Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!

#421

Lol. C

#422

Erm, try again....

LOL. Caine suggesting they acted "tough" when a Nazi skinhead came visiting. I bet they fucking shit and soiled themselves. Just like PZ - who would go running back to momma at the first sign of trouble IRL.

#423

Caine . I don't hate you but as a servant of Gaia (and the only slimepitter that can spell her) I have a bone to pick with you.
Haven't you and your husband who is a HD mechanic and sounds like a really cool guy attended this event mounted on a loud, noisy Harley Davidson. Am I wrong?
[youtube][/youtube]

#424

Bhurzum wrote:
During the first Gulf war, an eighteen year old Bhurzum was part of the crew of a challenger tank

I wonder what would have been the minimum armoured force necessary to roll the Iraqis in 1991.

I got the feeling that there really wasn't anything that could be done to counter the range, night capacity and protection of Abrams and Challengers. Especially with air superiority added in.

#425

pro-boxing-fan wrote:
Service Dog wrote:Let's start a war!
Start a nuclear war!
at the
gay bar

[.youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

A couple decades ago I tagged along with friends looking to rent a loft in the Meat Packing District-- back when there was still cow blood drying on the cobblestones & meathooks on sliding rails, above the sidewalk... plus tranny hookers at night. Now it's all swanky fashion boutiques. The place we looked-at was a grey concrete windowless bunker, with paltry army surplus cots, a few flags, lockers, and random souvenirs-- of the 3 or 5 broken down old leather daddies who lived there.. wheezing, walking with canes. They were like lost island japs, who didnt know the war was over... but these dudes' war was AIDS & they truly-were last survivors.

I recall a (long-obsolete) manual typewriter on a tv-dinner stand... and piles of fetish magazines. I was in the presence of the headquarters-in-retreat of Drummer magazine (1975-1999)... Tom Of Finland's alma mater.

Proud gay rapist steelworker jackbooted beard nazis.

USA! USA!

http://i.imgur.com/Zer1fjc.png

#426

Thanks to you folk I've been watching Tulsi Gabbard's actions and her travels to Syria. (Where she met Assad and also Syrians who were like, why the fuck is the US funding terrorists?) I like this lady.

#427

free thoughtpolice wrote:Caine . I don't hate you but as a servant of Gaia (and the only slimepitter that can spell her) I have a bone to pick with you.
Haven't you and your husband who is a HD mechanic and sounds like a really cool guy attended this event mounted on a loud, noisy Harley Davidson. Am I wrong?
[youtube][/youtube]

Hey now, let's not rush to judgement. If there was ever a place to sell embroidered rat skulls, that would be it. Although how a SJW like Caine would survive is beyond me. Not exactly hard-core liberals.

#428

Kirbmarc wrote:Blanket country-based bans are NOT the way to go. This is a very simplistic solution that won't change much, especially since Saudis and their money is still allowed in. Focus on preaching, not on country origin. Target muslim supremacists, not everyone from the countries that you don't have any close economic ties with.

If you really want blanket bans at least include gulf countries, you Orange Buffoon.

Perhaps his Orangeness has a different perspective. One that actually makes sense (to him of course, not you)?

#429

Brive1987 wrote:I'm shock and saddened that tourists from Somalia and Libya needed visas for entry into the US at all.

Quite:

While she was jesting, there's some justification for the hyperbole.

#430

CFB wrote:

Hey now, let's not rush to judgement. If there was ever a place to sell embroidered rat skulls, that would be it. Although how a SJW like Caine would survive is beyond me. Not exactly hard-core liberals.

They have gay bars in Sturgess/Sturgis where skinheads hang? Maybe she has a good beard as boxers say. After all she got up and punched after she was cold cocked, AFAIK. :ugeek:

#431

AndrewV69 wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:Blanket country-based bans are NOT the way to go. This is a very simplistic solution that won't change much, especially since Saudis and their money is still allowed in. Focus on preaching, not on country origin. Target muslim supremacists, not everyone from the countries that you don't have any close economic ties with.

If you really want blanket bans at least include gulf countries, you Orange Buffoon.
Perhaps his Orangeness has a different perspective. One that actually makes sense (to him of course, not you)?

