This was posted 10 months 4 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Digital Newspaper Subscriptions - New York Times A$20/Year, Wall Street Journal A$2.20/Month

757
Digital Newspaper Subscriptions - New York Times A$20/Year, Wall Street Journal A$2.20/Month
Go to Deal
xdpx on 23/06/2023 - 19:00 nytimes.com (1068 clicks)
Last edited 25/06/2023 - 19:09 by 1 other user

These deals regularly appear at the end of financial year.

AUD$20 for 1yr All Access to the NY Times (includes NYT Cooking and NYT Games). Typically costs ~AUD$180/yr. Can also pay $0.50/week. This deal usually ends ~29/30June.

AUD$2/mth for the WSJ Wall Street Journal. (GST will be added so is effectively $2.2/mth, or $4.4/mth if you include Barron's and Market Watch). Typically $14/mth or $17/mth with Barron's. WSJ deal ends this Sunday night 25 June.

Beware the payment is likely to be processed as an international / foreign transaction by your CC (even though the price and amount is quoted in AUD).

Both of these subs may be available via your local library membership, or Corporate / employer subscriptions.

Books & Magazines End of Financial Year Sale Newspaper Subscription

Related Stores

The New York Times
The New York Times
The Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal

closed Comments

    • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 19:08
      +15

      Ignorance is free, and highly sought after by some

    • xdpx on 23/06/2023 - 19:12
      +25

      Fair enough, I understand you've got a strong view about one or both of these papers. They are currently cheaper than usual, ergo bargain, whether you consider it propaganda or worth a proper gander.

      • pharcyde on 23/06/2023 - 19:26
        +2

        Appreciate that.

    • SolitaryMan on 23/06/2023 - 19:15
      -1

      You get NYT on the left and WSJ on the right, read both and you get a balanced view.

      • Grok on 23/06/2023 - 20:41
        -6

        The problem and it’s a massive one is that the NYT calls themselves the newspaper of record.

        The left regard it as the final arbiter of truth and want everyone else to believe that. Academia will often quote the NYTs. Businesses live or die by what the NYT writes about them.

        The NYT is one side woke trash now.

        • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 21:15
          +10

          The left regard it as the final arbiter of truth and want everyone else to believe that. Academia will often quote the NYTs. Businesses live or die by what the NYT writes about them.

          If you say so it must be true eh? Complete opinionated rubbish. Just as it would be if I said - without any evidence - that NYT readers are more skeptical, inquiring and FAR less credulous than, say, typical right wing readers like yourself. That notion at least would have some credibility, unlike yours.

          • Grok on 23/06/2023 - 21:26
            -5

            @Igaf: Triggered much 🤔

            • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 21:34
              +7

              @Grok: Don't like your obvious invention and opinionated ignorance challenged? I'm not in the least surprised.

              • Grok on 25/06/2023 - 09:05
                -1

                @Igaf: I am not the one living in a bubble.

                There are no good guys here.

            • pizzaguy on 24/06/2023 - 13:19
              +2

              @Grok: Yeah, always triggered with such a frustrated post straight complaining about how respectable environment (academia, business) has different opinion to a random on the webs.

              Like, triggered with a mixture of WTF and a smile.

              "All the educated people disagree with me!!"

              • Grok on 24/06/2023 - 14:08
                -1

                @pizzaguy: “All the educated people disagree with me!!"

                From the humanities? Sure but I take that as a badge of honour.

                • Igaf on 24/06/2023 - 14:47
                  +1

                  @Grok: As many have observed already about recent times - ignorance is now often worn as a badge of honour among certain demographics. Unsurprisingly, the same demographic believes that their uninformed opinion is as worthy as that of trained and experienced experts and scholars. Nothing wrong with healthy and informed skepticism, but that isn't what we're usually seeing
                  from that demographic.

                  Unbiased historians will look back on these times as a battle between fact and lies, rationality and ideology, opinionated ignorance and expert knowledge, science and ideology, reason/humanity and religious zealotry. They will also mention the huge drop in personal ethics and ethical behaviour of a (hopefully) small segment of the political spectrum, and the rise of overt racists, misogynists, and religious bigots. Hopefully those historians will say that ignorance lost and reason prevailed.

        • bigpoppa on 24/06/2023 - 08:06
          +3

          The left regard know it as the final arbiter of truth and want everyone else to believe understand that.

          The NYT is one side woke trash now anti conspiracy and anti right wing terrorist.

