Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Push El Burrito
May 9, 2006

Soiled Meat

empty whippet box posted:

I have seen them used that way plenty of times but mostly with alcohol.

Such a product does not exist, sir. You must have dreamed it.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Lemniscate Blue
Apr 21, 2006

Here we go again.

empty whippet box posted:

I have seen them used that way plenty of times but mostly with alcohol.

The only people I have ever seen make skittles vodka have been white sorority girls.

Keeshhound
Jan 14, 2010

Mad Duck Swagger

Push El Burrito posted:

Such a product does not exist, sir. You must have dreamed it.

:hfive:

Hunt11
Jul 24, 2013

Grimey Drawer
Skittles sounds like something you might throw into the mix to make jungle juice.

BiggerBoat
Sep 26, 2007

Don't you tell me my business again.

Lemniscate Blue posted:

I loving loved how every right-wing media rear end in a top hat and blogger became an instant expert in recreational drug concoctions following the murder, up to and including thinking that Skittles were an essential ingredient.

What?

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

it's something children do to alcohol and is a half remembered telephone version of how to make purple drink (its just cough syrup/codiene/promithizene with a soda mixer folks) repeated by racists in a blind panic trying to figure out how to cast a teenager's purchase of candy and soda as the actions of a hardcore junkie

Pirate Radar
Apr 18, 2008

You're not my Ruthie!
You're not my Debbie!
You're not my Sherry!
It's like constructive possession but missing, y'know, the actual drugs

ToxicSlurpee
Nov 5, 2003

-=SEND HELP=-


Pillbug

Had to make the victim a hardened criminal somehow!

ZDar Fan
Oct 15, 2012

This piece of poo poo is at it again

https://twitter.com/scrowder/status/881972147194916865

HackensackBackpack
Aug 20, 2007

Who needs a house out in Hackensack? Is that all you get for your money?

You'r.

bango skank
Jan 15, 2008

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

If anything they looked more annoyed that he wasted their time than afraid of anything.

Also good job stealing and doing an unfunny recreation of a 20 year old Amazing Racist bit.

Groovelord Neato
Dec 6, 2014



it's actually people misremembering a simpsons gag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipg3XYz7f9Q

Avirosb
Nov 21, 2016

Everyone makes pisstakes

bango skank posted:

If anything they looked more annoyed that he wasted their time than afraid of anything.

Also good job stealing and doing an unfunny recreation of a 20 year old Amazing Racist bit.

NO, IT'S HILARIOUS DAMMIT. HILARIOUS!

quote:

Steven Crowder goes undercover to "steal" work from illegal immigrants by underbidding them for their jobs.
Hilarity ensues as we quickly learn these Mexicans don't have a great affinity for white people or competition!

UmOk
Aug 3, 2003

I like how he includes GOD and treating people like poo poo in the same post.

WampaLord
Jan 14, 2010

UmOk posted:

I like how he includes GOD and treating people like poo poo in the same post.

Read any Old Testament lately?

RasperFat
Jul 11, 2006

Uncertainty is inherently unsustainable. Eventually, everything either is or isn't.

UmOk posted:

I like how he includes GOD and treating people like poo poo in the same post.

Easily 20% of Americans are the crazy rear end regressive brand of Christians. Another 20% at least halfway agrees with them.

It's actually kind of scary that all the chill Christians seem to getting more shadowed by the toxic evangelical movements, which unfortunately seem to be the ones spreading most abroad.

Their unholy alliance with the RWM has been a great boon for filling their ranks and purses. Assholes like Crowder, true believer or not, cash in on this kind of pandering all the time.

The Muppets On PCP
Nov 13, 2016

by Fluffdaddy

RasperFat posted:

It's actually kind of scary that all the chill Christians seem to getting more shadowed by the toxic evangelical movements, which unfortunately seem to be the ones spreading most abroad.

evangelical denominations have been shrinking as fast as mainline protestants for the past decade, which is why they've been putting so much into mission trips abroad


quote:

Up until about a decade ago, most of the decline among white Protestants was confined to mainline Protestants, such as Episcopalians, United Methodists, or Presbyterians, who populate the more liberal branch of the white Protestant family tree. The mainline numbers dropped earlier and more sharply — from 24 percent of the population in 1988 to 14 percent in 2012, at which time their numbers generally stabilized.

