Jump to content
MrWunderful

General Current Events /Political Discussion

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Yeah, to be an offensive stereotype. That comedy may have slid by in 1990, but not in 2020.

Being an offensive accent against Indian people is a piss-poor asset. I'm glad we're doing away with those.

That's bullshit. Total bullshit.

You can be transgressive, edgy, and funny without the truly offensive stuff. Simpsons has done it plenty of times. They just dropped the ball on this. It's okay. THE SHOW IS STILL ON THE FUCKING AIR!

And I'm not undoing myself. Plenty agree with me. We're the ones winning, almost every single time.

Because there is a moral right.

And it's not the side that creates a fake, offensive Indian accent.

Sorry, but they fucked up on that part. Azaria is a funny guy, but even he admitted they did wrong.

AGAIN, HE ADMITTED THEY DID WRONG.

And they corrected it. He still has his job.

There's no long term damage.

What you call bullshit and pandering is actually treating people with respect.

Is it that you want offensive humor? Is that the only humor you laugh at? If so, you really need to look at your sense of humor.

If not, then don't worry about it. There are plenty of things to laugh at.

Like the Simpsons.

The show that is still on the air.

The majority of the Simpsons is. The Apu accent by a white guy is not.

That's why they dropped it.
 

And how do they bend culture? To use your words.

Ask yourself this.

If the SJW is a small movement, why is it sooooo powerful?

It's because the majority backs them.

They don't have mystical powers. They don't scream racism and the majority shits their pants and does what they want.

If the majority disagreed with them, then they wouldn't have power.

Guess what, when the majority of society agrees with something, it becomes the norm. Now we're seeing the offensive stuff getting shoved into the trashbin where it belongs.

 

The majority agrees with them. That's why they have power.

You just might be in the minority. I know, it sucks.

 

So what changed?

Nothing. Not a goddamn thing changed. Except people who didn't have a voice getting a voice.

And the people who had the sole voice have to share now.

Well, that means all those racist stereotypes aren't funny anymore.

New funny stuff will take its place. Or stuff that was funny but not demeaning to another human just for who they are will take forefront.

And that's funny because it's Cartman doing it in a funny way. We actually agree there.

It's not the Down's Syndrome. Cartman could have done any other thing, like pretend to be black (which maybe he did, I can't remember), and it's not the stereotypes themselves that are funny, it's Cartman being morally bankrupt and getting punished later that is funny. It's hilarious.

Cartman doing a Down's Syndrome impression with no context would not be funny. At least not to those with morals.

You have to look at the context. Matt and Trey are MASTER satirists. It's all they really do. They would never have a handicap fight that didn't have some context. Watch it again, and pay attention to what it's actually doing.

Everything they do, from South Park, to The Book of Mormon, to Team America, all sends up something in a satirical way. And it's funny. Because it has that edge, not because it's offensive. They don't do offensive just to be offensive. And if that's all you watch South Park for, that's on you.

BTW, if you haven't seen the Book of Mormon, it is awesome.

 

You call it caved. That's not how it went down.

It went down like this:

Indian people make statements that Apu's accent by a white dude is offensive.

The creators and Azaria apologize  and drop that aspect.

There was no huge protests. There was no general boycott.

The creators did one thing.

Be fucking human beings.

The majority didn't see an issue if the industry self-regulated. And that's exactly what happened. They put on ratings, parents could make their own decisions.

But I don't see how The Simpsons just dropping one aspect of Apu (that he's voiced by a white guy) and yet KEEPING THE CHARACTER equates to an entire industry saying, "Hey, maybe we should just give the customers a head's up on how violent our games are."

Both are pretty smart decisions.

It didn't before the 1800s. And it didn't happen at the same time.

Slavery was the NORM through most of human history. We finally "woke up." Way too late, but we did. Oh, there's that "woke" word.

The abolition of slavery WAS forcing morals on others.

Morals that said human beings should be treated like human beings.

That's still the progressive stance today.

You may not like it because, I dunno, you dig offensive stereotypical humor, but it's still about treating humans as humans.

