Author Topic: Facebook thread  (Read 171631 times)

Onken

  • puddle of his own failure
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #60 on: February 10, 2015, 09:16:28 PM »

Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #61 on: February 10, 2015, 09:39:25 PM »
I like the way that implies getting your arm blown off is just something that happens day to day like a bad tackle. Army? Don't think so mate

Thomas

  • well they do all sixteen dances.
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #62 on: February 10, 2015, 09:42:38 PM »
Is that a receipt?

Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #63 on: February 10, 2015, 09:47:12 PM »
Obviously written by someone who has never been in a pub full of drunken squaddies.

BritishHobo

  • That is a really reductive impression
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #64 on: February 10, 2015, 09:55:56 PM »
I fucking hate that '99% of you won't' thing. I've seen it on a post about cancer before, as if the majority of the general public are actually pro-cancer.

Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #65 on: February 10, 2015, 10:09:04 PM »
How many footballers you think make 250k a week? Two? Ten? If you averaged it out to anyone who plays in the leagues it'd be garbage money. By that logic we should only compare them against celebrity soldiers or something. How much does Ronaldo earn compared to Jesse The Body Ventura?

I realise I'm just venting to no real end here but arrrgghhh everything about that is bullshit.

Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #66 on: February 11, 2015, 03:59:24 AM »
I fucking hate that '99% of you won't' thing. I've seen it on a post about cancer before, as if the majority of the general public are actually pro-cancer.

Yeah that's the worst.  It's also that kind of "Keep Off The Grass" challenge, combined with a "BE SPECIAL!  BE ONE OF THOSE SPECIAL 1% WHO ARE GOOD!"

And for what?  Who does it help, sharing that shite photo around?  There isn't even a link to a charity or anything, is there?  Pure fucking self-congratulation.  And lazarou also pointed out the obvious ridiculousness of saying "A footballer earns $250k a week".  That's like taking the wife of a billionaire and saying "A housewife has billions of dollars.  A soldier doesn't have that much."  Completely meaningless.  And let's not get into how the money for footballers and soldiers don't come from the same place and aaarrrgh fuckit

Quote
A SOLDIER GETS HIS ARM BLOWN OFF AND CARRIES ON

What?!  This guy's experience of soldiers seems to come solely from RoboCop or something.  They are humans, you know.  And if you want to see an example of a footballer "carrying on" in the face of doom, look no further:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_PLu9KWNK8

SUPPORT ARE FOOTBALERS

chand

  • "like Louise Mensch but with a sexy beard"
    • https://twitter.com/RopesToInfinity
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #67 on: February 11, 2015, 09:21:05 AM »
Soldiers don't usually 'carry on' if they get their limbs blown off, do they? I'm sure I've heard of injured soldiers leaving the army before. I guess some of them probably carry on immediately after getting injured, but largely because there's a genuine threat of immediate death if they roll about on the floor going "argh, fuck, that hurts".

I'm not sure that paying soldiers £13m a year each is really a feasible solution to the burning problem of footballers being overpaid though, so maybe the solution is to lay IUDs around football pitches and have snipers in the gantry? I dunno, help me out here.

Pit-Pat

  • because I enjoy ham radio
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #68 on: February 11, 2015, 09:26:16 AM »
I really hate the way it's framed in a "Footballers are overpaid - soldiers are paid less but are worthy of being paid as much", rather than "Footballers are overpaid, most other people are underpaid". Maybe part of the rise of aspirational TV, the lauding of success and the decline of collective bargaining is that people now think they basically aren't worth any more than what they're paid, not unless they've created a multi-million pound business from scratch or happen to be good at singing or acting or kicking a ball.

Jim_MacLaine

  • Where do the French girls hang out?
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #69 on: February 11, 2015, 11:02:01 AM »
Liking the diversity there, lads.



No subs, no jacket Brian.

Hank_Kingsley

  • BARON CORBYN
    • LIKE  AND  SHARE
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #70 on: February 11, 2015, 11:13:46 AM »
Footballers provide hours of entertainment both on and off the pitch. Soldiers reckon Jim Davidson is Britain's best stand-up.

monkfromhavana

  • Top one, nice one, get sorted
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #71 on: February 11, 2015, 11:22:16 AM »
But...do you actually go looking for this shit? If any of my "friends" comes out with any of this shit (generally the share this photo crap as opposed to Britain First) I just unfollow them.

hamfist

  • Furry Asscandy
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #72 on: February 11, 2015, 01:00:37 PM »
maybe the solution is to lay IUDs around football pitches

Then NOBODY'S getting pregnant. NOBODY.

Quincey

  • Silver Member
  • ****
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #73 on: February 11, 2015, 01:08:58 PM »
Has people sharing one of those "99% won't share..." images ever changed anything? All it does is allow people to think they've made a difference when they haven't. If people really cared about soliders' pay that much, why not write to the MoD, hold a demonstration outside Parliament or at the very least do regular online campaigning on Twitter and Facebook rather than post one smug picture?

Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #74 on: February 11, 2015, 05:49:05 PM »
Well also, footballers aren't really overpaid considering the ridiculous sums of money Premiership football clubs make. I mean, I'm sure some clubs could be paying a bit more to their ball boys or people on their apprenticeship schemes or whatever. But most of it presumably goes to boardroom members and club owners who don't really have anything to do with why people like Football. I assume for most professional footballers in England, the relative proportion they get isn't actually a huge amount.

