Why Morrissey Is Dead To Me, By Gene's Martin Rossiter - The Quietus

Quietus article.

Why Morrissey Is Dead To Me, By Gene's Martin Rossiter - The Quietus

Morrissey was an inspiration to Martin Rossiter, whose band Gene share many fans with the former Smith. But after years of right wing blethering from Moz, Martin has had enough

"I feel ashamed and embarrassed that I quietly remained a Morrissey apologist for many years."

 

[That Man Again]

"Debating? All I've seen you do is throw out inaccurate fallacies such as 'this board has suddenly attracted a lot of white nationalists to it.' Proof? Nothing."

The proof is in the support of candidates who are open white nationalists. The recent increase comes from posters linked to the story through search engines. Don't be naive. Populism has been the bread, and butter of creeping fascism since its inception.

Hitler ran on the same grievances, but did not transform into the Hitler we talk about until after he was elected. Still, the public went along with it out of national pride.

"Which 'white nationalist' candidate has Morrissey supported? If you're about to name farage I'd be interested to see a quote from him where he has specifically said that England is only for white people. Again more virtue signalling from the left."

Morrissey supported Le Pen, the National Front candidate.

Farage supported her campaign. He supported Trump, who's administration has open white nationalists in his cabinet; Gorka, and Bannon being two of them. His policies are those supported by white supremacist groups. They share the same platform. They may polish their rhetoric when speaking to a broader audience, but actions speak louder than words, as do the alliances they form.

Farage came out in support of gutting racial discrimination laws. In other words, making it legal for employers to deny employment based on race.

Le Pen said that there is not a "hair's breadth" between it and UKIP. Trump received the same endorsement from the KKK. No, not indicative at all. We'll wait for the S.S. tattoo to appear.

Apparently, you require a specific uniform, and blunt racial hostility from a politician to accept what their ideology is, or enables. Again, this is naive, and it's one of the ways ideologues such as Farage, and others come along and scoop up people who are ruled by fear.

Ultimately, we are arguing semantics. Whether you claim someone is racist in the ideological sense, a white nationalist, or a nervous bigot, it all leads to the same outcome. Call it what you want. Ultimately, it doesn't make a difference in terms of outcomes.

'There is no left bogeyman trying to paint all of you as racists, or monsters.' Although I hesitate to call him a 'bogeyman' (again this is a title that you have made up) look at practically every response Peter has made to anyone on these threads. he simply cal;ls them a 'Nazi.' "

Who cares? He's one person. He's not a party. He's not the average person. He has no influence. People think, and believe all kinds of outrageous things; especially on the Internet. You guys are arguing in the world's smallest bubble, and thinking it applies to the universe.

You, and others have turned the most basic concerns about mob hysteria, and its affects on innocent people into some direct, or indirect support of Islamic extremists. How does that make you and others any different? Why aren't you concerned about that kind of stereotyping?

"Feel free to go onto any message board out there that discusses the issue of immigration, student rallies etc and the term 'Nazi' is thrown around to anyone that holds what I believe to be legitimate concerns about mass immigration. It's careless and irresponsible and closes down valuable debate."

Because the immigration issue attracts Nazi's and white nationalists. They use the issue to gain traction with the broader public. They share a platform. While I may not agree with knee-jerk claims of racism, it matters very little when these groups are gaining power because you both share the same paranoia.

That's much more worrisome to me than someone calling you a racist and hurting your feelings.

"You made a point in an earlier post about how peaceful Europe had been in the last 30 years under the current Euro regime. yeah it's working out so well for countries like Greece, Italy and Spain. Economies are really struggling under the Euro system, immigration policies which has been going on unfettered for the past 30 years are now coming home to roost."

The world went through a severe economic downturn. Many countries have never fully recovered from that. Greece's problems stem from that economic down-turn, it's lack of aggressive tax collection, and it's lack of exports. It's not because of immigration.

Italy has always been an economic basket case for similar reasons. These countries allow immigration because they need it. Cultural anxiety is down the list of concerns they have.

