Re: There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one of them
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:39 pm
If it's a time travel machine why not wait till it's a proven success then pop back in time and invest?
Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
There ya' go.. Letting everyone in on it is like selling the guaranteed stock market software system. If it worked, everyone would buy it and everyone would be selling and buying the same stocks to the millesecond. So stock market software is inherently contradictory. If it actually works it defeats itself unless you just use the software and keep it to yourself. If you can time travel keep it to yourself. Go back in time and buy AOL and sell it when it went up I believe 15,000X and then fell to nothing which I believe is when Windows came out with IE for Win 95 or 98. Or buy Bre-X, a penny stock that went to over $300/share until the chief geologist 'died' by 'falling' out of a helicopter in New Guinea or Borneo some such place because the claims of gold were all bullshit, in fact the samples for the proposed gold pit-mine operation were clearly placer samples.Shatterface wrote: ↑ If it's a time travel machine why not wait till it's a proven success then pop back in time and invest?
Much like the book Everyone can be a Successful Millionaire with these Easy Five Steps (it worked for the author).MacGruberKnows wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:53 pmThere ya' go.. Letting everyone in on it is like selling the guaranteed stock market software system. If it worked, everyone would buy it and everyone would be selling and buying the same stocks to the millesecond. So stock market software is inherently contradictory.
I just don't get SJW antipathy to gays. This decade of growing gay acceptance is the kind of social change SJWs should want to see, but they try to rewrite it as a story of privileged shitlords.katamari Damassi wrote: ↑Was pleased to see this getting a lot of push back on the gay blogs.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Chelsea Manning running for office.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/ ... and-339519
The Democrats need more trannies to run if they want to defeat Trumpism.
Because the transgenders have hated being second fiddle to gays. I predicted that gay marriage would put transgenders to the top of the pity heap andApe+lust wrote: ↑I just don't get SJW antipathy to gays. This decade of growing gay acceptance is the kind of social change SJWs should want to see, but they try to rewrite it as a story of privileged shitlords.katamari Damassi wrote: ↑Was pleased to see this getting a lot of push back on the gay blogs.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Chelsea Manning running for office.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/ ... and-339519
The Democrats need more trannies to run if they want to defeat Trumpism.
I've never seen a reason why many SJWs are keen to cast gays as oppressors.
There's really only one appropriate punishment for people like that.
Because they're white males, and not each and everyone of them is on board with intersectionality. It's as simple as that. The SocJus even argues, at times, that white women are spoiled, entitled "white feminists" and even (hilariously enough) that black men are "the white men of black people". Hell I'm pretty sure that "gender/race traitors" and "acting cis" trans would quickly get the short end of the stick in SocJus circles.Ape+lust wrote: ↑I just don't get SJW antipathy to gays. This decade of growing gay acceptance is the kind of social change SJWs should want to see, but they try to rewrite it as a story of privileged shitlords.katamari Damassi wrote: ↑Was pleased to see this getting a lot of push back on the gay blogs.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Chelsea Manning running for office.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/ ... and-339519
The Democrats need more trannies to run if they want to defeat Trumpism.
I've never seen a reason why many SJWs are keen to cast gays as oppressors.
Assuming that all of this is true, how do you even approach these kinds of issues? How do you "fix" a subculture, especially if, as you say, education or public works programs don't work?Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:22 amNobody's stealing loaves of bread or antibiotics. Government subsidies like WiC and Medicare are available to those under the poverty line. (It's the s.g. "working poor" who get left out.) There is simply no evidence to support the assertion that poverty is a proximate cause of crime among blacks, especially not murder.
Alcohol abuse is one of the few areas not disproportionately found among blacks.
Drug use inevitably leads to crime among any demographic. (NB: legalizing drugs will not change this.)
Gangs are a huge factor. Gangs are cultural phenomenon found almost exclusively among blacks and hispanics.
