The wife should either divorce him for being such a flippin baby, or make him her bitch. He sounds like a total wet blanket of a human.
Last edited:
The Guardian
- Thread starter DOTA
- Start date
The wife should either divorce him for being such a flippin baby, or make him her bitch. He sounds like a total wet blanket of a human.
I saw this and it was a bit ridiculous. I can understand being a bit shocked by the more extreme elements of the alt-right, and there's a definitely a problem wherein it's easier for such groups to influence people online as opposed to in person now, but this article makes it look like the guy watched a Milo video, went on The_Donald once...and suddenly turned into a right-winger. Absurd.
And how is Sam Harris alt-right? From what I know of him he's one of those Dawkins type atheists who's stringently opposed to religion in general...whereas the alt-right seem to like their twisted Christian values to a certain extent. In fact, I'm pretty sure Harris told people to vote Clinton as well. If you can't handle that...then, well, you're living in a bit of a bubble.
I saw this and it was a bit ridiculous. I can understand being a bit shocked by the more extreme elements of the alt-right, and there's a definitely a problem wherein it's easier for such groups to influence people online as opposed to in person now, but this article makes it look like the guy watched a Milo video, went on The_Donald once...and suddenly turned into a right-winger. Absurd.
And how is Sam Harris alt-right? From what I know of him he's one of those Dawkins type atheists who's stringently opposed to religion in general...whereas the alt-right seem to like their twisted Christian values to a certain extent. In fact, I'm pretty sure Harris told people to vote Clinton as well. If you can't handle that...then, well, you're living in a bit of a bubble.
Harris was/is vehemently anti-Trump. He's very outspoken against radical Islam which gets him a lot of grief from the liberal left (and kudos from the right) but my personal opinion is that he talks a lot of sense. On every topic I've ever heard him discuss. Very reasonable and thoughtful. Couldn't be more different to an agent provocatuer like that Milo bloke.
Careful, you'll become a racist before you know it.
'Pogue, so I hear you're a racist now', in my worst cod Irish accent ever.
Yeah, I can understand the genuine concerns about the growing influence (in online circles) of the alt-right and the more nasty undercurrent they bring, but I don't see what's at all wrong with Harris arguing for the problems of Islam within society. If you're a left-leaning liberal, then it surely makes sense to be a tad apprehensive of a religion which has extremely negative attitude towards women, homosexuality and freedom of speech...all of which are supposed to be pinnacles of liberalism.
The right tend to view Islam in a hysteric, over-dramatic and often outright derogatory manner, but such pieces like this one don't really help the liberal left at all. If you've got to stay in a bubble to avoid becoming a racist in the space of about three articles...well...
The way he seems unable to listen to a range of opinions and make up his own mind about where he stands on these issues is pathetic. In a way it explains the "no-platforming" stuff. So afraid of having their preconceived notions challenged they would rather stick their fingers in their ears and go "nah nah nah".
No idea how Harris could be classed as alt-right. He's nothing of the sort.
To be fair to him, he did try to take in other opinions...but by the end of the article has run back into his bubble because he dared suggest Islam might have certain problems. His main problem seems to be though that he was seeking extremes and ended up treating them as the norm. The alt-right, for all its recent attention, is still mostly full of hysterical youngsters who will probably grow out of it as the internet becomes more moderated and they have to go out and get jobs. It's quite possible as a left-leaning liberal to read plenty of opinions which challenge your own without them being from far-right nutjobs.
The far-right nutjobs are easily ignored tbf. It's the more moderate opinions that can be persuasive. Deciding to deliberately ignore them in case they derail your own precariously held beliefs is a terrible way to go through life. It's almost as though these beliefs are religious. Holding onto them is an act of faith, rather than reason. Very strange.
"On one occasion I even, I am ashamed to admit, very diplomatically expressed negative sentiments on Islam.....
She was taken aback: “Isn’t that a bit … rightwing?”
I justified it: “Well, I’m more a left-leaning centrist. PC culture has gone too far, we should be able to discuss these things without shutting down the conversation by calling people racist, or bigots.”
The indoctrination was complete."
What this rather spineless idiot calls 'indoctrination' and the denial of what seems to be common sense, is in fact, the very reason the Left are losing elections and hemorrhaging voters!
She was taken aback: “Isn’t that a bit … rightwing?”
I justified it: “Well, I’m more a left-leaning centrist. PC culture has gone too far, we should be able to discuss these things without shutting down the conversation by calling people racist, or bigots.”
The indoctrination was complete."
What this rather spineless idiot calls 'indoctrination' and the denial of what seems to be common sense, is in fact, the very reason the Left are losing elections and hemorrhaging voters!
what a piece of shit article. sam harris alt-right? give me a break.
I admit, though, it could have been interesting if the writer offered actual counterpoints to the alt-right (which encompasses a very widely ranging points of view so it's difficult to criticize on its own) instead of being mired in guilt by association and merely labeling them as racists, sexists, etc.
It's kind of like how the DM's etiquette columnist William Hanson would write a piece on nearly being subverted by the alt-right.
This dude saying he wrote that Guardian piece as a piss-take:
Judging from that profile pic, he's a pisstake
Would be hilarious if true.
