Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

[MarcusAu]

So if it's OK to punch Nazis, who is the victim here?

Forget it Jake, it's Florida...

[MarcusAu]

Seem's like nothing much is happening round here...I'll go back to watching movies...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRny1wok0Ao

[Brive1987]

The "Intellectual Dark Web" thing is also complex, and muddies the waters. It includes people like Bret Weinstein, who is a leftist, just anti-SocJus, Peterson and Shapiro, who are far more conservative, Dave Rubin, who is mainly about being a contrarian and giving platforms to ANYONE who dislikes the SocJus, and Sam Harris, who is basically center-left, but is not really interested in politics as much as he is in philosophy, or religion, or ethics.

Basically the IDW is only united by a general dislike for the SocJus. That's not much. It's like making a club for people who don't like knitting, or who don't collect stamps.

The SocJus has many, many flaws. It has some VERY bad theoretical assumptions about human nature and society, like the idea that sexual dimorphism in humans is "just a social construction", that ALL differences between social groups are ONLY due to discrimination and bigotry, that social groups are ordered on a PRECISE scale of power and oppression that is all-explaining, that power is something intrinsic to ANY individual in a social group in ALL situations, that entertainment shapes society instead of largely reflecting it, that ALL inconveniences and issues are EQUALLY bad, that freedom of speech, presumption of innocence, the scientific method and liberal democracy are shields for white/male supremacy, that people have a secret form of knowledge that comes from being a victim of oppression which can supersede data, that consent isn't really consent unless it's Crystal Clear Consent, and so if there's no Crystal Clear Consent then there's rape, that islam is ALWAYS an oppressed identity, etc.

It's also counterproductive to its own ends, since it tends to divide and alienate people while preaching tolerance and inclusion.

You don't really need to be a right-winger, or a conservative, let alone a far-right "white nationalist" to see the issues with the SocJus. Of course if you ARE on the right wing, or conservative, the SocJus is going to get on your nerves more, and you're more likely to see it as being "the Real Left". And if you're a "white nationalist" you're going to see it as some nefarious, likely Jewish, plot to end the white race.

But this doesn't mean, as many SocJus believers think, that anyone who dislikes or criticizes the SocJus is a right-winger, or a conservative, let alone a "white nationalist".

https://consciouscompanion2012.files.wo ... s-hear.jpg

Meanwhile in enlightened Britain ....

[Kirbmarc]

The "Intellectual Dark Web" thing is also complex, and muddies the waters. It includes people like Bret Weinstein, who is a leftist, just anti-SocJus, Peterson and Shapiro, who are far more conservative, Dave Rubin, who is mainly about being a contrarian and giving platforms to ANYONE who dislikes the SocJus, and Sam Harris, who is basically center-left, but is not really interested in politics as much as he is in philosophy, or religion, or ethics.

Basically the IDW is only united by a general dislike for the SocJus. That's not much. It's like making a club for people who don't like knitting, or who don't collect stamps.

The SocJus has many, many flaws. It has some VERY bad theoretical assumptions about human nature and society, like the idea that sexual dimorphism in humans is "just a social construction", that ALL differences between social groups are ONLY due to discrimination and bigotry, that social groups are ordered on a PRECISE scale of power and oppression that is all-explaining, that power is something intrinsic to ANY individual in a social group in ALL situations, that entertainment shapes society instead of largely reflecting it, that ALL inconveniences and issues are EQUALLY bad, that freedom of speech, presumption of innocence, the scientific method and liberal democracy are shields for white/male supremacy, that people have a secret form of knowledge that comes from being a victim of oppression which can supersede data, that consent isn't really consent unless it's Crystal Clear Consent, and so if there's no Crystal Clear Consent then there's rape, that islam is ALWAYS an oppressed identity, etc.

It's also counterproductive to its own ends, since it tends to divide and alienate people while preaching tolerance and inclusion.