Economic isolation, and protectionism ultimately hurt economies. This is a fact. Automation has taken most jobs, not immigrants. Immigrants work jobs that most people feel are beneath them, and are too physically demanding for the pay. Immigrant labor has helped to lower prices, and increases purchasing power for many nations that complain about their jobs being stolen.

The rhetoric about immigrants stealing jobs has gone on throughout history, and it's always used as a scapegoat for people who cannot compete in ever changing economies. It's always the oustider's fault.

This the problem, and the reason why many people are suspicious of those who act like it's just about stemming immigration. Stemming immigration may soothe your cultural anxiety, but it's not sound economic policy. At some point, sound economic policy has to trump the fear of there being too many immigrants.

You are not owed an unchanging world. Country's have changed in their demographics throughout history.

"Do you really feel like France, Germany, Britain etc feel safer now than say 10 years ago?"

Safe from whom? Each other? Muslim extremists? I would suspect with the rise of nationalism, and the death of traditional alliances around the globe that many people don't feel as safe as they once did when cooler heads prevailed. Nationalism, and hostility towards immigrants is not helping these nations remain stable. They're not solving the problem. They're encouraging civil wars.

You cannot stop every individual from blowing themselves up, but the reality is is that you have very little chance of being killed, by a terrorist, or even knowing anyone who was killed by a terrorist. It doesn't mean you don't think there is a problem that needs to be addressed, but you don't become consumed by it.

"How do you thing centre right ideologies emerge? Froma few snazzy speeches and meme campaigns? There is a level of discord and disharmony from people who live in districts like Rinkeby which is very real and not just some made-up right-wing campaign to somehow pull Europe to pieces."

The anxiety you speak of has been brought about by changing technology, a economic bust, a twenty four hour media, and your standard racial, and ethnic scapegoating that is always in play.

If you think Muslim extremism, and SJW's should be a greater concern than health-care, education, the environment, the economy, sound foreign policy, and infrastructure, then you should expect people to wonder about your motives.

Finally, the fact that you would even characterize them as center right ideologies shows how far down the rabbit hole we have gone. These are traditionally far right ideologies, and they are being normalized.

 

[bhops]

You really have to be careful about the hyperbole. Free speech was certainly under attack more during the Nixon era with examples like Kent State. The truth is both sides want to control the dialog, who can speak and what they have a right to say. It's not like the right are so tolerant of differing views and the left are nasty closed-minded little fascists.
Despite President Trump's election things are generally moving towards the left and have been for at least half a century. People don't really believe in Trump. He's an embarrassment. He was simply the furthest thing available from Hillary and Obama. He has emboldened a lot of people that might have been afraid to state their views before and he does an exceptional job at getting people involved in the political process. I don't like him or respect him and I think he's bad for the country but I'll give the devil his due. He knows how to campaign.
But let's not let our differing views on Trump be an issue. I think we both support free speech and although I'm left and you're right I think we're both willing to call out the more ridiculous examples of turning a blind eye to the truth.
In my opinion the reason that certain groups are called out on everything by the left while at the same time they will ignore other groups who are at least as egregious and harmful is because certain groups are considered not to really matter. It isn't because of the great respect that might be had for their opinions; it's the exact opposite. Could any white public figure have survived the Tawana Brawley debacle? Rev Al Sharpton is still a respected (sort of) public figure. It's not because he made a mistake and it was forgiven. It's because no one thinks he is expected to know any better and no one thinks his opinion on anything matters.
You will see this again and again. I think it's why liberals hesitate to call out Muslims for being anti-gay, anti-equality, BUT at the same time where are the right wingers calling out Mike Pence? What a ridiculous caricature of a brain-dead Christian idiot that guy is. Gay re-education? What a moron.
The US is in big trouble with the outright thieves and morons that are holding the highest offices.