          FTFY bud, those autowrongs must be getting very old by now

        • Nom on 24/06/2023 - 15:23
          +2

          By your own admission :

          Academia will often quote the NYTs. Businesses live or die by what the NYT writes about them.

          And yet you regard the paper as "trash".

          I don't mean to be rude, but it's strange to assume that academia and businesses are making the wrong choices, just because you think so 🤷🏼‍♂️

          • Grok on 25/06/2023 - 09:03

            @Nom:

            I don't mean to be rude, but it's strange to assume that academia and businesses are making the wrong choices, just because you think so 🤷🏼‍♂️

            Well it is beyond the scope of this “bargain” and the wrong forum but there are bigger forces at play here.

            One, academia has been captured by the identity politics and social justice movement.

            Two, business has been captured by the ESG movement pushed by the biggest names in investment such as Blackrock.

            They both are actually the same thing but it originated in academia.

            This movement has become so successful that rational heads such as the technical disciplines in academia and business are too scared to speak out.

            Look what happens to exceptions to the cowering to wokeism? Look at how they attack Elon Musk for simply being rational.

            So, my position is a bit more comprehensive and nuanced than you seem to be suggesting, if I may not be so rude to point out,

            • Igaf on 25/06/2023 - 12:15
              -2

              @Grok: You missed the "climate scientists have been captured by the environmental movement" and "medical experts have been captured by big pharma". Just two more similarly inane conspiracy theories which come immediately to mind. They're as fatuous as your suggestion that the humanities don't contribute significantly to our society's advancement and deserve derision.

              Your conspiracy theories are as empty as your rhetoric. What you really mean is that your opinion isn't supported in various segments of academia, industry, and the general population, therefore they must have all been "captured". The notion that all academia and industry have consistent views about any issue is childish nonsense. There is a broad consensus about many things - even conservative and right wing govts in the USA and around the world recognise climate science and AGM for example - and there is pragmatism and reasoned compromise. This is how adults work to ensure a reasonably functional society. When things don't fit our ideologies we aften react like you and other fringe dwellers of the left and right - although usually with far less exaggeration and obvious invention than you have on this deal. Sometimes we'd even like to throw the baby out with the bathwater as the federal Greens have in Australia - but as educated, reasonably well-balanced adults usually do, we calm down and reach more rational positions.

              Interesting that the highest profile unis in America had very little to say about Trump's attempts - with full support of major parts of the GOP - to pervert justice and legal systems during and after the election. Like religions around the world, the moral, ethical and legal authority has been challenged and found significantly wanting. In the end this may not be a bad thing as it will (should) encourage students to be more skeptical and question more, and hopefully will cause the institutions to review how their most senior legal authorities respond to national crises.

              • Grok on 26/06/2023 - 12:25

                @Igaf:

                Your conspiracy theories are as empty as your rhetoric. What you really mean is that your opinion isn't supported in various segments of academia, industry, and the general population, therefore they must have all been "captured".

                You are such a warrior for truth and justice mate by parroting word for word what the establishment tell you is true. Congratulations.

                There are many subjects that academics simply will not study because they don’t want to know the answer. If you are not aware of how intolerant academia has become lately then why are you even commenting?

                If you are not aware how ESG has been weaponised by Blackrock, then you are deep deep in the bubble.

                I have two technology related degrees, I don’t automatically accept the opinion of humanities educated academics and journalists for one second on anything because they are full of it.

                • Igaf on 26/06/2023 - 14:30

                  @Grok:

                  I don’t automatically accept the opinion of humanities educated academics and journalists for one second on anything because they are full of it.

                  So your proposition is that all journalists and humanities educated people are "full of it"? Unlike tech and scientific people perhaps? Roflmao. There are plenty of people in all walks of life - educated or otherwise - who are full of it, or who will do the biddings of others without regard. There are of course many more educated opinions who you either don't know about (because you chase just one view) or simply refuse to acknowledge because of your blind ideology, the same ideology which affects left "fringe dwellers" and those with trenchant views about many issues. Interestingly these people - almost invariably of "the left", or "radicals" as they used to be labelled - are the ones who often effect real change in "human rights" and treatment, as anyone with even a passing interest in, and knowledge of, history in the last 250 years or so knows, Think workers' rights - pay conditions etc, the treatment of women and minorities, basic legal rights of same, slavery - if nothing pops immediately into that technical steel trap of yours.

