Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!

[Steersman]

(and maybe if this tactic is used against the SJWs often enough we can get them to talk about changing the recipe...)

Which is the entire strategy. Force them into a situation where the only options are to admit the only true rule is allegiance to your own tribe, or to agree the rules are too easily gamed and change them to something more objective. It's a win win from my perspective, and a lose lose from theirs. No wonder there's so much wailing at gamerghazi

You kind of have to indicate that you're turning the tables, using the sauce for the goose for the gander. Otherwise one looks just as bad, just as "guilty" of the same "crime".

[MarcusAu]

So right now feminists are bending over backwards to argue that calling people shithead and 'human garbage' is not harassment. They are working on tearing down their own arguments.

I think this is about the only way to win with them.

The correct term is 'garbage human'

Human garbage is something else.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5YsHcdKj67c/T ... r3P001.jpg

Though possibly not everyone remembers Mr Monster and the Case of the Recalcitrant Refuse.

[CommanderTuvok]

Sargon vs Sarkeesian.

Reminds me of Watson "called out" Stef McGraw from the podium. Only this is way more funny.

[Lsuoma]

Steers, please check in.

"Bomber planning to attack Mecca's Grand Mosque blows himself up"

"DUBAI: Saudi security forces on Friday foiled a suicide attack on the Grand Mosque in the Muslim holy city of Mecca, cornering the would-be attacker in an apartment, where he blew himself up, the Interior Ministry said."

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wor ... ?cid=FBcna

We'll see if the Saudis change their stance on exporting this shit after it goes off in their safe spaces a few more times.

They won't. They were already threatened and attacked many times. It never stopped them wrecking havoc abroad.

You have to understand that the Saudi leaders, just like the leaders of all Middle Eastern countries, treat terrorists as if they were a mad dogs. They know they might get bitten too, but as long as they manage to let them loose against their enemies the risks are worth it.

Middle Eastern leaders all despise each other and are always plotting to screw each other over anything. They'd rather take big risks than let their enemies take more power.

The Saudis want to defeat Iran, to wreck the current Iranian alliances and to be able to justify killing Shias. They want this far more than they fear attacks on their soil.

Pakistan's terrorists have bitten them in their ass many times and they still get institutional support. The Iraqi Sunni support their jihadis for a while, then hate them and get rid of them, then a few years later they are forgiven and welcomed back, now they have wrecked half the country and caused massive suffering among the Sunni and are hated again.( AQ in Iraq , then IS). Probably in 5 or so years people will forget what a disaster they are and support them again.

Let's face it, the family of Saud probably aren't going to be chewing on RDX anytime soon, so they don't give a fuck. If anybody thinks that they are at all religious except in public, please buy this bridge!!!

[MarcusAu]

Can anyone tell me why the Scots have pom-poms on their caps?

[youtube][/youtube]

[Brive1987]

My friend the SJ Palestinian "voice of the Moslem - Australian hybrid" (she's actually married to a mate of mine) is making in-roads in the press having launched a book and getting TV and radio gigs.

She keeps posting discussion FB posts pushing topics like "terrorism as a term of racial privilege" etc etc

I'm finding it hard not to adopt a "Brive" position. FB appears a lot more ..... polite. But not so polite that a Moslem can't get snarky when you point out the IRA and the Basques / Red Army were white.

Seems like nothing pre 911 counts to a twenty / thirty something spring chick.

:bjarte:

[Brive1987]

Thanks FT for the traces of war site. It's seems a bit dbase / over produced but has a lot of breadth.

[MarcusAu]

Does the Stern Gang count as white?

[jet_lagg]

(and maybe if this tactic is used against the SJWs often enough we can get them to talk about changing the recipe...)

Which is the entire strategy. Force them into a situation where the only options are to admit the only true rule is allegiance to your own tribe, or to agree the rules are too easily gamed and change them to something more objective. It's a win win from my perspective, and a lose lose from theirs. No wonder there's so much wailing at gamerghazi

You kind of have to indicate that you're turning the tables, using the sauce for the goose for the gander. Otherwise one looks just as bad, just as "guilty" of the same "crime".

