|
Priests can but the bishops or patriarchs or whatever have to be cerebrates e: I think
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
whether it's an intentional goal or not is up for debate on a case-by-case basis but alt-righters convincing each other to not jerk off helps give them another frustration that needs to be vented and directed toward the world
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Priests can but the bishops or patriarchs or whatever have to be cerebrates Kerrigan didn't have to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Priests can but the bishops or patriarchs or whatever have to be cerebrates who gets to be Zeratul in this scenario?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:whether it's an intentional goal or not is up for debate on a case-by-case basis but alt-righters convincing each other to not jerk off helps give them another frustration that needs to be vented and directed toward the world It’s actually so they save their cummies for each other
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 05:41
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:a lot of alt right people are obsessed with masturbation sapping your Bodily Fluids. yeah i know that, but i was mainly asking about that particular term speaking of which: https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1206583253613735936 (that whole thread'a a trip)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 06:48
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1206583253613735936 yeah weird it's almost like biology isn't the sole motivating factor. but what else could it be
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 06:52
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Ya it's a thousand percent sincere lol Well I don't doubt you. I just always assumed liberals were legitimately just gormless and feeble rather than insidious. Like someone who would watch a person get viciously beaten right in front of them while scolding people across the street for not helping; turns out they're also doing some of the kicking. Siljmonster posted:yes, history has proven this over and over again, even within the last 100 years! Sedisp posted:Of all the historical examples we have yes they do. Okay I see it now. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" and all that garbage. Gizmoduck_5000 has issued a correction as of 06:58 on Dec 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 06:53
|
|
|
Gizmoduck_5000 posted:Well I don't doubt you. I just always assumed liberals were legitimately just gormless and feeble rather than insidious. they don't start out kicking, they start going both sides and tut tutting the violence but they will as the fascists start to take hold and the left starts to retreat liberals have no spine and no political will besides "maintain the status quo that keeps me comfortable" fascism is a liberal democracy's immune system cascade when it encounters an economic crisis it can't solve, liberals will choose the side that preserves their place in society and socialism doesn't offer that
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
sonatinas posted:cross post from Trump thread Are Proud Boys still pretending to be anti-racist? "Western chauvinist" is exactly what you would get if you typed white nationalist into thesaurus.com and it's right there in their manifesto.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 07:08
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:they don't start out kicking, they start going both sides and tut tutting the violence but they will as the fascists start to take hold and the left starts to retreat Okay, I'm getting mixed up as to who "liberal" refers to here. Are we talking those within the general populace who lagged behind the overton windows rightward shift? Because if they're in the working class, they don't have much status quo to protect. Is there a more formal definition I'm unaware of? I'm not super well-versed in political theory. I'm just kind of a left-leaning, high school educated blue-collar guy who doesn't want to see people starve. Gizmoduck_5000 has issued a correction as of 07:13 on Dec 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:yeah i know that, but i was mainly asking about that particular term Material effects on life choices? Influencing MY social-political setting?! It's more common than you think!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:yeah i know that, but i was mainly asking about that particular term this is something i see at my job, withotu the weird focus on womens fertility. i have a couple clients in their 90s who realize now that leaving their kids all their money in their 60's and 70's doesnt leave them with a lot of utility for the money, and have started giving them the maximum gift amount before taxation every year i thought a guy who worked at "thiel capital" wound have a basic understanding of this but then i learned that they just manage thiels money and nobody elses so of course hes a massive weirdo with no understanding of personal financial planning beyond the insanely wealthy
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 08:21
|
|
|
cumshitter posted:a while back someone posted an article by a female doctor who studies sex and biology (forget the exact details) and basically the guy who ran NoFap was organizing and encouraging harassment of her for daring to point out that there is no biological benefit to not jerking off cumshitter, if you by any chance have an interest in A) frequent ejaculation, B) proper prostate health, or C) chuds giving themselves cancer, you may be pleased to learn that, according to The Harvard Ejaculation Study, quote:Compared to men who reported 4–7 ejaculations per month across their lifetimes, men who ejaculated 21 or more times a month enjoyed a 31% lower risk of prostate cancer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 08:21
|
|
|
just diong my part in the war on prostate cancer
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
cumshitter plz inject infected blood into peter thiel
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 08:32
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1206583253613735936 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 08:50
|
|
|
that's eric of tim and eric fame right
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 08:59
|
|
|
bad job
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 09:12
|
|
|
"I AM the false flag inside job" will be quite the defensive strat for chuds going fwd
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 09:15
|
|
|
Gizmoduck_5000 posted:I'm just kind of a left-leaning, high school educated blue-collar guy who doesn't want to see people starve. "Wow, get a load of this commie thinking that other human beings don't deserve to starve. To the camps with you!" - something anti-communists actually believe
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 09:20
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:"I AM the false flag inside job" will be quite the defensive strat for chuds going fwd quote:"Almost everything was at the behest of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," Orozco said in a 45-minute telephone interview from New Jersey. "Their job was to pick up information on the responses of what he was saying and see where that led them. It was an interesting dynamic on what he was being asked to do."