Firstly free speech is under attack and it is predominantly coming from the Left. I don't have a problem with opposing views, I've enjoyed reading some liberal responses on these threads and debating the issues. The biggest difference is conservative speakers are actively being silenced from American campuses in America right now, we've all seen it. Are left wing speakers being shouted down and riots occurring when they are scheduled to speak somewhere?

I find it very very disturbing. Free speech is a marketplace of ideas and we NEED to hear both sides. Holding riots and protests yelling "Nazi' and feeling like you've done a good job because a speaker who doesn't share your ideology has to cancel their speech is NOT winning the contest of ideas.

Now as to your point about 'things generally moving to the Left despite Trumps election win' I would disagree with that very much. Trumps win was not some type strange anomaly, in 2010 the Democrats lost the house, in 2012 they lost the Senate and in 2016 they lost the White House. I would say if anything this is a strong trend to the conservative right.

Mike Pence's views on homosexuality do seem a little archaic but as long as he doesn't make any moves to outlaw it, throw gays off buildings etc then he is free to hold it. That dancing outside of his house though???? Well that was a little gay, hahahahaha.

 

[Calamine Lotion]

Firstly free speech is under attack and it is predominantly coming from the Left. I don't have a problem with opposing views, I've enjoyed reading some liberal responses on these threads and debating the issues. The biggest difference is conservative speakers are actively being silenced from American campuses in America right now, we've all seen it. Are left wing speakers being shouted down and riots occurring when they are scheduled to speak somewhere?

Don't you think this supports my idea that generally the country is moving left? You must be aware that in the past it was the left who would have been shouted down, called "communists" or "radicals," been infiltrated by the FBI, found speaking on campuses difficult?

I find it very very disturbing. Free speech is a marketplace of ideas and we NEED to hear both sides. Holding riots and protests yelling "Nazi' and feeling like you've done a good job because a speaker who doesn't share your ideology has to cancel their speech is NOT winning the contest of ideas.

I sort of agree with this. When I was in school one day this man appeared and set up a table. He was giving out reading material. I happened to be talking with my art history instructor when we passed his table. She looked at his material and took him by the sleeve. She physically removed him from campus. He didn't resist at all but she insisted on holding his sleeve and leading him away, because she did not like the reading material he was providing.
Now, some people might think she was wrong and some might change their minds when they find that he was a Holocaust denier. Personally I felt that he should have been able to speak, maybe more formally since it didn't appear he had permission to be there. But if what he was saying was factually incorrect there were several history professors. One of them should have been able to shut him down with an argument and actually had more impact than just not letting him speak.

Now as to your point about 'things generally moving to the Left despite Trumps election win' I would disagree with that very much. Trumps win was not some type strange anomaly, in 2010 the Democrats lost the house, in 2012 they lost the Senate and in 2016 they lost the White House. I would say if anything this is a strong trend to the conservative right.

Mike Pence's views on homosexuality do seem a little archaic but as long as he doesn't make any moves to outlaw it, throw gays off buildings etc then he is free to hold it. That dancing outside of his house though???? Well that was a little gay, hahahahaha.

The Civil Rights movement was fifty years ago. Since then we've had a two-term black President. Legalization of marijuana seems "left" to me. Talking about 2010 is like those guys that say "Hey it snowed. Global warming is a lie." There will always be some movement back and forth, some adjustment, but when this country started you couldn't vote unless you were a white male landowner and most of our heroes from that period were slave owners. Things are not going to the right.
Mike Pence's view "do seem a little archaic?' There you go defending this guy because his views are less extreme than those of the Islamic State. Come on. I have no problem saying Shillary is full of shit. Sure Pence is free to hold his views but it's embarrassing and disgraceful to have someone so backward and stupid as VP.

 

[bhops]

"Firstly free speech is under attack and it is predominantly coming from the Left."

Based on what proof? College students protesting a controversial speaker? People disagreeing with your ideas, or considering you a bigot? Please explain this sensationalism.

You just had a politician win a race after he body-slammed a reporter, and got charged with assault. All because he asked him about policy.

You have a president who calls any negative coverage "fake news," and is openly hostile to the free press.

