Slashdot Mirror

Then I'd tune her out too, except I don't actually buy this common caricature of her

Yeah, it does.

You categorize yourself as either, and walk about like a fucking puppet with a hand up your ass parroting what the caricature dictates.

see the secret ballot that mandates it being secret no longer mandates it being secret if you have an _option_ of voting in a fashion where you can _prove_ who you voted for.

that you can not prove who you voted for is absolutely essential for the ballot.

many "let's just all vote online" etc nerd activists even fail this. they don't understand where the modern western secret ballot system originates from: it's not that a different system wasn't tried, it was deemed a failure. the whole point is to have a system where if you have power outside of the election system then you cannot use that power to force people to vote certain way. it is essential that not even your spouse can know who you really voted for! it's absolutely paramount to the western voting method.

(I understand that the american two party system and political system with jerrymengering and all is already a caricature of western political principles but still...)

ahhh but don't you see the problem? You don't actually consult Milo himself. He is quite eloquent as to why he believes what he believes and he easily refutes your pathetic caricature of the Right as "oppressive". But you never bothered to listen to *him*, did you? All the "logic" you worship, isn't "logic" at all...it's your ideological bias that's showing. No one's supporting bigotry against one's self...you just have an inadequate understanding of the situation. Maybe you should listen more - you'll find there's all kinds of things in the world that don't conform to your political narrative.

I think most people get this, but it's always the loudest, shittiest people who get attention. Most of BLM, for instance, have good intentions, but it's the random looters who get attention. People like to make caricatures out of people who disagree with them - it makes it so much easier to ignore them later.

I will take any opportunity to criticize people who try to get others fired for their political views. Criticizing other views is fine, and if it's good criticism, I welcome that. But I oppose trying to get someone fired over views for two main reasons. First, unless their views are directly related to their job, it's irrelevant whether they support anarcho-communism or a totalitarian state headed by Mitt Romney - they deserve to be able to earn a living with their work, and people causing problems for a company is shitty. Second, from a pragmatic standpoint, nobody has ever changed their views on something after being fired for expressing them. No racist will say "boy, those blackies aren't so bad after all, they really do get the shit end of the stick" if they just got fired. They'll have the opposite reaction, in most cases. If you want to succeed and convince people, getting them fired is one of the worst ways to do that.

Turns out it was a self caricature.

Is this *really* the kind of shit that passes for insightful, these days? Can you actually demonstrate, with reference to publicly available facts, that HRC has engaged in the kind of weathervane, poll-driven behaviour that you describe? She does have quite a lengthy record of public service, after all, so it ought to be pretty easy to do. What I'm asking for is not some cheap rhetorical rimshot, but actual substance to back up your claim: a demonstration that, time after time, on issue after issue, her policy position has shifted in line with polling.

I think you'll find it nigh on impossible to show this. It may accord with what you'd like to believe (some version of "she's a vapid politician", perhaps, or "all politicians are just ridiculous liars"?) but that does not make it accurate. Her policy positions on gay marriage, for example, underwent the same slow process of evolution as most of middle America -- from "that's absurd" to "of course we must" over a period of a couple of decades. But they didn't flip flop back and forth as poll numbers on the issue wobbled around.

This bizarre and ridiculous caricaturing is going to be the death knell for serious American politics.

Hahaha holy shit you prove once again what a TOTAL FUCKING MORON you are.

African genocides that have raged for almost 50 years continue to this day with more dead than all European genocides of the past 500 years combined.

Nearly ten times more people were killed in Asian genocides last century than the Holocaust.

You're so hilariously ignorant. It's like a caricature of what the right thinks a smug liberal elite is, except you're actually it.

Progressive does NOT automatically equal Democrat.

No they are far worse. They brought us prohibition and a fucked up tax code.
 

I still would rather have a corrupt, mean politician as opposed to...

You are arguing against a straw man caricature you have created of Donald Trump. Assuming and judging his intent as if you know anything about him but are so quick to accept and champion corruption.

You are their ignorant bitch. pwned like the punk you are.

Try other news sources. What you see of Trump depicted via the MSM is nothing than a fictional caricature. Yeah, Trump is a loud, brash New Yorker, but that doesn't make him anything like what they say he his. And I mean "they", the MSM who are licking the boots of Hillary.

We all know he's just a caricature of Al Jolson. Undoubtedly, that frog appeared in blackface at some point.

Please vote Trump or perhaps 3rd party or nothing. I say that as a western European that fits all the caricatures you may have.

I can't make sense of how we're supposed to consider Trump has no decency or moral ground, when the alternative belongs to a Nuremberg trial more than anything.

Hillary is already in power basically and she ran the war making department for a few years. She allied the US with Al Qaida so as to wage war in Libya and then Syria, and by extension the US's vassal States are allied to Al Qaida as well. Weren't those the big bad a decade ago? (after the "Axis of Evil", maybe). Vassal states (like France) are mired in the war lies and descending to slow-motion dictatorship, under the background of terrorist attacks (glorified school shootings) for which I hold Hillary Clinton ultimately responsible. She's been supporting Jihad - even though Saudi Arabia pays for most of it and a number of other countries have their hands in that dickery, the US political and military support for Jihad has been huge enough to hold this superpower accountable for something. She was leading the US Empire, and seeks to take the first seat to lead it again.