                  You hold two degrees but - judging by your brief comments here - negligible, if any, ability to think and research for yourself, or to think anywhere outside your own life experience and narrow political views. That isn't at all a rarity. As for "captured", it's clear who has been captured, and how, the only question is why? Ideology is the obvious answer. It explains why you waffle, generalise and exaggerate.

                  I've read about Blackrock's problems with ESG and how Republican govts have pushed back against things which consumers, employees and a growing % of the general populus want and expect from companies.
                  Here's the (one of) the real reason(s) you're shouting at clouds: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmcgowan/2023/06/05/conservat… How dare Fink say that they were attempting to change behaviours, mindsets and focuses and use economic power to do so. That should be left to wealthy Republican supporters, esp the Kochs et al should it not?

                  In the end people can invest wherever they want and use whatever criteria they want, and consumers can vote with the feet/wallets. They should all research more than the simple economic transaction when they do so, and evidence suggests more and more of those able to do som(NB), are. Does it hurt that ethical investments are doing well? If so, why? There's nothing like ESG and DEI to get up the noses of 20th century knuckle-draggers on the conservative side of politics. Just as it has with climate change, the world will eventually move on, either leaving them behind or dragging them kicking and screaming into the new millennium, albeit 2 or 3 decades late.

    • Kazusa on 23/06/2023 - 19:29
      +7

      you seem to have upvoted What is a woman? though?

      • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 19:41
        +3

        Roflmao.
        Ideological blindness - right or left, but particularly the current American right - is a blight on humanity, and certainly a direct threat to democracy in that country. Sad to see.

        • pharcyde on 23/06/2023 - 19:51
          -3

          Please stop spreading misinformation. It's harmful and dangerous.

          • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 20:03
            +4

            @pharcyde: What "misinformation" is that exactly? That the extremists and ultra-conservatives in the Republican Party aren't threats to democracy in the USA? That Trump hasn't groomed the extreme right, attempted to undermine the rules of law and democracy while simultaneously courting the commie dictator in Russia because he thought he could profit from it?

            Feel free to elaborate, I'm all ears.

            • pharcyde on 23/06/2023 - 23:40
              +3

              @Igaf: It's like I'm talking to CNNGPT lmfao. At least try and hide your bias.

              • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 23:48
                +1

                @pharcyde: Why should I hide the fact that I'm non-conservative, loathe gross hypocrisy and dishonesty (we're all a little bit of both) and believe in the rule of law, science and fact rather than inane and childish conspiracy, pseudo-science, ignorant opinion and ideological/religious zealotry?

                Any progress on my "misinformation" or can we take it that your credulousness is permanently inked in?

    • dealman on 26/06/2023 - 07:44

      Yes but in this case it's left cleaning so it's not called propaganda.

      • Igaf on 26/06/2023 - 16:04

        When you grow up you might learn what propaganda is, although the odds are against it - about the same odds that you've actually spent more than 5 minutes reading anything on the NYT website.

  • mgexiled on 23/06/2023 - 19:15
    +21

    Ill get my propaganda elsewhere thanks

    • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 19:25
      -1

      Donnie's Twitter account's free I hear although you might feel dirty and need some antiemetics after reading.

      • pharcyde on 23/06/2023 - 19:27
        +8

        -TDS

        • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 19:46
          +1

          Au contraire, in the rational world where lies and greed aren't valued and the rule of law and democracy are, it's called recognising the obvious. You should try it sometime.

          • quog on 23/06/2023 - 19:57
            +7

            @Igaf: Bidens son is the pinnacle of valuing rules of law, along with ethics, and great at drug promotions.

            • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 20:04
              +8

              @quog: Biden's son deserves what he got. No rational person would suggest there aren't wrongdoers and bad eggs on either side of American politics. Recognising that is a step towards adulthood. Blind ideology and excusing the inexcusable is the alternative. THAT doesn't end well as even modern history shows.

            • Nom on 24/06/2023 - 15:25
              -1

              @quog:

              Bidens son is

              An absolute nobody in Australia.

              Why even mention him ?

              • quog on 24/06/2023 - 20:35

                @Nom: following conversations and being able to read the whole of context is a step towards adulthood.

                • Igaf on 24/06/2023 - 22:11

                  @quog: As is recognising that a cherry picked example is rarely representative, especially in the case of your argument. That's kiddie stuff, very common among climate and covid deniers and those who get their opinions handed to them on particular platforms, a few of which I've mentioned previously. It's obvious to actual adults why you picked your example.

