|
LITERALLY A BIRD posted:I like LoB's gimmick because all he's really doing is delivering thread content. He doesn't participate in derails or slapfights, he just keeps producing terrible post after terrible post and the more disruptive the thread is being the deeper into the well he reaches. The whole thread is in on the gimmick now but a couple years ago it was really funny watching people get worked up over the person that was really the thread's content production superstar. When will you ban FAROOQ then? It's the most transparent gimmick.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 19:48
|
|
Tater Love 
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
I think the most effective way of dealing with FAROOQ is when the thread just ignores her entirely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Consistent posting of relevant content is not a gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
    
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
See I would assume "teenapers" is racist but he also wrote "apecial needs child" so maybe he just has apes on the brain
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
LITERALLY A BIRD posted:I think the most effective way of dealing with FAROOQ is when the thread just ignores her entirely. I called her ma'am once, and she accused me of misgendering 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:I would think racist would be a slur because it's a widely used insult meant to be insulting but this is hardly the place to talk about it tbh Women are not really capable of love. This truth pill is very hard to swallow, it is hard to internalize, especially, amongst young men and those in their teens. I write this to tell the young men of today why it is a waste of time and a drain of intellectual potentials to commit to a woman. Even as I'm a young man myself, I used to be a victim of the mass delusion that "women are very gentle"; "women are weak"; "women are morally superior"; etc. I thought women could love better than men, reason of which they were automatically given full custody of the children after a divorce. I used to trust women more than men...until...the illusory fog was lifted—until reality showed me how cold and cruel it is: that ALL that I knew about women were falsehoods dressed as truths. I'm more of an observer—and modestly speaking, a good one at that. I've never lived a relationship with a woman before but even that, I know a lot about dating and relationships just through observations. These are a few observations I made about both genders' attitudes towards love: 1. Women initially pretend to love a man—a facade that they so perfectly affect, that not only get ANY man fully smitten and deceived, but also lure the man to naively invest his FULL trust in her. This brings to mind, the wileful nature of fairytale mermaids who are so outwardly stunning, and would deliberately swim to the open to sing beautifully with their slender arms gracefully and teasingly brushing through their silky hair; doing this would not only drive the sailors crazily with infatuation but forcibly cause them to gravitate towards them...which eventually leads to their seaside fall. This is the exact nature of feminine love: to pretend; to lure; and to destroy. The feminine soul always marauds, seeking a masculine soul to devour, mercilessly. 2. Women have almost no grasp of romance. They mistakenly understand it to only mean "The man buying her flowers and gifts, and taking her on dates under her self-centred dictates and arrangements (as against mutual preferences arising out of a soul-deep love for each other)." So for women, romance means: "all about the woman," or "all about HER happiness, alone." It is no surprise all PROPER, romance literary works were the creations of masculine minds. Men almost always compromise their happiness and ideals just to make their women or girlfriends happy and satisfied—it is NEVER the opposite way round. All around me all I mostly see is men selflessly (there are exceptions to this though) spending on their women, tolerating all their (seriously speaking) insufferable whinings, vacuous talks and ingratitudes; these men still choose to see beyond these intolerable acts and strive to realize an appeasement. Seriously, in NO other universe or even alternate world is this allowed or even tolerated. 3. A woman's love (whether true or lustful) is always based on something (conditional). To be fair with this point, men can as well sometimes be conditional with their love, but this is only the case when what they feel for the woman is actually mere lust and not true love. If a man GENUINELY loves a woman, it is UNCONDITIONAL: he'd do nearly everything to have her, to keep her happy. This isn't the case for a woman who only cares about her interests and needs, firstly; and would most of the time not compromise any of them, and even if she does, it'd be under some conditions. In my observational experiences, whenever I see something that looks as a woman being "madly in love" with a man, it'd be primarily because of something the man has or possesses, such as wealth, power, intellect, status, etc. that the woman wishes to enjoy with the man and share it with him. For a man, it may be because of her looks but this silly to say because I oftentimes see men (some, even comparably more good-looking) being in serious relationships with outrightly ugly and obese women but hardly do I see a good-looking or even average-looking woman dating an ugly-looking man, not when when the man has something else to offer in order to overcompensate for their lack and poverty in good looks. 