You don't really need to be a right-winger, or a conservative, let alone a far-right "white nationalist" to see the issues with the SocJus. Of course if you ARE on the right wing, or conservative, the SocJus is going to get on your nerves more, and you're more likely to see it as being "the Real Left". And if you're a "white nationalist" you're going to see it as some nefarious, likely Jewish, plot to end the white race.

But this doesn't mean, as many SocJus believers think, that anyone who dislikes or criticizes the SocJus is a right-winger, or a conservative, let alone a "white nationalist".

https://consciouscompanion2012.files.wo ... s-hear.jpg

Meanwhile in enlightened Britain ....

Holy non-sequitur, Batman!

[Brive1987]

Then there is the alt-right version.

[Keating]

Glad to see you didn't drown today.

[Steersman]

Some Christmas gift selection ideas for those into identity politics, pipelaying, and sundry related concepts ...

[Brive1987]

Glad to see you didn't drown today.

My skylight is leaking. Right now.

Wife is freaking out. Dog is sad.

Lucky it never rains in Canberra.

[Brive1987]

Best take down of shit journo turned “historian” Peter FitzSimons.

FitzSimons' style is that of a graphic novel without the pictures; cartoon history by the kilogram. His popularity stems partly from the promotional advantages he enjoys with media outlets in all forms, but also because he is a sort of historical Trump – he understands and expresses (and probably shares) a simple patriotism that transcends the complexity of real life, and tells a good story regardless.

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/bo ... sjo5o.html

[Kirbmarc]

Glad to see you didn't drown today.

My skylight is leaking. Right now.

Wife is freaking out. Dog is sad.

Lucky it never rains in Canberra.

啊~实在是太遗憾了. 照顾好自己!

[Brive1987]

Glad to see you didn't drown today.

My skylight is leaking. Right now.

Wife is freaking out. Dog is sad.

Lucky it never rains in Canberra.

啊~实在是太遗憾了. 照顾好自己!

Your subtitles turned off. Pls try again.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

"Ah~ It’s a shame. Take care of yourself!"

[Kirbmarc]

"Ah~ It’s a shame. Take care of yourself!"

I wanted to show support for Brive's plight while using the language of the Australian future. :bjarte:

[Guest_5433a21c]

Basically the IDW is only united by a general dislike for the SocJus. That's not much. It's like making a club for people who don't like knitting, or who don't collect stamps.

With due respect, isn't the 'Pit a club for people who dislike SJWs, FTB, Peezus's hypocrisy, and the cultish distortion of athiesm that was A+? All of which are worth ridiculing, which is something.

[Kirbmarc]

Basically the IDW is only united by a general dislike for the SocJus. That's not much. It's like making a club for people who don't like knitting, or who don't collect stamps.

With due respect, isn't the 'Pit a club for people who dislike SJWs, FTB, Peezus's hypocrisy, and the cultish distortion of athiesm that was A+? All of which are worth ridiculing, which is something.

Perhaps I expressed myself badly. What I meant was that those spaces are not united by a common ideology and the people who belong there have not much in common beyond being against the SocJus.

[MarcusAu]

Depends what you mean by an SJW...

[shoutinghorse]

Meanwhile in enlightened Britain ....

What do you have to do to go to prison in the UK?

Erm ..Live stream a report on Muslim rape gangs outside a court building?

[shoutinghorse]

Her deal won't get through the commons, the SNP have long said they would never back a deal (any deal) as they want to remain, yesterday Corbyn announced that Labour would vote against this deal, a massive chunk of her own party will not back it (from both Remainers & Brexiteers) and the 10 DUP (ulster unionist) MP's, [who she bribed with £1 billion to effectively keep her in power after last years general election], will definitely not back the deal. She and her sycophant supporters in government are pushing their hardest snake oil sales technique all over the media in trying to polish her turd. She has now been reduced to try and woo labour MP's and gain their support. I am seriously starting to question the womans sanity right now but the bigger sickener for me is just how weak the Tories are in refusing to get rid of her, still the 1922 committee hasn't enough letters of no confidence to force a leadership challenge. They are finished as a party IMO, I honestly think they will split over this, you just have to listen to the radio phone in shows to get a feel for how people are feeling utterly betrayed.