But over the last decade, we have seen marked decline among white evangelical Protestants, the more conservative part of the white Protestant family. White evangelical Protestants comprised 22 percent of the population in 1988 and still commanded 21 percent of the population in 2008, but their share of the religious market had slipped to 18 percent at the time the book went to press, and our latest 2015 numbers show an additional one-percentage-point slip to 17 percent.

These indicators of white evangelical decline at the national level are corroborated, for example, by internal membership reports during the same period from the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest evangelical Protestant denomination in the country. It has now posted nine straight years of declining growth rates.

As a result, both white mainline Protestants and white evangelical Protestants are graying. In 1972, white Protestants’ median age was 46 years old, only slightly higher than the median age of the American population (44 years old). Today, white Protestants’ median age is 53, compared to 46 among Americans as a whole. Notably, by 2014, there was no difference between the median ages of white evangelical and mainline Protestants.


ironically given the racial attitudes white evangelicals largely share the only thing slowing the overall evangelical decline is increased hispanic membership

The Muppets On PCP fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Jul 4, 2017

Cythereal
Nov 8, 2009

I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.

The Muppets On PCP posted:

evangelical denominations have been shrinking as fast as mainline protestants for the past decade, which is why they've been putting so much into mission trips abroad



ironically given the racial attitudes white evangelicals largely share the only thing slowing the overall evangelical decline is increased hispanic membership

Yup. I grew up Southern Baptist and then proceeded to leave it in college and never look back specifically because of how conservative it's gotten. I'm still a fan of the core theology, but the problem is I'm in favor of things like giving equal rights and rites to women and gay people. I'm not the only one of my generation in the church I grew up in who left for similar reasons, either.

RedSpider
May 12, 2017


This guy and Shapiro are easily the worst examples of trust fund kids with superiority complexes.

Feldegast42
Oct 29, 2011

COMMENCE THE RITE OF SHITPOSTING


The fun thing about being a firm Christian in my own life (and him claiming to be a firm Christian himself) is that I can tell him to go to hell and it actually means something.

Screaming Idiot
Nov 26, 2007

JUST POSTING WHILE JERKIN' MY GHERKIN SITTIN' IN A PERKINS!

BEATS SELLING MERKINS.

Feldegast42 posted:

The fun thing about being a firm Christian in my own life (and him claiming to be a firm Christian himself) is that I can tell him to go to hell and it actually means something.

I was gonna make some dumbass sarcastic response to this about judgment, but no, you're actually good here.

Mr Interweb
Aug 25, 2004

WampaLord posted:

Read any Old Testament lately?

I still remember learning a few years ago that the New Testament was created to say that you can totally ignore everything in the Old Testament, and having my mind blown that this was an actual thing.

Speaking of right-wing Christians, I recently saw a movie called The Case For Christ (though, I assure you, it wasn't by choice). It's based on a book by this douchebag named Lee Strobel, who I never heard of until then. The basic plot of this movie is that Strobel's wife wants to convert to Christianity, and Lee, who is an atheist, is 100% opposed to the idea, and thinks the only way to save her is by interviewing several random people to argue that the resurrection never happened, and thus without that, the entire religion falls apart. The problem though, is that pretty much every person he interviews makes him doubt his own atheist beliefs more and more, and by the end of the movie, he comes to the realization that the Christians got this one right.

Shockingly enough, I have to say the movie wasn't that bad. Well, at least not as bad as something you'd expect to come out of a company like Pureflix (the guys behind such legendary films like God is Not Dead and I Am Not Ashamed). I mean, there's a lot of dumb stuff here for sure. For example, Strobel sees a Catholic Priest who tells him that The Bible has to be an accurate and truthful source because there were more copies of that printed than any other book in history. In another scene, Strobel meets up with an psychologist who is supposed to be "agnostic", but seems to think that Strobel's atheism is the result of having a lovely relationship with his dad (implying that if he had a good relationship, he'd be a wonderful, god-fearin' Christian). And probably my favorite part, when Strobel gets so upset at his wife's conversion that he drinks himself into a rage-filled state of depression and yells "YOU'VE BEEN CHEATING ON ME! WITH JESUS!".