4. Mostly in relationships, the man contributes far more than the woman just so to see the relationship work. The woman always has other options (and she knows this) and doesn't really care if the relationship at all works. Her only contribution is her sexuality—which isn't fair because the man also has his own (sexuality) as well to give. The woman has this socially-ingrained, secret conception that it is her sexuality that most matters and is most valued, and therefore abuses this ill knowledge to get or rather, manipulate the man to do every other work there is to be done to make the relationship work. The man would buy her a car...build her a house...sponsor her in school...what for? To make her happy, so his relationship with her works. I rarely ever in real life see a woman strive to sustain a relationship (not implying this may not exist) except in those lies-laden and at odds-with-reality movies. 5. This may sound quite disputable but men (can) love children better than women. Most (I say this out of pattern reading of the feminine temperament, I may be wrong here) women use their children as a tool to enslave the man. Some women use their children as utilities to swindle resources and money out of the man, once again, for her own selfish benefits. Some can fake real love for their children so long as this keeps bringing home money and gifts. 6. Every woman always harbors feelings of jealousy: to have what is sometimes not even hers. It is this trait in women that inspires a constant feeling of dissatisfaction in them and an intense craving for more. You can NEVER satisfy her needs; you can only provide. And even all your provisions will still fail to buy her "love" (that is, if she even has any). This perpetual need for more drive women materially-addicted, and unable to stay attached to a single man. She'd jump on to whoever is ready to provide for her...wants, not even her needs. They base their desires and even their decisions on the grand, feminine groupthink. It's not worth a second focusing on or engaging with creatures incapable of something as necessary and delicate as love. All the Disney world lies and fairytale deceptions are attempts to inspire dangerous hopes in men of something that will never possibly even happen: a woman genuinely loving a man. It's hard to face this disillusionment but the earlier one does, the better—to avoid the perils that can consequently ensue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
PYF User-Submitted Pictures to the Golden Corral Community  
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
this is both hilarious and a massive bummer edit: my only experience with golden corral is walking up to one and seeing vomit all over the malfunctioning automatic doors
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
I love how they want to go through all that trouble instead of watching the trailer that's barely a minute and in no way racist at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
china bot posted:this is both hilarious and a massive bummer
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
jfc imgur  e: don't worry though he just happened to find some funny, expressive monkey pictures and he is in no way racist how dare you call him a racist Your Computer has a new favorite as of 21:27 on Feb 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
My family wants to take me target shooting with them because they think I need to know how to shoot a gun if I want to be a protester. I had rifle training in Girl Scouts, why do I need target practice with a pistol? I should talk to this guy and confuse him too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
As a follow up to my earlier post, I realised a logical proof that supports the theory that the Biblical references to Mary being a literal no-sex-ever virgin was a mistranslation of a word that has multiple meanings - Mary was barren. That's why the birth was so miraculous - she physically could not have children without divine intervention, her womb just didn't know what to do. How would she have known that? Any doctor diagnosing her, if she were a virgin, instead of saying she was barren would have just said "Try having sex. That might do it." The fact that they knew about her barrenness implies that Mary and Joseph had tried for a kid before the Jesus thing happened and failed badly enough that it was diagnosed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy lookin' good: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
BioEnchanted posted:As a follow up to my earlier post, I realised a logical proof that supports the theory that the Biblical references to Mary being a literal no-sex-ever virgin was a mistranslation of a word that has multiple meanings - Mary was barren. That's why the birth was so miraculous - she physically could not have children without divine intervention, her womb just didn't know what to do. How would she have known that? Any doctor diagnosing her, if she were a virgin, instead of saying she was barren would have just said "Try having sex. That might do it." The fact that they knew about her barrenness implies that Mary and Joseph had tried for a kid before the Jesus thing happened and failed badly enough that it was diagnosed. Don't try to horn in on LoB's gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
china bot posted:a massive bummer I have good news for you 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
BioEnchanted posted:As a follow up to my earlier post, I realised a logical proof that supports the theory that the Biblical references to Mary being a literal no-sex-ever virgin was a mistranslation of a word that has multiple meanings - Mary was barren. That's why the birth was so miraculous - she physically could not have children without divine intervention, her womb just didn't know what to do. How would she have known that? Any doctor diagnosing her, if she were a virgin, instead of saying she was barren would have just said "Try having sex. That might do it." The fact that they knew about her barrenness implies that Mary and Joseph had tried for a kid before the Jesus thing happened and failed badly enough that it was diagnosed. No, she had 3 kids before, and upon having the 3rd kid, she was raffled off to Joseph. Or something like that. /F+