You have politicians who have openly made references to shooting reporters. These people are elected officials. They have power. They are not college protesters.

"I don't have a problem with opposing views, I've enjoyed reading some liberal responses on these threads and debating the issues. The biggest difference is conservative speakers are actively being silenced from American campuses in America right now, we've all seen it. Are left wing speakers being shouted down and riots occurring when they are scheduled to speak somewhere"

You're talking about speakers who are intentionally divisive, and are playing characters such as Anne Coulter. They're not intending to have serious discussions. They are selling books. I would hope people would be dismissive of such nonsense in the same way I would hope people would be dismissive of pseudoscience.

If you want someone to discuss conservative views, and be taken seriously, then you don't choose people like Anne Coulter to do it.

Right-Wing professors exist all over American campuses. They are not being silenced. People disagree with some of the things they say, particularly when it comes to diminishing their rights, but they are not being fired, and they are open about their views on campus.

Conservatives organize on campus all the time, and actively promote their philosophy. You're talking about different degrees of what is deemed meaningful discourse here.

"I find it very very disturbing. Free speech is a marketplace of ideas and we NEED to hear both sides. Holding riots and protests yelling "Nazi' and feeling like you've done a good job because a speaker who doesn't share your ideology has to cancel their speech is NOT winning the contest of ideas"

Sure, but you don't tolerate any style of discourse, or the people involved. There are many ways to communicate your views without choosing the most extreme, and divisive characters to do so. You can only hear so many opinions throughout a college life. Pretending that every speaker's opinion is valuable is not open-mindedness, it's pandering.

"Now as to your point about 'things generally moving to the Left despite Trumps election win' I would disagree with that very much. Trumps win was not some type strange anomaly, in 2010 the Democrats lost the house, in 2012 they lost the Senate and in 2016 they lost the White House. I would say if anything this is a strong trend to the conservative right."

It's called n election cycle. It's not new, and it's fairly predictable. The ruling party always loses house seats, or dominance after they win nationally. The minority party then has the privilege of drawing up their own districts in ways that favor their elections for some time. Voters are less energized at the local level when they don't have Presidential power.

A party that wins two terms will usually face a loss in the next election, and the cycle begins over again. Democrats were always likely to face a loss after Obama's two terms, but the arrival of Trump made the possibility of a third term for Democrats closer than they would have expected against a more stable Republican candidate. Democrats were most worried about Marco Rubio beating Hillary, not Trump.

Still, Trump just scraped by, and is still deeply unpopular. He would have to be much more popular than he was when he won the election for him to maintain political viability, and he was never popular to begin with.

The country is as divided as it has ever been. This isn't the Reagan era. The Reagan era was a true swing to the right in the country, and Trump, and Republicans have nowhere near the cultural influence they had during that time.

Conservatives thought the same thing under Bush, and the Democrats ended up winning control of both chambers before developing virtual super-majorities with the Presidency. Reaganites thought he same thing after Reagan's two terms.

More importantly, Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million, and won the electoral college by 78,000 votes spread out over three states.

Democratic policies poll higher, and conservatives do not have any real influence within the culture. America is two, maybe three countries at this point.

"Mike Pence's views on homosexuality do seem a little archaic but as long as he doesn't make any moves to outlaw it, throw gays off buildings etc then he is free to hold it. "

Archaic? He's ideologically opposed to the very idea of homosexuality.

So, Mike Pence would have to murder, or outlaw homosexuality (both obviously unconstitutional) to have a serious effect on the lives of gay people? This is your standard? This is what you deem an acceptable threshold for accepting him?

Do you realize that a conservative President can seat judges who are antagonists to gay rights? Do you realize that Pence has come out in opposition to gay marriage, a clear reduction in a homosexual's dignity, and how they live their life, both romantically, and from a legal standpoint?

He is opposed to gay people adopting children.

There's a difference between acknowledging what someone can't do, and what they would do if they could.

Based on what proof? College students protesting a controversial speaker? People disagreeing with your ideas, or considering you a bigot? Please explain this sensationalism.

