


If you are stupid enough to buy this you will pay FULL PRICE
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 15:01,
archived)


( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 14:00,
archived)


Goddamn it
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 14:05,
archived)

either: get into politics, work your way up through the ranks until your dreams are crushed into nothingness by the glacial system you find yourself trapped in. Or glue your hands to a tube train and achieve nothing beyond making several thousand commuters late for work. In the US, option 3 is get out your assault rifle down the mall, but don't even make the local news because you didn't achieve enough kills before SWAT took you down.
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 14:03,
archived)

when people publicly declare that the environmentalists' actions have achieved nothing.
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 14:46,
archived)

Was that really the intention?
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 15:10,
archived)

The police already had the powers they need to move protestors out of the way of ambulances and whatnot.
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 15:35,
archived)

( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 15:46,
archived)

My point is that your argument is a standard Daily Mail/TalkSport/GBeebies style right wing talking point. Being upset at brown people is just an accurate shorthand describing that mindset.
People who think green protesting, while ideologically sound, is pretty futile because the power to change anything resides with those who won't = people who are easily swayed by right wing populism and consistently vote according to their regressive biases.
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 16:02,
archived)
People who think green protesting, while ideologically sound, is pretty futile because the power to change anything resides with those who won't = people who are easily swayed by right wing populism and consistently vote according to their regressive biases.

It's like Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra with you.
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 17:54,
archived)


I must be blind to it.
In my experience, people who complain about imaginary straw men are often attempting to shift the argument away from the actual topic, which, to remind you, is the irony of complaining about environmentalists being selfish.
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 19:00,
archived)
In my experience, people who complain about imaginary straw men are often attempting to shift the argument away from the actual topic, which, to remind you, is the irony of complaining about environmentalists being selfish.


Perhaps pointless online arguments just aren't for you?
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 19:32,
archived)

( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 19:33,
archived)

about politics and today's pressing issues
and wee and poo
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 19:40,
archived)
and wee and poo

🥷🏻 blah
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 19:42,
archived)

I honestly wish that your delusions were real, but sadly it is common knowledge that the Daily Heil is a right wing rag:
"In news that will surprise very few, the Daily Mail is seen as Britain’s most right-wing newspaper. Britain’s most read newspaper is described by 44% of Brits as “very right-wing”, far ahead of any other paper. In total, 81% considered the paper to be right-wing to one degree or another."
yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/03/07/how-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers
...And that right wing populism is strongly associated with climate denial:
"In this paper, we explore the possibility that right wing populism and anti-elitist attitudes fuel both ACC denial and low trust in environmental institutions. We surveyed a representative sample of Norwegians (N = 3032) to measure ACC denial, how denial is linked to socio-demographic characteristics, trust in environmental institutions, attitudes toward elites and immigration, as well as environmental attitude orientations. Results show that lack of trust in environmental institutions is strongly associated with ACC denial, and furthermore that the degree of trust—or lack thereof—is partly a function of anti-elitist attitudes, opposition to migration and views of nature."
www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00930-7
You can prove anything with facts.
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 20:23,
archived)
"In news that will surprise very few, the Daily Mail is seen as Britain’s most right-wing newspaper. Britain’s most read newspaper is described by 44% of Brits as “very right-wing”, far ahead of any other paper. In total, 81% considered the paper to be right-wing to one degree or another."
yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/03/07/how-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers
...And that right wing populism is strongly associated with climate denial:
"In this paper, we explore the possibility that right wing populism and anti-elitist attitudes fuel both ACC denial and low trust in environmental institutions. We surveyed a representative sample of Norwegians (N = 3032) to measure ACC denial, how denial is linked to socio-demographic characteristics, trust in environmental institutions, attitudes toward elites and immigration, as well as environmental attitude orientations. Results show that lack of trust in environmental institutions is strongly associated with ACC denial, and furthermore that the degree of trust—or lack thereof—is partly a function of anti-elitist attitudes, opposition to migration and views of nature."
www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00930-7
You can prove anything with facts.

to make it easier to dismiss them and their predictable views. Like it is easy to do when declaring a bunch of individuals to be "gammons", "boomers" or "millennials".
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 19:46,
archived)

Your assertion that I'm employing straw men is actually, I'm sad* to say, an argument from ignorance on your part.
*Delighted.
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 20:26,
archived)
*Delighted.

You do it often and publicly. Expect some pushback occasionally.
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 20:49,
archived)

In my experience, people who complain about imaginary straw men are often attempting to shift the argument away from the actual topic, which, to remind you, is the irony of complaining about environmentalists being selfish.
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 21:03,
archived)

then you simply don't understand the concept. And as mofaha said, it's simply pointless trying to engage with you when you're in this headspace, so this is my first and last contribution to this shitshow of a thread.
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 21:49,
archived)

I offer this dictionary definition of straw man in the hope that it might help to educate those persisting in its misuse:
straw man
noun
1. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
2. A doll or scarecrow (particularly one stuffed with straw).
3. An insubstantial concept, idea, endeavour or argument, particularly one deliberately set up to be weakly supported, so that it can be easily knocked down; especially to impugn the strength of any related thing or idea.
If my argument is pseudo-complex then it should be easy to tear down.
As my argument is actually reality-based simplicity, it was exceptionally easy to find supporting evidence.
Anti-environmentalism is a typically right wing position. This opinion is well grounded in reality and is not just something I made up in order to... ...tear my own argument down..?
Go to the Daily Mail's comment section, look up stories about brown people in dinghies, the royal family, and Downing Street. See what you find. Look at what those same commentators say on the subject of climate change protestors.
It's all so predictable that I find it astonishing to think that anyone here finds this even vaguely controversial.
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 22:20,
archived)
straw man
noun
1. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
2. A doll or scarecrow (particularly one stuffed with straw).
3. An insubstantial concept, idea, endeavour or argument, particularly one deliberately set up to be weakly supported, so that it can be easily knocked down; especially to impugn the strength of any related thing or idea.
If my argument is pseudo-complex then it should be easy to tear down.
As my argument is actually reality-based simplicity, it was exceptionally easy to find supporting evidence.
Anti-environmentalism is a typically right wing position. This opinion is well grounded in reality and is not just something I made up in order to... ...tear my own argument down..?
Go to the Daily Mail's comment section, look up stories about brown people in dinghies, the royal family, and Downing Street. See what you find. Look at what those same commentators say on the subject of climate change protestors.
It's all so predictable that I find it astonishing to think that anyone here finds this even vaguely controversial.

<img src="www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/100121/1666631240/I can't be arsed to make this image" width="visible to the ISS">
1. People against protestors gluing themselves to trains and throwing soup about and generally being an arse
2. Mail/Sun readers who comment on all the brown people in are country
See those two circles? They don't occupy exactly the same position. But yes, there is quite an overlap.
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 23:36,
archived)
1. People against protestors gluing themselves to trains and throwing soup about and generally being an arse
2. Mail/Sun readers who comment on all the brown people in are country
See those two circles? They don't occupy exactly the same position. But yes, there is quite an overlap.

Except for the 'generally being an arse' thing. Effective protests attract attention and cause disruption.
( ,
Thu 27 Oct 2022, 14:19,
archived)

Or something like that.
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 20:25,
archived)



imgur.com/51zfAA2
scuze me I haff fecked up teh codez
( ,
Wed 26 Oct 2022, 16:24,
archived)
scuze me I haff fecked up teh codez