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Pastry of the Year posted:I have good news for you thx and god bless
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Your Computer posted:jfc imgur This is particularly rich coming from the community that just seems to love black twitter image dumps. Also from a buncha loving racists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
LITERALLY A BIRD posted:I think the most effective way of dealing with FAROOQ is when the thread just ignores her entirely. dont misgender me
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Sorry, I read a post somewhere that made me think you're a girl and it stuck with me. Ignores him entirely. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Don't worry young Republican. Lots of people become Republican even though they were liberal when younger. I see a lot of people from high school that used to be cool and now are conservative poo poo-heads.  Young people are entitled, says a Baby Boomer. Can't they just walk into the nearest factory and ask the manager for a job? Lazy pricks. Speaking of conservative celebrities complaining, let's see what Mike Rowe is up to:  Oh. Of course you could read this both ways. Liberals: Trump is Fascist and the police will become worse (he just signed an Executive Order allowing police to be worse). Conservative: drat liberals and their riots and protesting. But Mike Rowe is conservative, so I would guess his comment is more geared toward the latter explanation. One of the comments was, "Behave in public and you won't be bothered by this image." bean_shadow has a new favorite as of 00:07 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
"wife slut"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/YesYoureRacist/status/829806167287353344
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
LITERALLY A BIRD posted:Sorry, I read a post somewhere that made me think you're a girl and it stuck with me. dont misgender me
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:I would think TERF would be a slur because it's a widely used insult meant to be insulting but this is hardly the place to talk about it tbh Yeah not to derail but this is interesting. quote:Deborah Cameron, a sociolinguistics professor, explains that we can reasonably decide if a word is a slur by asking certain questions such as, “Is the word commonly understood to convey hatred or contempt?” and, “What other words does the word tend to co-occur with?”
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
FAROOQ posted:dont misgender me Oh the irony! The Google definition of the term 'sexism' is strongly sexist by itself  Sooo....There is only ONE sex (gender) this applies to. Wow. google is a servant of The great Vagina... So... No error here. I guess when you're hired at google, you have to put your balls in a safe deposit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
FAROOQ posted:dont misgender me LOVED you in season mode for WWF SmackDown 2: Know Your Role for the Sony PlayStation
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Migos are making headlines and getting called out for their homophobia, though. It's a really big story and if you follow music news at all, it was everywhere. I love when people are like "WHY ISNT THE MEDIA COVERING THIS" in the comments of a super mainstream news source.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
ghost emoji posted:Migos are making headlines and getting called out for their homophobia, though. I thought they were just, like, eggs with stale tortilla chips crumbled up in them, they are a basic dish incapable of hating or fearing your garden-variety homo
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Oh the irony! The Google definition of the term 'sexism' is strongly sexist by itself "Servant of The Great Vagina" with a strong debut for 2017's sentence of the year award.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Six-Of-Hearts posted:"Servant of The Great Vagina" with a strong debut for 2017's sentence of the year award. Wait, is that not intended as a compliment? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
 the OP probably means well but large amounts of people ignoring racism allows the powerful hateful minority dictate policy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Dejawesp posted:
A lot of black people also think the term African American is stupid but not for reasons that he thinks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Dejawesp posted:
No he doesn't.      All by the same person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:A lot of black people also think the term African American is stupid but not for reasons that he thinks. Yeah I know black people can come from other continents than Africa and every now and then some British guy gets called "African American" but most people who take genuine issue with the term seem to be white guys who look to split hairs over other peoples cultural identity. On other peoples behalf.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
I'm fine with not using the acronym TERF but what is the preferred term to describe radical feminists who exclude trans women?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
Try finding a more fulfilling hobby than having pointless discussions with internet trolls that always end up sliding into jargon-filled slap-fests
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:07
|
|
