Her target was Andy Warhol, too, who was as weak as fuck. It wasn't as if he'd have been all that difficult to kill.
Solanas should clearly have gotten a man to do it, the silly girl.
Her target was Andy Warhol, too, who was as weak as fuck. It wasn't as if he'd have been all that difficult to kill.
I don't know. Are you maybe trying to "start a discussion"? Because that's the excuse I've seen peddled by SJWs for years when it comes to false racist/rape allegations.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:50 am"Jeez, I was kidding/not being literal. I'm always kidding/not being literal. Except when I'm not"
Typical alt-right motte and bailey, from /pol/ to Paul J. Watson. When they're caught saying something wrong or stupid or extreme it's always a joke/ironic/"triggering the libs"/a metaphor etc. This rhetorical trick is actually very similar to the Po-Mo SocJus tricks: "When I say that sex is a social construct I don't mean that biology has no effects on sexual differences. Except when I am, to justify my preferred policies" "When I say I want to abolish whiteness, I don't mean to hurt white people, I'm only talking about the social construct of "white", jeez can you people be any more literal?"
What a gigantic strawman from the man who wants us to appreciate every subtle difference between "alt-lite" and "alt-right".Brive1987 wrote: ↑Hah. Both Kirb and PZ love muslims -so long as they are in the West and keeping their noses tolerably clean. Their presence is a reassuring indication that racist collectives are in the process of being dismantled for the greater civic vision.
But pure religion is edging outside the referenced civic national-ethno-demography-genocide-replacement-globalist-essential character-core identity-culture-racist-Nazi-lite/right-tradition-collective unit :bjarte: “ethno-debate”.
But bring both books. They have nicely converging themes.
Yeah, that's another motte-and-bailey. "I'm not starting a witch hunt, I don't want the person who has stare-raped me to be punished (although they're totally a rapist, go look them up, and protest them) I'm just trying to start a conversation!"Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: ↑I don't know. Are you maybe trying to "start a discussion"? Because that's the excuse I've seen peddled by SJWs for years when it comes to false racist/rape allegations.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:50 am"Jeez, I was kidding/not being literal. I'm always kidding/not being literal. Except when I'm not"
Typical alt-right motte and bailey, from /pol/ to Paul J. Watson. When they're caught saying something wrong or stupid or extreme it's always a joke/ironic/"triggering the libs"/a metaphor etc. This rhetorical trick is actually very similar to the Po-Mo SocJus tricks: "When I say that sex is a social construct I don't mean that biology has no effects on sexual differences. Except when I am, to justify my preferred policies" "When I say I want to abolish whiteness, I don't mean to hurt white people, I'm only talking about the social construct of "white", jeez can you people be any more literal?"
She had a gun, too. Her gender is no excuse. A 16 year old girl in 1979 shot and killed two grown-ass man, the principal and a custodian of an elementary school. Solanas was a shitty terrorist, since like all radfems she lacked any real motivation to do anything but bitch and moan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nzUMsN0l58Brive1987 wrote: ↑‘‘Twas the thought process I referenced. The immediate tendency to simplify and exaggerate opposing POVs before spray painting everything Nazi-black for good measure. PZs BS could easily have been found in some of our so called debates.
Re Lauren, I saw her acknowledge Dugin as having elements of alien-thought that might strike up new conversations. I didn’t see outright endorsement. I don’t believe the impending Ukrainian genocide was referenced. Nor whether Dugan dresses right or left. I did hear unambiguously stated caveats. You saw buried pipes.
You crack me up.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑"Jeez, I was kidding/not being literal. I'm always kidding/not being literal. Except when I'm not"
Typical alt-right motte and bailey, from /pol/ to Paul J. Watson. When they're caught saying something wrong or stupid or extreme it's always a joke/ironic/"triggering the libs"/a metaphor etc. This rhetorical trick is actually very similar to the Po-Mo SocJus tricks: "When I say that sex is a social construct I don't mean that biology has no effects on sexual differences. Except when I am, to justify my preferred policies" "When I say I want to abolish whiteness, I don't mean to hurt white people, I'm only talking about the social construct of "white", jeez can you people be any more literal?"
That’s the resounding endorsement? How about you off-set with her caveats. Or place the benign sentences in full context.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑[BBvideo=560,315]htt.ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nzUMsN0l58[/BBvideo]Brive1987 wrote: ↑‘‘Twas the thought process I referenced. The immediate tendency to simplify and exaggerate opposing POVs before spray painting everything Nazi-black for good measure. PZs BS could easily have been found in some of our so called debates.
