5 ms·

It's hard to argue with a comment so lacking in substance.

• moultano 15y ago
  The grandparent is a good example I think sarcasm should be verboten on any serious discussion forum. It's impossible to argue with because it shields the wielder from having to make an actual clearly stated argument.
  • bobds 15y ago
    I'd say it's a fairly clearly-stated argument.
  • tybris 15y ago
    Sarcasm can work, but it needs to be based on widely accepted truths that people can identify with. Problems with great grandparent: -Campaign finance is heavily regulated in the UK and about half of it comes from the state. -UK media is less of a political frenzy. They have other things to talk about, like the premier league, or human affairs. -The closest thing to US liberals language-wise are the Liberal Democrats, who are part of government. The closest thing to US liberals politically are the Conservatives (e.g., combating climate change is high on the conservative agenda) -Liberals aren't gaining any seats in polls That's a few too many errors for sarcasm to work.
    • cabalamat 15y ago
      > Campaign finance is heavily regulated in the UK This is true, in that there are limits both locally and nationality to how much candidates can spend on election campaigns. > and about half of it comes from the state AIUI this is not true; political parties have to raise their own money not get it from the state. There is funding of political parties, (see Short Money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Money ), but it isn't for the running of campaigns.