jackhunter64 posted:

Wasn't shitpost political assassination planning one of the reasons LF was closed?

sebzilla posted:

Jess Phillips is so poo poo, could anyone else not be doing this question ffs

quote:

One man’s take: If Greta Thunberg can talk about climate change, why can’t kids be prostitutes?

Justin Murphy, formerly “a respectable member of the organized left,” has provided the internet with a prime example of what not to tweet.

Hoping to piggyback on the dialogue inspired by Greta Thunberg’s impassioned speech at the United Nations yesterday, Murphy tweeted, “Not even being provocative but if you think Greta Thunberg has the maturity to guide global policy-making then you cannot object to Jeffrey Epstein paying 16-year-olds for sex.”

Justin Murphy
@jmrphy
Not even being provocative but if you think Greta Thunberg has the maturity to guide global policy-making then you cannot object to Jeffrey Epstein paying 16-year-olds for sex.

4,713
4:44 AM - Sep 25, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
20.9K people are talking about this
Murphy’s argument—that prostituting minors should be legal if people also listen to their opinions— was of the rarest quality: It brought together people from left, right and center. As one, united voice, they annihilated him. This will be a familiar experience for the former University of Southampton professor who once opined that people who are pro-choice should also support necrophilia.

“Definitely not being provocative, but Justin Murphy has never once registered in broader consciousness except by comparing things to paedophilia, necrophilia, eugenics, and so on. It’s like clockwork. Just when you think he’ll never be mentioned again, this schtick reappears,” said one presumably horrified person. “This dude has the tremor from Tremors plus Kevin Bacon in his brain,” another quipped.

“Not even being provocative but if you think teenagers get to have political opinions then maybe child rape is also fine? Like and subscribe for more libertarian takes using epic logic,” @classiclib3ral responded.

etc

forkboy84 posted:

Have just gone back to watch this and honestly, I don't particularly like Jess Phillips but I thought her question was good and she handled it very well.

sebzilla posted:

It was still very heavy on I, me etc.

notaspy posted:

And the best reason would be to completely pwn David Cameron and his tweet.

Jaeluni Asjil posted:

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/justin-murphy-greta-thunberg-jeffrey-epstein

Guavanaut posted:

Kurtofan posted:

oh poo poo bald spot

https://twitter.com/Essence/status/1176839497423695872

Tsaedje posted:

I've never understood why everyone was so sure Harry isn't Charles' kid. 'He has the same hair colour as a different toff' isn't a strong argument when they're all inbred with each other

Tijuana Bibliophile posted:

anyone else starting to get nostalgic for the long gone days of rock bottom

CyberPingu posted:

It coincided with Diana having an affair with another chap didn't it?

Private Speech posted:

I imagine having a DNA sample of the ruling fam would be reasonably standard.

Guavanaut posted:

Charles is Harry's dad because it says so on the birth certificate and because he considers Charles his dad and Charles considers him his son. ~10% of people have a different biodad to their dad, some people even have a different biomam.

Obsession with blood and biofam is dumb and tied up with 'cuck' logic and the right. You could argue it's fair game with Harry because the Royals literally run on right wing blood and biofam logic, but like mock them for that and the 50 other reasons that they're terrible rather than Cuck Charles stuff.

It should be disposed of like the Russian and American smallpox samples should be. Can't risk more.

Tsaedje posted:

I've never understood why everyone was so sure Harry isn't Charles' kid. 'He has the same hair colour as a different toff' isn't a strong argument when they're all inbred with each other

Tsaedje posted:

I've never understood why everyone was so sure Harry isn't Charles' kid. 'He has the same hair colour as a different toff' isn't a strong argument when they're all inbred with each other

Angrymog posted:

As someone who's instinctive reaction to being hugged by surprise is to tell the hugger to gently caress off, someone who keeps getting 'too friendly' when drunk, who keeps drinking in a social situation, needs to not be near me when they're drunk. (Not one of Josef's RL friends, just someone who seems to have the same boundaries).

He may be a sweetheart most of the time, but he doesn't have a right to make people uncomfortable.

forkboy84 posted:

p
But yes, none of this actually matters.

Guavanaut posted:

Charles is Harry's dad because it says so on the birth certificate and because he considers Charles his dad and Charles considers him his son. ~10% of people have a different biodad to their dad, some people even have a different biomam.

Obsession with blood and biofam is dumb and tied up with 'cuck' logic and the right. You could argue it's fair game with Harry because the Royals literally run on right wing blood and biofam logic, but like mock them for that and the 50 other reasons that they're terrible rather than Cuck Charles stuff.

It should be disposed of like the Russian and American smallpox samples should be. Can't risk more.

Jollity Farm posted:

I'm quite sure I remember a news story from several years ago that said that Harry had had a blood test that confirmed that Charles was his father (and that Diana always insisted that her affair with James Hewitt started after Harry was born). But I don't think it even matters very much in terms of royal succession nerdery, since Harry is several people away from the throne anyway. It's really just being nosy about the love lives of complete strangers, which I find dreary no matter who it is.

Guavanaut posted:

Charles is Harry's dad because it says so on the birth certificate and because he considers Charles his dad and Charles considers him his son. ~10% of people have a different biodad to their dad, some people even have a different biomam.

Obsession with blood and biofam is dumb and tied up with 'cuck' logic and the right. You could argue it's fair game with Harry because the Royals literally run on right wing blood and biofam logic, but like mock them for that and the 50 other reasons that they're terrible rather than Cuck Charles stuff.
more.

Miftan posted:

I have a strong dislike of capitalism.

Flayer posted:

It matters a whole loving lot because this is a hereditary royal family we're talking about. The whole basis for their continued existence and why its them is based on parentage.

Nothing else is actually more important to the institution of royalty. I'm a roundhead myself so I say get rid of the lot of them but saying that who their parents are doesn't matter is a mega dumb take.

Miftan posted:

I have a strong dislike of capitalism.

Jollity Farm posted:

I'm quite sure I remember a news story from several years ago that said that Harry had had a blood test that confirmed that Charles was his father (and that Diana always insisted that her affair with James Hewitt started after Harry was born). But I don't think it even matters very much in terms of royal succession nerdery, since Harry is several people away from the throne anyway. It's really just being nosy about the love lives of complete strangers, which I find dreary no matter who it is.

Miftan posted:

I have a strong dislike of capitalism.