[Technology] Are some leftwingers unthinking automatons?

[Klaas]

Looney posts some shit [emoji23]


Other Looneys on this board react[emoji23]

Looney sits back and [emoji23]

Looney has been doing this for along time [emoji23]

Who are the real Looneys [emoji23][emoji23]

Unless they've been on NSC for less than 5 minutes, there isn't a single person here who isn't laughing (at best) at Looney.

 

[BadFish]

Unless they've been on NSC for less than 5 minutes, there isn't a single person here who isn't laughing (at best) at Looney.

Endlessly entertaining

 

[pastafarian]

Unless they've been on NSC for less than 5 minutes, there isn't a single person here who isn't laughing (at best) at Looney.

Well im not laughing at him, so that sort of fvcks your theory up.
Mostly just sniggering at people like you pontificating and feeling the need to comment without realising you have already been played and you dont even realise it.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Well im not laughing at him, so that sort of fvcks your theory up.
Mostly just sniggering at people like you pontificating and feeling the need to comment without realising you have already been played and you dont even realise it.

I think you’re over-analysing [MENTION=277]looney[/MENTION].

 

[JetsetJimbo]

I can't help but laugh at the number of right-wing people who've unthinkingly picked up and run with this "NPC" meme, when their doing so demonstrates their own lack of independent thought (and their inability to recognise irony).

 

[pb21]

We disagree, I think what I described does reflect the mainstream of both the left and right today. That's the problem.

You threw up the issue of abortion and that the left see those who oppose it as 'anti-women' i.e. the left are taking the moral high ground.

What I find surprising is that you don't also appreciate that the right see those who are pro abortion as pro murder, i.e. taking the moral high ground possibly to its most extreme conclusion!

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

As ever, I will chip in with my "politically naïve" view point.

Why do people feel the need to categorise themselves in a pot? I find it truly odd.

I've said something before and had the response "ah. typical leftie"

I had absolutely no idea what I 'was'. I have my views on things and vote for the party who match my views/wants the best at the time. I've voted for a different party in my last 3 elections. It's like when people declare themselves a tory or whatever. What does that even mean!? Does that mean you will vote for that party no matter what their policy is!? That's mental isn't it?

There seems to be this real NEED from people at the moment to feel compartmentalised. Is it a safety thing? I've seen people declare themselves as left wing or right wing. Does this mean they adapt other views to fit in with the title of left/right? This can also be repeated for "ah, typical remainer/leaver". What the hell does that mean?

Now, I will walk away and I'm sure those far more politically educated will tear the above apart

 

[Wrong-Direction]

As ever, I will chip in with my "politically naïve" view point.

Why do people feel the need to categorise themselves in a pot? I find it truly odd.

I've said something before and had the response "ah. typical leftie"

I had absolutely no idea what I 'was'. I have my views on things and vote for the party who match my views/wants the best at the time. I've voted for a different party in my last 3 elections. It's like when people declare themselves a tory or whatever. What does that even mean!? Does that mean you will vote for that party no matter what their policy is!? That's mental isn't it?

There seems to be this real NEED from people at the moment to feel compartmentalised. Is it a safety thing? I've seen people declare themselves as left wing or right wing. Does this mean they adapt other views to fit in with the title of left/right? This can also be repeated for "ah, typical remainer/leaver". What the hell does that mean?

Now, I will walk away and I'm sure those far more politically educated will tear the above apart [emoji38]ol:

The word you're looking for is SHEEP.
People that go through life doing exactly what they're told and never questioning anything.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[BadFish]

As ever, I will chip in with my "politically naïve" view point.

Why do people feel the need to categorise themselves in a pot? I find it truly odd.

I've said something before and had the response "ah. typical leftie"

I had absolutely no idea what I 'was'. I have my views on things and vote for the party who match my views/wants the best at the time. I've voted for a different party in my last 3 elections. It's like when people declare themselves a tory or whatever. What does that even mean!? Does that mean you will vote for that party no matter what their policy is!? That's mental isn't it?

