont say that to hs audience because they are too busy nodding their heads

such hypocrisy

I can see their ridiculous rhetorical techniques a mile off

Originally Posted by Turbohot

Good post, Hodgy.

Baseline: "L'enfer, c'est les autres"- Sartre (1944)

Originally Posted by JTaylor

"Eh bien, continuons."

Originally Posted by steve05wrx

Mange tous, mange tous!

Originally Posted by dpb

Should been Mange tout , mange tout

?

Originally Posted by Paben

And everyone on here says Trump talks a load of old bollox!

Originally Posted by hodgy0_2

yes, I think that is basically how it works and as to not being democratic? - well those are the rules, both parties accept them when they win by them, both questions them when they loose - Trump is on record as questioning the Electoral College when Obama won in 2012

But does democracy not mean the people decide. Since more people voted for hillary would it not be right she should have won .



this seems to contradict you earlier statement, he won in the "swing" states that by and large determine US elections

I cant see the contradiction . He won because the majority of people didnt get what they wanted. He won by a large amount of electoral colleges because of a flawed "democrati" system

as to not seeing it coming - I think the big reason is the amount of people who voted for Trump who had never voted before (as in Brexit), so they don't appear on any mailing/polling list which means their voting intentions are hard to determine (using conventional polling techniques)