As for a snap 2nd referendum, forget it. It would require an act of parliament to be voted on and the time for that to be sorted, debated and voted upon by both houses would take us beyond the March 29th leaving date. No, what will happen now is this rubbish deal will be rejected and she will be told to renegotiate, she will then ask for an extension of article 50 from the EU for more time to renegotiate (kicking the can farther down the road) the EU could say 'non' of course which would mean we leave with a No Deal WTO rules Brexit, which is what we basically fucking voted for in the first place.

I think her deal will go through. I just do. I think our hopeless MPs will simply cave in at the prospect of all the hassle that voting down her deal will entail. Never underestimate a British politician's propensity to accept a sticking-plaster short term solution, even if that solution is appalling (as May's clearly is). The DUP won't budge, of course, but I have a feeling that there's enough spineless, complacent MPs in the tory party, along with just enough on the other side of the house, to make May's deal go through.

Sure, plenty of them are huffing and puffing about the deal now, but when the division bell rings, you can bet your arse they'll get a serious case of the wibbles and vote for the breathing space that May's deal at least allows. Remember, on the tory side, there's apparently only just half the required letters submitted to the 1922 committee to begin a leadership challenge. Half. Despite May's abject incompetence, not just with this deal but the most appalling tory GE campaign in living memory. The only thing that barely saved the tories well polished arses on that one was...well, Corbyn. Any other Labour leader, and May and her party would have been toast.

In any case, this shows you the 'quality' of the people we're dealing with here. I think they'll get a bad case of the heebie-jeebies at the last minute and vote May's deal through.

And if that noxious turd of deal should pass, there is at least one small bright side: the remain crowd will not only have to shut up about their stupid 'People's Vote', but once March 29th passes, they'll have to rebrand themselves as 'Rejoin'. Good luck selling that one to the public, especially as you can be damn sure the EU won't re-admit us to their protectionist little club unless we sign up to the Euro and Schengen.

Sorry Tigzy I just can't see it getting through, there are far too many MP's who are against it, not just Brexiteers who feel (rightly) that it isn't Brexit but most remainers think it's worse than staying in (right again) There is no way her polishing a turd tour of the UK will persuade enough MP's to back it. Yes you're right in your analysis of the modern Tory MP being utterly spineless but not enough will tow the party line, there are rumoured to be 90 Tories who are willing to vote against this bill and even if half of those do get the heebie-jeebies and follow the whip the numbers are still short.
The only way I can see this getting through is if a substantial number of labour MP's go against the labour whip and back her.

[KiwiInOz]

Interesting article.

Page no longer available.

[Service Dog]

Interesting article.

Page no longer available.

So hard to find a reliable newspaper, these days.

I trust this newspaper, because it's handed-out by smiling black fellows in bowties, outside subway stations in Bed-Stuy:

The Final Call November 27, 2018

Can a Woman's Coalition Survive Petulant White Women?

https://www.finalcall.com/artman/publis ... omen.shtml

[screwtape]

Interesting article.

Page no longer available.

Yes, it is, with a less contentious title:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... ewish-left

[screwtape]

Can't begin to imagine why YT recommended this one to me, but I'm glad it did:

[shoutinghorse]

Nah! .. Can't see anything like this ever catching on.



(some nice old footage of my birth town though)

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Interesting article.

Page no longer available.

Goddamn. Basically outlined Sarsour fraud in her charity, well-supported with evidence. Guess the cockroach has friends in low places.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Oops, thanks, Screwtape.

[screwtape]

De rien, mon ami duveteux.

[Bhurzum]

Can't begin to imagine why YT recommended this one to me, but I'm glad it did:

Very interesting.

Thanks for the link.

[SM1957]

An interesting article about how Europeans tried to wipe out the idea that you could identify transgender men by seeing which men liked doing things such as cooking and needlework, which normal men don't like doing , but women do.

http://dailyplug.com/before-european-ch ... 5-genders/

[screwtape]

Glad to see you didn't drown today.