There seems to be this real NEED from people at the moment to feel compartmentalised. Is it a safety thing? I've seen people declare themselves as left wing or right wing. Does this mean they adapt other views to fit in with the title of left/right? This can also be repeated for "ah, typical remainer/leaver". What the hell does that mean?

Now, I will walk away and I'm sure those far more politically educated will tear the above apart

I think some people what us divided in anyway we can be; race, gender, sex, political outlook, religion anything and everything.

One thing I will say about your post is that from what I experience it is usually those with more extreme opinions that identify politically. It is also usually the same gob-shites that insist on labelling the rest of us too, this usually comes with huge side helping of generalisations and assumptions.

 

[lawros left foot]

Noticed this charcter has people going nuts in a lot of groups I am in on facebook, Based on the idea of prescripted responces to certain issues, non player characters or NPCs. Even the BBC has picked up on it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-45888176


The new Pepe? Possibly, it does provide a comeback to the standard curveballs thrown about when some people get into trouble in online debates.

Here are a few of my favs

Thoughts?

Hmm, let me think about this.



Oh.

 

[Klaas]

Well im not laughing at him, so that sort of fvcks your theory up.
Mostly just sniggering at people like you pontificating and feeling the need to comment without realising you have already been played and you dont even realise it.

Ah. Silly me. The dream team of Looney and Pastafarian (shared interests : dank memes beloved of alt-righters, neo-nazis and incels, masturbating far too much) have played me. And I didn't even realise it.

 

[dingodan]

You threw up the issue of abortion and that the left see those who oppose it as 'anti-women' i.e. the left are taking the moral high ground.

What I find surprising is that you don't also appreciate that the right see those who are pro abortion as pro murder, i.e. taking the moral high ground possibly to its most extreme conclusion!

Right, but in the context of mainstream political debate the right do not make that claim (i.e. it is not considered acceptable in the mainstream). In the context of mainstream political debate the left do, without anyone batting an eyelid, claim that the reason for the opposition on the right is an anti-women's rights agenda. This is what I am saying. Generally speaking the right draw a line at attacking the character of those on the left and instead attack their ideas. The left don't draw a line, attacking the character of those on the right is considered acceptable, and is used in lieu of challenging ideas. That's been my point all along.

 

[dingodan]

You live in a world "where sexism or racism or any other forms of discrimination are tolerated on either side of the political spectrum" and politicians tell you what they really think?

I would love to come visit it sounds amazing.

What do all the spin doctors do?

You would have to believe then that you know what someone thinks without them saying it. Like I said before, that's a bad road to go down. You can't know what is in someone elses head, and that kind of mentality allows for a situation where someone makes a valid or relevant political argument, and in response gets called a racist bigot. Because you "know what they really think".

Do you not see how crazy it is to a) see no examples of politicians expressing these views, and b) assume that most or all of them do secretly. It's a boarderline conspiracy theory mindset.

Like I said before, do you not think it's better to assume someone is not prejudiced until such time as you have a genuine reason to believe that they are? Rather than the reverse?

 

[dingodan]

Are you suggesting that there is not one politician who doesn’t harbour sexist, racist or homophobic views?

No, of course not. But the left act as if a person is racist, sexist and homophobic by virtue of, and as evidenced by, the fact that they are on the right.

Are you suggesting that institutional racism, sexism and homophobia don’t exist?

Where? In our society as defined by our legal and political systems and their policies? No, we do not live in a racist, sexist or homophobic country. The left and right have different ideas and values, but niether are based on prejudice. But at the same time the primary argument against the right, used by the left, is that they are racist, sexist homophobes, and it's unjustified and dishonest.

 

[Wilko]

As a leftie myself I think there is a genuine point to this, the far left is eating itself! Getting offended by mansize tissues and the homophobia in Friends is pathetic, it causes genuine concerns to do with equality to lose their credence because people are too busy laughing at snowflake reactions to things.

