Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

Hilarious things that Guardian readers and other so-called Leftists think watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollypitches)
    The left do not oppose or isolate businesses, merely oppose tax avoidance. GOOD business is encouraged.
    What, by taxing them to death and feeding power to unions who hold them to ransom just because they can?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Moral relativism: The Guardianista's particular brand of moral relativism is based around the idea that morality is nothing more than cultural traditions that the collective has inherited and is never derived from reasoned ethics considered by individuals, with intelligence and good education largely dictating their ability to come to cogent conclusions. Whilst thinking this, they continuously criticize British culture. But surely, if it's "just our culture", then that makes it OK? I mean that's why they think it's OK for women to have to veil themselves in Muslim countries, right, because it's "just their culture, man"?

    Rape culture: Following on from the last point, if we really are living in a "rape culture" then doesn't cultural relativism tell us that rape is just A-OK, because it's just an accepted part of the culture? I mean, that's what "rape culture" means isn't it? That rape is considered acceptable? Or is it that it has no meaning whatsoever? Is it that they use the term to describe anything that men do that they don't like, and then anyone who disputes them can be condemned as a "rape culture apologist", which sounds as if it's just one step away from a "rape apologist"?

    Islamophobia: It is absolutely, totally wrong to vilify people who follow an ultra-conservative ideology called Islam. However, it's fine to refer to the centre-right conservatives of this country as "Tory scum".

    Cultural appropriation: The idea that cultures should never mix or imitate each other.

    The exploitation of women: You can consider everything in life as exploitation. As Nietzsche said, all life, no matter how we idealize it, is nothing more nor less than exploitation. Generally though, when we talk about someone being exploited, we mean people are getting something out of them against their intentions. However, those who ride on the right-on like to use the term as it exists in its most broad and empty sense, while using it as if it's penetrating. Rather like "piece of meat" or "sex object", it's brazen hyperbole that's pretty empty when you actually think about it. Of course, if they are talking about trafficked women, then I'm totally on their side; that is using the term in an incisive manner. But 99% of the time they're talking about the "exploitation" of highly paid models who very much enjoy working for the likes of Playboy or other men's magazines, highly paid actresses, or paid porn stars who often think of their shagging abilities as an art and have their own award shows to celebrate their, ahem, "unappreciated" talents.

    There's no such thing as "reverse racism": We all know that Guardianistas love their straw-men even more than those weird Scottish folk in The Wicker Man, but this has to be the most extraordinary dialogue against a straw-man that they have ever attempted. No one, ever, complained about "reverse racism". What they may have complained about is just "racism". Because racism just and only means prejudice against a race. It says nothing about whether the prejudice is justified or not.

    White insensitivity: It is completely abhorrent for white British people to deny or disregard the opinions of people of other ethnic backgrounds on the cultures they are from.

    (Unless its Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie or in fact anyone who isn't on-board with their cause.)

    Feminist choice: Women should be free to choose what they want to do, unless it's anything that feminists don't like.

    Sexual objectification: The idea that when a man gains sexual gratification by looking at a woman it becomes impossible for him to think of her as anything more than an object. This is due to the fact that he is only looking at her to enjoy her sexuality. Not only that, the fact that women are more sexualized than men stops him from thinking of all women as anything more than objects.

    If the only women he ever saw were in images in Playboy, then this would make sense. But women make up half the population and we all have mothers, daughters, nieces, sisters and wives. As it stands, saying that sexualized images of women makes men think of them as sex objects is equivalent to saying that when you watch football you are only able to think of the players as football playing machines, and are unable to comprehend that they are actually human beings with their own lives. But not only that, it's also like saying that because their is vastly more public interest in watching men playing football than women, that means that any women who watches football must think that all men are football playing machines.

    Good and evil isn't black and white: According to your average fully paid up Guardian reader, everyone has good in them. The idea that people can be good or evil comes from outdated Christian or right-wing ideas. No one is truly evil, except:
    Israelis
    Bankers
    Rupert Murdoch
    Disney
    CEOs of multinational companies
    Zionists
    Fox News
    Men's Rights Activists
    Fundamentalist Christians
    The Daily Telegraph
    Pro-lifers
    Tea Party supporters
    Sky News
    The Tories
    The Republican Party
    The Sun
    UKIP
    Pornographers
    Islamophobes
    Men's magazines
    The Daily Mail
    Libertarians
    Conservatives
    Capitalists
    Global warming deniers
    "Lads"
    Homophobes
    White supremacists (unless from an impoverished background)
    Mothers who choose to stay at home
    UKIP
    Non-organic farmers
    Grammar school students and teachers
    Private school students and teachers
    SUV drivers
    Oil companies
    Gun owners
    Bad day?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You can always tell TSR is triggered when the support team starts complaining, this website really is a leftist institution
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    What, by taxing them to death and feeding power to unions who hold them to ransom just because they can?
    Yes because big multinational corporations are taxed to death... That's why the likes of McDonald's and Amazon are so so poor