[.tweet][/tweet]

Rome wasn't built in a day and all that - hopefully "His Orangeness" will soon get around to making it categorical. Though you might note DJT has not yet done so - which kind of suggests business factors aren't paramount:

In any case, a couple of notable comments in the meltdown over that Executive Order:

#432

In other news, an amusing take on Trump's Wall:

#433

Brive1987 wrote:
Bhurzum wrote:
During the first Gulf war, an eighteen year old Bhurzum was part of the crew of a challenger tank
I wonder what would have been the minimum armoured force necessary to roll the Iraqis in 1991.

I got the feeling that there really wasn't anything that could be done to counter the range, night capacity and protection of Abrams and Challengers. Especially with air superiority added in.

An interesting question.

Even though I was there, I don't think I could give an accurate answer. Bearing in mind, I was a lowly trooper at the time and my idea of "bigger picture" was flipping to high-mag in TOGS. If I'd been an SHQ or BGHQ operator at the time, I'd probably be able to give a semi-accurate answer. We (7 Bde) met pockets of resistance but nothing like the scale we were expecting.

All I can say with certainty is this: within our AO, we barely had to slow down, stop or jockey during the final advance. We charged across the desert at full-tilt and demolished anything that didn't surrender immediately. It got to the stage, our intimate support had to drop back (doctrine out the window) and help deal with the PW's at the rear. Even our A1 (echelon) had to get their hands dirty.

In the years after the conflict, many of my mates have studied the AAR's (and history books) but it's something I never got into.

Still, it's an interesting question...

#434

Can you spot our feminist pal Caine in this montage?
[youtube][/youtube]

#435

sp0tlight wrote:Hung over, at the office, on the Saturday morning is not a way to live your life son.

Nor is making a really lovely sauerkraut stew Friday night, have it wreck your intestines (and assorted parts)all Friday night and early Saturday, yet it was good enough to contemplate doing it all again on Saturday night. Yet here I am...

#436

free thoughtpolice wrote:Can you spot our feminist pal Caine in this montage?
[youtube][/youtube]

Seems weird. Years ago the girls were more tattooed and definitely more biker vibe. That looks more like a sorority rush.

#437

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:Can you spot our feminist pal Caine in this montage?
[youtube][/youtube]
Seems weird. Years ago the girls were more tattooed and definitely more biker vibe. That looks more like a sorority rush.

I went out to Sturgis in 1989 and it was still mostly us scroungy biker types. Shortly after that though the yuppies started infiltrating. Nowadays it's gotten to the point where a lot of the people ship their bikes to Sturgis, fly in, spend the weekend putting 10 miles on the clock cruising around town playing out their Billy Badass Biker fantasy then fly home.

#438

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:Can you spot our feminist pal Caine in this montage?
[.youtube][/youtube]
Seems weird. Years ago the girls were more tattooed and definitely more biker vibe. That looks more like a sorority rush.

It's probably entryism by SJWs into biker culture.

#439

TheMudbrooker wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:Can you spot our feminist pal Caine in this montage?
[boutube][/youtube]
Seems weird. Years ago the girls were more tattooed and definitely more biker vibe. That looks more like a sorority rush.
I went out to Sturgis in 1989 and it was still mostly us scroungy biker types. Shortly after that though the yuppies started infiltrating. Nowadays it's gotten to the point where a lot of the people ship their bikes to Sturgis, fly in, spend the weekend putting 10 miles on the clock cruising around town playing out their Billy Badass Biker fantasy then fly home.

George Carlin talked about that.

[youtube][/youtube]

#440

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... t-hysteria

#441

What's the National Review like in terms of not shit journalism? I did some quick fact checking of that and it seems generally okay.

#442

National Review is mostly neo-cons who were never-Trumpers. Whether that's good journalism or not, that's not for me to say.

#443

Keating wrote:National Review is mostly neo-cons who were never-Trumpers. Whether that's good journalism or not, that's not for me to say.

Yeah. Right-wing and willing to bend facts, but occasional good pieces.

#444

Lsuoma wrote:
TheMudbrooker wrote:
I went out to Sturgis in 1989 and it was still mostly us scroungy biker types. Shortly after that though the yuppies started infiltrating. Nowadays it's gotten to the point where a lot of the people ship their bikes to Sturgis, fly in, spend the weekend putting 10 miles on the clock cruising around town playing out their Billy Badass Biker fantasy then fly home.
George Carlin talked about that.