Unemployment is high among urban blacks, but urban blacks are largely unemployable, due to lack of education, lack of skills, patois, and subcultural behaviors at odds with mainstream culture.
You have a subculture where education is not valued, women get pregnant at an early age, drop out of school, continue to get pregnant as single mothers, and struggle to raise a family on a single, low wage income. Where men also drop out of school to either join gangs, work low wage jobs, or simply loaf, and father multiple children with multiple women, rarely domiciling with the mothers to form a stable family unit.
Pumping money into schools or programs or public works is not sufficient. Blaming poverty or slavery or white privilege does nothing. Highlighting the dichotomy between a genetic etiology proposed by a handful of crackpots vs. cultural etiology is but a dodge. Because to solve this problem, the existing black urban subculture would need to be attacked root and branch, and that proposal is anathema to cultural-relativist leftists.
And, because leftists are all fucking retarded, I must note that this is clearly primarily a (sub)cultural problem, not a racial one per se. Nor is it by any means a condemnation of all aspects of black cultural heritage. Because there are blacks outside of the black urban subculture who are thriving in mainstream society, and are not committing crimes at anywhere near those rates.
I guess by fixing structural problems, incentivizing good behaviors economically, and removing incentives for bad behaviors.Assuming that all of this is true, how do you even approach these kinds of issues? How do you "fix" a subculture, especially if, as you say, education or public works programs don't work?
I bet you can't tell us why he is a cunt without making an emotional argument.
She said while the Pit is presently voting on the Cuntie awards, because "cunt" status has no concrete, objective qualifications, and can be subject to a simple opinion poll.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑ I bet you can't tell us why he is a cunt without making an emotional argument.
McEwan's got a lot of ex-fans who turned on her over the time she eulogized a TERF. There's still every possibility that someday she ends up in Benson's shoes. If I were a betting man I'd say the whisper campaign is probably already in effect and we'll just wake up one morning to see the last domino fall without being able to trace the exact path it took.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑ People like Melissa McEwan have won the intersectional game. They're managed to spin enough of a sob story/victimhood narrative and now their demands are law, you can't approach them or even send them messages without performing some ritual of humiliation, you MUST listen to them and believe them, you MUST do as they say or else you're a bigot. As long as McEwan doesn't happen to stumble on someone with a bigger audience AND a better sob story she'll always have her audience ready to tear into anyone she dislikes.
That's a form of power money can't buy. It might be very limited, and mostly online, but McEwan is treated like royalty just for existing.
Even so, I tend to base my opinions on rational arguments rather than emotional ones. Even the idea to deport all Peruvians, because panpipe music is shit and thats an objective fact.Sunder wrote: ↑She said while the Pit is presently voting on the Cuntie awards, because "cunt" status has no concrete, objective qualifications, and can be subject to a simple opinion poll.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑ I bet you can't tell us why he is a cunt without making an emotional argument.
Precisely because homosexuality is now widely accepted (even under conservatives, albeit grudgingly), it has become mainstream and thus "oppressive" or otherwise unacceptable.Ape+lust wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:33 pmI just don't get SJW antipathy to gays. This decade of growing gay acceptance is the kind of social change SJWs should want to see, but they try to rewrite it as a story of privileged shitlords.
I've never seen a reason why many SJWs are keen to cast gays as oppressors.
The quotes around 'died' might be very appropriate. The body identified as Guzman's was mostly eaten by animals, and was missing its hands, feet and the penis had been surgically removed, The identification was based on a molar and a thumb print lifted from an item with it. By pure coincidence, a body of a man had been stolen from the local mortuary just before his suicide. Pity there was no DNA testing then. I followed the story closely as I had worked with or met four of the siblings of Bre-X chief geologist John Felderhof, who was the only officer of Bre-X charged with insider trading (and found not guilty). The movie Gold was based on the Bre-X scandal.MacGruberKnows wrote: ↑ Or buy Bre-X, a penny stock that went to over $300/share until the chief geologist 'died' by 'falling' out of a helicopter in New Guinea or Borneo some such place because the claims of gold were all bullshit, in fact the samples for the proposed gold pit-mine operation were clearly placer samples.