So you're against slavery, but people can do whatever the hell else they want, including doing racist stereotypes in cartoons. Is that truly your position?

It all ties into the same thing, treating humans with respect. Getting the white guy to do voices other than a bad Indian accent, while not as profound as ending slavery, is still in that wheelhouse.

You just don't like it.

The Indians can certainly play Apu as good as any white dude, so why not? And you don't have white dudes doing awful stereotypical accents. Azaria wasn't "getting the job done" in a good way. His Apu was awful. And he knew it. He admitted it.

He does a killer Moe, though.

Sure. And the majority will decide.

The majority decided on this one. They didn't twiddle their thumbs while those who spoke up got their way. They agreed with those who spoke up. So did the Simpsons creators.

The people "transcending racial roles" weren't doing the job. Time after time they make it offensive and stereotypical. And people who are those racial roles feel offended, because it is saying, "You Indians/Blacks/name your race are stupid/sound funny just for being who you are." And it makes them feel like shit.

So why not let them do the voice when they're actually, you know, the person being portrayed.

If they screw it up, that's on them. And then another one of that same race can do it.

No it probably wasn't made with the intention of being offensive but it became that as some people started developing the need to get offended by everything. What a shitty state comedy is in when you can't even have something benign as a dialect anymore but you can still be edgy and transgressive? Lol ok. I mean the show has a fat bald dude regularly strangling his son as it's schtick and it was a challenge to established TV norms when it broke through - now it's problematising itself over a minority voice gag and bending backwards to appease the PC culture.

Yes you are undoing yourself. Simpsons was the antithesis to what you stand for and that's what contributed to it's popularity. You're taking something that wouldn't even have existed as we know it if people with your viewpoints were influencing it's direction and then cheering on how you're "winning" by getting to milk it down. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hammerfestus said:

Damn dude. Nice.  That sucker needs a table of contents though.

2768f0f6b37915c4_Captain-America-Civl-Wa

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cartman said:

No it probably wasn't made with the intention of being offensive but it became that as some people started developing the need to get offended by everything. What a shitty state comedy is in when you can't even have something benign as a dialect anymore but you can still be edgy and transgressive? Lol ok. I mean the show has a fat bald dude regularly strangling his son as it's schtick and it was a challenge to established TV norms when it broke through - now it's problematising itself over a minority voice gag and bending backwards to appease the PC culture.

It was just one aspect of an otherwise funny character. If Azaria didn't do a shitty accent, or they hired an Indian guy, hardly anything would change. Some Indians had an issue with it. So they changed it. Apu is still there, the show is still there, Azaria is still working.

You can complain that the show went downhill, but that happened years ago, and was because the writing got lamer, not because of PC culture.

4 minutes ago, cartman said:

Yes you are undoing yourself. Simpsons was the antithesis to what you stand for and that's what contributed to it's popularity. You're taking something that wouldn't even have existed as we know it if people with your viewpoints were influencing it's direction and then cheering on how you're "winning" by getting to milk it down. 

I'm cheering and winning because an offensive aspect of an otherwise okay show was changed for the better.

Again, the show's transgressive quality does not hinge on Apu's accent.

They changed one thing. For the better.

And the show keeps going.

Everyone's happy. Why aren't you?

Is it because that accent was the funniest thing about Apu? If so, again, that's on you.

Or is it just another thing that pisses you off about SJWs getting their way?

Well, as I said before, the majority backs them. Or they wouldn't have a voice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Its the SJWs ruining everything”

is the 2020 version of “The millennials are just lazy and entitled” 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tulpa said:

It was just one aspect of an otherwise funny character. If Azaria didn't do a shitty accent, or they hired an Indian guy, hardly anything would change. Some Indians had an issue with it. So they changed it. Apu is still there, the show is still there, Azaria is still working.

You can complain that the show went downhill, but that happened years ago, and was because the writing got lamer, not because of PC culture.

I'm cheering and winning because an offensive aspect of an otherwise okay show was changed for the better.

Again, the show's transgressive quality does not hinge on Apu's accent.

They changed one thing. For the better.

And the show keeps going.

