Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
I wonder what would have been the minimum armoured force necessary to roll the Iraqis in 1991.Bhurzum wrote:
During the first Gulf war, an eighteen year old Bhurzum was part of the crew of a challenger tank
A couple decades ago I tagged along with friends looking to rent a loft in the Meat Packing District-- back when there was still cow blood drying on the cobblestones & meathooks on sliding rails, above the sidewalk... plus tranny hookers at night. Now it's all swanky fashion boutiques. The place we looked-at was a grey concrete windowless bunker, with paltry army surplus cots, a few flags, lockers, and random souvenirs-- of the 3 or 5 broken down old leather daddies who lived there.. wheezing, walking with canes. They were like lost island japs, who didnt know the war was over... but these dudes' war was AIDS & they truly-were last survivors.pro-boxing-fan wrote:[youtube][/youtube]Service Dog wrote:Let's start a war!
Start a nuclear war!
at the
gay bar
[.youtube][/youtube]
Hey now, let's not rush to judgement. If there was ever a place to sell embroidered rat skulls, that would be it. Although how a SJW like Caine would survive is beyond me. Not exactly hard-core liberals.free thoughtpolice wrote:Caine . I don't hate you but as a servant of Gaia (and the only slimepitter that can spell her) I have a bone to pick with you.
Haven't you and your husband who is a HD mechanic and sounds like a really cool guy attended this event mounted on a loud, noisy Harley Davidson. Am I wrong?
[youtube][/youtube]
Perhaps his Orangeness has a different perspective. One that actually makes sense (to him of course, not you)?Kirbmarc wrote:Blanket country-based bans are NOT the way to go. This is a very simplistic solution that won't change much, especially since Saudis and their money is still allowed in. Focus on preaching, not on country origin. Target muslim supremacists, not everyone from the countries that you don't have any close economic ties with.
If you really want blanket bans at least include gulf countries, you Orange Buffoon.
Quite:Brive1987 wrote:I'm shock and saddened that tourists from Somalia and Libya needed visas for entry into the US at all.
They have gay bars in Sturgess/Sturgis where skinheads hang? Maybe she has a good beard as boxers say. After all she got up and punched after she was cold cocked, AFAIK. :ugeek:Hey now, let's not rush to judgement. If there was ever a place to sell embroidered rat skulls, that would be it. Although how a SJW like Caine would survive is beyond me. Not exactly hard-core liberals.
Rome wasn't built in a day and all that - hopefully "His Orangeness" will soon get around to making it categorical. Though you might note DJT has not yet done so - which kind of suggests business factors aren't paramount:AndrewV69 wrote:Perhaps his Orangeness has a different perspective. One that actually makes sense (to him of course, not you)?Kirbmarc wrote:Blanket country-based bans are NOT the way to go. This is a very simplistic solution that won't change much, especially since Saudis and their money is still allowed in. Focus on preaching, not on country origin. Target muslim supremacists, not everyone from the countries that you don't have any close economic ties with.
If you really want blanket bans at least include gulf countries, you Orange Buffoon.
[.tweet][/tweet]
An interesting question.Brive1987 wrote:I wonder what would have been the minimum armoured force necessary to roll the Iraqis in 1991.Bhurzum wrote:
During the first Gulf war, an eighteen year old Bhurzum was part of the crew of a challenger tank
I got the feeling that there really wasn't anything that could be done to counter the range, night capacity and protection of Abrams and Challengers. Especially with air superiority added in.
Nor is making a really lovely sauerkraut stew Friday night, have it wreck your intestines (and assorted parts)all Friday night and early Saturday, yet it was good enough to contemplate doing it all again on Saturday night. Yet here I am...sp0tlight wrote:Hung over, at the office, on the Saturday morning is not a way to live your life son.
Seems weird. Years ago the girls were more tattooed and definitely more biker vibe. That looks more like a sorority rush.free thoughtpolice wrote:Can you spot our feminist pal Caine in this montage?
