Being on Twitter must be exhausting
Id rather slam my penis in the door of a luxury sedan than ever go back on twitter.
People are still using that dumpster of a platform?
People who have a large following and magic emojis next to their name will keep using it because it gives them their validation. Twitter celebs are really in a sad state of existence
I am thankful that I touch grass enough to not know what any of this means
it’s such an unfunny joke I had to read it three times to even understand what she was trying to say
Some people are unfamiliar with Obama’s drones.
or the genocide in Yemen, or his role as the deporter in chief, or that he engineered the largest transfer of wealth from the Black community to capital interests, or, or, or
Tell me more about the wealth transfer.
It’s a common liberal take on Obama.
Cheeto man = loud, uncouth, vulgar.
Your Excellency, Barack The Obama: classy, polite, trivial controversies, last ‘boring’ president
It’s pointing out hypocrisy. But people have forgotten that or are just ignorant? I can’t see how you’d come to that conclusion unless you were very “both sides”.
I’m a level seven enlightened centrist. I wait in line at polling stations just so I can fill out a blank ballot.
Remember when Obama saw the largest transfer of wealth away from black US citizens to the wealthy in the history of the United States?
Remember when he set the precedent that it us cool to assassinate US citizens in the open (as opposed to covertly) without trial?
Honestly I get being mad at “Obama’s biggest controversy was the mustard”
Obama’s biggest controversy was the mustard
That’s not what she said lol. Sorry as a neurodivergent person I get that this tweet might be hard to read possibly, but she’s being sarcastic here. Maybe in poor taste, but it’s a joke. She’s well-aware of the shit Obama’s done and isn’t a fan of him.
She says that Obama was bad. Everyone understands she was being sarcastic. Since she was being sarcastic it means that she is trying to say that Obama wasn’t bad (because that’s how sarcasm works).
Since she was being sarcastic it means that she is trying to say that Obama wasn’t bad (because that’s how sarcasm works).
I mean… no? Sarcasm works in multiple ways lol. This is like a children’s picture book-level of understanding of sarcasm.
Never argue with someone from Hexbear. They’re all at least comfortable with being in a community overrun by tankie trolls.
But OP never made any argument, so they are fine. :comfy-cool: :tank: :troll:
This comment is a great example of the “insight” that you find on that instance. Random insults that don’t make much sense unless you uncritically agree with the most boot licking China / Russia defenders.
It’s not insulting, it’s just boring. It’s like bots repeating old Chapo comments from different articles, none of which make sense.
This is absolutely just a regurgitation of people saying Obama’s biggest scandals was the pants he wore. The joke doesn’t have a punchline otherwise, barring missing context that you should have led with if there was a misunderstanding.
Isn’t the punch line holding that belief? As in she was being sarcastic in saying that the sauce was the worst thing he did. It is an absolutely absurd belief to hold and thus humorous
ok, this has gone over my head. can you explain what she meant? her “joke” reads like a retreading of stale
memes from /r/politics.Every US president is a War Criminal.
However, most sane people would agree that Obama was, as far as U.S. presidents go, very uncontroversial. Well spoken, very few scandals, centrist policies, didn’t make a fool of himself every time he met a head of state, etc.
So the conservatives latched onto the WEIRDEST shit. Made him up as a Kenyan citizen (???), actually made a big deal about his choices of condiments or suit colors, etc. These were all real things that made the mainstream news cycles, because Obama wasn’t livetweeting his every thought or being indicted every day, but US conservatives had to complain about something.
This is to be contrasted to the mainstream Republican figureheads, who are unbelievably crass&corrupt traitors yet receive nothing but praise from the same media/pundits that thrashed Obama for his choice of mustard.
Absurdist contrast like this is, indeed, comedic. I rest my case.
(Also Natalie has talked in-depth about how shitty this faux-leftist “the democrat candidate is actually center-right and imperfect, therefore I shall not vote for them even if it gives the win to the literal rapist who will absolutely jail me for my political beliefs, gender expression, or sexual orientation if given the chance” in her videos, most notably the 2020 campaign video, but of course none of that fits in 240 characters, also comedy doesn’t tend to work when overexplained, thank you for coming to my TED talk)
deleted by creator
Are you just looking to dunk without actually absorbing what was actually said? If so, go back to reddit.
