And maybe they just need to grow up and stop expecting special privileges wherever they go. If it's the same environment for males, it's not discrimination. Demanding unilaterally defined special treatment would be the discrimination. It's not different when women do it...
Heh, I always did get a kick out of still remembered jokes about beating up the wrong kind of white people get ignored when racism comes up in the US. It's all white vs non-white and North vs South to hear Northerners (and Westerners like Hollywood) and even local (Southern) "liberals" talk.
Your presumption's consistent with gynocentric norms privileging flagrant but shallow, unilateral shaming tactics against males. Please, continue making my point. I've never met a single female that didn't regard issues differently dependent on gender nor have ever not been bashed for catching them in the act by citing their own admissions.
"It is a cheap thing, for example, in the case of a man and woman quarreling in the street, to play out the stage role of the bold and gallant Englishman "who won't see a woman maltreated and put upon, not he!" and this, of course, without any inquiry into the merits of the quarrel. To swim with the stream, to make a pretense of boldness and bravery, when all the time you know you have the backing of conventional public opinion and mob-force behind you, is the cheapest of mock heroics."
Certain cars that regularly sit in certain places and meet certain other non-uniformed people and unmarked cars there creeped me out for years even before they starting doing this. I KNOW some of the other parties are gang members but have never heard of a single officially gang-related arrest in this particular town, so something's very wrong. I see it more often now than them holding either the CB or talky things they still got.
Most here already have a screen with a keyboard next to them built into the car. I've seen several every morning coasting haphazardly down certain streets while clearly fiddling with the thing. Same ones tend to end up following me around repeatedly for no reason. They're not doing anything actually useful in either case, and their mentality's clearly fucked up. If I coasted by driving like they do (ignoring that the typical 2 lanes means I'd hit them by crossing the same line), they'd very likely be glad to have an excuse to pull me personally.
They'll do in on purpose too. They'll play the normality privilege card on you, and anything you say will just be taken as proof they're right, and you're wrong since they're right for merely existing according to their dogma. Works like your average proudly chauvinistically myopic females using the creep card on males that don't play their games by their rules literally all the fucking time. You learn to avoid them, which will just get you generally blacklisted as that creep always alone over there, anyway.
After a flashbang was shot into the wrong window and set a little girl on fire, SWAT then invaded the correct apartment on the other side of the hall, which means they fired the thing into a window on opposite side of the apartment building first. During the operation, one of them in the hall got into an argument with the girl's grandmother just before the girl ran out into the front room on fire. The officer preceded to shoot her to death 'cause that's what you do to flaming children? When questioned about that part specifically, he reemphasize the grandmother being argumentative.
His authoritay being questioned was not only a higher priority than burning then murdering a child, but he thought other people should see it that way too. Ironically, that's not the only little girl they've managed to set of fire that year even. Somehow they missed a teenage girl in her house's hallway with assault rifle fire though. How do you hit child beds through windows (and apparently cribs) with a grenade but miss an open door with burst fire? They got a medal for that last operation. Guess it's an accomplishment not to kill innocent civilian minors now.
Might as well explain how forcing people to buy insurance for others to cash in on can't possibly profit the buyers. The supporters don't care nor have any problem with lying at this point.
I can attest. Make the increasingly epidemic SJW quasi-trolls look dumb enough by actual arguments that'll stick even in their otherwise reflexive idiot-supporters' craws, and the thread will vanish in a couple minutes, regardless of board, popularity, or thread age. They've killed plenty of unusually intelligent conversations within the last few months that way. Trolls on trolls or genuine freakouts will last way longer for no other apparent reason.
Yeah, but liberal then meant more or less what's called libertarian now too. Only outside the US does liberal mean classically liberal anymore. Social liberals are social democrats outside the US. Basically, todays liberals are only liberal by their radical mutilation of the word in direct contradiction of its original meaning.
Hayek, in particular, lamented that we was liberal most of his career but ended up being called conservative perversely due to his classical liberalism. Reading anything about him will find him championing liberalism vs conservatism. He certainly wasn't a "social democrat".
It's not shame. It's bad PR. That still only works if they think it'll really affect them, which they know better now. We live in world increasingly composed of the most propagandized generation of sheeple in human history, and they're proud of it.
So they need to actually grow up and deal with reality like us cynics do? Yes, how insidious it'd be if I can't get lectured about precious normality by half a dozen pretentious friends/long-time-associates (each other's, not mine), one at a time, who completely contradict each other yet continue to regard each other as perfectly normal.
How exactly does one memorize multiplication tables without accidentally comprehending "what multiplication is"? How is not nigh immediately obvious to anyone who knows basic addition, which should itself only require a few seconds to explain to them?