[youtube][/youtube]

I've seen guys with patches that read "I rode my bike to Sturgis". The fact that such things need to exist is too heartbreaking for words.

#445

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Keating wrote:National Review is mostly neo-cons who were never-Trumpers. Whether that's good journalism or not, that's not for me to say.
Yeah. Right-wing and willing to bend facts, but occasional good pieces.

I am really struggling to find generally decent magazines that aren't obviously fake. Like stuff that I fucking know is bullshit. I've got Spiked Online, and that's about it.

#446

rayshul wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Keating wrote:National Review is mostly neo-cons who were never-Trumpers. Whether that's good journalism or not, that's not for me to say.
Yeah. Right-wing and willing to bend facts, but occasional good pieces.
I am really struggling to find generally decent magazines that aren't obviously fake. Like stuff that I fucking know is bullshit. I've got Spiked Online, and that's about it.

Nothing can be taken at face value anymore. Trust in the media is a thing of the past, if it was ever really a thing. Don't trust and always verify.

#447

I don't think anything can be taken at face value in the past either, we were just less aware of the problem. Unlike some here, I don't equate right-wing with necessarily being wrong or misleading.

I think the only solution on an individual level is to read widely across the entire spectrum. If you read Breitbart, also read Salon, for example.

#448

http://i.imgur.com/dewsoRu.png
So on the Mr. Yellow Hat situation. His name has been starting to spread within the antifa style movements, specifically in the NorthWest/Seattle area on twitter.

On twitter user has promoted going after yellow hat's wife. He has promoted her name, her employer, contacted her employer, concocted a weak ass tactic to try and get her fired from her job.

Mr. Yellow Hat's status as a student/grad student etc is kind of up on the air. One piece of evidence posted on twitter stats that he is a senior at UW. If that is the case, that means he violated the UW no-guns-on-campus policy and I would expect him to get kicked out of the University if nothing else. And I do think that would be a just action. 4th year gun rights activist should have known of the no-gun-on-campus policy and followed it.

#449

And in a side note, the original blogger about the name of the yellow hat shooter has been in a twitter fight with the copyright owner of a photo he took. Clearly the copyright owner is in the right. But the original blogger has been shitting all over him calling him an alt-right sympathizer and overall asserting his right to post the photo and expect to use it for free. The original blogger is an all around cunt.

Their justification that Mr. Yellow hat is a neo-nazi is based off of him having posted this after Trump won the election:
“We did it pepe, we beat her.”

Nothing else.

#450

TheMudbrooker wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
TheMudbrooker wrote:
I went out to Sturgis in 1989 and it was still mostly us scroungy biker types. Shortly after that though the yuppies started infiltrating. Nowadays it's gotten to the point where a lot of the people ship their bikes to Sturgis, fly in, spend the weekend putting 10 miles on the clock cruising around town playing out their Billy Badass Biker fantasy then fly home.
George Carlin talked about that.

[youtube][/youtube]
I've seen guys with patches that read "I rode my bike to Sturgis". The fact that such things need to exist is too heartbreaking for words.

I drove my car with Sturgis. With the family. Do I get a badge?

#451

free thoughtpolice wrote:Can you spot our feminist pal Caine in this montage?
[youtube][/youtube]

Yes?

http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo35 ... xuasaw.jpg

I also found her Nazi:

http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo35 ... cyhh54.jpg

#452

Keating wrote:I don't think anything can be taken at face value in the past either, we were just less aware of the problem. Unlike some here, I don't equate right-wing with necessarily being wrong or misleading.

I think the only solution on an individual level is to read widely across the entire spectrum. If you read Breitbart, also read Salon, for example.

Salon's articles have been so mental. At least with Breitbart the right-lean is obvious without being righteous. Or perhaps it's because right wing media feels fresh and new. Honestly, it feels like there's fuck all left.

#453

Reuters doesn't do a bad job. However you will not find it all that exciting to read because they don't interpret the news.

#454

deLurch wrote:Reuters doesn't do a bad job. However you will not find it all that exciting to read because they don't interpret the news.

I've literally never been to their site. -.- Only seen the "quotes from Reuters" shit.