But aside from the aforementioned stuff and some other instances of facile reasoning, and unintentional comedy, there's nothing really revolting or offensive about this movie. Nobody dies for not submitting to the will of Jesus Christ, there's no implication that atheists, muslims, or Jews are evil. There's no moral about why gay marriage or abortion is bad. I'd never want to watch it again, but if I had to, I could actually tolerate it, which is much more than I can say for any Pureflix flick I've seen up until now.

No, the most offensive thing I saw wasn't even in the film itself. It was actually in a bonus feature where they did a group interview with the lead cast and the key people involved in production. The interviewer asked the producer what final words he has for the people who would want to watch the film, and this scumbag basically said something along the lines of "Well, I implore every single person of faith to watch this movie, even if they're struggling for money, because it's such an important film and is basically your duty as a good Christian to do so". I'm paraphrasing, but that's essentially what he said. He straight up said that even if you're strapped for cash, you should find a way to come up with it to see his lovely film. That really didn't sit right with me. It's fine to sell your movie, I get that. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone try to convince people like this, especially saying that it's a goddamned obligation? Really? gently caress off.

Mr Interweb fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jul 5, 2017

RedSpider
May 12, 2017

It really is a shame and hilarious how right-wing Christians and conservatives essentially ignore everything Jesus said and taught; such the bits about selflessly helping the poor, controlling greed (capitalism), loving your enemy, etc. The Bible -- especially the New Testament -- was so revolutionary for its time. Most people, especially the younger generation, have a bad taste in their mouths about the Gospels thanks to sanctimonious and deceptive shitheads such as Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News, and so on.

fishmech
Jul 16, 2006

by VideoGames
Salad Prong

Mr Interweb posted:

I still remember learning a few years ago that the New Testament was created to say that you can totally ignore everything in the Old Testament.

Depending on which book of it you read, the Old Testament either is not binding at all, is partially binding, is mostly binding but sometimes there's new rules to follow instead, or you should basically be a fully compliant Jew of the current time (meaning early first century) and also obey Christian teachings on top.

This was never harmonized out, largely because there wasn't the sort of time and gaps in continuity that would be required to fully removed whichever interpretations were disfavored. You can see remnants of attempts to do that in various old copies of the New Testament though.

NikkolasKing
Apr 3, 2010



RedSpider posted:

It really is a shame and hilarious how right-wing Christians and conservatives essentially ignore everything Jesus said and taught; such the bits about selflessly helping the poor, controlling greed (capitalism), loving your enemy, etc. The Bible -- especially the New Testament -- was so revolutionary for its time. Most people, especially the younger generation, have a bad taste in their mouths about the Gospels thanks to sanctimonious and deceptive shitheads such as Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News, and so on.

I saw a video on YT where George Galloway talked to callers on some radio show and one lady called in to try and argue about the "render unto Caesar" thing because George was, IIRC, talking about the politics of the New Testament. The caller wanted to say Jesus just had spiritual messages, not political ones. George countered with "what about his doctrine towards the poor? What about turning over the money changers in the Temple? These aren't political opinions?" Concluded with saying Jesus was a socialist, which seems right so far as I know. (I'm reading the Bible for the first time)

fishmech posted:

Depending on which book of it you read, the Old Testament either is not binding at all, is partially binding, is mostly binding but sometimes there's new rules to follow instead, or you should basically be a fully compliant Jew of the current time (meaning early first century) and also obey Christian teachings on top.

This was never harmonized out, largely because there wasn't the sort of time and gaps in continuity that would be required to fully removed whichever interpretations were disfavored. You can see remnants of attempts to do that in various old copies of the New Testament though.

And some people back in the day thought of just throwing the whole OT out.

NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Jul 5, 2017

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.

RedSpider posted:

It really is a shame and hilarious how right-wing Christians and conservatives essentially ignore everything Jesus said and taught; such the bits about selflessly helping the poor, controlling greed (capitalism), loving your enemy, etc. The Bible -- especially the New Testament -- was so revolutionary for its time. Most people, especially the younger generation, have a bad taste in their mouths about the Gospels thanks to sanctimonious and deceptive shitheads such as Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News, and so on.

Megyn Kelly: Gov Kasich, can you assure Republicans that you'll put Republicanism over God and his desire for you to care for the needy?
Megyn Kelly: Gov Kasich, would you still love your daughter if she was gay?

I don't like Kasich or anything but I'll always laugh at that time he got rejected from a Republican primary that Donald Trump won because he was just too darn Christian.