My skylight is leaking. Right now.

Wife is freaking out. Dog is sad.

Lucky it never rains in Canberra.

What would happen if the same leak opened up in the local Men's Shed? Just a thought.

[SM1957]

This article goes into more detail about how a man who likes cooking and needlework probably thinks he is a woman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osh-Tisch

[John D]

An interesting article about how Europeans tried to wipe out the idea that you could identify transgender men by seeing which men liked doing things such as cooking and needlework, which normal men don't like doing , but women do.

http://dailyplug.com/before-european-ch ... 5-genders/

Yes... these civilized native people... the ones who would capture an enemy.... cut off all their fingers one-by-one.... make the captive eat their own fingers.... and then burn them to death. They were very, very, civilized.

[Lsuoma]

Meanwhile in enlightened Britain ....

What do you have to do to go to prison in the UK?

Erm ..Live stream a report on Muslim rape gangs outside a court building?

You also need to be white.

[John D]

Can't begin to imagine why YT recommended this one to me, but I'm glad it did:

Very interesting.

Thanks for the link.

This popped up in my Youtube feed as well. It's pretty good. I like this lady. I get the biggest kick out of all the women who say they dress they way they do "for themselves". Haha. That doesn't even mean anything. I am amazed at the number of women who self-deceive and actually think they are dressing, fixing their hair, putting on make-up...etc.... and they do it "for themselves." Haha. I sometimes argue this point with my wife or daughters.... and I say that their appearance ONLY impacts the way others see them... not how they see themselves. This argument always ends in them telling me to shut up.

[MarcusAu]

This popped up in my Youtube feed as well. It's pretty good. I like this lady. I get the biggest kick out of all the women who say they dress they way they do "for themselves". Haha. That doesn't even mean anything. I am amazed at the number of women who self-deceive and actually think they are dressing, fixing their hair, putting on make-up...etc.... and they do it "for themselves." Haha. I sometimes argue this point with my wife or daughters.... and I say that their appearance ONLY impacts the way others see them... not how they see themselves. This argument always ends in them telling me to shut up.

As long as they don't complain when you choose to go out dressed as Dee Snider or David Bowie - it's not really a problem.

[Driftless]

Can't begin to imagine why YT recommended this one to me, but I'm glad it did:

Very interesting.

Thanks for the link.

This popped up in my Youtube feed as well. It's pretty good. I like this lady. I get the biggest kick out of all the women who say they dress they way they do "for themselves". Haha. That doesn't even mean anything. I am amazed at the number of women who self-deceive and actually think they are dressing, fixing their hair, putting on make-up...etc.... and they do it "for themselves." Haha. I sometimes argue this point with my wife or daughters.... and I say that their appearance ONLY impacts the way others see them... not how they see themselves. This argument always ends in them telling me to shut up.

I agree. As pointed out in the video, do your wife and daughter get all dressed up and made up to sit around the house when no one else is there? They would if they were doing it for themselves. Doing it to go out in public means you are looking for a response from other people.

Also, if you are young, fertile and healthy there is no better way to show it than by participating in a slut walk. I think it is another case of rationalizing why you are putting the goods on display so to speak.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Can't begin to imagine why YT recommended this one to me, but I'm glad it did:

Very interesting.

Thanks for the link.

This popped up in my Youtube feed as well. It's pretty good. I like this lady. I get the biggest kick out of all the women who say they dress they way they do "for themselves". Haha. That doesn't even mean anything. I am amazed at the number of women who self-deceive and actually think they are dressing, fixing their hair, putting on make-up...etc.... and they do it "for themselves." Haha. I sometimes argue this point with my wife or daughters.... and I say that their appearance ONLY impacts the way others see them... not how they see themselves. This argument always ends in them telling me to shut up.

I agree. As pointed out in the video, do your wife and daughter get all dressed up and made up to sit around the house when no one else is there? They would if they were doing it for themselves. Doing it to go out in public means you are looking for a response from other people.