So you didn't see the Berkley riots then? Is that just a simple protest? Even former liberals like Dave Rubin are having talks at universities cancelled due to 'security issues' ad threats of violence. Dave f***en Rubin!!
Or an innocent woman standing in line to go watch a Milo lecture gets pepper sprayed fro no reason. Does this come under people 'protesting a lecture?' These are a couple of examples I could give dozens more. Name me a liberal going to speak on American campuses that needs the type of security that Ann Coulter or even Ben Shapiro needs?

Dave Rubin himself a former liberal says it far more eloquently than I.



You're talking about speakers who are intentionally divisive, and are playing characters such as Anne Coulter. They're not intending to have serious discussions.

Oh and you can prove this how???? I like it how you decide Ann Coulter is not interested in having a serious discussion. have you told her that?

It's called n election cycle. It's not new, and it's fairly predictable.

I think if you look at the developed Western democracies you'd see a rise in the popularity of centre-right parties all over the world not just America.

Still, Trump just scraped by

No he didn't, he completely dominated Hilary in the electorial college, a map that he wasn't supposed supposed to even have a slim hope in hell of winning. Remember this??



He thrashed her good and proper and pleeaaaase don't bring up the popular vote. Trump didn't campaign to win the popular vote as he understood it didn't mean squat. As Trump himself said, "if I had been campaigning for the popular vote I would have run a completely different campaign and only campaigned in 2 states.'

and conservatives do not have any real influence within the culture.

Do you mean places like Hollywood? The place that dishes out plaudits and platitudes to paedophiles and rapists? Well thank f*** for that.

Do you realize that Pence has come out in opposition to gay marriage, a clear reduction in a homosexual's dignity

And if he ever attempted to impinge on those rights via lawmaking then I would come out heavily against him. If he holds those personal views then he is entitled to them. Still when it comes to gay rights I'd still back Mike Pence to do a fairer job than ISIS.

 

[bhops]

Don't you think this supports my idea that generally the country is moving left? You must be aware that in the past it was the left who would have been shouted down, called "communists" or "radicals," been infiltrated by the FBI, found speaking on campuses difficult?.

No because universities and the MSM that covers them tend to be an echo chamber of sorts. Because they make the loudest noise doesn't means it speaks for the majority. The 'liberalisation' of universities has been slowly creeping out for 30 odd years and is now at it's zenith.

Re. the holocaust denier, I agree let them speak freely and without fear of their safety. and then destroy them with good arguments. I'd say we both agree that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

 

[That Man Again]

"So you didn't see the Berkley riots then?"

There was no wide-spread rioting, or any rioting organized and carried out by any liberal group. You had certain individuals acting on their own, but you had Trump supporters attacking protesters at rallies as well. In fact, he actively encouraged attacks on protesters.

We cannot fully control what individuals do, but we can control who organizes it, and whether or not it is being excused, or carried out by a political party. The candidate you vote for is the behavior you need to be the most concerned about. Your attempt to conflate an entire political movement with sporadic rioting by certain individuals, is once again proving the point that your perceptions are just as skewed as you claim your opponent's are.

None of this should have any bearing on who you vote for, unless they condone, and encourage it. Who you vote for should be based on the issues you deem important to the country, or locale.

"Oh and you can prove this how???? I like it how you decide Ann Coulter is not interested in having a serious discussion. have you told her that?"

This is the person you are defending as reasonable political voice that should be taken seriously:

1. "I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester. ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others." --on the murder of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, FOX News interview, June 22, 2009

2. "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen.

3. "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word f*****." --at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference

4. "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

5. "I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."

6. "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President."

7. "Even Mexico doesn't want Mexicans.

And that's just the shortlist.

Look, at first I assumed you were just a naive single issue voter consumed by the immigration debate, but now it is clear that you are simply another alt-right nut job with a man-crush. I regret taking your seriously, but here I am.