[youtube][/youtube]
I went out to Sturgis in 1989 and it was still mostly us scroungy biker types. Shortly after that though the yuppies started infiltrating. Nowadays it's gotten to the point where a lot of the people ship their bikes to Sturgis, fly in, spend the weekend putting 10 miles on the clock cruising around town playing out their Billy Badass Biker fantasy then fly home.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Seems weird. Years ago the girls were more tattooed and definitely more biker vibe. That looks more like a sorority rush.free thoughtpolice wrote:Can you spot our feminist pal Caine in this montage?
[youtube][/youtube]
It's probably entryism by SJWs into biker culture.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Seems weird. Years ago the girls were more tattooed and definitely more biker vibe. That looks more like a sorority rush.free thoughtpolice wrote:Can you spot our feminist pal Caine in this montage?
[.youtube][/youtube]
George Carlin talked about that.TheMudbrooker wrote:I went out to Sturgis in 1989 and it was still mostly us scroungy biker types. Shortly after that though the yuppies started infiltrating. Nowadays it's gotten to the point where a lot of the people ship their bikes to Sturgis, fly in, spend the weekend putting 10 miles on the clock cruising around town playing out their Billy Badass Biker fantasy then fly home.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Seems weird. Years ago the girls were more tattooed and definitely more biker vibe. That looks more like a sorority rush.free thoughtpolice wrote:Can you spot our feminist pal Caine in this montage?
[boutube][/youtube]
Yeah. Right-wing and willing to bend facts, but occasional good pieces.Keating wrote:National Review is mostly neo-cons who were never-Trumpers. Whether that's good journalism or not, that's not for me to say.
I've seen guys with patches that read "I rode my bike to Sturgis". The fact that such things need to exist is too heartbreaking for words.Lsuoma wrote:George Carlin talked about that.TheMudbrooker wrote:
I went out to Sturgis in 1989 and it was still mostly us scroungy biker types. Shortly after that though the yuppies started infiltrating. Nowadays it's gotten to the point where a lot of the people ship their bikes to Sturgis, fly in, spend the weekend putting 10 miles on the clock cruising around town playing out their Billy Badass Biker fantasy then fly home.
[youtube][/youtube]
I am really struggling to find generally decent magazines that aren't obviously fake. Like stuff that I fucking know is bullshit. I've got Spiked Online, and that's about it.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Yeah. Right-wing and willing to bend facts, but occasional good pieces.Keating wrote:National Review is mostly neo-cons who were never-Trumpers. Whether that's good journalism or not, that's not for me to say.
Nothing can be taken at face value anymore. Trust in the media is a thing of the past, if it was ever really a thing. Don't trust and always verify.rayshul wrote:I am really struggling to find generally decent magazines that aren't obviously fake. Like stuff that I fucking know is bullshit. I've got Spiked Online, and that's about it.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Yeah. Right-wing and willing to bend facts, but occasional good pieces.Keating wrote:National Review is mostly neo-cons who were never-Trumpers. Whether that's good journalism or not, that's not for me to say.
I drove my car with Sturgis. With the family. Do I get a badge?TheMudbrooker wrote:I've seen guys with patches that read "I rode my bike to Sturgis". The fact that such things need to exist is too heartbreaking for words.Lsuoma wrote:George Carlin talked about that.TheMudbrooker wrote:
I went out to Sturgis in 1989 and it was still mostly us scroungy biker types. Shortly after that though the yuppies started infiltrating. Nowadays it's gotten to the point where a lot of the people ship their bikes to Sturgis, fly in, spend the weekend putting 10 miles on the clock cruising around town playing out their Billy Badass Biker fantasy then fly home.
[youtube][/youtube]
Yes?free thoughtpolice wrote:Can you spot our feminist pal Caine in this montage?
[youtube][/youtube]
Salon's articles have been so mental. At least with Breitbart the right-lean is obvious without being righteous. Or perhaps it's because right wing media feels fresh and new. Honestly, it feels like there's fuck all left.Keating wrote:I don't think anything can be taken at face value in the past either, we were just less aware of the problem. Unlike some here, I don't equate right-wing with necessarily being wrong or misleading.
I think the only solution on an individual level is to read widely across the entire spectrum. If you read Breitbart, also read Salon, for example.