Disingenuous or blind. You need social and legal threats to continue your relationship? Otherwise, it's not the social/legal entity of marriage but the independent relationship. You can call that "marriage", but that'd be perfectly arbitrary. The difference between wife and girlfriend are meaningless without the social and legal entity, which can't be part of actual intimacy. You can't subordinate intimacy to external politics, and it still be intimacy. It necessarily becomes the politics. I'd think 37 years would make this more obvious to you than the hookup culture flingers who can't comprehend the literal definition of intimacy anymore.
Sure, myopic extroversion fixes everything... And what about the many introverts that find 2 of those 3 a good way to want even ourselves dead? A community is another word for a subculture, which means politics, which means many bloodsucking parasites. Feeding them on purposes is not conducive to a will to live, much less happiness.
Just replace "I" with "We" for whatever "one true" party claims as their "greater good". The "fuck you" applies to anyone not the right kind of special to the aforementioned "one true" party's politics.
Besides, the majority of Americans didn't want a federal government, before or after the revolution. They wanted to be left the fuck alone. Most white men even never voted for those calling themselves representatives for the bloody colonies, much less the guys who ending up with the new American military at their beck and call after the war. Ask Rhode Island how they entered the blessed "union". There was no "the People" in that "We". The "We" were a self-authorized minuscule minority that pretentiously spoke over anyone else then starting pointing guns at them and calling it freedom.
Manflesh doesn't owe service as meatshield for womenflesh. How dumb are you? Men owe women nothing unilaterally. Most women aren't likely to even help you in emergency even without you being under attack, and they admit this without shame. People in general go away from male screams but toward female. If you think you owe it to them to be assaulted in their place, go right ahead. We need less of you anyway. You're part of the real problem.
The CDC's "forced to penetrate" showed 1.1% victimization (obviously of males) over 12 months as did their "rape" of females, so any "rape" of males would raise male victims over females. Also according to "Accuracy of Adult Recollections of Childhood Victimization: Part 2. Childhood Sexual Abuse.", males with documented sexual abuse were 5 times more likely to deny sexual abuse later than females. The numbers could be heavily skewed for both but are hiding way more male than female victims.
Slashdot Mirror
And maybe they just need to grow up and stop expecting special privileges wherever they go. If it's the same environment for males, it's not discrimination. Demanding unilaterally defined special treatment would be the discrimination. It's not different when women do it...
I'm not nice, You stupid white-knighting, deluded alpha-wannabe.
Heh, I always did get a kick out of still remembered jokes about beating up the wrong kind of white people get ignored when racism comes up in the US. It's all white vs non-white and North vs South to hear Northerners (and Westerners like Hollywood) and even local (Southern) "liberals" talk.
You're describing the history of statism. No state exist now that wasn't either conquered or granted existence by one that was.
"It is a cheap thing, for example, in the case of a man and woman quarreling in the street, to play out the stage role of the bold and gallant Englishman "who won't see a woman maltreated and put upon, not he!" and this, of course, without any inquiry into the merits of the quarrel. To swim with the stream, to make a pretense of boldness and bravery, when all the time you know you have the backing of conventional public opinion and mob-force behind you, is the cheapest of mock heroics."
White knights've been around for a long time...
Certain cars that regularly sit in certain places and meet certain other non-uniformed people and unmarked cars there creeped me out for years even before they starting doing this. I KNOW some of the other parties are gang members but have never heard of a single officially gang-related arrest in this particular town, so something's very wrong. I see it more often now than them holding either the CB or talky things they still got.
Most here already have a screen with a keyboard next to them built into the car. I've seen several every morning coasting haphazardly down certain streets while clearly fiddling with the thing. Same ones tend to end up following me around repeatedly for no reason. They're not doing anything actually useful in either case, and their mentality's clearly fucked up. If I coasted by driving like they do (ignoring that the typical 2 lanes means I'd hit them by crossing the same line), they'd very likely be glad to have an excuse to pull me personally.
They'll do in on purpose too. They'll play the normality privilege card on you, and anything you say will just be taken as proof they're right, and you're wrong since they're right for merely existing according to their dogma. Works like your average proudly chauvinistically myopic females using the creep card on males that don't play their games by their rules literally all the fucking time. You learn to avoid them, which will just get you generally blacklisted as that creep always alone over there, anyway.
After a flashbang was shot into the wrong window and set a little girl on fire, SWAT then invaded the correct apartment on the other side of the hall, which means they fired the thing into a window on opposite side of the apartment building first. During the operation, one of them in the hall got into an argument with the girl's grandmother just before the girl ran out into the front room on fire. The officer preceded to shoot her to death 'cause that's what you do to flaming children? When questioned about that part specifically, he reemphasize the grandmother being argumentative.