    As for unions? I'd much rather workers had bodies protecting their rights, pay and contracts to ensure they can't be treated like crap. Yet you seem to oppose this. You seem absolutely fine with big corporations holding the country to ransom and threatening to leave if we tax them, yet you go berserk at unions who ask for a moderate increase in pay for their members.

    You, like so many on the right have selective outrage. Unions striking = holding the country to ransom, corporations threatening to leave if we raise taxes for our schools and hospitals = perfectly fine.

    It's the hypocrisy and disparity of response from the right which is shocking.
    Let me remind you that all union leaders are elected and they represent workers. Corporations don't elect leaders and they represent the financial interests of a select few.

    Your attitudes are nothing short of pure hypocrisy, selective outrage and disparity of responses depending on what suits the Tory narrative.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I think you mean Guardian columnists, I'd say 90% of the readers expressing an opinion think all that stuff is bull**** too.

    The fact that all they have to cleave to is the Guardian, a Liberal newspaper, shows the bleakness of the landscape that exists on the left. For the left-wing media to expand you need people to be employed in unfulfilling repetitive jobs with no carrots like promotion or home ownership so they develop a class consciousness.
    This ^


    The Guardian at the time of the inception of the NHS was screaming feckless poor with the rest of them :rofl:

    All the actual left wing newspapers are dead now :sad:


    Come for Owen Jones and Gorge Monboit, stay for the infuriating feminists and "liberals"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    I'm not attacking you,I'm attacking your OP. Something wrong with it. Also,I'm a conservative at heart
    Ok, well I'm a liberal at heart. A proper individualist liberal. Not a leftist liberal like Guardianistas pretend to be, which is a world view that doesn't even make sense because it's collectivist and individualist, two directly opposing ways of thinking. That's the root of why their thinking is often so contradictory.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h8skoooooool)
    No, it isn't at all. It means that you've head your head buried in the Daily Mail for so long that you can no longer think independently, and therefore anything you hear that is conflicting with a traditional right-wing opinion is deemed to be false leftist propaganda.

    You call the left-wing 'absurb' yet I'd say that everything in your OP is extremely laughable - how many leftists have you spoken to that actually hold these opinions?
    You are calling me close-minded and yet you stereotype anyone who criticizes your Guardianista world view as a Daily Mail reading right-winger who can't think independently. You are the very definition of close-minded: stereotyping and completely unable to imagine that your views are subjective, and so anyone with different views to you cannot have thought carefully about them.

    Many people have the views described in my OP. I know this from experience, it is only your own narrow-mindedness that has stopped you from discovering this. You've seriously never met a "moral relativist", someone who believes in the horrors of "sexual objectification", someone who believes there is "rape culture"? You never heard about the time the Guardian did a hatchet job on Maajid Nawaaz? You haven't heard about all the abuse Ayaan Hirsi Ali gets from people of your ilk?

    As it happens, I hate the Daily Mail, and I'm a proper, pragmatic,individualist liberal.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I for one enjoy reading both the Grauniad and Daily Fail for its stupid articles and even stupider comments - schadenfreude is a very potent medicine for a bad day at work.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    As much as I dislike the Daily Mail the link between grammar schools and social mobility is tentative at best and complete *******s at worst.
    No its not. You cannot use today's Grammar schools as a basis because the majority of them are in middle-class areas, containing middle class kids.

    In the 1950s a larger proportion of Oxbridge pupils attended state school than today.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    No its not. You cannot use today's Grammar schools as a basis because the majority of them are in middle-class areas, containing middle class kids.

    In the 1950s a larger proportion of Oxbridge pupils attended state school than today.
    Firstly, social mobility is more than Oxbridge attendance.

    Secondly, if we accept that social mobility was higher in 1950 then it is surely too simple to just accept that the sole reason for that was the presence of grammar schools?