 

[BadFish]

You would have to believe then that you know what someone thinks without them saying it. Like I said before, that's a bad road to go down. You can't know what is in someone elses head, and that kind of mentality allows for a situation where someone makes a valid or relevant political argument, and in response gets called a racist bigot. Because you "know what they really think".

Do you not see how crazy it is to a) see no examples of politicians expressing these views, and b) assume that most or all of them do secretly. It's a boarderline conspiracy theory mindset.

Like I said before, do you not think it's better to assume someone is not prejudiced until such time as you have a genuine reason to believe that they are? Rather than the reverse?

I would suggest that the old adage that actions speak louder than words is particularly relevant here. I will judge people (and especially politicians) by their actions more than their words. Politician's words are far to carefully chosen to take much heed of. Much like media trained football managers who manage to fill a half an hour press conference and say very little. I think that this is why Trump, sorry President Trump has everybody frothing at the mouth, he just says what ever comes into his head. He is a person that one can take at face value.

I am not really sure of what assumptions you are suggesting I am making so can't really comment on that.

 

[dingodan]

I would suggest that the old adage that actions speak louder than words is particularly relevant here. I will judge people (and especially politicians) by their actions more than their words.

I am not really sure of what assumptions you are suggesting I am making so can't really comment on that.

Well apparently your assumption is that racism, sexism and homophobia are tolerated by (at least) one side of the political spectrum, that's what your post suggested.

Ok, so no examples of words, how about examples of the actions which speak louder than them then?

 

[pb21]

Right, but in the context of mainstream political debate the right do not make that claim (i.e. it is not considered acceptable in the mainstream). In the context of mainstream political debate the left do, without anyone batting an eyelid, claim that the reason for the opposition on the right is an anti-women's rights agenda. This is what I am saying. Generally speaking the right draw a line at attacking the character of those on the left and instead attack their ideas. The left don't draw a line, attacking the character of those on the right is considered acceptable, and is used in lieu of challenging ideas. That's been my point all along.

On what basis can you be against abortion other than that you consider it to be murder, or at least effectively murder?

 

[BadFish]

Well apparently your assumption is that racism, sexism and homophobia are tolerated by (at least) one side of the political spectrum, that's what your post suggested.

Ok, so no examples of words, how about examples of the actions which speak louder than them then?

it is interesting to me that you appear to be arguing at cross purposes across two threads. On this thread you are saying that unless one can quote a politician saying something racist, sexist or homophobic then they cannot be deemed to be any of those things. Yet on the Kleenex thread you are accusing the BBC of bias based on their actions and not by quoting where they have said they were biased.

I cannot for the life of me understand how you can seemingly not accept that someone could say one thing yet do another that proves their words as lies.

 

[BadFish]

Well apparently your assumption is that racism, sexism and homophobia are tolerated by (at least) one side of the political spectrum, that's what your post suggested.

This is the problem when you talk in mass generalisations. I am not suggesting that the left or right 'side's' of politics are doing any thing en masse that was your suggestion. Politics is a nuanced and complex spectrum of ideas and beliefs that cannot be cut through the middle and pronouncements made on where we sit and what we therefore believe. As you say in one of your earlier posts these kind of assumptions are crazy.

Ok, so no examples of words, how about examples of the actions which speak louder than them then?

- Well over here we have bipatizan agreement to put brown people on a tiny tropical island to stop other brown people coming in.
- You have any number of Trump quotes to choose from to demonstrate that he has a pretty shoddy view on women.
- You have a huge anti-semetic shit storm inside the Labour party in the UK.
- There was also the shit storm from that gentlemen's club groping the waiting staff a while ago.

These are off the top of my head, I am sure that if you chose to have a look yourself you could find many more examples. Although I am pretty certain (my assumption is based on your posts on this thread btw, not your political leanings) that you won't see past your biases to see them (your biases are shining through on this thread).

Your point in an earlier post about the right not attacking the character of the left is particularly interesting, given that this thread is intended to do exactly that. Do your biases stop you from realising that calling someone an NPC is attacking their character? Or is it that Looney is not representative of the right side of politics that you are referring to?