Of course. Trans identity is at the top of pretty much all identities.Sunder wrote: ↑McEwan's got a lot of ex-fans who turned on her over the time she eulogized a TERF. There's still every possibility that someday she ends up in Benson's shoes. If I were a betting man I'd say the whisper campaign is probably already in effect and we'll just wake up one morning to see the last domino fall without being able to trace the exact path it took.
I would say that dual income, no kids families are far better off than single-parent on-the-dole ones so the economic incentives are already there.Shatterface wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:56 amWhat exactly does 'strengthen two parent families' and 'remove economic incentives to split up' entail?
What are those economic incentives, and why, as a single man, as I not getting them already?
Yeah, species going extinct is no biggie. Bleeding heart liberals, all.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:19 amI bet you can't tell us why he is a cunt without making an emotional argument.
Question, did his body fall out of a helicopter over Papua New Guinea?
I'll have a go...VickyCaramel wrote: ↑I bet you can't tell us why he is a cunt without making an emotional argument.
Hunting is done as part of the population management, and allowing rich Americans to pay through the nose to exercise their natural instincts goes a long way to funding conservation efforts.feathers wrote: ↑Yeah, species going extinct is no biggie. Bleeding heart liberals, all.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:19 amI bet you can't tell us why he is a cunt without making an emotional argument.
Close but no communist Cuban cigar.MarcusAu wrote: ↑I'll have a go...VickyCaramel wrote: ↑I bet you can't tell us why he is a cunt without making an emotional argument.
Safari's create an system in which there is an incentive to preserve (and even increase) wildlife stocks.
Anyone buying into such a system is a capitalist...and therefore a cunt.
In my book, anyone who thinks "God said I could" is sufficient justification for killing a highly intelligent mammal is a cunt. I wouldn't necessarily say that hunting an elephant under any circumstance makes one a cunt, but there are way more factors to consider than whether God approves.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:19 amI bet you can't tell us why he is a cunt without making an emotional argument.
Gad Saad did a video on this a few years agoVickyCaramel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:19 amI bet you can't tell us why he is a cunt without making an emotional argument.
So a "divine right" to kill animals is a rational argument?VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Even so, I tend to base my opinions on rational arguments rather than emotional ones. Even the idea to deport all Peruvians, because panpipe music is shit and thats an objective fact.Sunder wrote: ↑She said while the Pit is presently voting on the Cuntie awards, because "cunt" status has no concrete, objective qualifications, and can be subject to a simple opinion poll.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑ I bet you can't tell us why he is a cunt without making an emotional argument.
Hunting a species that ought to have conservation status aids its conservation? I want my money back.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:16 amHunting is done as part of the population management, and allowing rich Americans to pay through the nose to exercise their natural instincts goes a long way to funding conservation efforts.
So your ignorant argument doesn't count because it is invalid. I should have bet money.
Elephants are at least as intelligent as whales, maybe even chimps, and have spindle cells, possessed by only by primates and cetaceans.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑In my book, anyone who thinks "God said I could" is sufficient justification for killing a highly intelligent mammal is a cunt. I wouldn't necessarily say that hunting an elephant under any circumstance makes one a cunt, but there are way more factors to consider than whether God approves.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:19 amI bet you can't tell us why he is a cunt without making an emotional argument.
We lost the coveted victim status when we started fighting for marriage rights. Wanting marriage rights was seen as a heteronormative betrayal by the queer studies set who believe the nuclear family to be oppressive. Trans activists were upset when gays wouldn't abandon their priorities to concentrate on trans rights. Trans already had the ability to get married, so gays fighting for marriage rights did nothing for trans and was perceived by them as not in their interests and therefore anti-trans. I wish I were making this up.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Of course. Trans identity is at the top of pretty much all identities.Sunder wrote: ↑McEwan's got a lot of ex-fans who turned on her over the time she eulogized a TERF. There's still every possibility that someday she ends up in Benson's shoes. If I were a betting man I'd say the whisper campaign is probably already in effect and we'll just wake up one morning to see the last domino fall without being able to trace the exact path it took.