                • Nom on 25/06/2023 - 17:16

                  @quog: This is OzBargain - 90% of Australians won't even know that Joe Biden has a son. It's a really strange example to use 🤷🏼‍♂️🤷🏼‍♂️🤷🏼‍♂️

          • Munki Kundi on 25/06/2023 - 05:48

            @Igaf: Hahaha…Love the sarcasm. But some people depend on this to recognise the obvious. They are usually the uninformed ones ( due to whatever reason).

            • Igaf on 25/06/2023 - 12:43

              @Munki Kundi: Depend on what sorry?
              quog's correct that context is critical in everything. Nothing wrong with his general point imo.
              Nom's implication that Biden's son was chosen as an example for a particular reason is also right, unless you came down in the last shower.

      • dealman on 26/06/2023 - 07:45

        What's on Twitter today is on news tomorrow anyway? Better get it directly from the source.

        • Igaf on 26/06/2023 - 16:06

          Twitter as a source of reliable information? Lol. What's your second preference Facebook? Telegram? CCP press releases?

  • Bullion78 on 23/06/2023 - 19:25
    +19

    There is nothing remotely balanced about NYT. They are essentially just another arm of the CIA. How anybody would be daft enough to pay to read this toilet is hilarious.

    https://youtu.be/-Upux1XBCbg

    • pharcyde on 23/06/2023 - 19:27
      +4

      Few understand this.

      • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 19:42
        -1

        And we should be forever grateful for that.

    • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 19:36

      Not a conspiracy theory guru but that's a new one. I do recall them publishing a clearly biased and ignorant commentary based on an "interview" with a UK covid skeptic epidemiologist who completely misquoted - and misrepresented - the conclusions of a paper he co-authored. Needless to say both the article's author and the NYT copped it in the neck - as they should have. Not the first time their attempt to placate the rabid right has brought them into disrepute and won't be the last if they continue to publish outrageous lies dressed up as science.

    • pizzaguy on 24/06/2023 - 13:23

      I bet there are fresh occasional tinfoil hats for this new old theory!

      • Igaf on 24/06/2023 - 13:39

        My very seriously considered opinion is that conspiracy theory infections have been spread through the text molecules of Telegram, Facebook, Fox etc. These molecules are taken in through the eyes and cause an effect similar to covid brain fog. Like many infections they seek out the gullible and the intellectually vulnerable. So in lieu of a tinfoil hat he probably should consider wearing polaroid glasses and of course avoid using 5G airwaves.

  • Sweet3st on 23/06/2023 - 19:27
    +7

    Thanks OP. $20 all access for a year is a great deal. And while no media is bias free the NYT is still a quality read.

    • Capitalshark on 24/06/2023 - 09:33
      +1

      But the SMH is “Independent. Always.” LOL

    • dealman on 26/06/2023 - 07:46

      Each to their own

      NYT is a woke, leftist hack. Yes it doesn't appear as bias if It aligns with your opinions already.

      • Igaf on 26/06/2023 - 16:19

        The world has a question for you. Given you've never actually read anything on it how would you know? If you had, you'd know that the NYT is FAR more than politics. It also debunks and dismantles idiotic parroted commentators who roll out words they don't understand, like "woke" for example. As you know (cough) they aren't above publishing contrary opinion pieces on hot topics either - even if those views are based on invention or misinformation. Unfortunately for NYT editors/content mgrs their readers are quick to point out such gross errors of judgement - especially when they don't follow up with corrections, or publish other articles pointing out the very obvious bs previously published.

  • Sfh1975 on 23/06/2023 - 19:29
    +3

    Not sure about these but many intl newspapers n mags are free with local library membership.

    • lordra on 24/06/2023 - 07:43

      @Sfh1975
      Mate, I'm looking for a money magazine sub. Never goes less than $65.
      Are you saying that my local library will have it for free?

      • Sfh1975 on 24/06/2023 - 12:33
        +1

        Well I am in the ACT. Check your library's website and look at digital resources. There are ebooks, audio books, movies, music, magazines, newspapers and what not. Washington post is there, the economist is there. Choice magazine is included. You will need libby and press reader app, depending on what you are trying to access. Web access is usually available nevertheless.

  • Lets Go Brandon on 23/06/2023 - 19:31

    T24, FJB.

  • strupper2003 on 23/06/2023 - 19:32
    +11

    NYT would have to pay me to read it

    • pizzaguy on 24/06/2023 - 13:24
      +1

      Since we're at your opinions - what's the neg for?