Also, if you are young, fertile and healthy there is no better way to show it than by participating in a slut walk. I think it is another case of rationalizing why you are putting the goods on display so to speak.

My eldest daughter says "It's almost always intrasexual competition; guys usually figure things out pretty quickly, looks-wise. Girls are usually competing against each other." She almost always wears one of my old field jackets to school, and the only time she's put makeup on is for recitals, when my wife insisted. Still, she attracts the interest of young men, so she may well be right.

[Brive1987]

The "Intellectual Dark Web" thing is also complex, and muddies the waters. It includes people like Bret Weinstein, who is a leftist, just anti-SocJus, Peterson and Shapiro, who are far more conservative, Dave Rubin, who is mainly about being a contrarian and giving platforms to ANYONE who dislikes the SocJus, and Sam Harris, who is basically center-left, but is not really interested in politics as much as he is in philosophy, or religion, or ethics.

Basically the IDW is only united by a general dislike for the SocJus. That's not much. It's like making a club for people who don't like knitting, or who don't collect stamps.

The SocJus has many, many flaws. It has some VERY bad theoretical assumptions about human nature and society, like the idea that sexual dimorphism in humans is "just a social construction", that ALL differences between social groups are ONLY due to discrimination and bigotry, that social groups are ordered on a PRECISE scale of power and oppression that is all-explaining, that power is something intrinsic to ANY individual in a social group in ALL situations, that entertainment shapes society instead of largely reflecting it, that ALL inconveniences and issues are EQUALLY bad, that freedom of speech, presumption of innocence, the scientific method and liberal democracy are shields for white/male supremacy, that people have a secret form of knowledge that comes from being a victim of oppression which can supersede data, that consent isn't really consent unless it's Crystal Clear Consent, and so if there's no Crystal Clear Consent then there's rape, that islam is ALWAYS an oppressed identity, etc.

It's also counterproductive to its own ends, since it tends to divide and alienate people while preaching tolerance and inclusion.

You don't really need to be a right-winger, or a conservative, let alone a far-right "white nationalist" to see the issues with the SocJus. Of course if you ARE on the right wing, or conservative, the SocJus is going to get on your nerves more, and you're more likely to see it as being "the Real Left". And if you're a "white nationalist" you're going to see it as some nefarious, likely Jewish, plot to end the white race.

But this doesn't mean, as many SocJus believers think, that anyone who dislikes or criticizes the SocJus is a right-winger, or a conservative, let alone a "white nationalist".

https://consciouscompanion2012.files.wo ... s-hear.jpg

Meanwhile in enlightened Britain ....

Holy non-sequitur, Batman!

What out Kirb. The civic nationalists have gone feral.

In our eagerness to induct all and sundry into the Anzac civic virtue club, Western Democracy has now been struck from the requirements list.

:lol: :) :)

“First they came for my trad-thots .....”

Immersed in their spirit, we now pause here in the Australian War Memorial conceived in blood they shed for one another, for us and the ideals of mankind.

We are Australians.

Whether conferred by birth or by choice, we are defined less by our constitution and the machinery of a democracy given us by the British, than we are by our values and our beliefs; the way relate to one another and see our place in the world.

https://www.awm.gov.au/commemoration/sp ... raliansNow

Fuck me but that’s all sorts of wrong.

[MarcusAu]

Is Rita Panahi Australian?

Something about her name seems a bit off.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

How is it wrong, exactly? It seems almost to encapsulate your own view of Australian values, although it could be interpreted in other ways as well. You spoke a great deal about Australian culture being lost, not about constitutional issues, and this seems to speak about Aussie culture. Unless that culture is simply British-dervived and not a unique manifestation.

I don't get it.

[Brive1987]

Is Rita Panahi Australian?

Something about her name seems a bit off.

She is an American resident in Australia, an anti Muslim ethnic Iranian. Pls define “Australian”. I’m sure you had something definite in mind .....

[MarcusAu]

O

Pls define “Australian”. I’m sure you had something definite in mind .....