Yeah making wagers and then declaring yourself the arbiter of the outcome would be a pretty great racket if anyone here were dumb or trusting enough to take you up on it.
I couldn't tell you why Harold Shipman was a cunt without making an 'emotional' argument. I'm not a robot.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑ I bet you can't tell us why he is a cunt without making an emotional argument.
Aziz did nothing creepy, even by her own account. She behaved indecisively & so he campaigned for her to decide in his favor... giving her reasonable option to choose otherwise. She's disinginuous in claiming that her passivity indicated dissent rather than assent-- because she displayed PLENTY of ability to sharply dissent then & there, when she felt-like complaining "You guys are all the same!" and "I hate men."Sulman wrote: ↑ There's something a bit odd about this story. Ansari is an SJW and therefore obviously a total creep and - shocker - he's a pussy hound. Why wasn't she firmer?
https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355
Awwww, morally outraged Gad Saad thinks the anti-smoking lobby is less corrupt and more "factual" than the tobacco industry.
Absolutely. The Liberalists have just got into the debate about where our rights come from, I'll take "god given" rights as a metaphor, I certainly don't think anyone has the right to grant my rights to me.katamari Damassi wrote: ↑ So a "divine right" to kill animals is a rational argument?
Hunting an elephant in an area where they exceed the sustainable population is not going to do anything to prevent poaching in areas where the population is under threat. In an ideal world excess elephants could be moved to where they are needed (assuming no issues with localised genetics), however that takes lots of money. You can't send them by parcel post.feathers wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:34 amHunting a species that ought to have conservation status aids its conservation? I want my money back.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:16 amHunting is done as part of the population management, and allowing rich Americans to pay through the nose to exercise their natural instincts goes a long way to funding conservation efforts.
So your ignorant argument doesn't count because it is invalid. I should have bet money.
Some might say this conclusion might was inevitable - though others would say that 'must' is an option.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑ Hunting an elephant in an area where they exceed the sustainable population is not going to do anything to prevent poaching in areas where the population is under threat. In an ideal world excess elephants could be moved to where they are needed (assuming no issues with localised genetics), however that takes lots of money. You can't send them by parcel post.
Elephants are not crops. They have an emotional life,they experience trauma and there is evidence that they can feel empathy. In South Africa we had a problem with anti-social elephants killing rhino and generally being a PITA. It eventually dawned on people that these were elephants whose parents had been culled in their presence.
How certain are you that those fees go a long way to funding conservation efforts, as opposed to going a long way to fund the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt local bigwigs in the notoriously corrupt continent of Africa?VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:16 amHunting is done as part of the population management, and allowing rich Americans to pay through the nose to exercise their natural instincts goes a long way to funding conservation efforts.
Is that the same kind of absolutely rational god-given right a good number of Jews go on about as regards Israel?VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Absolutely. The Liberalists have just got into the debate about where our rights come from, I'll take "god given" rights as a metaphor, I certainly don't think anyone has the right to grant my rights to me.katamari Damassi wrote: ↑ So a "divine right" to kill animals is a rational argument?
Can you tell me what the 'good reason' is for 'facing down' a buffalo and shooting it with a pistol? You make it sound like the buffalo has invaded his house.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑The natural order of things is clear from where we are sitting, although it probably isn't quite as clear to a trophy hunter who is facing down a buffalo with a pistol. His right to hunt isn't only permitted, it is encouraged for good reason.
Exactly how does a dentist do this?The world over, hunters have been practicing conservation for centuries in order to conserve their ability to hunt.