Angrew Lloyg Wegger

  • had he know it was Hitler's birthday...
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • ...he would not have celebrated
    • instagram ponce
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #75 on: February 11, 2015, 06:03:07 PM »
But...do you actually go looking for this shit? If any of my "friends" comes out with any of this shit (generally the share this photo crap as opposed to Britain First) I just unfollow them.

But then you have nothing to post here.

Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #76 on: February 11, 2015, 06:06:32 PM »


1) I'm the same age as the bloke who posted it and they definitely said that
2) Has this ever been earnestly said about a Road Runner cartoon?

Paul Calf

  • Just put 'nice plums'.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #77 on: February 11, 2015, 06:50:26 PM »


1) I'm the same age as the bloke who posted it and they definitely said that
2) Has this ever been earnestly said about a Road Runner cartoon?

I don't think I could resist the temptation to reply

"Weren't you? What happened?"

BPFHAY

  • And when you didn't she was brought to me in pain
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #78 on: February 11, 2015, 06:56:23 PM »
If only we didn't have to take time out of our days to read the words "don't try this at home" we'd probably have remained productive enough to avoid the recession.

chand

  • "like Louise Mensch but with a sexy beard"
    • https://twitter.com/RopesToInfinity
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #79 on: February 12, 2015, 09:03:33 AM »
Then NOBODY'S getting pregnant. NOBODY.

Ohhh, right. Now I see why I was sacked from my job as a gynaecologist.

chand

  • "like Louise Mensch but with a sexy beard"
    • https://twitter.com/RopesToInfinity
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #80 on: February 12, 2015, 09:09:36 AM »
1) I'm the same age as the bloke who posted it and they definitely said that

It was definitely a phrase I heard as a kid in the 80s.

Imagine thinking that occasionally saying a five-word phrase in the hope of preventing injury to a small child was a really bad thing.

Pit-Pat

  • because I enjoy ham radio
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #81 on: February 12, 2015, 11:01:05 AM »
If only we didn't have to take time out of our days to read the words "don't try this at home" we'd probably have remained productive enough to avoid the recession.

Political Correctness and Health & Safety cost the UK economy £75m per year, UKIP argues.

"We measured the extra miliseconds it takes to say 'black person' rather than 'negro' (or similar) and calculated that if each of those seconds was spent on productivity instead, the British economy would be 0.026% more productive, c.£75m."

monkfromhavana

  • Top one, nice one, get sorted
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #82 on: February 12, 2015, 12:02:48 PM »
But then you have nothing to post here.

Damn logic.

Quincey

  • Silver Member
  • ****
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #83 on: February 12, 2015, 12:56:29 PM »
Facebook criticised for closing a page set up by a ten year old who raised £34k for charity.

On the one hand it's clearly stated no one under 13 can set up a page, on the other hand they could have just transferred it to the mother, or at the very least let them save the content on the page before it was removed

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11407804/Mean-hearted-Facebook-shuts-down-violin-girls-30k-charity-page.html

BritishHobo

  • That is a really reductive impression
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #84 on: February 12, 2015, 10:04:22 PM »
I like when people try to apply emotion and maliciousness to automated actions. It's unfortunate, but that's just the way the guidelines on the website are set up, it means nothing beyond an unfortunate coincidence. At one point in that article the mother is quoted as saying "This has only made us stronger, and she isn't going to stop." What? Of course she's not going to stop, why would she? Why would anybody think she was? The implication seems to be that the big evil Facebook robot wanted to stand in the way of her success, which is a fucking nanners thing to say.

Beagle 2

  • Silver Member
  • ****
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #85 on: February 12, 2015, 11:25:09 PM »


I did not know that.

BritishHobo

  • That is a really reductive impression
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #86 on: February 12, 2015, 11:40:44 PM »
Me neither. We should tell people. Does anybody know of a quick and easy format with which to do that?

chand

  • "like Louise Mensch but with a sexy beard"
    • https://twitter.com/RopesToInfinity
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #87 on: February 13, 2015, 09:22:51 AM »
What good will it do? History has been whitewashed so nobody can ever know that Bill Gates is depopulating the world.

Pit-Pat

  • because I enjoy ham radio
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #88 on: February 13, 2015, 09:40:41 AM »
You'd think that if Bill Gates was depopulating the world he'd be doing a better job of it.

EDIT: The other stuff all makes sense obviously

chand

  • "like Louise Mensch but with a sexy beard"
    • https://twitter.com/RopesToInfinity
Re: Facebook thread
« Reply #89 on: February 13, 2015, 11:18:06 AM »
It's essentially all based on some stuff Gates once said about how reducing disease in third world countries raises their living standards, and higher living standards mean, usually, people have fewer children. What he meant was that vaccines can help children in African and Indian villages grow to be adults, but what anti-vaccine folks heard was "Bill Gates thinks there are too many people and we need to literally murder them with poisoned vaccines in order to depopulate the earth down to a core population about 500 million people". Which is an interesting take I guess. I like all the YouTube videos where people seem to think that a) Bill Gates vowed to murder billions of children in a TED talk and b) that his stated views in the TED talk were a secret that needed to be 'EXPOSED'.