The wrong sort of antipodean.

I suppose it could be defined in relation to British heritage (cultural and otherwise) - but if this definition was emphasized too much it might raise the hackles of other groups in the population (those of Irish descent for example).

[Brive1987]

How is it wrong, exactly? It seems almost to encapsulate your own view of Australian values, although it could be interpreted in other ways as well. You spoke a great deal about Australian culture being lost, not about constitutional issues, and this seems to speak about Aussie culture. Unless that culture is simply British-dervived and not a unique manifestation.

I don't get it.

Haha. I’m actually writing a doc for elsewhere on the evolution of an Anzac based identity from racial/ethnic/cultural to disconnected shifting civic virtues. And how that is in tension with a very prescribed historical ‘origins’ story.

But let’s put aside the sad mobilisation of long dead sons of empire.

Didn’t it strike you as ... odd that Westminster Democracy was singled out as negotiable? :bjarte:

Putting aside sharia conspiracy, this is really just laying pipes for a constitutional change to eliminate the monarchy. Ie Brendon is sorting out how to reposition Anzac within a republic.

A case study in the fluid dynamics of history intersecting with civic nationalism.


:hankey:

[Brive1987]

O

Pls define “Australian”. I’m sure you had something definite in mind .....

The wrong sort of antipodean.

I suppose it could be defined in relation to British heritage (cultural and otherwise) - but if this definition was emphasized too much it might raise the hackles of other groups in the population (those of Irish descent for example).

Only those Irish south of their border need be offended.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

So, the monarchy is central to Australian culture? Isn't it technically sorta foreign?

[MarcusAu]

Bloody Germans...

[Brive1987]

So, the monarchy is central to Australian culture? Isn't it technically sorta foreign?

Not culturally. “Central” is your word. It is however an indivisible strand of an increasingly threadbare tapestry.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

So, the monarchy is central to Australian culture? Isn't it technically sorta foreign?

Not culturally. “Central” is your word. It is however an indivisible strand of an increasingly threadbare tapestry.

So sorry for boring everyone, but what exactly would it hurt if Australia or even Great Britain ditched the monarchy? I get tradition, but some things just aren't viable anymore. My ancestors used to sail their boats up to foreign countries and deprive people of property, life and liberty, but that would be frowned on today.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Monarchy is a good source of income via tourism, media and such. People still buy tabloids to have the latest news on Prince Whatever and Princess Whatsherface.

Aside. You know what to say to an Aussie visiting the UK:

"Back to the crime scene, eh?"

[Steersman]

Can't begin to imagine why YT recommended this one to me, but I'm glad it did:

Code: Select all

https://youtu.be/jPQH0U2igOY

Never pass up any "gratuitous titillation", I always say ...

But looks like an interesting read/watch. Reminds me of a scene in the movie MASH where the hot-shot surgeons, the pros from Dover, took an opportunity to go to Japan for some golf under the pretext or excuse of doing some surgery on a relative of some military brass. And one of the surgeons asked specifically for a professional nurse who wasn't going "to get her tits in the way" - as I think it was phrased. Sure a lot of "women" commentators & YouTubers who vitiate what might otherwise be credible arguments by doing precisely that - "Oooh; don't look at my arguments, look at my tits". Not that I object, much, but one can't help but get the impression that they're not all that serious about their arguments.

Reminds me too of a recent Quillette article - On Toxic Femininity - by one Heather Heying (rhymes with flying ...), she of the IDW; a particularly cogent passage:

Young women have vast sexual power. Everyone who is being honest with themselves knows this: Women in their sexual prime who are anywhere near the beauty-norms for their culture have a kind of power that nobody else has. They are also all but certain to lack the wisdom to manage it. Toxic femininity is an abuse of that power, in which hotness is maximized, and victim status is then claimed when straight men don’t treat them as peers.

