Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

what does emily benn tell us about the state of politics

exosculate said:
Some are, but you're right most of the sheeple are repeating Sun slogans, and certainly would not engage with any of your left rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Another example of how you've totally and utterly lost it. If you really feel such contempt for the capabilities of everyone else, what do you expect to happen?
 
brasicritique said:
and your iwca ?:D what wall have you got your portrait of the queen hanging on!

i think yourve got a bundle of contradictions to go and untangle my boy

btw if your going to go down the old brasic is a toff then can you at least try to beat hipolis or wtf there called semi humerous attempt as at the mo your coming across as a bit of lemon maybe vp is looking for an aprentice :D

if your iwca then the wc are well and truely fucked
Click to expand...

not iwca, and a republican, you couldn't be further wrong :p

and it was a joke about you being a toff - i'd day the posters who didn't see that are, oh, one - you:p
 
editor said:
Remind me why she is "scum" please.
Click to expand...

She aint scum individually. They are collectively. I seem to still be making an exception for her grand-dad who spoke superbly in Manchester on Saturday.

But they are both activists for a reactionary corrupt organisation, a fact I doubt you will disupte. "scum" is a fitting shorthand for the collective and their disgusting deeds.
 
FridgeMagnet said:
"sheeple" = fail. Under all circumstances ever.
Click to expand...

I disagree. A lot of people seem to take great offence to this term but I cant see why.

it is a mere portmanteau word which attributes a herd mentality to large parts of the population.

Just how large those swathes are is an interesting question, but the idea itself is straightforward, inoffensive and that herd mentality demonstrably exists.

So it can not be more offensive than saying "people who are like sheep in their herd mentality" - it is just a quicker way of saying so really.

I dont use it any more because of the flack that it incurs tends to sidetrack a discussion. But that flak is empty and generally as sanctimonious as the flacker accuses the term of being
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
She aint scum individually. They are collectively. I seem to still be making an exception for her grand-dad who spoke superbly in Manchester on Saturday..
Click to expand...
Well obviously anyone who doesn't agree with your political opinion can only be 'scum' in your eyes.

And I fear that rather says a lot about the kind of person you are.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
I disagree. A lot of people seem to take great offence to this term but I cant see why.

it is a mere portmanteau word which attributes a herd mentality to large swathes of the population. Just how large those swathes are is an interesting question, but the idea itself is straightforward, inoffensive and demonstrably exists.
Click to expand...

Hence why people always ignore you to except to take the piss. You line up with all the wrong forces with the use of this slur. And frankly, it marks you out as a bit of a prick. That applies to all users as you meander off into your paranoid fascist takeover world.

Iedit: In fact, as you do meander off into isloation you *need* to simultaneoulsy construct a sheeple model to be able to keep your own flakey psyches together. It's not me, it's them, all of them
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
I disagree. A lot of people seem to take great offence to this term but I cant see why.

it is a mere portmanteau word which attributes a herd mentality to large parts of the population.

Just how large those swathes are is an interesting question, but the idea itself is straightforward, inoffensive and that herd mentality demonstrably exists.

So it can not be more offensive than saying "people who are like sheep in their herd mentality" - it is just a quicker way of saying so really.

I dont use it any more because of the flack that it incurs tends to sidetrack a discussion. But that flak is empty and generally as sanctimonious as the flacker accuses the term of being
Click to expand...

No. You don't know what you are talking about. The term basically means that you subscribe to the notion that you are ahead of the masses and they just don't understand what you are saying.

It is most certainly not a mere portmanteau and if you think it is you really need to look at how it is used and in what context. I have never, under any circumstances whatsoever, encountered anyone seriously using the term who was not an unalloyed prick.
 
FridgeMagnet said:
No. You don't know what you are talking about. The term basically means that you subscribe to the notion that you are ahead of the masses and they just don't understand what you are saying.

It is most certainly not a mere portmanteau and if you think it is you really need to look at how it is used and in what context. I have never, under any circumstances whatsoever, encountered anyone seriously using the term who was not an unalloyed prick.
Click to expand...

What a lot of patronising generalising nonsense. On the one hand you flame folk for seeming somehow aloof and then you blanket call people "pricks" and say they "dont know what they are talking about". Have you any idea how ironic that is?

Anyway, to the point in hand rather than schoolboy jeering:

A person may know more about situation X than a herd mentality and then be part of a herd in situation Y. And the herd can actually be right too.

It certainly is a portmanteau word. That is exactly the roots of the word.

The context in which it is used is indeed that which describes a herd mentality, often driven by orchestrated propaganda.

Brief example: Whipped up anti migrant sentiment, often founded on demonstrable lies touted by right wing think tanks and rags like the express and sun.

These whinging xenophobes are acting in response like a herd. "sheeple" is an apt description.

They are often the "unalloyed pricks", but not nearly as much as those driving the propaganda.

Another example: Any schmuck who falls for government lies on ID cards, usually because they dont know the first thing about the issue. I have come accross this literally hundreds of times first hand so please dont bother to tell me Im wrong

It is a herd mentality "nothing to hide nothing to fear" dross and there are those who would sacrifice liberty for a false sale of security at the drop of a hat.

But I have NEVER campaigned on an easier issue. 2 sentences is generally enough to convince them against the scheme.

So why are the public so under-informed or mis-informed on a wide range of topics?

Not because they are stupid but because opinions are scientifically orchestrated using techniques honed over centuries, but especially since Freud, the nazis / soviets and post war america.

The metaphor of sheep is perfectly applicable because that is how the masses are seen by the elite. Pawns. Sheep, whatever. It is how masses are treated through history, and how many respond.