      • dealman on 26/06/2023 - 07:48

        The Neg is because NYT's opinions are left cleaning, woke, and often have no basis in reality.. is that good enough for you?

        • pizzaguy on 26/06/2023 - 07:49

          Nah, defs wrong use of a neg.

          But I get it, the frustration must be terrible.

        • Igaf on 26/06/2023 - 16:20

          Some examples please.

          often have no basis in MY reality. Fixed that for you.

  • mskeggs on 23/06/2023 - 19:51
    +24

    NYT carries a lot of unique reporting, and like it or not, have a big mindshare among powerful people.
    You can say “I would never read it” and be clueless about what is going on.

    It would be the same as me pretending Newscorp doesn’t have enormous influence. I don’t agree with lots they say, but I keep an eye on what they are pushing so I know what is going on.

    Or I suppose you can get your news regurgitated on youtube like a baby bird, regardless of your politics, getting twice-digested information isn’t getting you any closer to the truth.

    • Bunnyburger on 23/06/2023 - 20:08
      +2

      They're not so bad, the way people talk about it you'd think the food recipe or restaurant review section is propaganda too.

      • xdpx on 23/06/2023 - 20:12
        +9

        Given the adverse reactions experienced (or expressed anyway) by some, I'll probably include an allergy warning if I post this again in 12mths.

        • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 20:29
          +3

          Thanks for the deal xd. I'd subscribe but it's depressing to see the demise of what once was the world's greatest - and still very flawed - democracy.

            • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 21:23
              +1

              @xdpx: Hard not to be pessimistic. On current trajectory it will be a failed state before the end of this century unless the GOP rights the ship and rejects the lies, hypocrisy and dishonesty of its rabid supporters and nutjob reps like Greene and co.

                • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 21:44

                  @xdpx: Well Johnson and Morrison - both liars and hypocrites of the highest order - were both given the bum's rush so there's room for some optimism I guess.

    • Grok on 23/06/2023 - 20:37
      +2

      I wouldn’t say I would never read the NYT because I do, to see their ridiculous spin on a story or to see if they even cover a story, which they often won’t.

      But I will never ever pay them one cent, and I visit them with a Ad blocker so they don’t even make money there.

      They are complete one sided trash.

      • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 21:39

        As the Who once famously sang - 'Go to the mirror boy'.

    • fookos on 24/06/2023 - 10:54
      +3

      ^ This (@mskeggs)

      Unbiased, truly objective reporting is rare in this day and age.

      We should all be digesting our news - whatever the source - as a perspective and not necessarily even all accurate. It’s an interpretation of the story, and sometimes written with the angle the news editor has asked for, even before one interview is done.

      I agree with @mskeggs, better to have one eye open than both shut.

      And, if anyone thinks Australian media is spared from the issues described in this post, you’re dream’in ;)

    • ozhunter on 24/06/2023 - 15:00

      NYT carries a lot of unique reporting,

      what a way to put it, lol.

  • kml22 on 23/06/2023 - 20:19
    +2

    Are they paying me $20 a year to read their bias news?

    • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 20:25
      +5

      No, read the deal kml, it's simple enough even for the most rabid of Ozb right wingers I'd have thought.

  • BAHBQ on 23/06/2023 - 20:23
    +1

    Can also pay $0.50/mth week. This deal usually ends ~29/30June.

  • CacheHunter on 23/06/2023 - 20:31
    +8

    I was contemplating paying $1.50/month for the games/puzzles, so $20/year for the whole paper is not bad. Hopefully no one is going to tell me that the crossword or recipes section are either woke or extreme right.

    • xdpx on 23/06/2023 - 20:40
      +5

      Glad it fills your interests. Fortunately the NYT crossword typically provides rotational symmetry, and often mirror symmetry (left-right balance) for those especially concerned about bias. The recipes are great too, perhaps best enjoyed sitting down for those among us concerned about balance in their consumption of such matters.

  • nostalgiaultra on 23/06/2023 - 20:41
    +7

    My two cents as I have the WSJ deal from an earlier promotion: the actual news is pretty line ball albeit from a US perspective, the opinion section is pretty conservative, the lifestyle stuff is pretty good.

    • nostalgiaultra on 23/06/2023 - 20:43
      -1

      As a bonus: the WSJ China coverage has less bias than the slop that Murdoch/Fairfax put out

      • nostalgiaultra on 23/06/2023 - 21:33
        +1

        Same $2.20 (+ foreign transaction fee depending on bank) price albeit it was from January this year.

