|
Looking at the people I know who bitch about how kids are never outside, I also stop and look at the neighborhoods they live in. Most of these people I know live in neighborhoods with an older population, so no kids who play in the street near home, or the kind of neighborhood were you don't want your kids in the street(meaning upscale neighborhoods, since drivers in those areas drive like a bat out of hell and will run your kids down)
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
RFC2324 posted:Looking at the people I know who bitch about how kids are never outside, I also stop and look at the neighborhoods they live in. Most of these people I know live in neighborhoods with an older population, so no kids who play in the street near home, or the kind of neighborhood were you don't want your kids in the street(meaning upscale neighborhoods, since drivers in those areas drive like a bat out of hell and will run your kids down) That, and they keep arresting parents who let their kids play outside, walk to a friends house, etc. without constant immediate supervision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:That, and they keep arresting parents who let their kids play outside, walk to a friends house, etc. without constant immediate supervision. That really seems to be less common than people think, based on the kids I see playing in the streets all the time. And this is in the DFW area, where a woman WAS arrested for making her kids play outside(where she sat and watched them the whole time)
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:This post should be printed out and pasted to the front door of every baby boomer. DemeaninDemon posted:And their casket when they finally loving die. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbv41abhC3c&t=157s
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Grem posted:Last summer some kid in the neighborhood started walking around with his lawnmower and offering to mow lawns for $20. I was his first customer, I thought it was awesome he was making money for himself and everything. Well, turns out he never really tested his mower, and 4 minutes in it broke. He finished the rest of my pretty sizable lawn with a weed eater, poor guy. It looked like poo poo but I gave him $40 for the huge amount of effort he put into it. Those kids are still around they just don't go to your house because you're an rear end in a top hat. Do you not have a lawnmower? How do you usually cut your lawn?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Do you not have a lawnmower? How do you usually cut your lawn? I have Enrique do it. I think he just eats the grass, to be honest. My Enrique may actually be a goat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I have Enrique do it. I think he just eats the grass, to be honest. Does he pronounce it Me-eh-eh-enrique? Because that's usually a goat thing. Why do you HATE goat CHILDREN 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I have Enrique do it. I think he just eats the grass, to be honest. Either that or the Lawnmower Man from that lovely Stephen King short story Parasol Prophet posted:Why do you HATE goat CHILDREN Goat kids, come on, man
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
om nom nom posted:
Somewhere around 25-26 years ago, I used to clear driveways and rake lawns. People would only give you 50 cents or a dollar. One dude would ask me and a friend of mine to clear his lawn to the extent of crawling under all of his pines and picking up the needles and cones by hand and hauling them off. We had to bring our own bags. He'd pay $3 between the two of us. Even in '89 or so, $1.50 didn't buy a hell of a lot of Milk Duds. 2 hours of work for a buck-fifty. I wish I could pay a kid a fair wage to clear my driveway but the miserliness of the generation before my parents killed the drive. A loosie cigarette for a penny was long gone by the time I was a kid, yet the retirees wouldn't spare a quarter for cleaning all of their windows. I delivered papers with my friend, 2 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a split $50 a month. 5AM, below zero degrees F sometimes, no tips from anyone. Even at Christmas. We often had to sprint to make the bus by the time we finished. Each of us would carry 2 bags of papers slung across our shoulders, it hurt like hell. All for $25 a piece. We're talking 50 cents an hour for a part time job. I would never ask my girls to try to get a few bucks for shoveling snow or mowing lawns. Whats the point? No-one feels like they need to pay for a decent hours work. Everything should be free. Now I feel old and cranky. I need my blanket. My feet are cold. At least I have my cats and my fly tying. I wonder if my kids will call me to say happy birthday. It was a few months ago, but maybe they'll remember. When's Matlock on?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
mostlygray posted:Somewhere around 25-26 years ago, I used to clear driveways and rake lawns. People would only give you 50 cents or a dollar. One dude would ask me and a friend of mine to clear his lawn to the extent of crawling under all of his pines and picking up the needles and cones by hand and hauling them off. We had to bring our own bags. He'd pay $3 between the two of us. Even in '89 or so, $1.50 didn't buy a hell of a lot of Milk Duds. 2 hours of work for a buck-fifty. At least it's refreshing when old coots are rightfully angry at each other as opposed to literal children
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