Edible Hat
Jul 23, 2007

by FactsAreUseless
There are plenty of great movies with Christian themes, but the fact that they were all made by lapsed Christians from Europe about a half-century ago means that the type of people who watch Pureflix films are never going to see them.

Groovelord Neato
Dec 6, 2014


the documentary about cleanflix was real good.

Keeshhound
Jan 14, 2010

Mad Duck Swagger

NikkolasKing posted:

Concluded with saying Jesus was a socialist, which seems right so far as I know. (I'm reading the Bible for the first time)

The early Christians were literal communists.

Lemniscate Blue
Apr 21, 2006

Here we go again.

fishmech posted:

Depending on which book of it you read, the Old Testament either is not binding at all, is partially binding, is mostly binding but sometimes there's new rules to follow instead, or you should basically be a fully compliant Jew of the current time (meaning early first century) and also obey Christian teachings on top.

This was never harmonized out, largely because there wasn't the sort of time and gaps in continuity that would be required to fully removed whichever interpretations were disfavored. You can see remnants of attempts to do that in various old copies of the New Testament though.

Bart Ehrman is a good author to read on this topic, particularly Lost Christianities. Very different interpretations of what being a Christian meant to the early faithful were all over the place, and there's a lot we don't know because the only writings that survived were the ones from the precursors of the sects that "won" at the various councils.

Vargatron
Apr 19, 2008

MRAZZLE DAZZLE


One of my coworkers apparently watches Louder with Crowder during his lunch break and I shake my head in disgust every time I walk by his desk.

Meatball
Mar 2, 2003

That's a Spicy Meatball

Pillbug

STAC Goat posted:

Megyn Kelly: Gov Kasich, can you assure Republicans that you'll put Republicanism over God and his desire for you to care for the needy?
Megyn Kelly: Gov Kasich, would you still love your daughter if she was gay?



Wait, was he actually asked these questions?!

Tatsuta Age
Apr 21, 2005
Probation
Can't post for 23 hours!

Meatball posted:

Wait, was he actually asked these questions?!

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/08/john_kasich_during_gop_debate.html

Twelve by Pies
May 4, 2012

Again a very likpatous story
It's always incredible to see Scott Adams show just how ignorant he is of the Korean situation, he comes up with the stupidest plans that would never work in reality and acts like he's the world's greatest genius for coming up with them.

Dilbertman posted:

I have some spare time this morning so I thought I would solve the North Korean nuclear threat problem.

The current frame on how all sides are approaching the problem is a win-lose setup. Either North Korea wins – and develops nukes that can reach the mainland USA – or the United States wins, and North Korea abandons its nuclear plans, loses face, loses leverage, and loses security. Our current framing of the situation doesn’t have a path to success.

So how do you fix that situation?

First we must acknowledge that a win-lose model has no chance of success in this specific case because North Korea responds to threats by working harder to build nukes. That’s no good. You need some form of a win-win setup to make any kind of deal. That’s what I’m about to suggest. And by winning, I mean both sides get what they need, even if it isn’t exactly what they said they want.

What the U.S. wants is a nuclear-free North Korea. That would be our win.

What North Korea wants is an ironclad national defense, prestige, prosperity, and maybe even reunification of the Koreas on their terms. So let me describe a way to get there.

The main principle to keep in mind is that you can almost always reach a deal when two parties want different things. If we frame the situation as North Korea wanting nuclear weapons, and the U.S. not wanting them to have those nukes, no deal can be reached. There is no way for North Korea to simultaneously have nukes while having no nukes.

So you need to reframe the situation. The following deal structure does that.

Proposed North Korean Peace Deal

China, Russia, and U.S. sign a military security agreement to protect

BOTH

North Korea and South Korea from attack

BY ANYONE

for 100 years, in return for North Korea suspending its ICBM and nuclear weapons programs and allowing inspectors to confirm they are sticking to the deal.


At the end of a hundred years, North Korea and South Korea agree to unify under one rule. No other details on how that happens will be in the agreement. North Korea will be free to tell its people that the Kim dynasty negotiated to be the rulers of the unified country in a hundred years. South Korea will be free to announce that unification is a goal with no details attached. We will all be dead in 100 years, so we can agree to anything today. (That’s the key to making this work – all players will be dead before the end of it.)

The U.S. withdraws military assets from South Korea.

South Korea and North Korea reduce their non-nuclear military assets that point at each other.