Everyone's happy. Why aren't you?

Is it because that accent was the funniest thing about Apu? If so, again, that's on you.

Or is it just another thing that pisses you off about SJWs getting their way?

Well, as I said before, the majority backs them. Or they wouldn't have a voice.

 

The character and his voice is just a symptom of the overall problem. I'm saying that without the general counterculture position that it stood for it wouldn't have been the same Simpsons as we know it. And now it took a stand for the opposite: placating sensibilities and being agreeable. 

It's a microissue but it highlights the core of the show and that is that moralizers didn't get to have it their way or they would've been no fucking Simpsons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, cartman said:

The character and his voice is just a symptom of the overall problem.

The problem was that the voice was offensive to a culture of human beings. You expect them to just sit there and take it. Not watch the show? Indians find the Simpsons funny, but that one part made them uncomfortable. They spoke up.

The show responded. They kept the character, and Azaria is still working. It's just that the accent was a misstep, and they owned up to it.

And you equate that as some big regressive thing?

That's fucked up.

No one is going to miss Azaria's voice of Apu, I guarantee it. We'll all move on, and he'll still do characters on the show.

17 minutes ago, cartman said:

I'm saying that without the general counterculture position that it stood for it wouldn't have been the same Simpsons as we know it.

And there's more ways of being counterculture without resorting to cheap gags like offensive accents.

The humor of the Simpsons doesn't hinge on it. The show is still going. Other funny shows are still on the air.

If you're putting all the chips on Apu's accent is what made the Simpsons successful, you're really cutting off your nose to spite your face.

17 minutes ago, cartman said:

And now it took a stand for the opposite: placating sensibilities and being agreeable. 

Yeah, they took one stand, to treat human beings as human beings, and suddenly that's the collapse of western civilization?

No. They corrected an offensive aspect, that wasn't even the core of their humor, and moved on.

17 minutes ago, cartman said:

It's a microissue but it highlights the core of the show and that is that moralizers didn't get to have it their way or they would've been no fucking Simpsons.

No, it doesn't highlight the core of the show. The show has morals. It often hits the same satirical spots that South Park does. In a different way, but they are kissing cousins.

They changed one thing. Apu's accent. And you think that changes the core of the show?

Then it wasn't much of a show.

 

And yet it's still on the air, with most of the gags still going.

I think comedy will do just fine.

Edited by Tulpa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

It was just one aspect of an otherwise funny character. If Azaria didn't do a shitty accent, or they hired an Indian guy, hardly anything would change. Some Indians had an issue with it. So they changed it. Apu is still there, the show is still there, Azaria is still working.

I haven't watched, "The Problem with Apu,, but the comedian who made the doc. is Indian. I heard there is a scene were he introduced his parents to the character to get their reaction and they think the character is voiced by an Indian person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Californication said:

I haven't watched, "The Problem with Apu,, but the comedian who made the doc. is Indian. I heard there is a scene were he introduced his parents to the character to get their reaction and they think the character is voiced by an Indian person.

Certainly some are okay with it, but some clearly aren't. And it came down to the creators, who made the conscious decision to change the character.

I personally think the accent is horrible, but that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Certainly some are okay with it, but some clearly aren't. And it came down to the creators, who made the conscious decision to change the character.

I personally think the accent is horrible, but that's just me.

You think that accent is horrible, and some Indians can't tell its not an Indian person. I have got to see that scene, it sounds so ironic I am surprised they didn't edit it out.

Edited by Californication

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Californication said:

You think that accent is horrible, and some Indians can't tell its not an Indian person. I have got to see that scene, it sounds so ironic I am surprised they didn't edit it out.

The guy who made the doc said he thought it was funny as a kid, but not so funny as an adult. So it's definitely not cut and dry, but he cared enough to make a whole film about it.