It's like that unsettling stories told with wikihow images thing, except with extremely-artifacted images.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Show me where in the second ammendment is says we're not allowed to arm ourselves with mini nukes, libs
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Chinese clickbait sites going "gently caress it" and just outright showing tits for clicks is p lol an article about your 2016 fortune if you're a monkey in the Chinese zodiac]
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
  Terrible math and thinking they made a difference despite it breaking records all over the place. Precious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Atasnaya Vaflja posted:
Wikipedia's saying budget of 200 million and box office income of 1.2 billion, already placing it in the top ten grossing films before its even out of theaters. Never mind the merchandising. "We cost them a fraction of a percent at best.  "
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Atasnaya Vaflja posted:thinking they made a difference despite it breaking records all over the place. This statement reveals an astonishing ignorance of statistics and probably logic itself, but I agree that some bozo's screaming "SJW!!!" at a film release probably amounted to very little, and certainly less than they think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:This statement reveals an astonishing ignorance of statistics and probably logic itself Fifty-five percent of respondents to a Return of Kings Twitter poll have said that online reporting of the social justice nature of The Force Awakens influenced their decision whether to see the film. Extended across our readership, with over 900,000 users accessing ROK between November 21 and December 21, this amounts to a potential direct impact of $4,219,456.54 (55% x $8.38 x 915,482) on total revenues. $8.38 is based on the average cinema ticket price in the US, which is now an all-time high.  This figure does not include those men who haven’t visited in the past month but know to stay clear away from Hollywood propaganda films thanks to our previous reporting. They have been learning to question the narrative of popular culture, and many would have done so without reading ROK‘s recent commentary concerning The Force Awakens. The $4.2 million estimate also does not include future sales that will be surely lost from Star Wars DVD’s, collectibles, and other promotional tie-ins.  My review of the Star Wars sequel was not this site’s only take on this year’s über-SJW film release. Guest contributor Inigo Montoya also opined about its non-white and female agenda. Whilst ROK regards itself as a unique media outlet, we are not the only positive source of non-mainstream news, self-improvement advice, and cultural commentary. What happens when we add together the reach of Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Gotnews.com and a host of other sources with our own? SJWs and their sycophants can speculate all they wish about the veracity of the $4.2 million figure for ROK, but the fact remains that total revenues for The Force Awakens have been lowered in demonstrable terms by our balanced, critical reporting and those of our common sense allies. A fair estimate when all this alternative commentary is combined would be in the tens of millions of dollars.  Irrespective of the power of the Galactic Disney Empire, The Force Awakens will sputter compared to the much more limited release of, say, Gone with the Wind or even the original Star Wars. SJWs, including long-time critics of ROK, have been quick in trying to mock calls to boycott The Force Awakens. They argue the money the film has already made and will make before it leaves cinemas points to a “failure.” But is this really what they are saying it is? With hundreds and sometimes thousands of employees, large media conglomerates are able to saturate the airwaves, printed pages, and websites with fawning praise of The Force Awakens‘ feminist undertones. Possessing much smaller numbers of contributors and without the financial largesse of media tycoons or corporations, the manosphere and other voices have nevertheless successfully and markedly chipped away at the revenues of the film. For those of you still wanting to laugh at such a proposition, remind yourselves that the world we live in is more populated, wealthier (due to technology and connectedness), and English-speaking than in the past. Film companies also flood consumers’ minds with exhortations to watch their works in ways unheard of in the past. Because of this, even Avatar, the second most successful film of all time after inflation (and significantly due to more expensive 3D tickets), is an underachievement compared to far less marketed earlier films released in the “smaller” world of old. Many more people were able to watch it and it failed to really streak away from its predecessors. Likewise, relative to 2015, The Force Awakens will not be the financially spellbinding piece of cinema it is being made out as. Avatar, which SJWs pilloried as perpetuating “white messiah” syndrome, where a Caucasian appropriates an indigenous culture and then ironically saves them from fellow Caucasians, still made over $2 billion at the box office. So if leftists equate box office success—albeit success which is artificially inflated by a larger world—with being in the “right,” their logic needs some serious fine-tuning. By that standard, is the Transformers series a cultural and moral masterpiece because it made billions in ticket sales? If SJWs didn’t fear the power of our message, they wouldn’t try to suppress it and spend millions promulgating their own  Armed with the largest bullhorns and supernova-level self-entitlement, SJWs