That sounds very much like saying retaliation is exactly the same as unprovoked attack, even after the attacked party has exhausted other options like appeals to reason. The tactic desceibed only works if the "harassed" party sticks to their guns and says it really did subjectively affect them. If you announce your purpose in advance you necessarily fail.

[Steersman]

Steers, please check in.

"Bomber planning to attack Mecca's Grand Mosque blows himself up"

"DUBAI: Saudi security forces on Friday foiled a suicide attack on the Grand Mosque in the Muslim holy city of Mecca, cornering the would-be attacker in an apartment, where he blew himself up, the Interior Ministry said."

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wor ... ?cid=FBcna

We'll see if the Saudis change their stance on exporting this shit after it goes off in their safe spaces a few more times.

Had seen it briefly in a tweet and didn't have much chance to follow up on it. Though I do recollect and admit to having a twinge of schadenfreude at the thought that the Saudi's chickens were coming home to roost, that they were being hoist by their own petards.

But, in a somewhat related article on the situation in Qatar, it seems that, not surprisingly, the Saudi's demands were rather odious:

GCC Demands to End Qatar Crisis: Commands, Diktats, and Ultimatums

On June 5, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, and other countries severed diplomatic and economic ties with Qatar, essentially instating a blockade against it. After over two weeks of mediation efforts by Kuwait and the United States, the Saudi-led coalition presented Qatar a list of 13 demands that included the following: scaling down diplomatic ties with Iran; shutting down the Turkish military base in Qatar; severing ties and funding to “terrorist” organizations and individuals; handing over dissidents from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Bahrain who reside in Qatar and freezing their assets; ending interference in those countries’ affairs; shutting down the Al Jazeera news network and other media outlets; aligning Qatar’s policies with those of other Gulf and Arab nations; paying reparations and compensations; agreeing to the demands within ten days; and consenting to monthly audits.

The list comes after the US State Department publicly expressed its frustration with the Saudi-led coalition’s response and called for “reasonable and actionable” demands and evidence for the accusations. ....

Kicking the Turks out seems reasonable, "handing over dissidents" or shutting down Al Jazeera not so much. What with the US rattling sabres and ‘Stumbling’ Into War, "This Business Will Get Out of Control" and we will be lucky to live through it - to coin a phrase :-)

[youtube][/youtube]

[free thoughtpolice]

FT wrote:

Let's face it, the family of Saud probably aren't going to be chewing on RDX anytime soon, so they don't give a fuck. If anybody thinks that they are at all religious except in public, please buy this bridge!!!

There is that scenario of the airplane taking off from Saudi and Gulf States where a miracle occurs when the plane leaves their airspace. Apparently, the niqabs and hijabs melt away and the complimentary camel urine beverage transforms into high quality Scotch.

[Really?]

That sounds very much like saying retaliation is exactly the same as unprovoked attack, even after the attacked party has exhausted other options like appeals to reason. The tactic desceibed only works if the "harassed" party sticks to their guns and says it really did subjectively affect them. If you announce your purpose in advance you necessarily fail.

Calling the Sargon thing 'sauce for the goose' is silly because Sargon did not agitate for years to have draconian and silly policies at these kinds of events. Sargon did not go to the UN and demand the international community do something about people telling her that she "sucks." Sargon did not work with Twitter to establish and enforce policies to end "harassment." Sargon did not assemble the shittiest crew of abusive harassers possible to work with Google to establish policies to end "harassment." Sargon did not work with Intel to establish a $300 million program to help women in tech in part because of "harassment."

Anita violated the policy. She harassed a polite and peaceful congoer and she deserves to be punished by her own fucking policies. The last several years of her worthless life have been dedicated to making money off of perceived harassment. This isn't Sargon turning the tables. It's Anita alone at the table she designed.

[Steersman]

Old_ones: "(and maybe if this tactic is used against the SJWs often enough we can get them to talk about changing the recipe...)"