Let's not forget that it wasn't like there was mass demonstrations or anything. The creators saw that some Indians were uncomfortable with a white dude voicing an Indian character and the creators decided to change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cartman said:

Realism isn't the main objective so like i said it's beside the point

It’s beside the point to you. The point to me actually is realism. I love the first season of The Simpsons specifically because it portrayed a family that had worries and problems and sniped at each other, but at the end of the day they were stuck loving each other. Sure, the interactions were exaggerated, and the characters were funny looking, but there was serious character development and heartfelt plots. The interactions they had were, indeed, realistic. We can say the same about any number of successful Lear shows (All in the Family, The Jeffersons, Sanford and Son, Married With Children) even though they were crass and controversial. When The Simpsons became nothing but jokes and gags is when it started going downhill. (side note, I blame Conan O’Brien for beginning the decline) 

So, first who the fuck are you to say what the point of the show is and that’s what the producers should do? And second, now who is claiming to speak for everybody’s opinion?

 

2 hours ago, cartman said:

They didn't know it was wrong they hired talented and dedicated people to try making a serious attempt in creating a good show wich is what they did.

Thirty years ago! Look I’m all for the classics, be it TV, video games, music movies comics whatever. That doesn’t mean we do things the same way now. If you want every thing to be how it was thirty years ago, by all means, get on a Compaq desktop with a 14” CRT and post on a BBS for $2.95 per hour over dialup.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tulpa said:

I'm kind of the opinion I've always had, that Trump never wanted to be president.

...

he might be able to cite some health issue and just fucking bail.

I’ve heard that before. Heck, it was even going on before the election. And it’s a compelling theory, and it’s possible. But I don’t think it’s true. 

Actually I could buy that it was true in the moment four years ago. And that he was simply too dumb to stop driving the runaway train by modifying his behavior. But now, I don’t believe he has any designs to lose or give up. And if he does I think he will again fail to fail.

The case can certainly be made that he tried to lose by being horrendous, but how to we reconcile knowing it’s bad and wrong, with using that to be popular by inciting rage, and also with wanting or not wanting the power of the seat? 

Whether I’m right or not, I doubt he will bail. He has campaigned nonstop. I think he announced his 2020 campaign the day after inauguration. He could have cited a health issue long ago, but no, he trotted out that crackpot hippie looking doctor to says he’s all good. He never, ever, admits to a problem or backs down and that’s why we are here. He definitely has no clue what he’s doing, and he might even be aware of that (I have my doubts), but I don’t think that means he doesn’t want it. He’s too venal and mad and selfish to have even that minimal drop of introspection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

Masks save peoples lives, and slow the spread. There are tons of examples about it, scientific proof, videos etc but what do you tell the people that all just say its fake news?

Well, we'd been saying for weeks or at least a month that masks were critical and saved lives, but the World F'ing Health Organisation denied this fact during the early stages of the virus, subsequently increasing the spread. 

When a big , prominent organisation initially says they are not useful or beneficial, of course a country of folks that aren't culturally used to wearing masks are going to question the validity of masks, even as the organisation silently changes their stance.

If the real story got out originally, I think there'd be less people questioning the importance of masks 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tulpa said:

The problem was that the voice was offensive to a culture of human beings. You expect them to just sit there and take it. Not watch the show? Indians find the Simpsons funny, but that one part made them uncomfortable. They spoke up.

The show responded. They kept the character, and Azaria is still working. It's just that the accent was a misstep, and they owned up to it.

And you equate that as some big regressive thing?

That's fucked up.

No one is going to miss Azaria's voice of Apu, I guarantee it. We'll all move on, and he'll still do characters on the show.

And there's more ways of being counterculture without resorting to cheap gags like offensive accents.

The humor of the Simpsons doesn't hinge on it. The show is still going. Other funny shows are still on the air.

If you're putting all the chips on Apu's accent is what made the Simpsons successful, you're really cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Yeah, they took one stand, to treat human beings as human beings, and suddenly that's the collapse of western civilization?

No. They corrected an offensive aspect, that wasn't even the core of their humor, and moved on.

No, it doesn't highlight the core of the show. The show has morals. It often hits the same satirical spots that South Park does. In a different way, but they are kissing cousins.

They changed one thing. Apu's accent. And you think that changes the core of the show?

Then it wasn't much of a show.

 

And yet it's still on the air, with most of the gags still going.