I've literally never been to their site. -.- Only seen the "quotes from Reuters" shit.deLurch wrote:Reuters doesn't do a bad job. However you will not find it all that exciting to read because they don't interpret the news.
Oh I know. Oh well.AndrewV69 wrote:Perhaps his Orangeness has a different perspective. One that actually makes sense (to him of course, not you)?Kirbmarc wrote:Blanket country-based bans are NOT the way to go. This is a very simplistic solution that won't change much, especially since Saudis and their money is still allowed in. Focus on preaching, not on country origin. Target muslim supremacists, not everyone from the countries that you don't have any close economic ties with.
If you really want blanket bans at least include gulf countries, you Orange Buffoon.
[.tweet][/tweet]
Yep. Read widely, never simply believe and always cross and double check. Informed skepticism >> partisan views.Keating wrote:I don't think anything can be taken at face value in the past either, we were just less aware of the problem. Unlike some here, I don't equate right-wing with necessarily being wrong or misleading.
I think the only solution on an individual level is to read widely across the entire spectrum. If you read Breitbart, also read Salon, for example.
Salon's madness is revealing of its methods and of the shifts in the left wing Overton window. Salon's insane articles about a self-admitted pedophile acting as an indignant, morally superior being to the people who called him a monster is insane and hard to read, but provides evidence that some SJWs are trying to normalize pedophilia and it's not just a conspiracy theory of some right-wingers.rayshul wrote:Salon's articles have been so mental. At least with Breitbart the right-lean is obvious without being righteous. Or perhaps it's because right wing media feels fresh and new. Honestly, it feels like there's fuck all left.Keating wrote:I don't think anything can be taken at face value in the past either, we were just less aware of the problem. Unlike some here, I don't equate right-wing with necessarily being wrong or misleading.
I think the only solution on an individual level is to read widely across the entire spectrum. If you read Breitbart, also read Salon, for example.
I've read a bunch of their essays - many of them certainly seem to hold water. A sampling:rayshul wrote:What's the National Review like in terms of not shit journalism? I did some quick fact checking of that and it seems generally okay.
Fake news scale indicator:Brive1987 wrote:PZs post on the white WA shooter has Caine being a bad ass in the comments:
Yes, I’ve been punched. For the record, I’m a woman. I was coldcocked by a fucking skinhead coming out of a gay bar. My friends punched him back. Then I punched the asshole. He would have curb stomped me and my friends if he’d had a chance. Fuck your handwringing. I don’t give a shit how much nazis get punched. What do you want to do, serve them tea? No thanks.
That might well be the case. But it seems that many are conflating the desire ("Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children") with an act - presumably the rape of child. Kind of muddies the waters to do so; "shoddy and inept application of words" and all that.Kirbmarc wrote:Salon's madness is revealing of its methods and of the shifts in the left wing Overton window. Salon's insane articles about a self-admitted pedophile acting as an indignant, morally superior being to the people who called him a monster is insane and hard to read, but provides evidence that some SJWs are trying to normalize pedophilia and it's not just a conspiracy theory of some right-wingers.rayshul wrote:Salon's articles have been so mental. At least with Breitbart the right-lean is obvious without being righteous. Or perhaps it's because right wing media feels fresh and new. Honestly, it feels like there's fuck all left.Keating wrote:I don't think anything can be taken at face value in the past either, we were just less aware of the problem. Unlike some here, I don't equate right-wing with necessarily being wrong or misleading.
I think the only solution on an individual level is to read widely across the entire spectrum. If you read Breitbart, also read Salon, for example.
Nice site. In the middle of some very reasonable-sounding, inoffensive comments, they do this:Kirbmarc wrote:Why sexual desire is objectifying – and hence morally wrong
Bring on the anti-sex league!
Aeon paeon wrote:[Part of this comment was removed because it contravened our community guidelines]
Note that I didn't say normalize child rape. Normalizing pedophilia is "problematic" even without normalizing child rape. Most people justifiably wouldn't want someone with a psychiatric disorder that makes them attracted to children to be perceived as "normal". It's a shift in the Overton window, which some might use as a justification for crimes like possession of illegal material and for lawsuits about being "discriminated" if they're fired from jobs which put them at contact with children for expressing evidence of their psychiatric disorder.Steersman wrote: That might well be the case. But it seems that many are conflating the desire ("Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children") with an act - presumably the rape of child. Kind of muddies the waters to do so; "shoddy and inept application of words" and all that.