If you’ve actually misunderstood me, I never claimed Obama caused the recession. His policies after just massively looted the proletariat to benefit the bourgeoisie, and in particular looted black proletariat.
I have an issue when the same people who were cheering during the Bush years, gave grudging acceptance at drone strikes during Obama, and were silent during the Trump years, pipe up and say drone strikes are bad now.
Progressives have been saying this the whole time.Also, a reminder that Obama tried to write regs limiting the use of drone strikes at the end of his presidency. Trump promptly threw them out on entering.
Also, a reminder that Obama tried to write regs limiting the use of drone strikes at the end of his presidency
That doesn’t sound good.
As always, when a Republican does something, it’s good and just. When a Democrat does literally the same thing, they’re the devil incarnate.
Loyalty over principle.
twitter is really good at making words and phrases meaningless through extreme hyperbole rule
Natalie should know better. But also… the really nasty shit under Obama was heavily under-reported and only ever seemed to penetrate media in a select few circuits. Casually tossing off a “What even did Obama do that was so bad?” is almost forgivable if you’re not a terminally online 30-year-old who makes hour long YouTube videos about politics, history, and culture.
Am I reading this wrong? I assume Natalie is making a joke about how people under report Obama’s nasty shits
I think she’s joking about how people over-report his trivial shit. But it can be read as blithely ignoring the monstrous crimes Obama did commit while in office, because it echoes a lot of the liberal apologia of the administration that amounted to “The worst thing Obama ever did was wear a tan suit”.
While I don’t think she has talked about Obama’s war crimes or things adjacent to it, I find it hard to believe that she would be saying that seriously especially the both sides part. Tho her response to the criticism doesn’t make it better.
You’re reading it wrong, she’s stating you can’t make a moral equivalence between Obama and, say, Trump or something because supposedly the worst things obama did were silly.
Its great that the Obama post got her dunked on by Ethereal Bisexual
I mean. It definitely carries the implication that Obama has done very little wrong whether or not you intended it that way. Natalie’s inability to own up to mistakes is either a serious character flaw or she thinks that the murderous actions he took were justified.
I think, still, it’s a reflection of what the conservative media at the time was making a big deal about. It wasn’t the drone strikes or war crimes, it was the tan suit that was run on Fox for several weeks.
It’s like they never gave a shit about civilian deaths. Ever.
Is contra going lib again?
She’s always been lib, sadly. I still love her content tho! But her political takes are def a little ehh
Can you elaborate? Love her content, wonder if I’m missing anything about her I’m not aware of.
Some internet leftists are anti-jokes and our greatest insult is to call someone a liberal.
our greatest insult is to call someone a liberal
What do you mean by this?
In the US, we use liberal to describe a person who is left of center on the political spectrum, who is not a socialist. And we use conservative or neo-liberal to describe someone right of center.
Is the goal to make fun of people left of center or to make fun of people right of center? I honestly cannot tell from the above conversation. This may simply be regional based confusion on my part.
so, liberalism is decidedly right of centre. it requires buying into capitalism, but it’s not as far gone as the GOP. The US dems are left of the GOP, but right on a more absolute political meter.
Bernie is leftist, but Biden & co are properly right of centre. Your Overton window has shifted so far to the right that a leftist politician will have a harder path than a snowball in hell.
I say this as someone that has a neolib prime minister (Trudeau).
Suffice to say, liberals and conservatives have the same goals, liberals just prefer a sustainable labour class.
Observation selection bias is an easy one the GOP likes to take advantage of. Eg: not testing for covid to show covid went down.
Also: drone strike civilian casualties.
Not testing for covid to show it went down is the current strategy of the Biden admin
Lol. Look at this galaxy brain equivicating there start of a pandemic with an endemic with vaccine.
I mean, obviously the covid hospital occupancy rates would be identical if the actual case rate was the same.