#455

AndrewV69 wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:Blanket country-based bans are NOT the way to go. This is a very simplistic solution that won't change much, especially since Saudis and their money is still allowed in. Focus on preaching, not on country origin. Target muslim supremacists, not everyone from the countries that you don't have any close economic ties with.

If you really want blanket bans at least include gulf countries, you Orange Buffoon.
Perhaps his Orangeness has a different perspective. One that actually makes sense (to him of course, not you)?

[.tweet][/tweet]

Oh I know. Oh well.

How does it go?

Whatever Man. Fuck. (Die Antwoord).

#456

Keating wrote:I don't think anything can be taken at face value in the past either, we were just less aware of the problem. Unlike some here, I don't equate right-wing with necessarily being wrong or misleading.

I think the only solution on an individual level is to read widely across the entire spectrum. If you read Breitbart, also read Salon, for example.

Yep. Read widely, never simply believe and always cross and double check. Informed skepticism >> partisan views.

#457

rayshul wrote:
Keating wrote:I don't think anything can be taken at face value in the past either, we were just less aware of the problem. Unlike some here, I don't equate right-wing with necessarily being wrong or misleading.

I think the only solution on an individual level is to read widely across the entire spectrum. If you read Breitbart, also read Salon, for example.
Salon's articles have been so mental. At least with Breitbart the right-lean is obvious without being righteous. Or perhaps it's because right wing media feels fresh and new. Honestly, it feels like there's fuck all left.

Salon's madness is revealing of its methods and of the shifts in the left wing Overton window. Salon's insane articles about a self-admitted pedophile acting as an indignant, morally superior being to the people who called him a monster is insane and hard to read, but provides evidence that some SJWs are trying to normalize pedophilia and it's not just a conspiracy theory of some right-wingers.

#458

rayshul wrote:What's the National Review like in terms of not shit journalism? I did some quick fact checking of that and it seems generally okay.

I've read a bunch of their essays - many of them certainly seem to hold water. A sampling:
Blasphemy and Islam

Hillary’s Climate of Hate (She’s an evil, crooked, self-centered, corrupt heap of incompetence) [ :lol: tell us what you really think, Michele (Malkin)]

A Problem Like Keith Ellison (And the more serious question of the Muslim Brotherhood) [hope Trump declares it and CAIR terrorist organizations]

Academia May Now Be Beyond Satire (Intellectual inquiry in the humanities often is not open) [Sokal hoax]

But while I've only skimmed (as is my wont ...) that recent one you linked to, it too seemed pretty reasonable, and quite balanced: noted that the application to green-card holders was a bridge too far, and that many of the supposedly sober Main Stream Media were clearly going off the deep end. Lot of that going around:

But at least somewhat related thereto:

#459

Brive1987 wrote:PZs post on the white WA shooter has Caine being a bad ass in the comments:

Yes, I’ve been punched. For the record, I’m a woman. I was coldcocked by a fucking skinhead coming out of a gay bar. My friends punched him back. Then I punched the asshole. He would have curb stomped me and my friends if he’d had a chance. Fuck your handwringing. I don’t give a shit how much nazis get punched. What do you want to do, serve them tea? No thanks.

Fake news scale indicator:
<--true------truish-------fake--------∆-------nixon-->

#460

Kirbmarc wrote:
rayshul wrote:
Keating wrote:I don't think anything can be taken at face value in the past either, we were just less aware of the problem. Unlike some here, I don't equate right-wing with necessarily being wrong or misleading.

I think the only solution on an individual level is to read widely across the entire spectrum. If you read Breitbart, also read Salon, for example.
Salon's articles have been so mental. At least with Breitbart the right-lean is obvious without being righteous. Or perhaps it's because right wing media feels fresh and new. Honestly, it feels like there's fuck all left.
Salon's madness is revealing of its methods and of the shifts in the left wing Overton window. Salon's insane articles about a self-admitted pedophile acting as an indignant, morally superior being to the people who called him a monster is insane and hard to read, but provides evidence that some SJWs are trying to normalize pedophilia and it's not just a conspiracy theory of some right-wingers.

That might well be the case. But it seems that many are conflating the desire ("Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children") with an act - presumably the rape of child. Kind of muddies the waters to do so; "shoddy and inept application of words" and all that.