  • Jetkuma on 23/06/2023 - 20:44
    +6

    On the good side, if you have AMEX Platinum Charge, you get The Australian and WSJ for free. If you have WSJ, you can get 20% discount on IHG hotels and resorts. There are a few other discounts too but they are mainly catered to the US.

  • cashless on 23/06/2023 - 21:30
    +1

    Love the NYT.
    Not because of accuracy, but for the way it riles all the Trumpites. Even the ones on here that can’t even vote for the criminal.
    Love it.

    • Wally on 23/06/2023 - 22:05
      +2

      Tucker Carlson reckons NYT is giving Democratic candidate Robert Kennedy Jr's 2024 campaign a harder time than they did Trump

      https://twitter.com/i/status/1672014260480901120

      • cashless on 23/06/2023 - 22:34

        Who’s *ucker Carlson?
        Yesterday’s news dot com

        Let’s face it Trump & Kennedy are both total idiots

        • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 23:38

          Ain't that the truth.

  • ozbar on 23/06/2023 - 21:35
    +3

    Both trashy propaganda.

  • jakeau on 23/06/2023 - 21:36

    Thank you. Great offer! Long time NYT subscriber, it’s great to get access to Cooking at this price.

    As for all the carryon above, really believe you need multiple news sources. Strange people.

  • quog on 23/06/2023 - 21:40
    +1

    i wonder if the new york times can define what a woman is?

    • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 21:46

      Can you?

    • lost in transit on 23/06/2023 - 21:49
      +2

      Google says men can menstrate…If that helps ya 😳😀😀

      • Igaf on 23/06/2023 - 22:27

        The definition of menstruation is problematic in that case in my admittedly ignorant opiniuon. What isn't is that both chemically and even chromosomatically, some men are feminine (eg XX) and some women are masculine (XY). The binary notion pushed by the religious right in particular is outdated from a physical perspective, even ignoring the complex psychology of people who feel they're in the wrong body so to speak.

        • pharcyde on 23/06/2023 - 23:50
          -1

          in my admittedly ignorant opiniuon

          First time you've been correct.

          • Igaf on 24/06/2023 - 00:00

            @pharcyde: Nothing wrong with admitting one's relative ignorance, even where my knowledge likely outweighs yours by orders of magnitude. It's called honesty and is part of being a (moderately rational - woops there I go again) adult. Still struggling with that list of misinformation are you?

            • pharcyde on 24/06/2023 - 00:15
              +1

              @Igaf: Not going to lie - you at least make me laugh. I can appreciate that.

              Btw your rent is due on Tuesday.

              • Igaf on 24/06/2023 - 00:22

                @pharcyde: Do your Trump fawning neocon heroes also make you laugh or are you just a little bit uncomfortable with their dishonesty, hypocrisy and extremism but can't bring yourself to admit the truth?

                • pharcyde on 24/06/2023 - 00:24

                  @Igaf: -TDS

                  • Igaf on 24/06/2023 - 09:27
                    +1

                    @pharcyde: Interesting invention that. As history shows - particularly contemporary history in America, some people will swallow even the most bitter pills to mask the uncomfortable truth and make them feel less queasy about supporting their heroes' actions and attitudes - be they "influencers", rock/film stars, church leaders or politicians and their many cronies and enablers (like Giuliana for example). Ideological blindness and self-inflicted ignorance are scourges of the modern world but in the end it's a personal choice whether you support immoral and unethical people and behaviour. It goes without saying that by supporting such people and behaviour your are by proxy complicit in their actions. You may have heard the old truism about evil thriving because good men don't speak out?

                    • pharcyde on 24/06/2023 - 11:27

                      @Igaf: I am not a crackpot.

                      • Igaf on 24/06/2023 - 13:21

                        @pharcyde: But you happily support them. Fine line.

                        • pharcyde on 24/06/2023 - 13:35

                          @Igaf: Where did I say that, chatbot?

                          • Igaf on 24/06/2023 - 13:42

                            @pharcyde: Your very first comment was a fair indicator, and nothing you've written since suggests otherwise.
                            How's that list of my misinformation going? Maybe check the dog's droppings to see if he ate it.

                            • pharcyde on 24/06/2023 - 13:59

                              @Igaf: Oh ok, so I didn't say that. Your whole unhinged, Reddit-level rants are based on a strawman.

                              I thought as much, chatbot.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join