Do they have a memor of a goldfish?

Do they have a memor of a goldfish?

Other urls found in this thread:

cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
huffingtonpost.com/entry/orwell-hitler-and-trump_us_58851781e4b070d8cad35b8c
archive.is/chjwl
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Do you know how hard it is to pander to Goyim?

One is about having the option to wear the hijab the other about being forced to.
Can you not see the difference?

The general stance is that you should have options to do what you like but shouldnt be forced to do something.

/thread

They are antirulers
In Iran muslims rule so the hijab is opresion
In Scotland the muslims still don't rule so the hijab is empowering
They always side with the one they see as weak

Or making it part of the police uniform removes a woman's last excuse not to wear it?

how about being a nazi hans, do you have that option?

They wear hijabs because they like it? Fuck off.

Faggot detected!

>Do they have a memor of a goldfish?
No, but they know that their readers are masters at selective perception and will just scrap everything that doesn't fit their world view from their memory.

I was sleeping with a hijabi on and off in college and she only wore the hijab when she didn't want to do her hair.

Should everyone working for the same outlet have the same opinions? Would you prefer echo chambers?
There isn't even anything contradictory about those articles necessarily, the hijab is part of their religion and they shouldn't have to abandon part of their way of life to serve in the police, but they also shouldn't be FORCED to wear it.

This is also very true. That unabomber wrote about it and I think everyone on Sup Forums should read it.
cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

блять

Seems like the articles are quite Independent of each other.

...

...

...

...

...

They side against the whites

Jesus Christ I thought "doublethink" was just a work of fiction.

C U C K
U
C
K

...

...

These are great fun.

...

Wow, it's like opinions can change, different journalists of the same paper have different opinions or just because something is wrong in context A doesn't mean it's wrong in context B.

Color me surprised

>Do they have a memor of a goldfish?

gtfo shill

>Tryin to put something into perspective
>SHILL!!
How's your echo chamber doing?

It's not. And every side does it to some degree, because shocker, "It's okay when we do it" is a mindset that is present in almost every person on this planet to some degree.
The left is just less afraid of embracing it to its fullest because they believe themselves to be in an undisputed position of power.

What if the doublethink comes from the same "journalist"?

>Having choice is some how hypocritical
Do right-wing fags honestly fall for shit like this?

If the hijab is a good thing, why is it liberating to take it off? If the hijab is a bad thing, why is it "brilliant" on Scottish policewomen?

bunch of my examples were the same journalist. please take your shilling elsewhere.

>captcha: bridges

you should be forced to adopt to the culture of the nation you stay in. No hijabs.

Rules governing Islamic clothing in Western countries are trying to shut the barn door after the horse has bolted. There should be no Muslims in the West, period.

1. Yes, sometimes an agenda is pushed, that is a possibility and not an unlikely one
2. When time passes, opinion can change
3. Double thinking happens to every human being, the only difference is, our double thinking is not monitored and we are not held to a higher standard. It should be adressed and kept in sight, but it's not easy to get rid of
4. While I agree, that your picture shows a double standard, sometimes the context can influence opinion (e.g. US puts military boats close to North Korea = containment vs. North korea puts military boats close to the US = problemativ)

>Same journalists
Did you even read my post?
>Opinions can change
>Context is important on how to judge a similar situation
And of course
1.
as written here

Can we add this to the uniform too?

if we want to change things we have to take steps, even something small like that to dissuade muslims from moving in would be a good step.
I'd prefer to just deport them all or ditch em in a dank hole in the ground but most people would have a fit.

>2. When time passes, opinion can change

It doesn't naturally change to its exact opposite within a space of mere months.

>Double thinking happens to every human being

Not to rational, honest human beings. Of course, that explicitly rules out most establishment journalists

you should be destroyed if you invade holland with your shit culture.

Or maybe it has a different meaning depending who wears it and in which culture? It's a good thing when women have the right to choose weather or not to wear it.
I'm iran, i assume women were forced to wear it. In Britain, women weren't allowed to wear it on the force. The "brilliance" comes from the right to choose under both cultures.

I should have the option to do the right hand salute and say the 14 words and 88.

Your point?

of fucking course opinions can change. that's called growing up. however, a journalist's work should be held to a higher standard than some fuckwits opinion. yes context is important. but calling someone a muslim when pushing agenda to get a "muslim" ban repealed and calling that same person indian when they are convicted of a crime, that's disingenuous. fuck you for trying to explain away fake news. go back to (((reddit))).

>It doesn't naturally change to its exact opposite within a space of mere months.
Depends on what happens in between. You can like a guy and then you find out, he cheated on his gf with a nigger and you probably do a 180 on your opinion too within less amount of time.
>Not to rational, honest human beings
Double think happens to every human being. You are virtually impossible to follow every opinion you have to the max regarding others and yourself. Kants categorical imparative is a theory, not reality.

>The "brilliance" comes from the right to choose under both cultures.

Actually in the Scottish context it's just another form of foreign colonialism. And nobody "chooses" to wear a hijab without having been culturally conditioned to do so throughout one's entire life anyway.

> a journalist's work should be held to a higher standard than some fuckwits opinion
Totally agree, but calling out on somebody hypocrisy and implying it is always done on purpose to follow an agenda like claiming it is therefore all fake news, is just too much.

>You can like a guy and then you find out, he cheated on his gf with a nigger

What does this have to do with journalism, again? If you say one thing to your audience and then the exact opposite of that thing shortly afterwards, you are a hypocrite and a liar.

>Double think happens to every human being.

Prove it.