    Of course, if the link between the two is so obvious you will have absolutely no trouble finding some hard evidence of it will you?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    What, by taxing them to death and feeding power to unions who hold them to ransom just because they can?
    And yet, the UK has the least effective unions in Europe

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    No its not. You cannot use today's Grammar schools as a basis because the majority of them are in middle-class areas, containing middle class kids.

    In the 1950s a larger proportion of Oxbridge pupils attended state school than today.
    That's not the case in Birmingham but families from as far away as Redditch pay to tutor their kids through the rest. It will always be that way. Rich kids get in because mum and dad pay for extra lessons. If anything it will disadvantage white working class boys even further as they are the least likely to have the support at home or be independent minded enough to push themselves. They will totally be left on the scrapheap, with places going to cultures where pushing your kid to do well at school is the norm.

    I went to grammar school. Maybe 45% of people were white? Maybe less? Helps fill the less privelaged quota though. I don't think a single white working class boy went to my school, and there were maybe 3 or four white working class girls, most of whom were completely left by the wayside once they got there.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    In answer to the OP - has to be the fact Jeremy Corbyn is good for the Labour Party. Most ridiculous belief ever.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I think you mean Guardian columnists, I'd say 90% of the readers expressing an opinion think all that stuff is bull**** too.

    The fact that all they have to cleave to is the Guardian, a Liberal newspaper, shows the bleakness of the landscape that exists on the left. For the left-wing media to expand you need people to be employed in unfulfilling repetitive jobs with no carrots like promotion or home ownership so they develop a class consciousness.
    They could read New Statesman, but the left seem to be too busy branding it new spectator on social media to actually read the thing.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    They could read New Statesman, but the left seem to be too busy branding it new spectator on social media to actually read the thing.
    NS barely has comments which I expect puts people off and it is almost self-parodically bourgeois, hand wringing articles about the arts lurch into hand wringing articles about the refugees. I much prefer the Speccie in fact.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    NS barely has comments which I expect puts people off and it is almost self-parodically bourgeois, hand wringing articles about the arts lurch into hand wringing articles about the refugees. I much prefer the Speccie in fact.
    I really like NS - find the non review section much less bourgeois than the guardian.

    The adverts in that magazine are absolutely ridiculous though XD
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    According to the left Islamic terrorists are innocent people who have lost their way but Tory/UKIP voters are spawn of the devil. Makes sense, exercising your democratic right to vote is many times worse than launching a barbaric campaign comprising of mass genocide, torture, rape, enforcement of extremism, sexism, racism, homophobia, paedophilia and the worst crimes we can think of. #leftWingLogic
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    That's not the case in Birmingham but families from as far away as Redditch pay to tutor their kids through the rest. It will always be that way. Rich kids get in because mum and dad pay for extra lessons.
    The poor pupils who are bright-enough for Grammar do not need to be tutored..... (and again, you are referring to an area which does not have a fully-selective 11+ system. The only places which have this are Bucks, Kent and Lincs and even these cannot really be used as evidence because they are mostly middle-class counties).

    (Original post by redferry)
    If anything it will disadvantage white working class boys even further as they are the least likely to have the support at home or be independent minded enough to push themselves. They will totally be left on the scrapheap, with places going to cultures where pushing your kid to do well at school is the norm.
    Errrrr isn't this going to happen regardless of school type??

    (Original post by redferry)
    I went to grammar school. Maybe 45% of people were white? Maybe less? Helps fill the less privelaged quota though. I don't think a single white working class boy went to my school, and there were maybe 3 or four white working class girls, most of whom were completely left by the wayside once they got there.
    And your Grammar school wasn't in a proper selective LEA, so you had 10,000 kids competing for 100 places? I know a large number of working class kids who attended grammar school.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Hmm I see hints of racism and a feeling of dislike/resentment towards Muslims/ethnic minorities in your OP.
    I'd really like to know where these "hints of racism" actually are in my OP.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    Firstly, social mobility is more than Oxbridge attendance.
    Is it? Oxbridge is one of the most elitist institutions in the UK, its a pretty good indicator.

    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    Secondly, if we accept that social mobility was higher in 1950 then it is surely too simple to just accept that the sole reason for that was the presence of grammar schools?
    Not really, what affects somebody's social mobility more than education?

    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    Of course, if the link between the two is so obvious you will have absolutely no trouble finding some hard evidence of it will you?
    How do you know evidence has been collected? If it hasn't, doesn't make the point factually incorrect.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.