still cannot drown out more thought-out messages like ours. Compared, ironically, to the Rebel Alliance or Resistance, operating with less sophisticated equipment and a small number of audacious political pilots, ROK and its friends continue to strike blows against the bloated mass of SJW rhetoric. Even as SJWs meticulously use methods of doxing and attempting to get people firedto discourage free speech against their positions, their lies continue to be challenged (Thunderf00t, we salute you). Multibillion-dollar film companies may acquiesce to SJW cravings, releasing films that don’t offend real or fictitious groups that include women, minorities, and hairier-than-usual Wookies. Yet the proponents of constant political agendas convince themselves they succeed through their grit and skill alone. When their millionaire and billionaire patrons are stripped from them, what are they left with? The release of The Force Awakens will only increase the esteem in which our contrarian reporting is held. And many more men will act on similar advice of ours going forward. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
I hate you so much lob
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Do you not have a lawnmower? How do you usually cut your lawn? I had to leave when he was just starting and left it locked in the garage, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:
So what they're saying is that their own point does not count? I've never before seen someone put so many words into someone's mouth that they are defeated by their own strawman. Orange Fluffy Sheep has a new favorite as of 06:21 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Unsurprisingly, the rok guy really liked Hux & The New Order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
loving lmao
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
quote:Multibillion-dollar film companies may acquiesce to SJW cravings, releasing films that don’t offend real or fictitious groups that include women, minorities, and hairier-than-usual Wookies. Yet the proponents of constant political agendas convince themselves they succeed through their grit and skill alone. When their millionaire and billionaire patrons are stripped from them, what are they left with? "You know that massive support they have? What if they didn't have it? Checkmate. "Is there any dimension to this which isn't dumb?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Atasnaya Vaflja posted:
Is this math you do to make you feel better? We were laughing at this in a FB group. How deluded do you have to be to think that even if everyone who came to ROK didn't see the TFA, it's such a low number, its a drop in the bucket for the juggernaut that is the film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:This statement reveals an astonishing ignorance of statistics and probably logic itself, but I agree that some bozo's screaming "SJW!!!" at a film release probably amounted to very little, and certainly less than they think. Even if his bizarro math was correct, it amounts to less than a potential 1% of the current total earnings. It's less earnings than what the movie made in an hour its first weekend. Considering the fact that the math isn't at all correct, and even once corrected it doesn't account for the fact that I'm sure a lot of the people voting were never planning on seeing the film in the first place and therefore cannot be counted as a "loss," you're also an idiot. edit: Maybe that was a bit harsh, but I feel like my blasé dismissal of someone multiplying the percentage from a weasel worded poll by ticket price by site users to find the total 'loss' is less "astonishing ignorance" than the math being dismissed. les enfants Terrific! has a new favorite as of 07:16 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:At least it's refreshing when old coots are rightfully angry at each other as opposed to literal children Touche mon ami, touche. The children must suffer the sins of the fathers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Atasnaya Vaflja posted:Even if his bizarro math was correct, it amounts to less than a potential 1% of the current total earnings. It's less earnings than what the movie made in an hour its first weekend. Given the phrasing of the question, it also doesn't account for people who were on the fence, saw RoK bashing it and decided that maybe they should go see whats causing the drama. Their wording doesn't say anything other than 'did it affect your decision' not 'did it make you not go' Its amazing how a small change in wording can change the meaning of your statistic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
It also doesn't account for liars, who saw it anyway for whatever reason. The 900k number of visitors seems to assume everyone who visits the site did so in complete agreement with their message, with now gawkers or anything of the like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:It also doesn't account for liars, who saw it anyway for whatever reason. Yeah I would not be surprised if the vast majority of people going to ROK do so simply because somebody linked them an article saying "wow look at this loving idiot"
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:It also doesn't account for liars, who saw it anyway for whatever reason. Also the fact the poll is of less than 600 people
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:It also doesn't account for liars, who saw it anyway for whatever reason. I'll always think back to this cute little image whenever nerds talk about boycotting things.  (this screenshot was taken release day for MW2).