"my ancestors were oppressed by nazis by being forced to wear jewish stars. all jews should wear jewish stars and get concentration camp tattoos to show solidarity against anti-semitism"

fuck off

Nobody really chooses anything if you look real close, leaf

>implying it is always done on purpose to follow an agenda like claiming it is therefore all fake news, is just too much.

... too much for you to believe, perhaps, but still true nonetheless. Look into who owns mainstream media outlets and you'll be unsurprised to find that journalists are indeed primarily loyal to an "agenda". Or do you think oligarchs buy newspapers because they're genuinely interested in bringing the truth to the public?

Please mods, rangeban Germany.
It would improve this board a lot.

>Nobody really chooses anything if you look real close, leaf

Then I guess it's OK if I rip off a Muslim woman's hijab, since "free will is an illusion" anyway

Maybe next she will give a defence why she doesn't want to be a muslim anymore. I mean really, why even call yourself a muslim if you don't want to follow any of it's rules. Just become an atheist and let yourself be stoned.

I get your point, it does happen a lot, but the argument in the pic is absolute bullshit.

One article is informing about a new governmental procedure and the other is publishing an opinion declared by third party.

The asshole who wrote the tweet could have taken a few more seconds and find two articles that would illustrate his point. But no, he could not wait to be edgy.

because there is a difference between should and can.
Muslims shouldn't but radical Muslims should, the comparison wasn't about white people and Muslims but rather the white supremacist and muslims
trump too was against then pro elctoral collage.
its CNN
The keyword here is "terribly"
hillary is not guily of being racist.
"""abuse""" probably he touched the girls shoulder
he is right tho
maybe they support trump and this is a hidden messege.

>the other is publishing an opinion declared by third party.

... an opinion declared to be "incredible" by the Independent.

Why these mental gymnastics? Are you really so naive as to believe that journalists are selfless and philosophically consistent heroes serving no agenda but the truth?

> (You)
>"""abuse""" probably he touched the girls shoulder

Muslim spotted. She was probably an infidel too, right?

> (You)
>he is right tho

How is he "right" that motive matters when the killer is white but not when the killer is Muslim?

You're not going to do shit, leaf.

>Muslims shouldn't but radical Muslims should, the comparison wasn't about white people and Muslims but rather the white supremacist and muslims

"White America must answer" vs."Muslims don't need to apologize". If you don't see the hypocrisy there it's because you're dishonest yourself.

>You're not going to do shit, leaf.

Wait, so first you suggest there is no free will, but now you're suggesting that I have free will but I'm not going to use it? If you're going to bullshit at least try to keep it consistent, Olaf

...

He's pretending to be retarded

I expected that to be followed by "police still baffled as to motive".

People need to know that "allahu akbar" doesn't mean "God is great", but "Allah is greater [i.e., than your god]"

((Cohen))

bait

Remember that you're replying to a German poster. German women wear hijabs because their boyfriends like it that way.

You are right but if you read again I am not saying the tweet is crap because of that. Just because the choice of articles do not add up to the point he tried to prove.

I also mentioned that he could have easily found two articles to sustain his point if he was not dumb, which would make no sense if I thought "journalists are selfless and philosophically consistent heroes".

I have no idea how you associated selflessness and philosophy with what I wrote before.

In what way does saying you're not going to do anything imply free will?

lul

It's either a symbol of oppression or it isn't. It can't be both.

Independent is communist news paper

This is a good thread. Post moar liberal hypocrisy!

this is true, but the notion that the independent can be internally consistent by anything other than coincidence is nonsense

Double-think was explained long time ago by Orwell. Its both at the same time:
>oppressive and brilliant
>guilty and innocent
>good and bad
>fair and cheated
>no and yes
>
>scary and inspiring
etc.
Read a goddamn book. They're training people to think this way for the Big Brother.

I don't think you need to read the book to know the meaning of hypocrisy.

If you think its hypocrisy, then you don't understand double-think. Hypocrisy is when something is false and there's a double standard, but entire point of double-think is to believe both at the same time.
>2x2=4 and 5 depending on what "party" says
>there's simultaneously 2 and 36 genders
>islam is peace and war at the same time
All of them are true in double-think. There's no hypocrisy, because they truly believe it.

What the difference you might ask? Well the difference is that to shutdown a hypocrite its enough to point out his lie. The same tactic has absolutely NO effect on double-think, because objective reality doesn't exist.

stupid russian

it was taken a step further though lol you just brand Trump, in his opposing of the media, as the one who is out of an orwellian nightmare.
huffingtonpost.com/entry/orwell-hitler-and-trump_us_58851781e4b070d8cad35b8c

inshallah!!!

Please archive those
archive.is/chjwl

>Russian intellectuals

post-modern(unknowingly) underage faggot detected

If I worship Apophis and I want to be a policeman in Scotland, do i get to wear my Serpent Guard helmet?

the kikes are at it.
ruski speaks the truth

Can all pro muslim Germans please kill themselves? These people are stealing our Money and disturb everything they show up at.

>Apophis
>not Baal

that manifesto should be mandatory reading in schools imo

The independent is almost worse than the guardian

fuck off shill

t. Hans von Cuckenhausen

only if you make them fear by killing their people first

underrated

the point about the poo in loo you fucking retarded snowflake is that the guys is
>Muslim
when trump is supposedly oppressing him and that he is
>Indian
when he starts molesting little girls . basically pushing the msm agenda that these fucking dark ages savages we have in our midst can do no wrong

man, you're fucking retarded. go read some saul alinsky and get on the fucking level.

But the point is that both articles are being pushed hours apart and clearly have an agenda- is it that slow of a news cycle?

That's not what the tweet says.

fpbp and it's a fucking kike.
I like it.