I think comedy will do just fine.

It is regressive yes. They should've dealt with their feelings just like others who found Simpsons controverial had to do but instead they got catered to. And they're not the collective voice either or representatives of a whole people yet they feel very entitled to shove their feelings down everyones throat as if they are objective.

And yes ofcourse there's other ways in wich to be counterculture but none of them include never offending anyone and appealing to PC culture wich is exactly what they did. If you fail on a bar set this low it's pretty safe to say that you're not counterculture. Apu isn't even behaving antisocially ffs he's just a funny minority storeowner. He neither ditches school nor does he abuse his son, he's not a drunkard or a sleazy bar owner etc. He's literally one of the cleanest acts on the show and yet you wanna stretch it to him "not being treated like a person" and all this other nonsense just because he talks funny. It's like he has to be this prescious snowflake or something and not have any quirk to him or else he might break when someone smiles to how he looks or speaks.

No what they've done now is definitely not the core of what the show stood for in relation to being controversial, not even close. You can make the claim about how it can still be counterculture or edgy but no... it kinda doesn't go together. You'd have to stretch the definition to the point that it loses it's meaning.

They sold out.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Link said:

It’s beside the point to you. The point to me actually is realism. I love the first season of The Simpsons specifically because it portrayed a family that had worries and problems and sniped at each other, but at the end of the day they were stuck loving each other. Sure, the interactions were exaggerated, and the characters were funny looking, but there was serious character development and heartfelt plots. The interactions they had were, indeed, realistic. We can say the same about any number of successful Lear shows (All in the Family, The Jeffersons, Sanford and Son, Married With Children) even though they were crass and controversial. When The Simpsons became nothing but jokes and gags is when it started going downhill. (side note, I blame Conan O’Brien for beginning the decline) 

So, first who the fuck are you to say what the point of the show is and that’s what the producers should do? And second, now who is claiming to speak for everybody’s opinion?

 

Thirty years ago! Look I’m all for the classics, be it TV, video games, music movies comics whatever. That doesn’t mean we do things the same way now. If you want every thing to be how it was thirty years ago, by all means, get on a Compaq desktop with a 14” CRT and post on a BBS for $2.95 per hour over dialup.

The objective isn't pinpoint-accuracy realism to the point that a minority voice sounds 100% believable. Ofcourse there's a sense of realism in the stories told but it's not the same as every aspect of a sound or animation having to adhere to reality. I mean they are colored fucking yellow you know?

I've never spoken against character development so i don't know what you're trying to refute. The show was showing non-rolemodels in a time where the established strain of TV was happy wholesome families, people with bad habits or behaviours but still with a good heart at their core. It dared to be controversial to the social establishment while now it kisses it's ass.

 

Edited by cartman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Apu and other things:

I'm genuinely curious about this, so please don't mind me asking. At what point do we draw the line?

For example: As everyone here surely knows, accents are not genetic. I've seen Hispanic and Asian Americans whose accent sounds 100% "American", people who were born and spent their whole lives in the USA. If I had children and raised them in Taiwan, and only Taiwanense people spoke to them, they could sound 100% native when speaking Chinese, even if my wife and I were both white. Same with any accent and language. So if an Indian-American were hired to play Apu's part, and he did not sound specifically "Indian", I guess that would be fine. Would it be fine if the guy then tried to speak with an "Indian" accent, even though it wouldn't be a genuine Indian accent? The only difference is that the speaker would be Indian-American, so I guess ethnic minorities are allowed to take a swipe at their own group?

But I'd like to extend it further, to movies. Is it okay for an American actor to portray a German in a movie, with a stereotypical German accent? What about with a Russian accent? Would a Polish guy attempting to pull off a Russian accent be okay, since both are speakers of Slavic languages, but an Irish guy doing it would not be okay? Or is it all okay, since at the end of the day, these are all white majority groups, even though ethnically they are different, which people are often quick to point out (I.e Polish immigrants getting treated like shit in Norway).