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
The person who caused my to post the comment about the eating healthy and such now is posting about scaaaarrry smart meter stuff. She posted an link to an a guy using a giger counter to measure the evil radiation coming off the smart meter its in french but its basically "smart meters are gonna kill us!" Thing is, why does his giger counter look like a prop from Star Trek? Also, is it calibrated properly? I know after fukushima, people were running up and down the west coast screaming about huge clouds of radiation they were detecting on their giger counters they bought off amazon, none of which had been properly set up so it picked up the regular background radiation of the planet and started screaming. http://www.ayoye.com/videos/un-quebecois-devoile-de-troublants-details-au-sujet-des-compteurs-intelligents/ It's really bad when you see someone you know fall for this kind of stuff again and again. I do have a friend who honestly thought Ammonia wasn't natural. Luckly when I explained that yes its totally natural, lots of bad things are natural, she didn't get upset.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:The person who caused my to post the comment about the eating healthy and such now is posting about scaaaarrry smart meter stuff. She posted an link to an a guy using a giger counter to measure the evil radiation coming off the smart meter I really don't understand how people still can't work out that natural isn't a magical word and chemical isn't a bad one. Then again, Chem major.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
Lol, is that an N64?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
Elderbean posted:Lol, is that an N64? Video games will evolve to become a tool for raising a new generation of men. Our current education system fails horribly at providing real information on how the world works, what motivates people, and how to get laid. More importantly, it pussifies men and turns them into starry-eyed believers in the Disney variety of life and love. The entire concept of sitting quietly and reading is meant for girls. Boys need the fight, the challenge, competition, and a test of their strength. Games were always learning tools. Now they can become a tool for learning greater masculinity. To become real men, boys must overcome challenges and find the true strength in themselves. Whether this is done in a virtual or real arena is irrelevant. By creating games that are consciously aimed at presenting a proper challenge, we can collectively make the world a better place for the next generation of men. And possibly help them get laid more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:That's not what they were designed to do. Yeah, you're right, I was misremembering slightly. The manner of testing that "IQ" is derived from was, however, developed for use in schools, to identify children who were performing below their expected level for their age and so might be in need of more specialist education, and even then it was just sorta cobbled together rather than designed in any rigorous manner. quote:In 1904 Binet was commissioned by the minister of public education to perform a study for a specific, practical purpose: to develop techniques for identifying those children whose lack of success in normal classrooms suggested the need for some form of special education. Binet chose a purely pragmatic course. He decided to bring together a large series of short tasks, related to everyday problems of life (counting coins, or assessing which face is "prettier," for example) , but supposedly involving such basic processes of reasoning as "direction (ordering) , comprehension, invention and censure (correction)" (Binet, 1909). Learned skills like reading would not be treated explicitly. The tests were administered individually by trained examiners who led subjects through the series of tasks, graded in their order of difficulty. Unlike previous tests designed to measure specific and independent "faculties" of mind, Binet's scale was a hodgepodge of diverse activities. He hoped that by mixing together enough tests of different abilities he would be able to abstract a child's general potential with a single score. Binet emphasized the empirical nature of his work with a famous dictum "One might almost say, 'It matters very little what the tests are so long as they are numerous.' "
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
The leaking period in that cartoon is a classy touch. I swear MRAs victimize themselves more than any other self-identified group on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
Fatkraken posted:Yeah, you're right, I was misremembering slightly. The manner of testing that "IQ" is derived from was, however, developed for use in schools, to identify children who were performing below their expected level for their age and so might be in need of more specialist education, and even then it was just sorta cobbled together rather than designed in any rigorous manner. This does leave out details of how it has grown tho, such as the fact that it gets refactored every decade or so to correct for drift(apparently, every 10 years or so average scores go up 15 points, so if you scored 100 on it 10 years ago you now have an IQ of 85, not 100).
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 10:26
|
|