"I think if you look at the developed Western democracies you'd see a rise in the popularity of centre-right parties all over the world not just America"

Trump, Farage, and Le Pen are not center right candidates. They are far right candidates. Center-right candidates are not professing those views, and recent elections in Europe have ended in defeat for far-right candidates. Trump isn't even conservative. Has no determined world view. His brand is his ideology. He's being advised by white nationalist advisors.

South Korea just elected a liberal president.

While nationalism is definitely on the rise, it goes in cycles as well.

"No he didn't, he completely dominated Hilary in the electorial college, a map that he wasn't supposed supposed to even have a slim hope in hell of winning. Remember this??"

Pure fiction. Trump won the electoral college by 78,000 votes spread over three states. He lost the popular vote by roughly three million. Those three states were close, and not indicative of the broader public.

He is historically unpopular with well over half the country. His numbers have never reached fifty percent in approval.

Also, the polls were not widely inaccurate. That's another myth. The polls in swing states were off, but close to the margin of error, and polls don't guarantee turnout, or vote switching at the last minute.

The polls accurately predicted the popular vote.

"He thrashed her good and proper and pleeaaaase don't bring up the popular vote. Trump didn't campaign to win the popular vote as he understood it didn't mean squat. As Trump himself said, "if I had been campaigning for the popular vote I would have run a completely different campaign and only campaigned in 2 states.'"

Well that's just further evidence that you, and Trump doesn't fully understand the political make-up of the country. I'm not surprised.

The fact that Trump thought he had a mandate to do what he wanted, and would face no consequences for it is why he now has historically low approval numbers, and hasn't had any major legislative victories; even with a majorities.

He should have cared more about the popular vote, and what it meant. He's supposed to be a President for all Americans, not just the relatively small number of voters who pushed him over in the electoral college.

"Do you mean places like Hollywood? The place that dishes out plaudits and platitudes to paedophiles and rapists? Well thank f*** for that."

Ah, and the mask is finally off. You have the audacity to sit here and lecture people about witch-hunting, and rabid speech.

Yes, Conservatives have no influence in the media beyond their own bubbles. Liberals create culture. Conservatives do not create culture, so they have no way of influencing the public outside of elections where many people don't even bother to vote.

"And if he ever attempted to impinge on those rights via lawmaking then I would come out heavily against him. If he holds those personal views then he is entitled to them. Still when it comes to gay rights I'd still back Mike Pence to do a fairer job than ISIS."

Stop pretending like you even care about gay rights. Mike Pence has come out in support of gay conversion therapy. He doesn't have to murder gay people when he can just convert them.

Conservatives are a greater danger to the average American than ISIS. They have a greater effect on rights, and domestic policy.

 

[That Man Again]

"No because universities and the MSM that covers them tend to be an echo chamber of sorts."

Not spreading fake conservative news, and pretending that Trump isn't a complete disaster is the standard by which the media is deemed liberal by many conservatives.

Conservatives don't want open discourse, or contrary opinions, the want evangelism. They no longer have the preacher's dominating the airwaves, so now they seek out their aggrandizement through political evangelists a populist con-men.

It's as if they got together and thought "We didn't embarrass the country enough under Bush, so wee need to find a guy who has the intellectual incompetence of Bush, mixed with the smarmy resentment of Richard Nixon, with the old, tired platitudes of Ronald Reagan thrown in.

Voila! Trump.

"Because they make the loudest noise doesn't means it speaks for the majority. The 'liberalisation' of universities has been slowly creeping out for 30 odd years and is now at it's zenith"

You don't have cultural influence if you don't make noise. Conservatives don't do art, or satire well. They have advanced no musical, or artistic styles for quite some time. Their social views are old fashioned, and unpopular. The have no intellectual foundation to their movement, and are not taken seriously by most Americans, or the world. They are living in an ever diminishing conservative safe space.

Education tends to favor liberalism because education is by its nature a liberal act. Science, and art can never be culturally conservative, or they would rarely advance. They would fixated on preserving the status quo.