Which is the entire strategy. Force them into a situation where the only options are to admit the only true rule is allegiance to your own tribe, or to agree the rules are too easily gamed and change them to something more objective. It's a win win from my perspective, and a lose lose from theirs. No wonder there's so much wailing at gamerghazi

You kind of have to indicate that you're turning the tables, using the sauce for the goose for the gander. Otherwise one looks just as bad, just as "guilty" of the same "crime".

That sounds very much like saying retaliation is exactly the same as unprovoked attack, even after the attacked party has exhausted other options like appeals to reason. The tactic desceibed only works if the "harassed" party sticks to their guns and says it really did subjectively affect them. If you announce your purpose in advance you necessarily fail.

Maybe, although they seem different kettles of fish. For one thing, in the case of "an unprovoked attack", the offended party generally stipulates that their supposedly entirely justified response or retaliation - a declaration of war as with the attack on Pearl Harbour, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or the invasion of Poland - is a direct consequence of that attack. Absent that clearly specified link, particularly where there's been an ongoing escalation prior to that "nuclear option", bystanders might reasonably fault the responders for excesses.

[free thoughtpolice]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/scien ... daa4664335

Remember that presentation in an SA uni where the students were arguing to reject "colonial science" and return to traditional knowing.
I'd hate to not disrespect the "teachings"...
http://www.news.com.au/technology/scien ... daa4664335

[Brive1987]

Having only just re-engaged I'm going to have to get off FB

Seeing some random past acquaintance post a pic of their business class boarding pass to Europe without a comment or attempt at humour is more offensive than anything I've seen on FtB for a while.

It's like having a pack of cats dedicated to coming and laying their dead mice down for appreciation.

Fuck off.

http://i.imgur.com/bQl1pLL.jpg

[Old_ones]

That sounds very much like saying retaliation is exactly the same as unprovoked attack, even after the attacked party has exhausted other options like appeals to reason. The tactic desceibed only works if the "harassed" party sticks to their guns and says it really did subjectively affect them. If you announce your purpose in advance you necessarily fail.

Calling the Sargon thing 'sauce for the goose' is silly because Sargon did not agitate for years to have draconian and silly policies at these kinds of events. Sargon did not go to the UN and demand the international community do something about people telling her that she "sucks." Sargon did not work with Twitter to establish and enforce policies to end "harassment." Sargon did not assemble the shittiest crew of abusive harassers possible to work with Google to establish policies to end "harassment." Sargon did not work with Intel to establish a $300 million program to help women in tech in part because of "harassment."

Anita violated the policy. She harassed a polite and peaceful congoer and she deserves to be punished by her own fucking policies. The last several years of her worthless life have been dedicated to making money off of perceived harassment. This isn't Sargon turning the tables. It's Anita alone at the table she designed.

The reason I used that phrase is because Princess Anita and her friends have been arguing that they should be in a position to determine what is harassment, based solely on what they say hurts their feelings. If that is true, then it should be up to Sargon to determine whether being called a "garbage human" by Princess Anita rises to the level of harassment, full stop.

It's got nothing to do with equating Sargon's history as a public figure with Princess Anita's.

[MacGruberKnows]

Dick Carrier has hit the big time...well, at least gets a mention in MSM...ok, a line in the Independent's hipster Indy 100.

https://www.indy100.com/article/histori ... ll-7801396

Kill me now.

That's essentially an old press release by Valerie Tarico that keep getting recycled over and over. I'm not sure exactly who Tarico is, but she's ga-ga over Sticky Dicky and his fellow Lauren-Lane-Pulls-A-Train buddy, Dave Fitzgerald. The size of their egos are in inverse relationship to that of their penises, and they always make it sound like they invented the Jesus mythicism concept.

I can bring some updated information on the Jeebus situation. I was in his tomb the other day (I'm attending a conference in Jerusalem and I did a tour of the old city - including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre) and there was no sign of him there.
I also nearly caused a scene at the Wailing wall when my skullcap (you are only allowed near the wall if you wear one) blew off in a gust of wind and I had to chase it through a throng of very annoyed looking praying Jews.
Oh yes, some advice for anyone coming here to a conference. If you intend to stay an extra day to visit the museums (like I did) just remember that the whole place closes on Friday and Saturday (how was I to know this place is religious! :evil: )

PS, some of the Israeli women soldiers are flipping gorgeous. :shock:

This is why we fight:

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/629/ ... umbjpg.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 7855fc.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/12/ ... 017509.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 55029c.jpg


Or this is why they fight.