#461

In the morning, when I quickly catch up with the 'Pit, I used to be happy to see that I was one or two pages behind. That meant there was some funny and reasonably intelligent stuff ahead, even though I would disagree with much of it. But nowadays it usually turns out that half of it is written by our resident ethnic cleanser 'Milosovic' Steersman, who bores us to death with his own stupid tweets, copy-pasted propaganda stuff, and robotic lack of empathy. I am really starting to wonder why I still bother.

#462

Kirbmarc wrote:Why sexual desire is objectifying – and hence morally wrong

Bring on the anti-sex league!

Nice site. In the middle of some very reasonable-sounding, inoffensive comments, they do this:

Aeon paeon wrote:[Part of this comment was removed because it contravened our community guidelines]

#463

Steersman wrote: That might well be the case. But it seems that many are conflating the desire ("Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children") with an act - presumably the rape of child. Kind of muddies the waters to do so; "shoddy and inept application of words" and all that.

Note that I didn't say normalize child rape. Normalizing pedophilia is "problematic" even without normalizing child rape. Most people justifiably wouldn't want someone with a psychiatric disorder that makes them attracted to children to be perceived as "normal". It's a shift in the Overton window, which some might use as a justification for crimes like possession of illegal material and for lawsuits about being "discriminated" if they're fired from jobs which put them at contact with children for expressing evidence of their psychiatric disorder.

#464

http://i.imgur.com/esjGBls.png

:whistle:

#465

fuzzy wrote:http://i.imgur.com/esjGBls.png

:whistle:

http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/kdOPBP9vuZA/mqdefault.jpg

(Nice new Avatar, fuzzy!(

#466

rayshul wrote:
deLurch wrote:Reuters doesn't do a bad job. However you will not find it all that exciting to read because they don't interpret the news.
I've literally never been to their site. -.- Only seen the "quotes from Reuters" shit.

It is a real news organization and is where lazy journalists get real news.

#467

deLurch wrote:
rayshul wrote:
deLurch wrote:Reuters doesn't do a bad job. However you will not find it all that exciting to read because they don't interpret the news.
I've literally never been to their site. -.- Only seen the "quotes from Reuters" shit.
It is a real news organization and is where lazy journalists get real news.

Yeah and it's where people in general can get real news, to double check biased articles and learn about the trick and biases of the person who wrote it.

#468

Jan Steen wrote:In the morning, when I quickly catch up with the 'Pit, I used to be happy to see that I was one or two pages behind. That meant there was some funny and reasonably intelligent stuff ahead, even though I would disagree with much of it. But nowadays it usually turns out that half of it is written by our resident ethnic cleanser 'Milosovic' Steersman, who bores us to death with his own stupid tweets, copy-pasted propaganda stuff, and robotic lack of empathy. I am really starting to wonder why I still bother.

I just tend to quickly scroll/scan past his posts. There is always an off chance he will dive into a subject I find interesting. But I think that has only occurred once or twice during my time here on the pit. Don't feel obligated to read his posts if they are not intriguing.

#469

Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote: That might well be the case. But it seems that many are conflating the desire ("Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children") with an act - presumably the rape of child. Kind of muddies the waters to do so; "shoddy and inept application of words" and all that.
Note that I didn't say normalize child rape.

True.

Kirbmarc wrote:Normalizing pedophilia is "problematic" even without normalizing child rape. ...

Maybe, though it seems that "normal" is rather moot. While the Wikipedia article didn't have much in the way of statistics, it did note that "the prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known, but is estimated to be lower than 5% among adult men". Is it "normal" that that percentage exhibits that behaviour?

But while I'll concede that some "pedophiles" try to make the "affliction" appear less problematic than it is - tangled with one or two of that group - I'm not at all sure, not having read the Salon article in question, how helpful it is to be making categorical accusations of "monster", particularly absent evidence of a crime being committed. In particular, you might note the following from the Wikipedia article:

In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse, and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors.

Seems to be a rather wide spectrum there that some at least are too quick to whitewash away.

#470

Kirbmarc wrote:Whatever Man. Fuck. (Die Antwoord).

Say Kirbmarc, seems like your account has been invaded by a cryptomuslim crypto-southafrican.