Creating hunger in men by actively inviting the male gaze, then demanding that men have no such hunger—that is toxic femininity. Subjugating men, emasculating them when they display strength—physical, intellectual, or other—that is toxic femininity. Insisting that men, simply by virtue of being men, are toxic, and then acting surprised as relationships between men and women become more strained—that is toxic femininity. It is a game, the benefits of which go to a few while the costs are shared by all of us.

Somewhat apropos of which, and of your earlier discourse on the "world's oldest profession" - though some argue that taxonomy qualifies as that, at least metaphorically - the 19th century British politician Stanley Baldwin, by way insulting "press barons Lords Rothermere and Beaverbrook", suggested that "power without responsibility [has been] the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages". And relative to which, I kind of think you weren't being particularly fair to that profession:

The very essence of practicing a profession (save for the world's oldest) is that you are obligated to give people in good faith your best opinion, advice and work, not that you give them what they ask for. This writer would have us simply sign a prescription for whatever the patient demands, and if we do that we will have more in common with the world's oldest profession than we would like.

For one thing, don't see that "best opinion, advice and work" is incompatible with "what they ask for" - plumbers and carpenters for example. And, on the basis of some personal experience ..., I expect many "ladies of easy virtue" are well within that "intersection". But, no doubt, there are many practitioners of virtually all professions - including your own - who are less than ethical. So I hardly think it justified to suggest that that "oldest profession" is, intrinsically at least, better or worse than any other one.

[free thoughtpolice]

If a woman that has given birth to a child loses that ability is she still a mother? :think:

[Lsuoma]

Baldwin first entered the Commons in 1908, and was PM thrice between the wars. I would say that really makes him a C20th politician, not C19th.

[KiwiInOz]

Is Rita Panahi Australian?

Something about her name seems a bit off.

Rita Panini is good enough to eat.

[Steersman]

Baldwin first entered the Commons in 1908, and was PM thrice between the wars. I would say that really makes him a C20th politician, not C19th.

Indeed he was; I stand corrected - always ready, willing, and able to admit the errors of my ways, as infrequent as they are ... ;)

Though I frequently have some difficulty correlating a given year to a particular century number - have to go back to the definition, and the idea that the years from 00 to 99, inclusive, were the first century.

[KiwiInOz]

How is it wrong, exactly? It seems almost to encapsulate your own view of Australian values, although it could be interpreted in other ways as well. You spoke a great deal about Australian culture being lost, not about constitutional issues, and this seems to speak about Aussie culture. Unless that culture is simply British-dervived and not a unique manifestation.

I don't get it.

I can tell you that Australian culture and NZ culture are different, despite us being cuzzie bros. A bit like the Yanks and the Canucks, despite the proximity.

[Steersman]

Is Rita Panahi Australian?

Something about her name seems a bit off.

Rita Panini is good enough to eat.

:-) Toasted - yum, yum ... ;-)

[Steersman]

If a woman that has given birth to a child loses that ability is she still a mother? :think:

:-)

OED: "A woman in relation to her child or children." I guess if you wanted to split hairs - pubic or otherwise - and wanted to be precise and consistent with that definition then I guess you'd have to say that a "menopausee" is technically no longer a mother; she WAS a mother but isn't any longer. Though one might suggest that a better solution would be to redefine the word as "a woman or menopausee in relation to ..."

[CommanderTuvok]

Glad to see you didn't drown today.

My skylight is leaking. Right now.

Wife is freaking out. Dog is sad.

Lucky it never rains in Canberra.

Great Albert Hammond song from the 1970s, that!

:)

[Keating]

My ancestors used to sail their boats up to foreign countries and deprive people of property, life and liberty, but that would be frowned on today.

Only if white people do it.

[Keating]

Sorry, I absolutely couldn't resist.

[Bhurzum]

Only if white people do it.

"Step right up, brothers, marvel at the latest in European sex-doll technology!" - Mustapha Handi Shandhi, Muslim trader, 1770 (colorized)

https://s1-ssl.dmcdn.net/k12rt/x1080-Ipk.jpg

Clearly, it was the fault of the kafir bitches for being all attractive and non-hairy.