...

I'm confused.

[MarcusAu]

On the other hand - would you engage with someone you believed to be disingenuous and arguing in bad faith?

And from the SJW perspective they might have good reason to think so - Sargon has had more than a passing affection for trolling when it suits his purposes.

And for more pragmatic reasons - why would they give up power if they do not have to?

At the moment they could issue a brief 'not-pology' and then just wait for things to calm down.

[Really?]

That sounds very much like saying retaliation is exactly the same as unprovoked attack, even after the attacked party has exhausted other options like appeals to reason. The tactic desceibed only works if the "harassed" party sticks to their guns and says it really did subjectively affect them. If you announce your purpose in advance you necessarily fail.

Calling the Sargon thing 'sauce for the goose' is silly because Sargon did not agitate for years to have draconian and silly policies at these kinds of events. Sargon did not go to the UN and demand the international community do something about people telling her that she "sucks." Sargon did not work with Twitter to establish and enforce policies to end "harassment." Sargon did not assemble the shittiest crew of abusive harassers possible to work with Google to establish policies to end "harassment." Sargon did not work with Intel to establish a $300 million program to help women in tech in part because of "harassment."

Anita violated the policy. She harassed a polite and peaceful congoer and she deserves to be punished by her own fucking policies. The last several years of her worthless life have been dedicated to making money off of perceived harassment. This isn't Sargon turning the tables. It's Anita alone at the table she designed.

The reason I used that phrase is because Princess Anita and her friends have been arguing that they should be in a position to determine what is harassment, based solely on what they say hurts their feelings. If that is true, then it should be up to Sargon to determine whether being called a "garbage human" by Princess Anita rises to the level of harassment, full stop.

It's got nothing to do with equating Sargon's history as a public figure with Princess Anita's.

I wasn't annoyed by your use of the phrase. I agree with you. After several years of "harassment means whatever I want it to mean!" Princess Anita, daughter of King Shitlord of Trumpia, Duchess of Teleseminar Cult is in no fucking position to question the lived experience of a YouTuber facing harassment.

[MarcusAu]

It depends - is that youtuber part of a privileged class? (Hint: he's fucking a white male).

Anything can be rationalised if you want to hard enough.

If you were in Anita's or the conference organisers position what would you do?

[Shatterface]

Neil de Grass Tyson is white?

All the women in that cartoon are white.

And cis, which is worse.

[MarcusAu]

Neil de Grass Tyson is white?

All the women in that cartoon are white.

And cis, which is worse.

Not quite - Ophelia identifies as 'The Old Man'

She/he could be cis or trans but you'd be a braver individual than me if you tried to find out.

[Old_ones]

It depends - is that youtuber part of a privileged class? (Hint: he's fucking a white male).

Anything can be rationalised if you want to hard enough.

If you were in Anita's or the conference organisers position what would you do?

Yeah, well, bingo on why it probably won't change the minds of a lot of SJWs and people in their thrall. If you get out your intersectional calculator, you find that Princess Anita has oppression points that Sargon doesn't have, and therefore we should consider her vulnerable in a way that Sargon is not. Unfortunately that system is the ultimate convenience, and they can use it any time they want it. If the enemy isn't "oppressed" he's privileged, if s/h/it is "oppressed", then they've internalized misogyny/white supremacy/transphobia/anti-therianism/whatever. Fortunately, most people haven't internalized the idea that "some animals are more equal than others", and the sense that a certain kind of ad hominem is a good argument.

(At least I hope most people haven't. That might depend on where you live at this point.)

[KiwiInOz]

The anti-SJW side should already be pushing this, solely for the keks.

Sadly, I too am unaware of what lurks in the hearts of men.

Well someone must know...

I'm picking another lurker to know.

[Really?]