Oh wait…
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-hospitalizations
What’s that? Less then 10k vs over 140k? Definitely the exact same situation! /s
Don’t trip over yourself making excuses now
Also: drone strike civilian casualties.
When did they change how they count civilian casualties? I heard it was under Obama’s administration, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
There is quite the back and forth between Democrats pushing for accountability and the GOP pushing against.
From Wikipedia, which has all the references one might need:
"On July 1, 2016, President Barack Obama signed an executive order requiring annual accounting of civilian and enemy casualties in U.S. drone strikes outside war zones (“Areas Outside of Active Hostilities”), and setting a deadline of May 1 each year for the release of such report. However, soon after taking office, President Donald Trump designated large areas in Yemen and Somalia to be “areas of active hostilities,” thus exempting them from disclosure. The Trump administration also ignored the 2017 and 2018 deadlines for an annual accounting, and on March 6, 2019, Trump issued an order revoking the requirement. "
The executive order:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2017-title3-vol1/pdf/CFR-2017-title3-vol1-eo13732.pdf
Trump recinding the order:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/us/politics/trump-civilian-casualties-rule-revoked.html
Plus some other dumb shit by Trump:
"During the Obama administration, proposed U.S. drone strikes in locations outside active war zones (i.e., in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia) required high-level approval. The Obama administration process for approving drone strikes in such locations featured centralized, high-level oversight, based on intelligence about individuals suspected of terrorism activity. Obama’s approval was required for every strike in Yemen and Somalia, as well as “the more complex and risky strikes in Pakistan” (about one-third of the total as of 2012), and insisted on deciding whether to approve a strike unless the CIA had a “near certainty” that no civilian deaths would result.
…
October 2017, Trump abolished the Obama-era approval system in favor of a looser, decentralized approach, which gave the military and CIA officials the discretion to decide to launch drone strikes against targets without White House approval. "
All sorts of references corroborating those summary:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/22/obama-drones-trump-killings-count/
The short version is: Obama demanded accountability and his approval. Which did not exist before and was revoked after. Hence, the different counts of casualties is not representative of an actually difference. Only representative of the GOP being shit.
can someone please explain why the word rule appears in titles so often
its a
thing from /r/196Ok, so it looks like stormfront is a website that promotes white pride. It sounds like there might have been a subreddit at some point based on that stormfront image.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stormfront
And /r/196 is a leftist meme posting subreddit that is trans friendly.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=r%2F196
I’m using non-reddit links because I don’t want to direct traffic to reddit.
Can you help me find a source that shows, stormfront, a white pride website, influenced the 196 rule please? This seems like an important point to learn more about. I’ve been googling, but I haven’t found any connection yet.
196 was creepy and chaser-y about trans folks?
Also the
emoji is just making fun of how openly or (poorly) covertly white supremacist reddit is in general.196 was creepy and chaser-y about trans folks?
Not from what I’ve heard. edit:spacing
The vaush meme subreddit creeped me out.
What was that subreddit about? =/
196 had extreme crossover with the vaush sub, I think mods too? Either way I got banned for shittalking NATO there over 3 years ago and haven’t bothered to check in since.
Redditor trying to decipher the bit:
I think you should be more judicious about who you’re dunking on tbh. This person seems well intentioned enough.
ETA: I take this back.
This person seems well intentioned enough.
[edit]: I take this back.
Lol
I think stormfront the user, Stormfront the right wing website, and Stormfront the Apple store are all 3 seperate entities.
I think you got them mixed up. I hope you mixed them up and they aren’t somehow connected anyway.
I honestly know very little about Stormfront, beyond what I’ve googled. I don’t support white pride groups. I have seen people referencing it on Lemmy though.
it’s a joke about reddit’s tendency towards racism and other bigotry, not the literal stormfront website.
I won’t contest that racism and bigotry existed on reddit. It definitely did. I also experienced and saw kindness and acceptance. Saying Reddit in its entirety is racist is really no different that saying everyone is racist. And not everyone and not everyone on reddit is racist.
yeah its a joke making fun of a large portion of reddit
you’re giving real “all lives matter” vibes with this response