His authoritay being questioned was not only a higher priority than burning then murdering a child, but he thought other people should see it that way too. Ironically, that's not the only little girl they've managed to set of fire that year even. Somehow they missed a teenage girl in her house's hallway with assault rifle fire though. How do you hit child beds through windows (and apparently cribs) with a grenade but miss an open door with burst fire? They got a medal for that last operation. Guess it's an accomplishment not to kill innocent civilian minors now.
Your circular logic just went right on around and missed the elephant standing in the middle, didn't it?
Might as well explain how forcing people to buy insurance for others to cash in on can't possibly profit the buyers. The supporters don't care nor have any problem with lying at this point.
I can attest. Make the increasingly epidemic SJW quasi-trolls look dumb enough by actual arguments that'll stick even in their otherwise reflexive idiot-supporters' craws, and the thread will vanish in a couple minutes, regardless of board, popularity, or thread age. They've killed plenty of unusually intelligent conversations within the last few months that way. Trolls on trolls or genuine freakouts will last way longer for no other apparent reason.
15 mins? Someone's never left /b/...
WERE obscene and hilarious. Now, they're just dim hipsters being "naughty". It's like non-conformity, just not really.
"Respect" and "life" are only words. Those two can easily be used to "justify" ending a great many, while enslaving any survivors.
Yeah, but liberal then meant more or less what's called libertarian now too. Only outside the US does liberal mean classically liberal anymore. Social liberals are social democrats outside the US. Basically, todays liberals are only liberal by their radical mutilation of the word in direct contradiction of its original meaning.
Hayek, in particular, lamented that we was liberal most of his career but ended up being called conservative perversely due to his classical liberalism. Reading anything about him will find him championing liberalism vs conservatism. He certainly wasn't a "social democrat".
It's not shame. It's bad PR. That still only works if they think it'll really affect them, which they know better now. We live in world increasingly composed of the most propagandized generation of sheeple in human history, and they're proud of it.
So they need to actually grow up and deal with reality like us cynics do? Yes, how insidious it'd be if I can't get lectured about precious normality by half a dozen pretentious friends/long-time-associates (each other's, not mine), one at a time, who completely contradict each other yet continue to regard each other as perfectly normal.
That'd describe browsing at 5 on a great many PC topics around here. Sadly, I don't even mean the Intel chips or Windows OSes sense of "PC" anymore.
How exactly does one memorize multiplication tables without accidentally comprehending "what multiplication is"? How is not nigh immediately obvious to anyone who knows basic addition, which should itself only require a few seconds to explain to them?
Disingenuous or blind. You need social and legal threats to continue your relationship? Otherwise, it's not the social/legal entity of marriage but the independent relationship. You can call that "marriage", but that'd be perfectly arbitrary. The difference between wife and girlfriend are meaningless without the social and legal entity, which can't be part of actual intimacy. You can't subordinate intimacy to external politics, and it still be intimacy. It necessarily becomes the politics. I'd think 37 years would make this more obvious to you than the hookup culture flingers who can't comprehend the literal definition of intimacy anymore.
Sure, myopic extroversion fixes everything... And what about the many introverts that find 2 of those 3 a good way to want even ourselves dead? A community is another word for a subculture, which means politics, which means many bloodsucking parasites. Feeding them on purposes is not conducive to a will to live, much less happiness.
Just replace "I" with "We" for whatever "one true" party claims as their "greater good". The "fuck you" applies to anyone not the right kind of special to the aforementioned "one true" party's politics.
Besides, the majority of Americans didn't want a federal government, before or after the revolution. They wanted to be left the fuck alone. Most white men even never voted for those calling themselves representatives for the bloody colonies, much less the guys who ending up with the new American military at their beck and call after the war. Ask Rhode Island how they entered the blessed "union". There was no "the People" in that "We". The "We" were a self-authorized minuscule minority that pretentiously spoke over anyone else then starting pointing guns at them and calling it freedom.
Manflesh doesn't owe service as meatshield for womenflesh. How dumb are you? Men owe women nothing unilaterally. Most women aren't likely to even help you in emergency even without you being under attack, and they admit this without shame. People in general go away from male screams but toward female. If you think you owe it to them to be assaulted in their place, go right ahead. We need less of you anyway. You're part of the real problem.
The CDC's "forced to penetrate" showed 1.1% victimization (obviously of males) over 12 months as did their "rape" of females, so any "rape" of males would raise male victims over females. Also according to "Accuracy of Adult Recollections of Childhood Victimization: Part 2. Childhood Sexual Abuse.", males with documented sexual abuse were 5 times more likely to deny sexual abuse later than females. The numbers could be heavily skewed for both but are hiding way more male than female victims.