Re Lauren, I saw her acknowledge Dugin as having elements of alien-thought that might strike up new conversations. I didn’t see outright endorsement. I don’t believe the impending Ukrainian genocide was referenced. Nor whether Dugan dresses right or left. I did hear unambiguously stated caveats. You saw buried pipes.
"while Dugin may speak to the spirit of Russia the same way Peterson does to the west"
"Dugin suggests that individualism is simply a tactic of liberalism to keep itself alive"
"A Fourth political theory, something entirely different"
"I don't know why people are so afraid of this, I think it's a pretty interesting idea"
Ouch. That burns. :lol: :lol: Maybe start alternating with water. Friendly advice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzGwKwLmgMmike150160 wrote: ↑Don't stop now Kirb!
“Also I have no aim to "dismantle racial collectives".”Kirbmarc wrote: ↑What a gigantic strawman from the man who wants us to appreciate every subtle difference between "alt-lite" and "alt-right".Brive1987 wrote: ↑Hah. Both Kirb and PZ love muslims -so long as they are in the West and keeping their noses tolerably clean. Their presence is a reassuring indication that racist collectives are in the process of being dismantled for the greater civic vision.
But pure religion is edging outside the referenced civic national-ethno-demography-genocide-replacement-globalist-essential character-core identity-culture-racist-Nazi-lite/right-tradition-collective unit :bjarte: “ethno-debate”.
But bring both books. They have nicely converging themes.
PZ is deathly scared of being called a racist if he doesn't genuflect to the idea that islam is no worse than Christianity (it is, especially now that Christians have been secularized). He also tries to absolve islam of every wrong-doing, plays the "US are real terrorists" card, and will likely argue that burka bans are racist and that if the police has a list of troublemaking imams and their financers that's white supremacy or imperialism, and that muslims who inform the authorities of troublemakers in their communities are "subservient to white supremacy" or some other idiocy, because the idea of law enforcement is toxic white masculinity.
I have pulled no punches in pointing out how islam creates room for misogyny (TRUE misogyny, not "they smiled and stare-raped at me OMG"), for justifications of rape, child marriage, domestic violence, child sexual abuse, violence towards "unbelievers", homophobia (TRUE homophobia, not "they don't want to lick a girl-cock so they hate trans women"), blasphemy laws, etc. etc. I've described AT LENGTH how literalism works in islam, which figures/states/schools are promoting the worse messages, how "community" and "community leaders" work, who finances whom, how people lie pretending to be "moderate" and how you can spot their lies, and how to react. Indeed I've written about this so much that people have gotten tired about it.
We're truly one and the same.
Your problem is that you're obsessed with race/ethnicity to a VERY unhealthy degree. Arab Christians, while definitely more backwards than European Christians, assimilare much better in a "culturally Christian" secular setting: just look at Darrell Issa or Ralph Nader in the US, they're average milquetoast Americans, so much so that very few even know that they're of middle eastern ancestry. On the other hand European muslims, like Chechens or Bosniaks or Albanians, assimilate only if they're secular. Indeed Albanians have an easier time assimilating to the "west" than Chechens, despite both groups being "white" and majority muslims, because Albania was HEAVILY secularized.
And white converts to islam often are even more fanatical than those born into the religion.
The problem with integration of muslims is conservative/reactionary islam, and especially so if it's Wahabism. Black, white or "brown", muslims who become more religious, more conservative and reactionary, integrate MUCH worse than those who are "culturally muslims" or "Friday muslims".
Also I have no aim to "dismantle racial collectives". I'm simply pointing out that muslims are ALREADY LIVING as a MINORITY in the "west", and WANT to immigrate to the "west". I'm not supporting open borders, or letting people in and not promoting any kind of assimilation because it's "cultural imperialism". I'm simply opposing blanket bans, or Steerman-esque "population transfers", or ethnic-based systems which alienate people according to their ancestry.
Muslims NEED to secularize like Christians have, it's not "white supremacy" to point out that head coverings are inherently misogynistic, that FGM is child abuse, that imams and groups which spread conservative/reactionary ideas are social issues, etc.. That's a job for secularist organizations, among others (like educational institutions, law enforcement, intelligence services, etc.).
The ethno-nationalists have NO CLEAR IDEAS about what they want at least not in public. It's a continuous motte-and-bailey. On one hand they proclaim that they're just defending culture, on the other they whine and moan because an African young woman plays Jean D'Arc, even though she's "preserving culture" too. They loudly claim that they have no interest in race, then film a street in Paris where black people walk around and call it "the end of France". They swear that they're not racist, not even a bit, then mumble about non-white actors playing roles usually played by white people, or call someone non-white who was born in a "western" country an "invader".
Wahabism is also pretty exotic, perhaps Lauren should have interviewed Zakir Naik about what's to be done with those degenerates gays. He has some "shocking, exciting" ideas that will surely interest you! Or how about Anjem Choudary, I heard that he has some pretty "brilliant" ideas on how to get women to reject feminism (they involved speaking softly and beating them with a long stick).Brive1987 wrote: ↑That’s the resounding endorsement? How about you off-set with her caveats. Or place the benign sentences in full context.
She’s exploring what she thinks he thinks. While acknowledging it’s not found on the western right’s periodic Otis shit for a 23 year old. Exotic shit for most of us.
You have lost the capacity for ethical discourse. Which is sad really.
"Ethnic collectives" are already mixed. There are religious, ethnic, cultural minorities in every nation of the world. And people MOVE, especially so in a post-industrial age. Managing immigration and integration is possible (if hard), closing your country off is a pipe dream, unless your country is an authoritarian nightmare.Brive1987 wrote: ↑“Also I have no aim to "dismantle racial collectives".”
Strange then how concerned you are with people defending cultural and ethnic collectives. Strange too how incompatible your humanistic social liberalism and civic nationalism is to said collectives. And tell me again why we should open borders to traditional or devote muslims at all if we then have such a job ahead of us to decondition them? Muh liberalism man.
Says the man who was triggered by a black woman playing Jean D'Arc, or by non-white actors playing role in Shakesperean tragedies. :bjarte:And please explain why protecting a country’s unique cultural character (by not welcoming masses of exotic cultures) is an action “which alienate people”. Fuck me. Finally, your last paragraph reveals your own obsessive race fixation. You really can’t see a country’s unique or essential character as anything but purely and primarily racial. You are worse than Red Ice.
The funny thing is that they're using both anti-SocIal and SocJus arguments: calling Jordy-Boy Peterson a political prisoner and blaming Canada as a muh-soggy-knees patriarchy for crimes committed in indigenous women.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ The Saudis are berating Canada for our horrible human rights records. That'll teach us for urging them to stop torturing atheists and feminists.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/sa ... oplay=true
They're easier to read this way.shoutinghorse wrote: ↑ So kirbs has replaced the great walls of text with a mass attack of short to medium range texts. I see what you've done there 'ol son. :clap:
Is "cultural appropriation" actually bad? Let's say everyone in Australia starts eating Chinese food. Besides appropriating Chinese culture wouldn't it also be driving out traditional Australian cuisine? Shouldn't defenders of traditional Australian culture resist this?Brive1987 wrote: ↑“Also I have no aim to "dismantle racial collectives".”Kirbmarc wrote: ↑What a gigantic strawman from the man who wants us to appreciate every subtle difference between "alt-lite" and "alt-right".Brive1987 wrote: ↑Hah. Both Kirb and PZ love muslims -so long as they are in the West and keeping their noses tolerably clean. Their presence is a reassuring indication that racist collectives are in the process of being dismantled for the greater civic vision.
But pure religion is edging outside the referenced civic national-ethno-demography-genocide-replacement-globalist-essential character-core identity-culture-racist-Nazi-lite/right-tradition-collective unit :bjarte: “ethno-debate”.
But bring both books. They have nicely converging themes.
PZ is deathly scared of being called a racist if he doesn't genuflect to the idea that islam is no worse than Christianity (it is, especially now that Christians have been secularized). He also tries to absolve islam of every wrong-doing, plays the "US are real terrorists" card, and will likely argue that burka bans are racist and that if the police has a list of troublemaking imams and their financers that's white supremacy or imperialism, and that muslims who inform the authorities of troublemakers in their communities are "subservient to white supremacy" or some other idiocy, because the idea of law enforcement is toxic white masculinity.
I have pulled no punches in pointing out how islam creates room for misogyny (TRUE misogyny, not "they smiled and stare-raped at me OMG"), for justifications of rape, child marriage, domestic violence, child sexual abuse, violence towards "unbelievers", homophobia (TRUE homophobia, not "they don't want to lick a girl-cock so they hate trans women"), blasphemy laws, etc. etc. I've described AT LENGTH how literalism works in islam, which figures/states/schools are promoting the worse messages, how "community" and "community leaders" work, who finances whom, how people lie pretending to be "moderate" and how you can spot their lies, and how to react. Indeed I've written about this so much that people have gotten tired about it.
We're truly one and the same.
Your problem is that you're obsessed with race/ethnicity to a VERY unhealthy degree. Arab Christians, while definitely more backwards than European Christians, assimilare much better in a "culturally Christian" secular setting: just look at Darrell Issa or Ralph Nader in the US, they're average milquetoast Americans, so much so that very few even know that they're of middle eastern ancestry. On the other hand European muslims, like Chechens or Bosniaks or Albanians, assimilate only if they're secular. Indeed Albanians have an easier time assimilating to the "west" than Chechens, despite both groups being "white" and majority muslims, because Albania was HEAVILY secularized.
And white converts to islam often are even more fanatical than those born into the religion.
The problem with integration of muslims is conservative/reactionary islam, and especially so if it's Wahabism. Black, white or "brown", muslims who become more religious, more conservative and reactionary, integrate MUCH worse than those who are "culturally muslims" or "Friday muslims".
Also I have no aim to "dismantle racial collectives". I'm simply pointing out that muslims are ALREADY LIVING as a MINORITY in the "west", and WANT to immigrate to the "west". I'm not supporting open borders, or letting people in and not promoting any kind of assimilation because it's "cultural imperialism". I'm simply opposing blanket bans, or Steerman-esque "population transfers", or ethnic-based systems which alienate people according to their ancestry.
Muslims NEED to secularize like Christians have, it's not "white supremacy" to point out that head coverings are inherently misogynistic, that FGM is child abuse, that imams and groups which spread conservative/reactionary ideas are social issues, etc.. That's a job for secularist organizations, among others (like educational institutions, law enforcement, intelligence services, etc.).
The ethno-nationalists have NO CLEAR IDEAS about what they want at least not in public. It's a continuous motte-and-bailey. On one hand they proclaim that they're just defending culture, on the other they whine and moan because an African young woman plays Jean D'Arc, even though she's "preserving culture" too. They loudly claim that they have no interest in race, then film a street in Paris where black people walk around and call it "the end of France". They swear that they're not racist, not even a bit, then mumble about non-white actors playing roles usually played by white people, or call someone non-white who was born in a "western" country an "invader".
Strange then how concerned you are with people defending cultural and ethnic collectives. Strange too how incompatible your humanistic social liberalism and civic nationalism is to said collectives. And tell me again why we should open borders to traditional or devote muslims at all if we then have such a job ahead of us to decondition them? Muh liberalism man.
And please explain why protecting a country’s unique cultural character (by not welcoming masses of exotic cultures) is an action “which alienate people”. Fuck me. Finally, your last paragraph reveals your own obsessive race fixation. You really can’t see a country’s unique or essential character as anything but purely and primarily racial. You are worse than Red Ice.
You have a screw loose.
.
I'm sure I've recommended it here at least once. Wonderful book, but yeah, the data can be dense at times.screwtape wrote: ↑ Well I’ve just finished Niall Ferguson’s “The Pity of War”, a mere twenty years after it was published, as no one told me about it (which I shall choose to blame on Brive, Kirbmarc and Trump). A bit of a dry read as it is stuffed with facts, tables and figures, but if you thought you knew about WW1, you’ll know even more afterwards. Highly recommended.
Here let ME help.Brive1987 wrote: ↑Here. Let me help.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Stankeye wrote:CBS, which was named in the tweet as several articles about it , and going in to some detail*. ABC has some detail and makes it clear they are muslim extremists.It all depends on who you read. I did a google search for New Mexico compound school attacks. Fox (not surprisingly) has in the link headline 'extremist Muslim' The rest are uninformative, maybe mentioning extremism. Picking articles at random (skipping Fox), some will say muslim and extremist, others you will not find either mentioned.
The tweet was bullshit as often the twitterverse and the new alt-right is.
after court documents were released alleging that the kids were being trained to carry out school shootings. Despite those revelations, ABC’s World News Tonight and the CBS Evening News still refused to report the connection to Muslim extremism by the five adults there
Contextual. Both theories tend to make broad and unfalsiable claims.Brive1987 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:22 pmI take it you are not a fan of Coleridge. Does that make you a methodological or normative individualist?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ PeeZee has no experience of black people. He worships them from afar because that's what he's told to do, and he's a stupid, slavish cunt. People are people, nobody deserved unearned praise nor condemnation.
Thanks, I came across it in a bookstore a while back, nearly bought it. I will amend that.screwtape wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:09 amWell I’ve just finished Niall Ferguson’s “The Pity of War”, a mere twenty years after it was published, as no one told me about it (which I shall choose to blame on Brive, Kirbmarc and Trump). A bit of a dry read as it is stuffed with facts, tables and figures, but if you thought you knew about WW1, you’ll know even more afterwards. Highly recommended.
You seem to rely on shifting from literal to metaphor without any clear delineation or indication, then resort to insults when the result gets questioned. Perhaps, considering the number of times this has happened, you should express yourself clearly the first time. This being the goal of writing, I'm told.
I have worn a Cattleman when I work outside. I have had it for years and feel odd when I don't wear it. "Farm store" type hats are cloth with elastic cloth sweat bands stretch out and don't fit after a while. My Akubra still fits perfectly.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑My sister wants to get me a new Akubra for my birthday. My Summer Barma is showing some wear.
They criticize Canada while doing crucifixion.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ The Saudis are berating Canada for our horrible human rights records. That'll teach us for urging them to stop torturing atheists and feminists.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/sa ... oplay=true
When I actually steal a metaphor to make my point .. well you can safely assume I realise it is a figure of speech.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑You seem to rely on shifting from literal to metaphor without any clear delineation or indication, then resort to insults when the result gets questioned. Perhaps, considering the number of times this has happened, you should express yourself clearly the first time. This being the goal of writing, I'm told.
It's another topic the lame stream media /fake news won't talk about except when they do and then they just lie to cover up for their deep state masters- The Rothschilds, George Soros, and the Saudis.
You are not getting the dynamic of concern right. Measured and organic cultural evolution over time is expected but is founded on identity which is less immediately malleable.Driftless wrote: ↑
Is "cultural appropriation" actually bad? Let's say everyone in Australia starts eating Chinese food. Besides appropriating Chinese culture wouldn't it also be driving out traditional Australian cuisine? Shouldn't defenders of traditional Australian culture resist this?
What abut the fact that men no longer wear hats? That was a cultural change. Was it bad? Should it have been resisted? Akubra is hanging in there, though.
And last, if the goal is to preserve Judeo-Christian values then immigrants from Syria would be top of the list given the history of the region.
Apparently the Fonz was only allowed to wear his leather jacket while sitting on or riding his bike. Too rebellious and thuggish otherwise.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:07 amAnd for your information, wearing a bike helmet in a public space without having a bike under your ass is also illegal here. Common sense.
I can’t believe you just referenced “thugs”. :shock:KiwiInOz wrote: ↑Apparently the Fonz was only allowed to wear his leather jacket while sitting on or riding his bike. Too rebellious and thuggish otherwise.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:07 amAnd for your information, wearing a bike helmet in a public space without having a bike under your ass is also illegal here. Common sense.
Drool but light. I like it. :)free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Besides, those are just metaphors.
It is on my reading list. I am on a break though. Last few months I have been re-reading old favourites. I will get round to it some day.screwtape wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:09 amWell I’ve just finished Niall Ferguson’s “The Pity of War”, a mere twenty years after it was published, as no one told me about it (which I shall choose to blame on Brive, Kirbmarc and Trump). A bit of a dry read as it is stuffed with facts, tables and figures, but if you thought you knew about WW1, you’ll know even more afterwards. Highly recommended.
But I wanted to know if Paul McCartney really died in 1966...free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑It's another topic the lame stream media /fake news won't talk about except when they do and then they just lie to cover up for their deep state masters- The Rothschilds, George Soros, and the Saudis.
The reason the Saudis went all jihad on Canada was because Trudeau isn't actually a leftie soyboy but is secretly working with Mueller and Trump to bring down the secret pedo cabal. Qanon predicted it all in one of his coded tweets.