Memes R Us

7 Comments

1. John I really like your top 15 favourite memes.

2. If only more people shared this author’s perspective, we would have a much more cohesive society, increased equity, less crime and mental illness and a positive chance for the future. As it is, we have none of those and so it will remain until the LNP is removed from office and structural change is made to our electoral system and our system of government.

3. A meme can also be a single word, like “lockdown”.
   This is the favourite descriptive term used by BigBusiness/AltRight when discussing any given regulatory framework.
   ‘The Greenies have locked down our National Parks!’……etc

   This term is now being used on the MSM (including FOX-ABC) to describe quarantining and distancing measures to control the spread of Covid19.

4. I am clearly on the same page as you ! Love them.

   I think they are especially helpful in getting a point of view over to people who don’t like to read a lot. A meme can say so much in a very short space.

5. The dog pissing down Dutton’s pictured throat, (our own Heydrich), is a correct version of a trickle down effect. Some economic urine to whet and wet the poor suckers who wait for economic justice.., never ever to come while conservative c—s–kers are in charge. Turf them…Conservative fascist aurhoritarian plots have dominated parliaments, media, money and mining, with online retail and info and social gossip added. What a rotten world it is for the new electronic peasants and slaves, mindless consumng, a plantation culture.

6. Just as you cannot describe your truth without your perception, you cannot ascribe other truths to a lie without consideration of their perception.
   What do you make of the crowd of trump supporters with signs that say social distancing is communism?
   ‘Their president describes them as ‘responsible'” for he shares their abject fear of the word ‘socialism’
   Notice, lord ‘fear of the word ‘socialism’. An abject fear of a word that the not only is not understood but also can never be understood because they already understand the fear.
   Words have special meaning when they are written by the intellectually rich but mean nothing when written by the intellectually corrupt.’
   Special meaning for the writer or the reader? For the intellectually rich or he ‘corrupt intellectually ‘rich? B
   ?ut where are the intellectually poor, the workers, the voters.
   Those who are frightened by the loonie socialists and the way they present themselves and are presented by ‘your intellectually corrupt.media form up to 90% of Australia.
   So, lord is it intellectually corrupt to compare extremists to a main stream party with individual candidates having success in achieving 50% plus one.
   the toxic meme for many of the 90% is ;lobor and the greens”

7. Warn, you fail to understand words in the same way as you represent is the case for the non-intellectual. You also fail to respect the author of this post by writing his name with a lower case ‘l’.

   I am not sure on what basis you claim John Lord to be ‘intellectually corrupt’ for comparing “extremists to a main stream (sic) party…” I read the post twice and could not find evidence that he had done so but perhaps I missed it. Of something I am certain, however is that the ‘main stream party with “individual candidates having success in achieving 50% plus one.” has rarely if ever achieved a 50% plus one vote of the electorate, and neither have most of its candidates.

   Our eletoral system puts voters in the invidiious position of being compelled to vote (which I would generally agree ough to be a positive but shouldn’t be necessary) but having to do so within a preferential system that effectively compels them to either make a ‘donkey vote’ or else to risk having their vote allocated to a non-preferred candidate. This system leads to major distortions on representation which, in a democracy, ought to be intolerable. The Greens,for instance, whom you appear to also denigrate and no doubt consider an extreme, obtained 10% of the vote yet only 1 seat. So, I’d suggest that, even aside from the abusive language of your ‘argument’, its basis on voting percentages is unsound.

   Your own rhetoric. presented in a condescending and judgmental fashion, is both ill-expressed and guilty of precisely that which you accuse John Lord.

   You write: “you cannot describe your truth without your perception, you cannot ascribe other truths to a lie without consideration of their perception.” I wonder what you really intend to convey by that. Are you saying that one can’t clam that the truths of others *are the results of a lie or that one can’t claim the truths of others *to be a lie?

   Either way, you go on to speak of the “abject fear of the word socialsm” – really? Surely such a fear would be similar to the reaction of those who lobby for censorship of films and books without, in most cases, having read or seen them and while arguing that such material is disastrously harmful, fail to explain why censors who read or view the material, (including themselves, if they have done so), do not suffer the harm they claim will come to others.

   You then, after mentioning what seems to be a garbled misunderstanding of populism and an abusive mention of ‘loonie socialists’ make an outrageously opinionated generalisation about ” ‘your intellectually corrupt.media” (sic), claiming that “up to 90% of Australia” are “frightened” by the previously mentioned “loonie socialists”.

   Your post ends on a final absurd statement that , “the toxic meme for many of the (mythical) 90% is ;labor and the greens” (sic).

   I ask you one question: Instead of decrying the reasonable post of a credible and articulate commentator, if you have a genuinely strong feeling that