Sure, conservationists are motivated entirely by money. That's not a motivation for you presumably? You do whatever you do out of the goodness of your heart.I am not sure why this is so hard for people to understand. Unlike lobby groups, hunters don't pay themselves large salaries, bonuses and spend extraordinary amounts of money trying to persuade tree huggers to sponsor a fucking snow leopard.
About as sure that the £3 a month that goes to the WWF or any other charity/lobby group goes to the right place, doesn't get skimmed by professional lobbyists, marketing campaigns, all expenses trips to Geneva.... AND THEN going a long way to fund the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt local bigwigs in the notoriously corrupt continent of Africa?Tigzy wrote: ↑How certain are you that those fees go a long way to funding conservation efforts, as opposed to going a long way to fund the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt local bigwigs in the notoriously corrupt continent of Africa?VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:16 amHunting is done as part of the population management, and allowing rich Americans to pay through the nose to exercise their natural instincts goes a long way to funding conservation efforts.
So it's either:VickyCaramel wrote: ↑ About as sure that the £3 a month that goes to the WWF or any other charity/lobby group goes to the right place, doesn't get skimmed by professional lobbyists, marketing campaigns, all expenses trips to Geneva.... AND THEN going a long way to fund the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt local bigwigs in the notoriously corrupt continent of Africa?
Shatterface wrote: ↑Can you tell me what the 'good reason' is for 'facing down' a buffalo and shooting it with a pistol? You make it sound like the buffalo has invaded his house.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑The natural order of things is clear from where we are sitting, although it probably isn't quite as clear to a trophy hunter who is facing down a buffalo with a pistol. His right to hunt isn't only permitted, it is encouraged for good reason.
That door swings both ways.Tigzy wrote: ↑So it's either:VickyCaramel wrote: ↑ About as sure that the £3 a month that goes to the WWF or any other charity/lobby group goes to the right place, doesn't get skimmed by professional lobbyists, marketing campaigns, all expenses trips to Geneva.... AND THEN going a long way to fund the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt local bigwigs in the notoriously corrupt continent of Africa?
Donate money, and see a substantial amount of it whittled down by skimming and corrupt local bigwigs.
or
Pay a hunting fee, and see a substantial amount of it whittled down only by corrupt local bigwigs - which is better, because, well, at least it's not being skimmed by those bastard lobbyists and marketeers. Oh, and there's a dead elephant or two in the bargain as well.
Hmm. Tricky.
So that stuff you wrote about hunters aiding conservation was a load of superfluous guff which you didn't really mean?VickyCaramel wrote: ↑ That door swings both ways.
Besides, the animals being killed would be killed anyway. Might as well earn some money out of it, waste not, want not.
LOL. The TPP never went into effect, so how can trump 'ripping it up' have any effect on the economy?VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:21 pmHow about the tax laws? Americans might call them codes or something, we call them laws.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Of what boost to the economy do you speak, and which specific laws has trump changed to effect that?VickyCaramel wrote: ↑ It was always obvious that all Trump was ever going to do was change a few laws (if he could), most of which would be aimed at boosting the economy, which is what he has done.
And then there is the very highest form of law, the international treaty. Trump Ripped up the Trans Pacific Partnership... because who wants to be partnered with trans people?
I don't really need to defend Trump, the sky hasn't fallen in and the economy is doing fine.
Not if there a dead elephant on one side of it.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑That door swings both ways.
Same with kids.Besides, the animals being killed would be killed anyway. Might as well earn some money out of it, waste not, want not.
Of course my argument is emotional, how could it not be, I hate seeing beautiful wild animals killed for no other reason than it makes some fat American dentist feel like Stewart fucking Granger.I bet you can't tell us why he is a cunt without making an emotional argument.
Or Palestinians.Shatterface wrote: ↑Same with kids.Besides, the animals being killed would be killed anyway. Might as well earn some money out of it, waste not, want not.