Reality has a liberal bias. It doesn't mean that liberals are always right, but it means that more often than not, being of a liberal mind is going to give you greater understanding of a world that is always changing.

"Re. the holocaust denier, I agree let them speak freely and without fear of their safety. and then destroy them with good arguments. I'd say we both agree that sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Sure, let's just have every pseudoscience crank, and promoter set up shop, and make the most outlandish claims that are not supported by any evidence dominate our public discourse.

Let's have professors, and others spend their valuable time pretending that someone who thinks the moon landing was a hoax is arguing from a valid premise, and deserves their attention. That sounds like a great way to spend time, and money because every opinion is supposed to be valid.

If we entertained every outlandish claim that people make, then we would not have time to address much else. We would be paralyzed.

Holocaust denial is in the same league as Scientology, anti-vaccinators, and other pseudo-scientific claims that don't need a legion of intellectuals sitting around entertaining their obvious insanity.

 

[Anonymous]

And here we have April Richardson who mentions in response to someone that "Johnny Marr is wonderful; I've met him a few times and he is the nicest dude", but fails to mention that she has also met Moz several times (the last time quite recently) and he has been nothing but nice. Funny how some people suddenly suffer from amnesia as soon as someone says something they don't like.

 

[bhops]

'Alt-right,' really? How f***en lazy is that? What have I ever said in this thread that would make me alt-right. The rest of your post has enough holes in it I could drive a bus through but it's Friday night and I've got better things to do.

I'll leave you to enjoy the rest of the day in your liberal smugness

 

[Anonymous]

'Alt-right,' really? How f***en lazy is that? What have I ever said in this thread that would make me alt-right. The rest of your post has enough holes in it I could drive a bus through but it's Friday night and I've got better things to do.

I'll leave you to enjoy the rest of the day in your liberal smugness

I do hope that one of the "better things" you're going to be doing with your Friday night will be reading an improving book. It might help.

That Man Again has kicked your arse and made a fool of you repeatedly in the last couple of pages. Your responses to his posts have been weak, at best.

Try to put Morrissey-solo out of your mind for a few hours, enjoy your Friday night and don't spend too much time smarting.

 

[Uncleskinny]

And here we have April Richardson who mentions in response to someone that "Johnny Marr is wonderful; I've met him a few times and he is the nicest dude", but fails to mention that she has also met Moz several times (the last time quite recently) and he has been nothing but nice. Funny how some people suddenly suffer from amnesia as soon as someone says something they don't like.

Funny how people suddenly talk bollocks when they see something they don't like.

You are like clockwork, my robotic German friend.

 

[Thta Man Again]

"What have I ever said in this thread that would make me alt-right."

You're support of Anne Coulter, Trump, Farage, and excusing their behavior. Not only are you an alt right nutter, but you are too cowardly too admit it. I'm used to that response.

You're a conservative snowflake imagining that you're persecuted, and some kind of cultural rebel, while moonlighting as a fey, Morrissey fanboy.

"The rest of your post has enough holes in it I could drive a bus through but it's Friday night and I've got better things to do."

No, I'm certain you have nothing better to do. I'm your activity. Someone with your mindset is usually isolated, and socially detached.

"I'll leave you to enjoy the rest of the day in your liberal smugness"

And I'll leave you too wallow in your cultural insecurity. I know it's killing you, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The world moves on, against your wishes, regardless of how many bad political decisions you make.

Even when you win, you lose.

 

[bhops]

There was no wide-spread rioting, or any rioting organized and carried out by any liberal group.

It has been going on since the election and is clearly not just the work of 'individuals.' However you seem intent on not acknowledging that.

I like it how you decide Ann Coulter is not interested in having a serious discussion. have you told her that?"

I'm not the one that made the decision for her, you did.

but now it is clear that you are simply another alt-right nut job with a man-crush

Rather than just throw that accusation out there please define what 'alt-right' actually is and then point me to the posts where I would fit that description. Nice virtual signalling though.

Also, the polls were not widely inaccurate

Ummm yes they were. Not a single MSM poll gave Trump a hope in hell. That is a flat out lie.

Well that's just further evidence that you, and Trump doesn't fully understand the political make-up of the country

He understood it just fine. well enough in fact to win an election he was supposed to have no chance in.

Ah, and the mask is finally off.

What the f*** are you talking about?

Conservatives do not create culture, so they have no way of influencing the public outside of elections where many people don't even bother to vote.

Care to back that up with any evidence? Or is that just your esteemed opinion again?

Conservatives don't do art, or satire well

Your proof?

Reality has a liberal bias.

Your proof?

Sure, let's just have every pseudoscience crank, and promoter set up shop, and make the most outlandish claims that are not supported by any evidence dominate our public discourse.

I am a free speech absolutist. I'm not scared of anyone's opinion however crazy it may seem. I find it interesting that as a liberal you are. And where the f*** do you get the idea that they would 'dominate our public discourse???????'

Let's have professors, and others spend their valuable time pretending that someone who thinks the moon landing was a hoax is arguing from a valid premise, and deserves their attention. That sounds like a great way to spend time, and money because every opinion is supposed to be valid.

If we entertained every outlandish claim that people make, then we would not have time to address much else. We would be paralyzed.

Why and how does advocating free speech mean 'professors' would be spending their valuable talking about the moon landing?? What the f*** are you on about? And who the professors you speak of?

Conservatives are a greater danger to the average American than ISIS

I'll leave the best for last. You are so far gone to the left and loony toon land I have to ask? Are you Jeremy Corbyn by any chance?

 

[bhops]

That Man Again has kicked your arse and made a fool of you repeatedly in the last couple of pages. Your responses to his posts have been weak, at best.

Try to put Morrissey-solo out of your mind for a few hours, enjoy your Friday night and don't spend too much time smarting.

Yeah right, coz telling me that a conservative is more dangerous than ISIS is really sticking it to me. That Ben Shapiro is like waaaaayyy more dangerous than a suicide bomber right?

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah right, coz telling me that a conservative is more dangerous than ISIS is really sticking it to me. That Ben Shapiro is like waaaaayyy more dangerous than a suicide bomber right?

No conservatives ---> No Iraq war ---> No ISIS

 

[Herpes Harmonica]

So Martin reckons Morrissey is dead but unlike him Moz does not smell yet.

 

[Herpes Harmonica]

Funny how people suddenly talk bollocks when they see something they don't like.

You are like clockwork, my robotic German friend.

Never underestimate german robots.

LOL

 

[Herpes Harmonica]

No conservatives ---> No Iraq war ---> No ISIS

But do we still get a milkshake at Burger King?

Surely we will get a king crown to wear on our heads as we leave?

I am in a crisis, there will be NUFFINK!

 

[bhops]

No conservatives ---> No Iraq war ---> No ISIS

Oh goodness you really don't understand the history of Islam do you? Or Hilary Clinton's role as Secretary of State driving American foreign policy in Libya and Syria that crated the vacuum in which ISIS flourished. Or perhaps even Tony Blair wading into Iraq alongside America?? This is so misinformed it's not even funny.

Well now new terror attacks in London to discuss, let's all have a hug and shine lights on buildings, get bee tattoos, amend your facebook profiles to 'pray for London' and pretend it isn't happening. Afterall it was probably Conservatives they are far more dangerous than ISIS.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh goodness you really don't understand the history of Islam do you? Or Hilary Clinton's role as Secretary of State driving American foreign policy in Libya and Syria that crated the vacuum in which ISIS flourished. Or perhaps even Tony Blair wading into Iraq alongside America?? This is so misinformed it's not even funny.

Well now new terror attacks in London to discuss, let's all have a hug and shine lights on buildings, get bee tattoos, amend your facebook profiles to 'pray for London' and pretend it isn't happening. Afterall it was probably Conservatives they are far more dangerous than ISIS.

Re-read what you've just written. Read over those two paragraphs and see if you can make a connection between them.