Over the course of the 100-year deal, there could be a number of confidence-building steps in the agreement. For example, in ten years you might have a robust tourist arrangement. In twenty years, perhaps you can do business across borders. In fifty years, perhaps a unified currency (by then digital).

A hundred years is plenty of time for the Kim family to make their fortunes and move to Switzerland, or wherever, before unification is an issue. The deal might require some sort of International amnesty agreement for any North Korean leaders looking to get out of the country before unification.

Under this proposed deal structure all sides get what they want. North Korea’s leader can tell his people that their nuclear program was a big success because it resulted in the United States withdrawing forces, and it led to an eventual Korean unification on his terms. There is no opposition press in North Korea to dispute that framing. This looks like total victory to North Korea. That’s a win.

For the United States, a credible deal to get rid of North Korean nukes is a win. China and Russia would look like the adults in the room. They win too.

South Korea wins too, obviously.

And this deal would probably result in Nobel Peace Prizes for the leaders of all countries involved.

Students of history will recall that Great Britain agreed to lease Hong Kong from China for 99 years to avoid any risk of China taking Hong Kong militarily. The long lease period allowed both countries to agree to a deal that could not have been reached for a shorter time period. And it gave everyone time to plan for the peaceful transfer. No two situations are alike, but you can see how a hundred-year deal makes it easy to agree to difficult things today. We’ll all be dead before any of it matters. And if you work toward a common goal for a hundred years, the odds are good that it can happen. One way or another.

This is the sort of deal that would have been impossible in prior years. But the Trump administration understands the structure of dealmaking. This solution is available for the taking.

I think Adams' big problem is that he is under the impression that Kim Jong Un is a perfectly reasonable and rational man, and probably just wants to be rich, rather than a complete psychopath who cares only about maintaining his iron grip on the country.

Tatsuta Age
Apr 21, 2005
Probation
Can't post for 23 hours!
I think his big problem is his broken rear end brain

Pierson
Oct 31, 2004



College Slice

Twelve by Pies posted:

I think Adams' big problem is that he is under the impression that Kim Jong Un is a perfectly reasonable and rational man, and probably just wants to be rich, rather than a complete psychopath who cares only about maintaining his iron grip on the country.
Is Kim Jong Un even the actual leader of the country or is he a figurehead for those military generals who shadow him everywhere?

Not that it really matters I guess since either way they are all 100% invested in keeping their inhumane system running I assume.

sweart gliwere
Jul 5, 2005

better to die an evil wizard,
than to live as a grand one.
Pillbug

Keeshhound posted:

The early Christians were literal communists.

Just ask Ananias and his wife Sapphira! They'll tell you the one simple trick to be a capitalist Christian.

http://biblehub.com/acts/5.htm for the first eleven verses without the individual click-through interface

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Pierson posted:

Is Kim Jong Un even the actual leader of the country or is he a figurehead for those military generals who shadow him everywhere?

Not that it really matters I guess since either way they are all 100% invested in keeping their inhumane system running I assume.

a little of both, the Kim family are figureheads to some degree but when you're the center of a weird personality cult you're important no matter how much the junta doesn't want you to be

Beowulfs_Ghost
Nov 6, 2009

Pierson posted:

Is Kim Jong Un even the actual leader of the country or is he a figurehead for those military generals who shadow him everywhere?

Not that it really matters I guess since either way they are all 100% invested in keeping their inhumane system running I assume.

It is a question that doesn't get asked enough. Especially given the long human history of god-emperors turning out to be little more than figureheads for the bureaucracy.

It is kind of important, because it is often the case that people will fight to the death for a cult of personality, but not for a faceless bureaucrat.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BiggerBoat
Sep 26, 2007

Don't you tell me my business again.

Vargatron posted:

One of my coworkers apparently watches Louder with Crowder during his lunch break and I shake my head in disgust every time I walk by his desk.

^^^God drat: this.^^^

So many of my coworkers would spend their lunch breaks sitting in their lovely cars eating Wonder Bread baloney sandwiches or Big Macs in the parking lot soaking up "information" on the radio explaining why liberals and foreigners are the reason they can't get a raise, more paid vacation and sick time pay. Makes me sad, like the "training" videos they make you watch at Wal-Mart describing why unions are bad.

Americans are getting what they deserve, sadly.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply