Christmas is two weeks away and she's seen something she simply must have but has a price tag to match the GDP of a small country. Oldest trick in the book mate.
Run for the hills. :shock:
Christmas is two weeks away and she's seen something she simply must have but has a price tag to match the GDP of a small country. Oldest trick in the book mate.
Glare at 'em until they laugh, Hannah. Then poke at them until you find their tribal grievance and somehow, magically, they'll realize we're just humans together. Good plan.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Speaking of smug, here's one from the radical left SJW telling us good men to shut up and let man hating lesbian dykes do all the talking about how men should behave. H/T to PZ for shutting up and introducing this gem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEPsqFLhHBc
Tim Pool is also on the move.John D wrote: ↑Styx is opening a SubscribeStar account and will also use Gab. Best way to drive innovation is to move your money.MarcusAu wrote: ↑ Does anyone have any plans to ameliorate Sargo's situation? (Besides typing things on an an Internet forum I mean).
Perhaps a patreon strike could be organised - where all the donators stop paying - in order to effect Patreon's revenue stream. There would of course be some inconvenience to the benefactors - but it's a tried and true method for negotiating rights. (And of course a principle is at stake).
As things currently stand - it seems unlikely that anyone here is having any effect one way or the other - no matter what their stated position is.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1l3lB8vafY
Indeed. Especially as Apple wholly controls the App Store and there is no other means for loading third party applications on their mobile products. Again, it's want to act as both a publisher and platform simultaneously that is the problem.Brive1987 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:27 pmTim Cook accepting a “courage against hate” award from the ADL is fucking embarrassing and concerning in equal measure.
As is the attempted radicalisation of Sargon by the fascist liberals. Strange times.
Seriously listen to the ADL speech as Cook invokes Apple’s (literally) religious mission against ‘hate’, his support for LGBQ and open borders, both contrasted against white supremacy and an unironic fusion with Kristallnacht. The only upside was when he paused for applause after his appeal to nazi redux, only to get stunned silence. That is the scariest dude I’ve seen since the recent footage of Macron inspecting his troops.
Movingly, Tocqueville is always trying to negotiate a contract between his élitism and his populism, his anxiety about equality and his love of freedom: his great book is really its fine print. The intellectual power of the book is lodged in his profound understanding—both a hope and a dread—that the logic of equality will insist on more and more equality. Thus Tocqueville holds in focus a political story in which, as he sees it, things are likely to get better and worse at the same time. On the one hand, future democracies will probably be milder and more mediocre than aristocratic societies: there will be less brutality and brilliance, as we all drift toward a vast, undemanding median. In the book’s second volume, he warns that modern democracy may be adept at inventing new forms of tyranny, because radical equality could lead to the materialism of an expanding bourgeoisie and to the selfishness of individualism (whereby we turn away from collective political activity toward the cultivation of our own gardens). In such conditions, we might become so enamored with “a relaxed love of present enjoyments” that we lose interest in the future and the future of our descendants, or in higher things, and meekly allow ourselves to be led in ignorance by a despotic force all the more powerful because it does not resemble one: “It does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born.”
My horseshoe wouldn’t look like your horseshoe. The symmetry of the traditional approach disturbs me.CommanderTuvok wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:46 pmThe Fish Hook theory is complete bollocks, and the only people I see pushing it are Far Left extremists like Dan Arel.Brive1987 wrote: ↑Strangely enough I’m suspicious of any model where the the proponents place themselves in the centre as the “sane” party with everybody else measured by their opposition to said sanity.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑And a lot of otherwise normal conservatives are flying the flag of a deranged demagogue. It's why the curvy bit of the horseshoe is best.
Now that’s smug.
Do you have a view on the fish-hook theory?
https://psmag.com/.image/c_limit%2Ccs_s ... 63xazb.jpg
Meanwhile, the Horseshow theory has some merit. The Far Left and the Far Right share a lot of positions and values: hostility to free speech, admiration for dictators and "strongmen", authoritarianism, their hatred of Jews/Israel, and the list goes on and on.
The Far Left don't like it when you point out how similar many of their values are with the Far Right, and that is why they push this silly "Fish Hook" theory.
A right and left wing purity spiral to nazism/communism is easily understood. What does a self perceived centre-liberal purity spiral look like?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Extremes of both sides conduct rigorous purity tests. This is axiomatic. The vast, mostly quiet middle do not.
The woke hipster and the SJW has become indistinguishable.Ape+lust wrote: ↑ Silicon Valley SJWs are like spree killers with banhammers this week. If you ever wondered how commie revolutions so quickly became bloody horrors, watch these frantic idiots try to un-person everyone with "incorrect" thoughts.
https://i.imgur.com/woUPkW2.png
https://twitter.com/clairlemon/status/1 ... 2405975041
Why don't you attempt to show us one, and we'll explore it together. Because right now, that's a pretty nonsensical statement.Brive1987 wrote: ↑A right and left wing purity spiral to nazism/communism is easily understood. What does a self perceived centre-liberal purity spiral look like?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Extremes of both sides conduct rigorous purity tests. This is axiomatic. The vast, mostly quiet middle do not.
I too am a fan of liberal democracy.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:12 pmBrive wrote:I gather that is your perception and possibly that is an Aussie thing but I can tell you that isn't close to accurate in my experience. No one I know labels themselves as liberal as a purity thing but it seems to you that anyone even close to the center does.The way in which ‘liberal’, liberal values, liberal society, liberal democracy is thrown around (without necessary definition) is very badge like. It becomes a synonym for “good ie not Nazi or commie”
I would label myself as a centrist/ liberal. Liberal as in a believer in liberal democracy and open to some change if it is positive. Centrist as in a believer in capitalism in that I have been self employed most of my working life either as a subcontractor or running my own business but still holding the belief that the government has a place in such things as utilities, health care education, policing, military...It isn't the liberals that are doing the banning. The authoritarian, illiberal left wingers are doing the loud snivelling and the right wing corporate drones are doing the banning so it doesn't hurt their profits. Again, the people you are calling liberals don't identify as such nor are they regarded as liberals by the vast majority of people. Perhaps you have become deluded about what the meaning of what the word liberal means because you have been listening to the right wing kooks that have weaponized the word and have been maliciously and dishonestly misusing it.Something funny is going on when liberals ban liberals for not being liberal. Or for being too liberal. Or not the right sort of liberal. Or ...
I just believe there should be a number of liberal democracies, each protecting the rights of their own individual-citizens as defined by historical based cultural criteria. With a leavening of the exotic.Liberal democracy is a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism, i.e. protecting the rights of the individual, which are generally enshrined in law.
How on earth would they be different? The symmetry is a deliberate illustration. The fact that it disturbs you is really irrelevant to whether it works as a model. Because it mostly does-Brive1987 wrote: ↑My horseshoe wouldn’t look like your horseshoe. The symmetry of the traditional approach disturbs me.CommanderTuvok wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:46 pmThe Fish Hook theory is complete bollocks, and the only people I see pushing it are Far Left extremists like Dan Arel.Brive1987 wrote: ↑Strangely enough I’m suspicious of any model where the the proponents place themselves in the centre as the “sane” party with everybody else measured by their opposition to said sanity.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑And a lot of otherwise normal conservatives are flying the flag of a deranged demagogue. It's why the curvy bit of the horseshoe is best.
Now that’s smug.
Do you have a view on the fish-hook theory?
https://psmag.com/.image/c_limit%2Ccs_s ... 63xazb.jpg
Meanwhile, the Horseshow theory has some merit. The Far Left and the Far Right share a lot of positions and values: hostility to free speech, admiration for dictators and "strongmen", authoritarianism, their hatred of Jews/Israel, and the list goes on and on.
The Far Left don't like it when you point out how similar many of their values are with the Far Right, and that is why they push this silly "Fish Hook" theory.
Here’s a personification - caught in the wild.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Why don't you attempt to show us one, and we'll explore it together. Because right now, that's a pretty nonsensical statement.Brive1987 wrote: ↑A right and left wing purity spiral to nazism/communism is easily understood. What does a self perceived centre-liberal purity spiral look like?CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Extremes of both sides conduct rigorous purity tests. This is axiomatic. The vast, mostly quiet middle do not.
So...a liberal democracy that must be protected by what, exactly? Because right now those liberal democracies are functioning as such. Now they need soe special protections. Pray tell what that would look like.Brive1987 wrote: ↑I too am a fan of liberal democracy.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:12 pmBrive wrote:I gather that is your perception and possibly that is an Aussie thing but I can tell you that isn't close to accurate in my experience. No one I know labels themselves as liberal as a purity thing but it seems to you that anyone even close to the center does.The way in which ‘liberal’, liberal values, liberal society, liberal democracy is thrown around (without necessary definition) is very badge like. It becomes a synonym for “good ie not Nazi or commie”
I would label myself as a centrist/ liberal. Liberal as in a believer in liberal democracy and open to some change if it is positive. Centrist as in a believer in capitalism in that I have been self employed most of my working life either as a subcontractor or running my own business but still holding the belief that the government has a place in such things as utilities, health care education, policing, military...It isn't the liberals that are doing the banning. The authoritarian, illiberal left wingers are doing the loud snivelling and the right wing corporate drones are doing the banning so it doesn't hurt their profits. Again, the people you are calling liberals don't identify as such nor are they regarded as liberals by the vast majority of people. Perhaps you have become deluded about what the meaning of what the word liberal means because you have been listening to the right wing kooks that have weaponized the word and have been maliciously and dishonestly misusing it.Something funny is going on when liberals ban liberals for not being liberal. Or for being too liberal. Or not the right sort of liberal. Or ...
I just believe there should be a number of liberal democracies, each protecting the rights of their own individual-citizens as defined by historical based cultural criteria. With a leavening of the exotic.Liberal democracy is a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism, i.e. protecting the rights of the individual, which are generally enshrined in law.
Maybe my beef is with the subset of liberals who have a civic national view of which individuals are covered by a given LD.
I definitely have a beef with liberals who view the traditional nationstate as being incompatible with their global (vanilla) values based perspective.
I am, of course, insulted by your use of “kooks” to describe a part of my knowledge base .... your label of “deluded” is equally upsetting.
Commonsense policies back by Hungarian pragmatism.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ Some, of course, not "soe." Spell check functions only really well if you don't like swearing.
So why isn't Australia doing that?Brive1987 wrote: ↑Commonsense policies back by Hungarian pragmatism.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ Some, of course, not "soe." Spell check functions only really well if you don't like swearing.
https://i2.wp.com/thenewgentleman.co.uk ... =858&ssl=1
Ape+lust wrote: ↑ Silicon Valley SJWs are like spree killers with banhammers this week. If you ever wondered how commie revolutions so quickly became bloody horrors, watch these frantic idiots try to un-person everyone with "incorrect" thoughts.
https://i.imgur.com/woUPkW2.png
This is pretty shit shit. Titania was the best thing going on Twitter since Godfrey got boned.
Speaking of which, did Tony Parsehole have a hand in Titania, so to speak?
https://twitter.com/clairlemon/status/1 ... 2405975041
Let me try again:Couch wrote: ↑Ape+lust wrote: ↑ Silicon Valley SJWs are like spree killers with banhammers this week. If you ever wondered how commie revolutions so quickly became bloody horrors, watch these frantic idiots try to un-person everyone with "incorrect" thoughts.
https://i.imgur.com/woUPkW2.png
This is pretty shit shit. Titania was the best thing going on Twitter since Godfrey got boned.
Speaking of which, did Tony Parsehole have a hand in Titania, so to speak?
https://twitter.com/clairlemon/status/1 ... 2405975041
Yet another example of how perspective informs perception. I don't see a constant sneer on Carlson's face. Looks more of a baffled frown to me, bit overdone and stagey sometimes, but baffled looking none the less.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:59 amAs usual Brive has things wrong about the smug thing. It's not the liberals that are smug, it's the liberalists!
And if you think libtards are smug, just think of the constant sneer on the face of cuntservative Cucker Tarlson or alt right chemtrail scientist and professional snowflake triggerer JP Watson.
This is something I have noticed. A generalisation obviously, but women are quite single-minded in their determination to make themselves the victim when a relationship goes bad no matter how nastily they have behaved. Doesn't matter what they've done, a hint of a slight and you'll be lower than dirt.John D wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:16 pmHaha. So many thoughts come up.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Speaking of smug, here's one from the radical left SJW telling us good men to shut up and let man hating lesbian dykes do all the talking about how men should behave. H/T to PZ for shutting up and introducing this gem.
First - I don't think I am fundamentally "good". I am just a guy who tries to do what is best everyday... and I often fail. Life is complicated and I don't know that many people who think they are all that "good".... and the people I know who spend the most time telling everyone how good they are happen to be women. Women at work, friends, and women in my family.... it is women who spend the most time explaining to me why they are "good". None of my male friends spend time saying how good they are.... because we spend time trying to do the things that are good. The men in my life spend time thinking about what good is like... and how to achieve it. The women in my life spend their time deciding what other people have done that is not good and why that makes them good. I am generalizing a bit.... but only a bit.
Their core belief is in the power of expertise and the notion that all will be well if Really Smart People (RSP) are in charge.
I asked this to someone who was involved in the Godfrey account - apparently not; Parse is sorta retired these days. They did mention this account: https://twitter.com/JarvisDupont - the insinuation being that this is the chap or chapess behind the McGrath account.
Just finished reading that. Good stuff.AndrewV69 wrote: ↑ I suppose this falls under the category of incitement but seeing as there appears to be some interest in these parts :
Link to article The Divided Kingdom the book is on Amazon (UK)
After this part the RSP are condemned in a manner that is unambiguous, and clearly the next step is to dust off any guillotines and employ them in a rigorous manner.Their core belief is in the power of expertise and the notion that all will be well if Really Smart People (RSP) are in charge.
Perhaps deluded is a bit extreme to describe your abuse of the word "liberal". Allow me to change that to the less clinical word "mistaken".I am, of course, insulted by your use of “kooks” to describe a part of my knowledge base .... your label of “deluded” is equally upsetting.
" You Fucking Black Cunt" ... Bloke in a blue coat to the right of the footage.