#471

Kirbmarc wrote:Salon's insane articles about a self-admitted pedophile acting as an indignant, morally superior being to the people who called him a monster is insane and hard to read, but provides evidence that some SJWs are trying to normalize pedophilia and it's not just a conspiracy theory of some right-wingers.

Say, Kirbmarc, looks like your account has been invaded by commander Tuvok...

(except for the nuance of course. Maybe it's an alien incursion in your brain patterns)

#472

Jan Steen wrote:In the morning, when I quickly catch up with the 'Pit, I used to be happy to see that I was one or two pages behind. That meant there was some funny and reasonably intelligent stuff ahead, even though I would disagree with much of it. But nowadays it usually turns out that half of it is written by our resident ethnic cleanser 'Milosovic' Steersman, who bores us to death with his own stupid tweets, copy-pasted propaganda stuff, and robotic lack of empathy. I am really starting to wonder why I still bother.

Speaking for whole Pit, are you? In any case, you're not obliged to read my posts - "if you don't happen to like them, then pass them by".

However, if you're going to make such untenable accusations as "resident ethnic cleanser" then you might at least have the integrity to, shall we say, put your money where your mouth is? Somewhat apropos of which, something I just ran across in the context of the #MuslimBan hashtag discussion:

Why We Must Ban Islam by Serkan Engin from Turkey

I think 3rd World War has already begun between civilization and barbaric death cult Islam. Yes, Samuel Huntington was right. ....

Islam cannot be reformed, if it was possible, it must have been reformed since 1400 years. Islam cannot be reformed because of internal structure of its theology. Islam theology raised from Quran and hadiths have concrete orders about the daily life of the Muslims, for example the ratio of grab that the Muslim army will take after a war with non-muslims or the permission to enslave women and little girls as spoil of war, or how Muslims must kill homosexuals, apostates, non-muslims, or how Muslims must cut hand of a thief, how Muslims must stone to death a woman for adultery, etc.These orders of Islam having voilence, hatred, terrorism can not be interpreted on a humanistic ground. How can you reform these barbaric verses of Quran?: ....

In civilized world we live according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . That is the base of our civilized world but Islam is very antithetic to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let’s have a look to some parts of the article of dear Martha van der Pol named “Islam is Antithetical to Fundemental Human Rights” ....

#473

Jan Steen wrote:In the morning, when I quickly catch up with the 'Pit, I used to be happy to see that I was one or two pages behind. That meant there was some funny and reasonably intelligent stuff ahead, even though I would disagree with much of it. But nowadays it usually turns out that half of it is written by our resident ethnic cleanser 'Milosovic' Steersman, who bores us to death with his own stupid tweets, copy-pasted propaganda stuff, and robotic lack of empathy. I am really starting to wonder why I still bother.

Agreed.

Though there was a very interesting exchange between Kirb and Clarence. Luckily, I still have to catch up on my Cracked and Listverse readings, so I can happily skip the robot's posts.

#474

And sometimes I don't skip...

However, if you're going to make such untenable accusations as "resident ethnic cleanser" then you might at least have the integrity to, shall we say, put your money where your mouth is?

"Nuke Mecca from orbit"?

"Ban all muslims"?

Those sound familiar?

#475

This blog post alleges that Trump's visa ban on those 7 Muslim countries is the exact same text and countries that Obama signed in 2013.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... wn-policy/

#476

feathers wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:Salon's insane articles about a self-admitted pedophile acting as an indignant, morally superior being to the people who called him a monster is insane and hard to read, but provides evidence that some SJWs are trying to normalize pedophilia and it's not just a conspiracy theory of some right-wingers.
Say, Kirbmarc, looks like your account has been invaded by commander Tuvok...

(except for the nuance of course. Maybe it's an alien incursion in your brain patterns)

I don't know, I just think that if someone has that kind of disordered attraction and they haven't committed crimes yet they need psychiatric assistance (possibly with the controlled and medically prescribed use of drugs which might inhibit their libido) and not to be put in situations where their disorder might cause issues, not to be given a podium where they can pontificate about their woes.