I remember hearing there was a situation where people got up in arms when a genetic woman played the role of a transsexual woman in a film or a show. If a transsexual woman were to be cast in the role of a genetic woman, would it be okay? What about actors being cast in roles of straight / gay, even if they personally identify as the opposite? How about a guy from Ghana being chosen to voice a black African American character?

Where do we draw the line, which are valid complaints, and the ones that aren't, why not?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note, if it's important to cast someone of a certain ethnicity to voice a cartoon character (despite as being mentioned above, accent is not purely genetic via ethnicity / race), what about chefs and cooks producing food?

I remember someone (Gordon Ramsay perhaps) was called out for trying to produce some ethnic food "better" than the locals did. In this case I can somewhat relate and find it upsetting that the "American " pizza at one of the largest pizza chains in Taiwan (ran by a white French Canadian) has mushrooms on it, as although I like shrooms, that doesn't seem very American to me. 

What about other foods? Should Italians be the only ones allowed to make pasta (probably, there's so much locally made, substandard pasta here I could cringe), should white people be denied the right to cook and sell curry or wonton soup at a restaurant, etc? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fcgamer said:

What about other foods? Should Italians be the only ones allowed to make pasta (probably, there's so much locally made, substandard pasta here I could cringe), should white people be denied the right to cook and sell curry or wonton soup at a restaurant, etc? 

Foods are probably the least respecting of cultural (and physical) boundaries of anything.  Various foodstuffs are always getting modified to fit in with  local cultures whether the foods come to someone or the someones come to the source of the food:

Pasta likely originated in China and moved westward where the Italians took to it with gusto (as it were).  There is some thought that Marco Polo brought pasta back but it likely made its way westward before then.

(Another example - Lefse is a traditional tortilla like food made from potatoes* in Scandanavian cuisine that serves much the same function as tortillas (they generally don't go the hardened taco/tostada route though)).  I like them a bit better than tortillas - but I confess to being partisan on the matter.  ^___^. )

*Lefse of course couldn't exist until the introduction of the potato from the new world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fcgamer said:

 I can somewhat relate and find it upsetting that the "American " pizza at one of the largest pizza chains in Taiwan (ran by a white French Canadian) has mushrooms on it, as although I like shrooms, that doesn't seem very American to me. 

Mushrooms on American pizza has always been an option as far back as I can remember (mid to late fifties).  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

Mushrooms on American pizza has always been an option as far back as I can remember (mid to late fifties).  

Every pizza I have ordered for 20 years has mushrooms on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fcgamer said:

Well, we'd been saying for weeks or at least a month that masks were critical and saved lives, but the World F'ing Health Organisation denied this fact during the early stages of the virus, subsequently increasing the spread. 

When a big , prominent organisation initially says they are not useful or beneficial, of course a country of folks that aren't culturally used to wearing masks are going to question the validity of masks, even as the organisation silently changes their stance.

If the real story got out originally, I think there'd be less people questioning the importance of masks 

Yeah and Trump could have been the bigger man and wore a mask and recommended that his sheeple wear them too. 
 

But No, Trump was tweeting Pics of Biden wearing a mask as an insult. 
 

I bet most of his followers dont even know what the WHO is. But in the USA, they have been saying to wear masks since March. Trump made it a pure political game. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

Mushrooms on American pizza has always been an option as far back as I can remember (mid to late fifties).  

It's an available option, yes, but the pizza this Canadian guy says is the "American" pizza is a combination of pepperoni (not peppers, the red, round meat thingies) and mushrooms. I personally like my pizza with anchovies.

But if ordering for a large group of people, at least in my area, the preferred choices were always either plain cheese, or pepperoni, not pepperoni and mushrooms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Yeah and Trump could have been the bigger man and wore a mask and recommended that his sheeple wear them too. 
 

But No, Trump was tweeting Pics of Biden wearing a mask as an insult. 
 

I bet most of his followers dont even know what the WHO is. But in the USA, they have been saying to wear masks since March. Trump made it a pure political game. 

It's hard to make it purely political when it was already made purely political before it even got to him.

Yeah, I know it's hard to accept, but the virus was already purely political before it even arrived in the USA, and it was because of Tedros, China, and the WHO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...