It is a real news organization and is where lazy journalists get real news.rayshul wrote:I've literally never been to their site. -.- Only seen the "quotes from Reuters" shit.deLurch wrote:Reuters doesn't do a bad job. However you will not find it all that exciting to read because they don't interpret the news.
Yeah and it's where people in general can get real news, to double check biased articles and learn about the trick and biases of the person who wrote it.deLurch wrote:It is a real news organization and is where lazy journalists get real news.rayshul wrote:I've literally never been to their site. -.- Only seen the "quotes from Reuters" shit.deLurch wrote:Reuters doesn't do a bad job. However you will not find it all that exciting to read because they don't interpret the news.
I just tend to quickly scroll/scan past his posts. There is always an off chance he will dive into a subject I find interesting. But I think that has only occurred once or twice during my time here on the pit. Don't feel obligated to read his posts if they are not intriguing.Jan Steen wrote:In the morning, when I quickly catch up with the 'Pit, I used to be happy to see that I was one or two pages behind. That meant there was some funny and reasonably intelligent stuff ahead, even though I would disagree with much of it. But nowadays it usually turns out that half of it is written by our resident ethnic cleanser 'Milosovic' Steersman, who bores us to death with his own stupid tweets, copy-pasted propaganda stuff, and robotic lack of empathy. I am really starting to wonder why I still bother.
True.Kirbmarc wrote:Note that I didn't say normalize child rape.Steersman wrote: That might well be the case. But it seems that many are conflating the desire ("Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children") with an act - presumably the rape of child. Kind of muddies the waters to do so; "shoddy and inept application of words" and all that.
Maybe, though it seems that "normal" is rather moot. While the Wikipedia article didn't have much in the way of statistics, it did note that "the prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known, but is estimated to be lower than 5% among adult men". Is it "normal" that that percentage exhibits that behaviour?Kirbmarc wrote:Normalizing pedophilia is "problematic" even without normalizing child rape. ...
Seems to be a rather wide spectrum there that some at least are too quick to whitewash away.In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse, and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors.
Say Kirbmarc, seems like your account has been invaded by a cryptomuslim crypto-southafrican.Kirbmarc wrote:Whatever Man. Fuck. (Die Antwoord).
Say, Kirbmarc, looks like your account has been invaded by commander Tuvok...Kirbmarc wrote:Salon's insane articles about a self-admitted pedophile acting as an indignant, morally superior being to the people who called him a monster is insane and hard to read, but provides evidence that some SJWs are trying to normalize pedophilia and it's not just a conspiracy theory of some right-wingers.
Speaking for whole Pit, are you? In any case, you're not obliged to read my posts - "if you don't happen to like them, then pass them by".Jan Steen wrote:In the morning, when I quickly catch up with the 'Pit, I used to be happy to see that I was one or two pages behind. That meant there was some funny and reasonably intelligent stuff ahead, even though I would disagree with much of it. But nowadays it usually turns out that half of it is written by our resident ethnic cleanser 'Milosovic' Steersman, who bores us to death with his own stupid tweets, copy-pasted propaganda stuff, and robotic lack of empathy. I am really starting to wonder why I still bother.
Why We Must Ban Islam by Serkan Engin from Turkey
I think 3rd World War has already begun between civilization and barbaric death cult Islam. Yes, Samuel Huntington was right. ....
Islam cannot be reformed, if it was possible, it must have been reformed since 1400 years. Islam cannot be reformed because of internal structure of its theology. Islam theology raised from Quran and hadiths have concrete orders about the daily life of the Muslims, for example the ratio of grab that the Muslim army will take after a war with non-muslims or the permission to enslave women and little girls as spoil of war, or how Muslims must kill homosexuals, apostates, non-muslims, or how Muslims must cut hand of a thief, how Muslims must stone to death a woman for adultery, etc.These orders of Islam having voilence, hatred, terrorism can not be interpreted on a humanistic ground. How can you reform these barbaric verses of Quran?: ....