It depends - is that youtuber part of a privileged class? (Hint: he's fucking a white male).

Anything can be rationalised if you want to hard enough.

If you were in Anita's or the conference organisers position what would you do?

Yeah, well, bingo on why it probably won't change the minds of a lot of SJWs and people in their thrall. If you get out your intersectional calculator, you find that Princess Anita has oppression points that Sargon doesn't have, and therefore we should consider her vulnerable in a way that Sargon is not. Unfortunately that system is the ultimate convenience, and they can use it any time they want it. If the enemy isn't "oppressed" he's privileged, if s/h/it is "oppressed", then they've internalized misogyny/white supremacy/transphobia/anti-therianism/whatever. Fortunately, most people haven't internalized the idea that "some animals are more equal than others", and the sense that a certain kind of ad hominem is a good argument.

(At least I hope most people haven't. That might depend on where you live at this point.)

Princess Anita: 224,257 subscriptions. Last three videos (over 4 weeks): 27K, 54K, 11K views.

Sargon: 634K subs. Last three videos (over 3 days): 165K, 237K, 127K. Just to be fair, that first one is the Vidcon bit that might be more popular because of the controversy. The next three vids: 307K, 306K, 407K.

Who is making YouTube/Google more money? Why are they coddling the whiny affirmative action case who doesn't give a shit about video games and can't speak without a script? The market has spoken. Google is choosing to lose money by propping up an untalented loser.

[MarcusAu]

Well it's nice to hear a note of optimism. :)

Hopefully it won't take too long for the lesson to sink in.

[Really?]

Shoeon head (who doesn't post videos as much as she tweets): 742K subs. Last three (3 weeks): 545K, 618K, 662K.

Some black Guy (who was at Vidcon, don't know if at panel): 201K subs. Last three (3 weeks): 80K, 35K, 250K.

Fuck this shit, where the worst people and worst commentators get all of the attention. Maybe tomorrow I'll be arsed to check the subs and views on that whole panel.

[Brive1987]

This is why we fight:

[i.mg]http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/629/ ... umbjpg.jpg[/img]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 7855fc.jpg

[.img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/12/ ... 017509.jpg[/img]

[.img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 55029c.jpg[/img]

Or this is why they fight.

...

I'm confused.

But could they retake Jerusalem is they had too?

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/imag ... ZrWzd2kUsk

[Really?]

This is why we fight:

[i.mg]http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/629/ ... umbjpg.jpg[/img]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 7855fc.jpg

[.img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/12/ ... 017509.jpg[/img]

[.img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 55029c.jpg[/img]

Or this is why they fight.

...

I'm confused.

But could they retake Jerusalem is they had too?

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/imag ... ZrWzd2kUsk

Dude. It's not fair to ask those kinds of questions when I have such an erection.

[Lsuoma]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 7855fc.jpg

World's first non-boner-killing duckface?

[Old_ones]

This is why we fight:

[i.mg]http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/629/ ... umbjpg.jpg[/img]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 7855fc.jpg

[.img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/12/ ... 017509.jpg[/img]

[.img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 55029c.jpg[/img]

Or this is why they fight.

...

I'm confused.

But could they retake Jerusalem is they had too?

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/imag ... ZrWzd2kUsk

Let me flip that around on you... If you had an enemy who was mostly male and used to looking at this:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 50adc5.jpg

Why wouldn't you want them on the front line?

[Brive1987]

She has beautiful eyes.

[Lsuoma]

It depends - is that youtuber part of a privileged class? (Hint: he's fucking a white male).

Anything can be rationalised if you want to hard enough.

If you were in Anita's or the conference organisers position what would you do?

Yeah, well, bingo on why it probably won't change the minds of a lot of SJWs and people in their thrall. If you get out your intersectional calculator, you find that Princess Anita has oppression points that Sargon doesn't have, and therefore we should consider her vulnerable in a way that Sargon is not. Unfortunately that system is the ultimate convenience, and they can use it any time they want it. If the enemy isn't "oppressed" he's privileged, if s/h/it is "oppressed", then they've internalized misogyny/white supremacy/transphobia/anti-therianism/whatever. Fortunately, most people haven't internalized the idea that "some animals are more equal than others", and the sense that a certain kind of ad hominem is a good argument.