I'm not saying that SJWs are pedophiles or pro-child rape, I'm saying that some seem to be trying to present a psychiatric problem and a social issue as a narrative of victimhood. See also the reaction of the many in the Horde to Ogvorbis' story. Ogvorbis (if he's telling the truth) was a minor at the time of when he committed child rape and he had been previously abused, so I don't think he'd deserve to go to jail for that, but he'd need really psychiatric and psychological assistance, and probably to provide his victims with some form of closure in a protected and not hurtful fashion, bot virtual hugs and a selective memory.

He also seems to be struggling with "monstrous urges" even today (again, assuming he's telling the truth) and again he'd need professional help, not a community of dysfunctional ideologues. If the Horde truly cared about rape and victims of rape they wouldn't act like fundies who welcome a former sinner but suggest Ogvorbis to get help.

Then there's the issue with Sarah Nyberg, who was supported by countless SJWs even after serious evidence of her being sexually attracted to children and even arguing in favor of sex between adults and children came up. Nyberg says that those opinions were merely "edgelord" trolling, but even before she said that the SJWs seemed willing to overlook Nyberg's opinions and statements even before Nyberg offered an explanation.

Of course this doesn't mean that everyone in "SJW movement" cheers for this kind of attitude. Credit where credit is due: Elyse, as dysfunctional as she is, was horrified by Ogvorbis' story and said that it wasn't appropriate for people to offer Oggie only virtual hugs. Others have spoken out about Nyberg or about the Salon articles.

Of course the extreme take that some right-wing people take from this, namely that the next SJW issue will be laws in favor of adult-child sex, is absurd. But the idea that some SJWs might create narratives of victimhood for people who aren't victims but instead have a psychiatric disorder which can likely cause a lot of damage if left unchecked isn't completely baseless.

#477

screwtape wrote:
Ape+lust wrote:Somebody is >this< close to achieving her dream of fucking herself.

http://imgur.com/rAHNfke.jpg
Not for me to correct you, but it seems that this might suit her better:

watson_selfie.jpg

Reminds me of:

[youtube][/youtube]

:bjarte:

Pseudomonas

#478

Steersman wrote:But while I'll concede that some "pedophiles" try to make the "affliction" appear less problematic than it is - tangled with one or two of that group - I'm not at all sure, not having read the Salon article in question, how helpful it is to be making categorical accusations of "monster", particularly absent evidence of a crime being committed. In particular, you might note the following from the Wikipedia article:
In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse, and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors.
Seems to be a rather wide spectrum there that some at least are too quick to whitewash away.

I'm not saying that someone who hasn't committed any crimes deserves to be treated as a criminal. I'm saying that they should be encouraged to seek help in a way that can reduce harm to them and to others, not to argue that their existence unjustly makes them victims of prejudice who deserve a narrative of SJW victimhood.

The German Prevention Project Dunkelfeld seems a much better way to deal with the issue than Salon.

#479

fuzzy wrote:http://i.imgur.com/esjGBls.png

:whistle:

Yeah, but the ignore list only works when you log in. I usually don't do that, because when you're logged in you get to see al the images automatically. Some of them are not sff (safe for family). :lol:

#480

deLurch wrote:This blog post alleges that Trump's visa ban on those 7 Muslim countries is the exact same text and countries that Obama signed in 2013.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... wn-policy/

Not entirely untrue, but it seems like the truth might a bit more nuanced:

How, though, did the Trump administration choose these seven Muslim-majority countries? The truth is it didn't: The countries were chosen during Barack Obama's presidency.

According to the draft copy of Trump's executive order, the countries whose citizens are barred entirely from entering the United States is based on a bill that Obama signed into law in December 2015.

Obama signed the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act as part of an omnibus spending bill. The legislation restricted access to the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens from 38 countries who are visiting the United States for less than 90 days to enter without a visa.

So, in a nutshell, Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries.

Trump's use of a list created with Democrats' support is obviously geared toward a more nefarious end. A total visa-issuance moratorium is more severe than restricting visa waiver access. But the guilt-by-association of having a higher burden for entry at all underlies the bill Obama signed, too.

Obama aimed to restrict visa waivers, Trump to a total visa moratorium. The list of countries to which restrictions apply is the same, though. Calling this "a muslim ban" is a misnomer, but criticism of Trump's executive order is possible even keeping in mind that the issue of visas is more complex that what slogans say.