humor and being ''WOKE''

[Sculptor]

The longer and totally censored Humour of Ricky Gervais, because as we all know "You can't say that anymore".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH4jaJzmrWU

[Sculptor]

It's like the world is full of TRUMPERS.

So many have been manipulated into thinking something that is just not happening.
Humour has not been censored, though we hear so much about it from comedians wishing to keep relevant, and in the news.

Cleese has been ranting about his refusal to deleted the "Loretta Scene" from Life of Brian.

Hoards of the Twitterati have rushed to his aid, and Cleese has managed to get some desperately needed publicity.
But where is the origin of this story? It's invented News.
It does not qualify to be called FAKE NEWS, its not even news. Its just a phantom of the distraction mechanisms so that people get cross over nonsense whilst the governments continue to loot the economies for their friends in the city.

It's not like anyone is watching Life of Brian, nor has anyone asked to censor it.

[Dontaskme]

I don't know what you mean by "right wing." That's an ambiguous term, at best.

Look ...
In knowing the meaning of words, all that is known is 'meaning'.

All the while that which knows the meaning remains as it is... neither confused nor not confused - simply knowing, and not open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning, but can mean anything it wants to, because it just can.

Nothing that appears to have any meaning, means jack shit to knowing, ok. However, just be careful and responsible with your intended meaning. Consequences are the effect of every cause. That we all will reap as we sow. . in the garden of eden. This hell or heaven on earth we create for ourselves alone.

[Immanuel Can]

When did we actually establish that the ideology of "the Left" is any more shaky than that of the Right?

We could. But there's a lot of history and philosophy in explaining where it all comes from.

Let's shorten it, just for convenience. The political "wings" are defined differently today than when they were invented for application to the French parliamentary system. Then, it was a kind of royalists-versus-rebels distinction. By the '70s, people were talking about centrists, as well...by which they meant unradical conservatives and classical liberals. But today, the polarities have shifted: what used to be called the center is now regarded by the left as "right wing." And the left has now abandoned its old "centrists" and has gone at least Socialist, and more often, full-Marxist.

I would say that today, there is no "extreme right." There are classical liberals and classical conservatives, both being called "right wing" by the ideological Left, but they're really the old centrists. Nobody can any longer find a "right extremist," it seems -- outside of maybe a some band of local survivalist wingnuts hiding in a forest and declaring the end of civilization. The media would love to find some and put them on TV, but it seems they can't. So the whole scale has moved left, really.

But the radical Left is dead easy to locate. They pretty much run the "studies" areas of all the universities, and the administrations of public education in North America. Human resources departments are almost universally staffed by them. Governmental executive organizations are full of them. And even the Democrat party now has its "Pack," the self-declared neo-Marxist wing, to whom they seem to be catering in every new policy. The media puts them on TV all the time, burning down cities and marching in riots, always declaring that somebody's done them dirt, and that they deserve free stuff. Of course, the media invariably calls them "peaceful protestors," but one's eyes on them beating store owners with two-by-fours, or on the sheets of flame in the background as businesses go up clear up that "misunderstanding."

Main stream socialism is no less civilised than its Conservative counterpart,

I wish that were so. There was a time when it was: then, centrist conservatives and centrist liberals could debate civilly, and had balanced political representation. But things have changed, clearly. There are now NO right-wing riots, or right-wing idiots gluing themselves to paintings, and no right-wing morons sitting across public streets, or tearing down statues, or beating up their opposition. The press wishes there were, clearly...because that would really help them make the case that there's a "radical right" worth fearing, and hence that the radical Left was not uniquely stupid. They talk about "ultra-MAGAs," for instance, but such are as illusory as Jussie Smollett's "racist assailants."

[Peter Kropotkin]

When did we actually establish that the ideology of "the Left" is any more shaky than that of the Right?

We could. But there's a lot of history and philosophy in explaining where it all comes from.

Let's shorten it, just for convenience. The political "wings" are defined differently today than when they were invented for application to the French parliamentary system. Then, it was a kind of royalists-versus-rebels distinction. By the '70s, people were talking about centrists, as well...by which they meant unradical conservatives and classical liberals. But today, the polarities have shifted: what used to be called the center is now regarded by the left as "right wing." And the left has now abandoned its old "centrists" and has gone at least Socialist, and more often, full-Marxist.

I would say that today, there is no "extreme right." There are classical liberals and classical conservatives, both being called "right wing" by the ideological Left, but they're really the old centrists. Nobody can any longer find a "right extremist," it seems -- outside of maybe a some band of local survivalist wingnuts hiding in a forest and declaring the end of civilization. The media would love to find some and put them on TV, but it seems they can't. So the whole scale has moved left, really.

But the radical Left is dead easy to locate. They pretty much run the "studies" areas of all the universities, and the administrations of public education in North America. Human resources departments are almost universally staffed by them. Governmental executive organizations are full of them. And even the Democrat party now has its "Pack," the self-declared neo-Marxist wing, to whom they seem to be catering in every new policy. The media puts them on TV all the time, burning down cities and marching in riots, always declaring that somebody's done them dirt, and that they deserve free stuff. Of course, the media invariably calls them "peaceful protestors," but one's eyes on them beating store owners with two-by-fours, or on the sheets of flame in the background as businesses go up clear up that "misunderstanding."

Main stream socialism is no less civilised than its Conservative counterpart,

I wish that were so. There was a time when it was: then, centrist conservatives and centrist liberals could debate civilly, and had balanced political representation. But things have changed, clearly. There are now NO right-wing riots, or right-wing idiots gluing themselves to paintings, and no right-wing morons sitting across public streets, or tearing down statues, or beating up their opposition. The press wishes there were, clearly...because that would really help them make the case that there's a "radical right" worth fearing, and hence that the radical Left was not uniquely stupid. They talk about "ultra-MAGAs," for instance, but such are as illusory as Jussie Smollett's "racist assailants."

K: acting as if the January 6 coup attempt didn't actually happen?
Now that is rewriting history...

Kropotkin

[Harbal]

When did we actually establish that the ideology of "the Left" is any more shaky than that of the Right?

We could. But there's a lot of history and philosophy in explaining where it all comes from.

Let's shorten it, just for convenience. The political "wings" are defined differently today than when they were invented for application to the French parliamentary system. Then, it was a kind of royalists-versus-rebels distinction. By the '70s, people were talking about centrists, as well...by which they meant unradical conservatives and classical liberals. But today, the polarities have shifted: what used to be called the center is now regarded by the left as "right wing." And the left has now abandoned its old "centrists" and has gone at least Socialist, and more often, full-Marxist.

I would say that today, there is no "extreme right." There are classical liberals and classical conservatives, both being called "right wing" by the ideological Left, but they're really the old centrists. Nobody can any longer find a "right extremist," it seems -- outside of maybe a some band of local survivalist wingnuts hiding in a forest and declaring the end of civilization. The media would love to find some and put them on TV, but it seems they can't. So the whole scale has moved left, really.

But the radical Left is dead easy to locate. They pretty much run the "studies" areas of all the universities, and the administrations of public education in North America. Human resources departments are almost universally staffed by them. Governmental executive organizations are full of them. And even the Democrat party now has its "Pack," the self-declared neo-Marxist wing, to whom they seem to be catering in every new policy. The media puts them on TV all the time, burning down cities and marching in riots, always declaring that somebody's done them dirt, and that they deserve free stuff. Of course, the media invariably calls them "peaceful protestors," but one's eyes on them beating store owners with two-by-fours, or on the sheets of flame in the background as businesses go up clear up that "misunderstanding."

Main stream socialism is no less civilised than its Conservative counterpart,

I wish that were so. There was a time when it was: then, centrist conservatives and centrist liberals could debate civilly, and had balanced political representation. But things have changed, clearly. There are now NO right-wing riots, or right-wing idiots gluing themselves to paintings, and no right-wing morons sitting across public streets, or tearing down statues, or beating up their opposition. The press wishes there were, clearly...because that would really help them make the case that there's a "radical right" worth fearing, and hence that the radical Left was not uniquely stupid. They talk about "ultra-MAGAs," for instance, but such are as illusory as Jussie Smollett's "racist assailants."

I have to hand it to you, IC, when you have an agenda to push, you never turn up empty handed. I don't accept your above account, of course; there is absolutely no reason why I should. I really do find this constant jabbing at "the Left" by certain people really irritating. And it isn't because I am one of the Left, it is because it is both insulting to the intelligence and dishonest.

[Immanuel Can]

K: acting as if the January 6 coup attempt didn't actually happen?

Have you seen the actual video of the alleged "coup attempt"?

It's the most tame "coup attempt" you'll ever find. An no "coup" ended up happening. Contrast that with the nights of looting, riots and flames of Baltimore, Kenosha, Portland, Atlanta, LA, Seattle, NY...

But boy, the Dems ride that one hard, because they've got nothing else to work with at all. It's pretty funny, actually.

[Immanuel Can]

I really do find this constant jabbing at "the Left" by certain people really irritating. And it isn't because I am one of the Left, it is because it is both insulting to the intelligence and dishonest.

If you say so.

Then let's call them what they are: radical Cultural Marxists. We can leave "left" and "right" totally out of it.

[Peter Kropotkin]

K: acting as if the January 6 coup attempt didn't actually happen?

Have you seen the actual video of the alleged "coup attempt"?

It's the most tame "coup attempt" you'll ever find. An no "coup" ended up happening. Contrast that with the nights of looting, riots and flames of Baltimore, Kenosha, Portland, Atlanta, LA, Seattle, NY...

But boy, the Dems ride that one hard, because they've got nothing else to work with at all. It's pretty funny, actually.

K: ummm, I wonder how 500 defendants have received
prison sentences from their actions on January 6, 2021?
a simple mistake? doubt it...one guy got 7 years in prison for
his actions on the 6th... doesn't sound like a ''tame coup"
attempt... and what about the 150 police officers who got
hurt or what about the 5 who died? a ''pretty tame coup'' attempt
that got 150 police officers hurt? wow, a lot of
people accidentally fell down that day... and others were "falsely"
charged with that, right?

Kropotkin

[Harbal]

I really do find this constant jabbing at "the Left" by certain people really irritating. And it isn't because I am one of the Left, it is because it is both insulting to the intelligence and dishonest.

If you say so.

Then let's call them what they are: radical Cultural Marxists. We can leave "left" and "right" totally out of it.

Yes, use the term "radical Cultural Marxists" instead of "the Left", so that those who are simply left leaning don't make the mistake of thinking you are referring to them, and only the radical Cultural Marxists need protest at your comments.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I suppose 'cultural Marxism' would be in the same category type as 'social Darwinism'. Darwin is hardly responsible for imbeciles who don't know the difference between biology and ideology.

Don't blame Marx for the rise of the virtue-signalling, anti-science, narcissistic moron. That would be the internet and social media.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

When did we actually establish that the ideology of "the Left" is any more shaky than that of the Right?

We could. But there's a lot of history and philosophy in explaining where it all comes from.

Let's shorten it, just for convenience. The political "wings" are defined differently today than when they were invented for application to the French parliamentary system. Then, it was a kind of royalists-versus-rebels distinction. By the '70s, people were talking about centrists, as well...by which they meant unradical conservatives and classical liberals. But today, the polarities have shifted: what used to be called the center is now regarded by the left as "right wing." And the left has now abandoned its old "centrists" and has gone at least Socialist, and more often, full-Marxist.

I would say that today, there is no "extreme right." There are classical liberals and classical conservatives, both being called "right wing" by the ideological Left, but they're really the old centrists. Nobody can any longer find a "right extremist," it seems -- outside of maybe a some band of local survivalist wingnuts hiding in a forest and declaring the end of civilization. The media would love to find some and put them on TV, but it seems they can't. So the whole scale has moved left, really.

But the radical Left is dead easy to locate. They pretty much run the "studies" areas of all the universities, and the administrations of public education in North America. Human resources departments are almost universally staffed by them. Governmental executive organizations are full of them. And even the Democrat party now has its "Pack," the self-declared neo-Marxist wing, to whom they seem to be catering in every new policy. The media puts them on TV all the time, burning down cities and marching in riots, always declaring that somebody's done them dirt, and that they deserve free stuff. Of course, the media invariably calls them "peaceful protestors," but one's eyes on them beating store owners with two-by-fours, or on the sheets of flame in the background as businesses go up clear up that "misunderstanding."

Main stream socialism is no less civilised than its Conservative counterpart,

I wish that were so. There was a time when it was: then, centrist conservatives and centrist liberals could debate civilly, and had balanced political representation. But things have changed, clearly. There are now NO right-wing riots, or right-wing idiots gluing themselves to paintings, and no right-wing morons sitting across public streets, or tearing down statues, or beating up their opposition. The press wishes there were, clearly...because that would really help them make the case that there's a "radical right" worth fearing, and hence that the radical Left was not uniquely stupid. They talk about "ultra-MAGAs," for instance, but such are as illusory as Jussie Smollett's "racist assailants."

I have to hand it to you, IC, when you have an agenda to push, you never turn up empty handed. I don't accept your above account, of course; there is absolutely no reason why I should. I really do find this constant jabbing at "the Left" by certain people really irritating. And it isn't because I am one of the Left, it is because it is both insulting to the intelligence and dishonest.

That's because there is no such entity as 'the Left'. It's just a convenient 'go to' for lazy idiots who don't know any better (and don't want to).

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Odd that IC doesn't have the same appreciation for the use of 'the Right' (equally stupid but rarely used by comparison).

Humans are far too complex to be categorised as simply 'Left' or 'Right', whereas 'Wokism' has a very specific agenda, ideology, methodology and manifesto, just as Nazism does and any other extreme political movement/cult.

The demonisation of 'the Left' is simply an American ploy to get people to vote Republican. Unfortunately American poison has a way of always seeping into the rest of the planet.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's like the world is full of TRUMPERS.

So many have been manipulated into thinking something that is just not happening.
Humour has not been censored, though we hear so much about it from comedians wishing to keep relevant, and in the news.

Cleese has been ranting about his refusal to deleted the "Loretta Scene" from Life of Brian.

Hoards of the Twitterati have rushed to his aid, and Cleese has managed to get some desperately needed publicity.
But where is the origin of this story? It's invented News.
It does not qualify to be called FAKE NEWS, its not even news. Its just a phantom of the distraction mechanisms so that people get cross over nonsense whilst the governments continue to loot the economies for their friends in the city.

It's not like anyone is watching Life of Brian, nor has anyone asked to censor it.

You seem to have very little awareness of what's actually going on in the world, or don't want to be aware of it because it's 'inconvenient'. I suppose that ivory tower of yours has very thick, soundproof walls.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The longer and totally censored Humour of Ricky Gervais, because as we all know "You can't say that anymore".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH4jaJzmrWU

I see you didn't post his 'trans' one. It's much funnier

Ricky Gervais understands biology and isn't a misogynistic shithead.