(At least I hope most people haven't. That might depend on where you live at this point.)

I wouldn't be surprised if, after all other victimhoods are stripped away, she referenced 1915 and Turkey.

[Old_ones]

It depends - is that youtuber part of a privileged class? (Hint: he's fucking a white male).

Anything can be rationalised if you want to hard enough.

If you were in Anita's or the conference organisers position what would you do?

Yeah, well, bingo on why it probably won't change the minds of a lot of SJWs and people in their thrall. If you get out your intersectional calculator, you find that Princess Anita has oppression points that Sargon doesn't have, and therefore we should consider her vulnerable in a way that Sargon is not. Unfortunately that system is the ultimate convenience, and they can use it any time they want it. If the enemy isn't "oppressed" he's privileged, if s/h/it is "oppressed", then they've internalized misogyny/white supremacy/transphobia/anti-therianism/whatever. Fortunately, most people haven't internalized the idea that "some animals are more equal than others", and the sense that a certain kind of ad hominem is a good argument.

(At least I hope most people haven't. That might depend on where you live at this point.)

I wouldn't be surprised if, after all other victimhoods are stripped away, she referenced 1915 and Turkey.

It would certainly fit her MO. It would be pretty interesting to see whether the "allies" could figure out what the hell she was talking about though. Also, she might get some pushback from Cenk Uyger. I've heard he's a bit touchy about that issue.

:lol:

[Guest_97f56d3c]

fwiw, Sargon is saying he was hacked and is now at a different account.

[deLurch]

It depends - is that youtuber part of a privileged class? (Hint: he's fucking a white male).
Anything can be rationalised if you want to hard enough.
If you were in Anita's or the conference organisers position what would you do?

Anita? Ignoring any criticism has worked out reasonably well enough for her so far. But those victim bucks have been drying up big time. If she wants to continue her scheme, she have very little to lose from playing this up as the biggest outrage and demand everything from everyone to satiate her for her 'abuse' at the hands of Sargon and his cohorts at the conference. More patreon bucks & notice. Anita really doesn't have any other marketable play once this SJW parade is over. And it appears we have passed peak SJW profitability.

Best play by the organizers? Ignore it all. Practically speaking Sargon wasn't really hurt by the comments. In fact, her display made HER look really bad. She did him a huge favor. The organizers ignoring it won't be seen as a big deal as it would be the expected status quo. Throw down extra security for show at future panels, ask them to sit back from the audience, and require pre-written questions at her future panel events. Case closed & it will blow over. ANY other action in favor of either one will blow up bigger.

[Old_ones]

She has beautiful eyes.

Yes she does. And maybe you would be content looking at them everyday and wondering what the rest of her looked like, but I wouldn't be. Not to pull a Clarence, but just imagine trying to zero your scope on a fully bared, pretty, female face when you haven't seen one in a few months.

[DaveDodo007]

That's essentially an old press release by Valerie Tarico that keep getting recycled over and over. I'm not sure exactly who Tarico is, but she's ga-ga over Sticky Dicky and his fellow Lauren-Lane-Pulls-A-Train buddy, Dave Fitzgerald. The size of their egos are in inverse relationship to that of their penises, and they always make it sound like they invented the Jesus mythicism concept.

I can bring some updated information on the Jeebus situation. I was in his tomb the other day (I'm attending a conference in Jerusalem and I did a tour of the old city - including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre) and there was no sign of him there.
I also nearly caused a scene at the Wailing wall when my skullcap (you are only allowed near the wall if you wear one) blew off in a gust of wind and I had to chase it through a throng of very annoyed looking praying Jews.
Oh yes, some advice for anyone coming here to a conference. If you intend to stay an extra day to visit the museums (like I did) just remember that the whole place closes on Friday and Saturday (how was I to know this place is religious! :evil: )

PS, some of the Israeli women soldiers are flipping gorgeous. :shock:

This is why we fight:

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/629/ ... umbjpg.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 7855fc.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/12/ ... 017509.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 55029c.jpg


Or this is why they fight.