It did seem a bit off...the whole exchange where his wife asks, "Is that not quite...right-wing?" was ridiculous. No one really talks like people in the article did but I assumed that was the writer sort of paraphrasing rough conversations. Evidently not.
It did seem a bit off...the whole exchange where his wife asks, "Is that not quite...right-wing?" was ridiculous. No one really talks like people in the article did but I assumed that was the writer sort of paraphrasing rough conversations. Evidently not.
I pictured that being the typical convo in the Cheesy household when you moaned about the prevalence of Gouda and Emmenthal on our BRITISH supermarket shelves.Would be hilarious if true.
It did seem a bit off...the whole exchange where his wife asks, "Is that not quite...right-wing?" was ridiculous. No one really talks like people in the article did but I assumed that was the writer sort of paraphrasing rough conversations. Evidently not.
"Look," I said. "I'm a Paella eating, Amstel Bier drinking citizen, but I just think cheeky Nandos culture has gone too far, and chicken curries aren't compatible with our steak pie and yorkshire pudding eating culture."
"Isn't that a bit...chicken wing?"
so now... how did an onion article make it to the guardian?
That's great. I wonder if he duped the Grauniad? Or were they in on it?
Duped, in my opinion. It reads like a bit of a piss-take of the article it quotes too https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ight-manosphere-mainstream-politics-breitbart
Here's the interview in question
demisexual genderqueer muslim atheist
Ah, Elfwick - the hero of 14 year old white boys everywhere.
EDIT - Here he is cleverly taking aim at the PC gawn mad crowd who cost poor Eric Bristow his job.
EDIT - Here he is cleverly taking aim at the PC gawn mad crowd who cost poor Eric Bristow his job.
Last edited:
Shhh. Don't distract the brave white males fighting the matriachy for the glory of free speech.
It's incredible how often the right fail to understand what free speech actually means.
They seem to think it means you can say whatever the feck you want, on any kind of platform, without ever facing any consequence for what you've said. Brain-dead weapons, the lot of them.
They seem to think it means you can say whatever the feck you want, on any kind of platform, without ever facing any consequence for what you've said. Brain-dead weapons, the lot of them.
The American constitution kind of supports that perception though. Think of the Wesbro Baptist Church for example. It is insane that they can picket funerals with offensive banners and chants.
I'm not talking about constitutional rights or the threat of legal sanction. It's the loony idea that you can say whatever you like, to whomever you like, without ever facing any kind of consequences. Because hur dur, free speech.
Tweeting offensive nonsense on an open forum like Twitter sure as shit won't help your chances of employment. And if people choose not to employ you on that basis, then you've nobody to blame but yourself. Bleating about your right to free speech is beyond stupid as a response.
The political arena in general seems to be a less receptive place for alternative viewpoints, which one could argue is now being echoed in people's voting patterns. The rise of Corbyn and Bernie pre-dated both of the standout elections from this year, and were signals of this change albeit from a different place on the spectrum. The person on the street just isn't buying what the established centre is selling; the economic arguments ring hollow in the wake of the financial/debt crises, and social change is either too slow or too fast (i'd lean toward the former but that's not the case for everyone).
Last edited:
I'm getting increasingly annoyed by their excessive mentions of the alt-right and Milo Ywhatshisface, who I worry that The Guardian are turning into larger and larger martyrs. We saw with Trump that the more you demonise these guys, the more people are going to seek them out, and be shocked when they find themselves finding something to like in the content. There's no need to feed online communities like that with such mainstream prominence, they're a fringe group and should be treated as such.
Unless you're a failing business, wanting to feed off their growing popularity.
The Guardian has really started pushing the 'donation' line in recent months, both on the site and in its podcasts.
It does not. It just means that in US there can not be legal ramifications for free speech (unless you purposely defame someone using false information) but there are social and economic ramifications all the time. Even Trump got fired by NBC after he made his first Mexicans are rapists speech.
Good piece on Zac Goldsmith by Marina Hyde.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-punt-self-loathing-accumulator-richmond-park
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-punt-self-loathing-accumulator-richmond-park
Have to say, this is one of my favourite sub-headings I've seen of late
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-another-gaffe-barking-dogs-scare-drug-drones
You can't scroll on their site for a second or read an article in peace without looking at giant "Donate" pleas. They've laid off people as well. Things must be tough for them at the moment. We wouldn't want them going down the path of The Independent, shutting down the paper and being only an online news website. Mind you, the Indy is only clickbaity articles now.
A friend of mine worked at The Guardian until earlier this year. Apparently two years ago the Guardian Trust (which funds The Guardian) sold Auto Trader for around £1b, with the plan to then invest the proceeds of that sale, and allow The Guardian to live off the returns on that investment. The figure was that they could now survive for ever on a £30m annual loss, and so everyone thought the paper was saved. The next year, print advertising collapsed from its already low position and the paper lost £90m. The reaction has then been a whole new batch of lay offs and their big drive for donations. Something has to change - we only deserve the journalism we pay for.
It really is a worry that news is going online where the incentives are very different. Quality content matters less than provocative headlines to get the all important clicks. Yet another reason to be depressed about the future.