For you to deny this would be to deny some of the most basic dynamics of human history just to back up a piece of what is basically petty and empty indignation.

I wonder if many are offended by the term basically because they find comparing people to other animals intrinsically offensive. This would be species-ism redolant of a supremely arrogant mindset of a species that happens to be fucking things up in a very bad way.

Nonetheless, it seems doublethink requires a curse on those who would dare to point out the obvious that is in plain view.
 
butchersapron said:
paranoid fascist takeover world.
Click to expand...

Sure. There's no fascist takeover. Berlesconni doesnt compare his crowd to falange, Operation Paperclip didnt happen, Bushs grand dad didnt fund the nazis. Elite global robber barons dont rip us off every single day. China, a tyranny founded on mass executions, isnt a darling of global capitalism. The government doesnt want to eyescan and fingerprint us for a database, RFID isnt going into all numberplates and all the wars are fought for good reason with the full consent of the people. There is nothing to worry about. This video contains no truth


Thanks for turning me back on to the kool aid.

Whoever said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance was clearly wrong. It must be semantic pedantry instead.
 
editor said:
Well obviously anyone who doesn't agree with your political opinion can only be 'scum' in your eyes.

And I fear that rather says a lot about the kind of person you are.
Click to expand...

People who want to eyescan and fingerprint us for the database or make mealy mouthed excuses for spending £70bn on WMD certainly are scum in my eyes. dispicable dangerous scum to boot.

What that says about me is that I hold our human respect and liberty in high regard and am not complacent about their continuance.
 
FridgeMagnet said:
No. You don't know what you are talking about. The term basically means that you subscribe to the notion that you are ahead of the masses and they just don't understand what you are saying.

It is most certainly not a mere portmanteau and if you think it is you really need to look at how it is used and in what context. I have never, under any circumstances whatsoever, encountered anyone seriously using the term who was not an unalloyed prick.
Click to expand...

As I have pointed out on some philosophy threads, it displays a contempt for humanity. It is a dehumanizing term. It means you can group large amounts of people without considering them as actual human beings.

And yes, it does imply that the user thinks he has found the truth and that the rest of the population, that he is enlightened and everybody else is an unthinking zombie.

This attitude terrifies me.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
People who want to eyescan and fingerprint us for the database or make mealy mouthed excuses for spending £70bn on WMD certainly are scum in my eyes. dispicable dangerous scum to boot.

What that says about me is that I hold our human respect and liberty in high regard and am not complacent about their continuance.
Click to expand...

What you claim to be and what you actually display in what you say and how you are saying it are two hugely different things.
 
Anybody who refers to human relations as 'herd-like' is a massive prick.

That dehumanizing attitude legitimize's all sorts of horrors, and displays a massive contempt for humanity.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
What a lot of patronising generalising nonsense. On the one hand you flame folk for seeming somehow aloof and then you blanket call people "pricks" and say they "dont know what they are talking about". Have you any idea how ironic that is?

Anyway, to the point in hand rather than schoolboy jeering:

A person may know more about situation X than a herd mentality and then be part of a herd in situation Y. And the herd can actually be right too.

It certainly is a portmanteau word. That is exactly the roots of the word.

The context in which it is used is indeed that which describes a herd mentality, often driven by orchestrated propaganda.

Brief example: Whipped up anti migrant sentiment, often founded on demonstrable lies touted by right wing think tanks and rags like the express and sun.

These whinging xenophobes are acting in response like a herd. "sheeple" is an apt description.

They are often the "unalloyed pricks", but not nearly as much as those driving the propaganda.

Another example: Any schmuck who falls for government lies on ID cards, usually because they dont know the first thing about the issue. I have come accross this literally hundreds of times first hand so please dont bother to tell me Im wrong

It is a herd mentality "nothing to hide nothing to fear" dross and there are those who would sacrifice liberty for a false sale of security at the drop of a hat.

But I have NEVER campaigned on an easier issue. 2 sentences is generally enough to convince them against the scheme.

So why are the public so under-informed or mis-informed on a wide range of topics?

Not because they are stupid but because opinions are scientifically orchestrated using techniques honed over centuries, but especially since Freud, the nazis / soviets and post war america.

The metaphor of sheep is perfectly applicable because that is how the masses are seen by the elite. Pawns. Sheep, whatever. It is how masses are treated through history, and how many respond.

For you to deny this would be to deny some of the most basic dynamics of human history just to back up a piece of what is basically petty and empty indignation.

I wonder if many are offended by the term basically because they find comparing people to other animals intrinsically offensive. This would be species-ism redolant of a supremely arrogant mindset of a species that happens to be fucking things up in a very bad way.

Nonetheless, it seems doublethink requires a curse on those who would dare to point out the obvious that is in plain view.
Click to expand...

What is hilarious here is that you point out it is a bad thing, a term used by the people you are against, as a justification for you to think it is an OK way to think about people.

You should be different from the people you are against. Your attitude shows that you are exactly what you claim you hate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tim
Anyone worried about the UK becoming a one party state?
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
Kid_Eternity
Kid_Eternity
O
Is anyone worried about the future of Britain's culture?
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
275
Views
8K
Funky_monks
F
tim
  • Poll
The kulaks are revolting - does Urban back big farmer?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
969
Bahnhof Strasse
Bahnhof Strasse
Pickman's model
yvette cooper's pitiful politics
Replies
0
Views
198
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Silas Loom
Practical republican politics
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
Silas Loom
Silas Loom
Back
Top Bottom