In civilized world we live according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . That is the base of our civilized world but Islam is very antithetic to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let’s have a look to some parts of the article of dear Martha van der Pol named “Islam is Antithetical to Fundemental Human Rights” ....
Agreed.Jan Steen wrote:In the morning, when I quickly catch up with the 'Pit, I used to be happy to see that I was one or two pages behind. That meant there was some funny and reasonably intelligent stuff ahead, even though I would disagree with much of it. But nowadays it usually turns out that half of it is written by our resident ethnic cleanser 'Milosovic' Steersman, who bores us to death with his own stupid tweets, copy-pasted propaganda stuff, and robotic lack of empathy. I am really starting to wonder why I still bother.
"Nuke Mecca from orbit"?However, if you're going to make such untenable accusations as "resident ethnic cleanser" then you might at least have the integrity to, shall we say, put your money where your mouth is?
I don't know, I just think that if someone has that kind of disordered attraction and they haven't committed crimes yet they need psychiatric assistance (possibly with the controlled and medically prescribed use of drugs which might inhibit their libido) and not to be put in situations where their disorder might cause issues, not to be given a podium where they can pontificate about their woes.feathers wrote:Say, Kirbmarc, looks like your account has been invaded by commander Tuvok...Kirbmarc wrote:Salon's insane articles about a self-admitted pedophile acting as an indignant, morally superior being to the people who called him a monster is insane and hard to read, but provides evidence that some SJWs are trying to normalize pedophilia and it's not just a conspiracy theory of some right-wingers.
(except for the nuance of course. Maybe it's an alien incursion in your brain patterns)
Reminds me of:screwtape wrote:Not for me to correct you, but it seems that this might suit her better:Ape+lust wrote:Somebody is >this< close to achieving her dream of fucking herself.
http://imgur.com/rAHNfke.jpg
I'm not saying that someone who hasn't committed any crimes deserves to be treated as a criminal. I'm saying that they should be encouraged to seek help in a way that can reduce harm to them and to others, not to argue that their existence unjustly makes them victims of prejudice who deserve a narrative of SJW victimhood.Steersman wrote:But while I'll concede that some "pedophiles" try to make the "affliction" appear less problematic than it is - tangled with one or two of that group - I'm not at all sure, not having read the Salon article in question, how helpful it is to be making categorical accusations of "monster", particularly absent evidence of a crime being committed. In particular, you might note the following from the Wikipedia article:Seems to be a rather wide spectrum there that some at least are too quick to whitewash away.In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse, and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors.
Yeah, but the ignore list only works when you log in. I usually don't do that, because when you're logged in you get to see al the images automatically. Some of them are not sff (safe for family). :lol:
Not entirely untrue, but it seems like the truth might a bit more nuanced:deLurch wrote:This blog post alleges that Trump's visa ban on those 7 Muslim countries is the exact same text and countries that Obama signed in 2013.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... wn-policy/
How, though, did the Trump administration choose these seven Muslim-majority countries? The truth is it didn't: The countries were chosen during Barack Obama's presidency.
According to the draft copy of Trump's executive order, the countries whose citizens are barred entirely from entering the United States is based on a bill that Obama signed into law in December 2015.
Obama signed the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act as part of an omnibus spending bill. The legislation restricted access to the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens from 38 countries who are visiting the United States for less than 90 days to enter without a visa.
Obama aimed to restrict visa waivers, Trump to a total visa moratorium. The list of countries to which restrictions apply is the same, though. Calling this "a muslim ban" is a misnomer, but criticism of Trump's executive order is possible even keeping in mind that the issue of visas is more complex that what slogans say.So, in a nutshell, Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries.
Trump's use of a list created with Democrats' support is obviously geared toward a more nefarious end. A total visa-issuance moratorium is more severe than restricting visa waiver access. But the guilt-by-association of having a higher burden for entry at all underlies the bill Obama signed, too.