Trump talks trash with dangerous racist, misogynistic etc. comments. Clinton has shown by her acts that she is not above supporting rape, pillaging and genocide.
I've heard some days ago that we're living through the biggest and worst refugee outbreak since WW2. All these murdered countries will live in civil war or whatever you can call it for at least a decade and a change in US presidency will most likely be a false hope. But please, don't vote for the person with a large firsthand responsibility in these horrors.

Hypocrite.

I'm going to skip over the abortion debate, because that's a separate issue (is all human life worth equal protection under the law, or isn't it?).

But you present a caricature of religious people, "I don't like gay marriage, no gay shall get a marriage license." And no doubt there are some of those out there. But most religious people say, at least these days, "I don't agree with gay marriage, so I don't wan't to have anything to do with it." And then the gay marriage patrol comes out and "imposes their [religious] opinion on others" by forcing them to participate. Right now it's cakes and pictures, but there are many in this group who want to force churches to open their facilities and their ministers to participate in the ceremony. If anyone is imposing their will, it's the gay marriage group.

When the religious groups were the majority, the minority called for tolerance, and got it. Now that the non-religious are in the majority, the religious are asking for the same benefit of tolerance, and they're getting a huge "fuck you".

It's an edit of a racist cartoon caricaturing a jewish person. But then, Sarah Nyberg is not a person to trust, least of all on these matters. Besides shopping and cherrypicking, she's a self-admitted child predator.

Have you considered listening to what the big bad Democrats are saying, rather than inventing absurd caricatures? You'll look less ridiculous.

With Black Panthers, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, Al Sharpton, etc. on the Democrat side it's trivial to find plenty of racist bullshit over there. They're as deplorable as David Duke, yet I don't see Hillary getting all upset about them supporting her.

Can't have voter ID laws, because the DNC says Black people can't figure out how to get a free voter ID. But that isn't racist.

Literally nobody has argued that in the history of Voter Suppression Laws. What has been argued is:

1. Minority voters are disproportionately unlikely to have an existing photo ID (say, a driver's license.)
2. Once enacted, states with Voter ID laws have a habit of erecting roadblocks to make it harder to get them if you live in areas with high minority populations. For example, closing offices that issue driver's licenses.
3. If you've never had ID, it can be - depending on your situation - difficult to meet the criteria for obtaining ID, requiring the gathering of paperwork that most people don't actually keep, and in some cases is - in practice - impossible to obtain.

There's also been at least one court case where a Voter ID law was thrown out specifically because the Republicans that created it fashioned it knowing that Voter ID laws would disproportionately impact legitimate Democratic voters. I actually heard a Republican pundit argue that they weren't being racist, because, uh, yeah blacks were disproportionately affected, but they overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and attempts to suppress their vote were based upon the fact they were Democrats, not because they were black as such.

Yeah, right.

IF you simply look at the excuses being made on behalf of black people, they are all telling black people that they are incapable of doing normal activities, simply because ... they are black.And I find that extremely distasteful and as fucking racist as anything.

You're basically making stuff up in order to justify the "But Democrats are the TRUE racists" spin. Have you considered listening to what the big bad Democrats are saying, rather than inventing absurd caricatures? You'll look less ridiculous.

My perpetual reminder that adding -gate to a "controversy" means that it's mostly hot air used to inflate a balloon and hoping that associating it with one of the biggest scandals in US political history would give it some attention... anyway.

It's a caricature. And, let's face it, she doesn't really have any features that lend themselves to caricature exaggeration (though her earring hoops could be used, more prominently than in that caricature). Anyway. I don't see any association with this picture being "Jewish" in some way, is it the nose or what is supposed to say "Jew"? I don't really "get it", to be honest, to me this looks like someone wanted to create a demeaning picture of her and couldn't find a feature to use for it.

Though I have to say the text above it is despicable, that's really uncalled for.

You don't mind governments, so long as they only spend money on things that you and you alone think are worth spending money on. So the only form of government that you'll be happy with is one in which you are the supreme authoritarian ruler. You'll forgive the rest of us for not signing up.

Pretty much all zealots are annoying--but I find libertarians to be especially so. They're stupid, they don't know that they're stupid, and they are certain that everyone else is stupid.

You do know that you're a caricature of what he described right off the bat, right?

The stuff that he mentions is actually the few legitimate uses of government. In the USA, the federal government is legally limited to only a few areas, although it has grotesquely outgrown its original mandate.

Perhaps, but historically speaking letting people say the most horrible things they can has pretty mild ramifications compared to letting powerful people shut down "offensive" speech without heavy checks. If Breitbart curled up and died on the vine, good thing. If Breitbart was silenced, worse than letting Breitbart being the embodiment of the worst caricature of the conservative movement by orders of magnitude.

Someone else already asked about Gatwick / Heathrow vs London City, so I'll just ask how a BLM action today caused delayed flights yesterday. How did it, Mr caricature of the bitter white male?