...

I'm confused.

You do realize the whole gorgeous female Israeli soldier come about because young American men were shown to not give a shit about Israel compared to other American demographics. Still be a good goy and have a wank. :shock:

[Really?]

You do realize the whole gorgeous female Israeli soldier come about because young American men were shown to not give a shit about Israel compared to other American demographics. Still be a good goy and have a wank. :shock:

No offense, but young American men bailed the Brits and French out of speaking German. What were those guys supposed to do? Run a Crusade from Auschwitz to the West Bank?

But we agree. We all want to make sweet, sticky love to women serving traffic duty in the Israeli army.

[Brive1987]

She has beautiful eyes.

Yes she does. And maybe you would be content looking at them everyday and wondering what the rest of her looked like, but I wouldn't be. Not to pull a Clarence, but just imagine trying to zero your scope on a fully bared, pretty, female face when you haven't seen one in a few months.

She also has a challenging narrow shooting slot to aim for - so there is that to toy with.

But point taken.

[Kirbmarc]

Let's face it, the family of Saud probably aren't going to be chewing on RDX anytime soon, so they don't give a fuck. If anybody thinks that they are at all religious except in public, please buy this bridge!!!

Of course not. Religion is for poor people.

[Brive1987]

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

We need more of that stuff. Like when Jen posted with Milo. Mend those bridges, you fucking idiots!

[KiwiInOz]

She has beautiful eyes.

And a lovely personality.

[DrokkIt]

What I was trying to get at was if it is OK to lie in order to achieve something of value.

My suspicion is that Sargon is being dishonest - and that the stakes are not really high enough to justify it. Although it may very well be an entertaining or even effective strategy.

But as I said above - I don't really know what is in his heart. So he can take my opinions for whatever he thinks they are worth.

I also think he is being dishonest, or perhaps making a mountain out of a molehill.

He's technically correct in that Sarkeesian should not have done what she did, and it's very funny and petty.

It's not like YouTube isn't full of vids of him calling her much worse, so there's no moral high ground.

[Brive1987]

We need more of that stuff. Like when Jen posted with Milo. Mend those bridges, you fucking idiots!

From a different angle.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/imag ... i7cOSlVHIA

[MarcusAu]

Speaking of holding people to account - I found this recent vid by 6oodfella more than a bit irritating...

[youtube][/youtube]

[shoutinghorse]

What I was trying to get at was if it is OK to lie in order to achieve something of value.

My suspicion is that Sargon is being dishonest - and that the stakes are not really high enough to justify it. Although it may very well be an entertaining or even effective strategy.

But as I said above - I don't really know what is in his heart. So he can take my opinions for whatever he thinks they are worth.

I also think he is being dishonest, or perhaps making a mountain out of a molehill.

He's technically correct in that Sarkeesian should not have done what she did, and it's very funny and petty.

It's not like YouTube isn't full of vids of him calling her much worse, so there's no moral high ground.

He's playing her at her own game and why shouldn't he, as has been said here before, she's been all over the UN, Twitter and Google spouting her "harassment of wimminz on the internet" bollocks for too long, time she had a taste of her own medicine.

[MarcusAu]

Why shouldn't he?

That's a question he'd have to answer for himself.

I would say that - he can lie if he thinks it will best serve his ends.

Or he can tell the truth.


It's not so much about Sarkessian really.

[Kirbmarc]

Why shouldn't he?

That's a question he'd have to answer for himself.

I would say that - he can lie if he thinks it will best serve his ends.

Or he can tell the truth.


It's not so much about Sarkessian really.

Sargon has a history of joking/not really joking about censorship. It happened before, with the moronic Prof. Cicciarello and his "I love white genocide" bullshit.

I think that censorship is always bad, and that "anti-SJWs" should focus on protecting free speech rather than using censorship against the SJWs. It's even worse if lies are involved.

https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/unde ... n_tdkr.jpg

[MarcusAu]

Appreciate the Dark Knight Returns reference KM...

[shoutinghorse]

Why shouldn't he?

That's a question he'd have to answer for himself.

I would say that - he can lie if he thinks it will best serve his ends.

Or he can tell the truth.


It's not so much about Sarkessian really.

I've seen a few posts of yours now saying Sargon lied. So what exactly has he lied about, having his feels hurt, is that what you're saying?

I don't think he's saying that at all, from what I can see is that Sargon is rightly pointing out the hypocrisy in Sarkeesian, she has been instrumental in promoting this notion that there is a fundamental problem online that women (and only women) get harassed and threatened on the net and in particular gaming, she suggested to the UN that saying she sucks is tantamount to bullying, Sargon has been a long time critic of hers, amongst many others, many of whom where on that front row but she singled him out for name calling.

He has every right to point this out and call her bluff and that of Vidcon who have installed into their behaviour policy many of the stuff Sarkeesian has been promoting. Whether his feelings have been hurt (I doubt it) is neither here nor there, she cant expect to call insults and criticism of her as harassment and then be seen by millions to insult one of her critics.

[Kirbmarc]

Appreciate the Dark Knight Returns reference KM...

Back when Frank Miller was a good writer.

[Kirbmarc]

Later writing by Miller wasn't as impressive:

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/ori ... Batman.jpg

No, this isn't because he turned Batman into a douche. I'm fine with that. It's because he makes him say "Are you dense? Are you retarded or something?" or "I'm the goddamn Batman".

I'm fine with Batman as a slightly saner version of the Joker. But "Beavis and Batman" belongs to the comedy aisle.

[Kirbmarc]

Batman as a crazy vigilante with no social skills and a loose morality is intriguing. Batman as someone who makes Robin feed on rats is entertaining, but not for the reasons Miller intended.

http://www.i-mockery.com/comics/longbox7/pics/rats.jpg

(Seriously, why the hell you shouldn't feed your sidekick properly, even if you're an asshole? Shouldn't it make sense to keep your meat shield distraction "ally" healthy enough to be of any use?).

[MarcusAu]

I didn't really follow the All Star / Goddam Batman phase - but I'm a fan of most incarnations...

[youtube][/youtube]

[Kirbmarc]

I didn't really follow the All Star / Goddam Batman phase - but I'm a fan of most incarnations...

[youtube][/youtube]

Kevin Conroy is the best Batman. Accept no substitutes.

[youtube][/youtube]

[MarcusAu]

I think I've said my piece on the Sargo / Anito / Vidcon business - and will retire from play before it becomes just retreads of the same old boring argument again and again.

[youtube][/youtube]

[Brive1987]

Why shouldn't he?

That's a question he'd have to answer for himself.

I would say that - he can lie if he thinks it will best serve his ends.

Or he can tell the truth.


It's not so much about Sarkessian really.

Sargon has a history of joking/not really joking about censorship. It happened before, with the moronic Prof. Cicciarello and his "I love white genocide" bullshit.

I think that censorship is always bad, and that "anti-SJWs" should focus on protecting free speech rather than using censorship against the SJWs. It's even worse if lies are involved.

[im.g]https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/unde ... n_tdkr.jpg[/img]

Well the anti Sargonites appear to have wanted to de-seat Sargon before Sargon invited shitcon to walk their own talk.

Kirb I don't see your nuance. She strung herself up and now functions as a piñata. Go on. Hit her with a stick.

[Brive1987]

PZ has a stroke-post up on on the Sargon thing.

All very interesting.

Kirb thinks Sargon is a lying dick and Anita could be collateral damage in the Huns assault on the purity of free speech. Which is kinda dumb. But in a forgivable European way.

PZ takes Sargon on face value mocking his upset. Which is really stupid. Like baby stupid.

I think Sargon demonstrated how trite and shrill the lass is. And a pulpit bully and he is now toying with a SJ leaning con. I can appreciate this.

What I can't appreciate is fuck stain Myers repeating Sargons RL name over and over and over in his passive aggressive doxing style. Myers really deserves a boot up the arse.