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 09:27
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:key graf in the wired article judge didn't buy it, Turner was jailed again for threatening officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Turner#Arrests,_trials,_and_conviction (with little blue numbers)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 10:47
|
|
|
divabot posted:judge didn't buy it, Turner was jailed again for threatening officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Turner#Arrests,_trials,_and_conviction (with little blue numbers) Even if that were true "The FBI asked me to do it" has never been a good defense, even when its obvious entrapment
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 10:53
|
|
|
this jan. 20 thing in virginia over a gun bill is a big rallying cry. there's a dual tendency here because the organizers seem to be trying to cool it on the more radical stuff and just turn it into a peaceful law-abiding lobby-at-the-capitol day (my guess as to the likely outcome), while the other tendency is incipient civil war / mass shooter memes on /pol/ etc. you don't need the FBI to get fascists to put that stuff out. but the role of hal turner here makes me wonder whether some of this stuff is like a carrot, or while i'm struggling for analogies, something like the feds hitting the right with a big stick to see what shakes loose
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 11:25
|
|
|
i'm just speculating. but like the graf said, turner's thing was to ramp up the rhetoric so the feds could study the responses and presumably tag people. i also vaguely recall weev claiming to have bullied turner out of the movement back during /pol/'s early years, like that was a big success to get rid of the informants so the alt-right could riiiiiise, but weev says a lot of poo poo so take that with a giant heaping of salt. but if /pol/ just got taken over by the same boomers in the end, how successful was it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 11:29
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:that's eric of tim and eric fame right no
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Gizmoduck_5000 posted:Okay, I'm getting mixed up as to who "liberal" refers to here. The confusion is probably over the way that most of society uses "liberal" as a catch-all term for anyone left of center and the more specific use of it on the left to refer to pro-capitalist folks who support progressive issues, but only if it doesn't materially impact them. In the left sense of "liberal", you'll see an upper middle class person who votes for marriage equality, but will vote against a small tax increase to pay for school lunches for every student, or who fights against universal healthcare because they are fine and everyone who isn't just needs to get better jobs or work harder, or whose primary concern about for profit prisons is that they hire enough women and PoCs as guards. They're folks for whom the current economic system works well. They may not mind some changes or some expansion of social programs, but they absolutely will not tolerate anything they perceive as a threat to their position in the economic order. History shows that when a threat comes from the left, they readily partner with the right, even the antidemocratic far right, to maintain their position and prevent change, even in the face of popular support for change. Also, it's important to understand that this isn't theoretical, this has happened literally every time a popular leftist movement rises.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
it's a hard thing to pin down because the role of the 'liberal' in capitalism is to have a shifting form in times of no threats to the status quo, their duty is to give a smiling face and moral veneer to grim austerity and corporate plunder, and to help it along by any means necessary. See: The Dubbya years and the Iraq War in times of threats, as we're seeing now, their duty is to co-op the burgeoning left in every way they possibly can, and to weaken and pump the breaks on any progress. The former they do instinctively because they have so completely internalized the dominant ideology of corporate domination of all things that they believe there can be no other way, and because the system gives them enough crumbs to prevent them from questioning anything they never do the latter they also do instinctively, as one of the first forms movements to their left take is a moral one that undermines their entire worldview and thus poses an existential threat. That their reaction is not introspection but rather to ape the new moral center while doing all they can to destroy it (see: how everybody is running on M4A but actually only one person is still) is not a coincidence. When liberals boot up Twitter and see stuff like BronzeHammer's tweet about the outcomes being bad but the causes being good, or "*takes a deep breath* we gotta get more racist" it instigates a fight and flight response - they fight the left, and fly to the fascists, because at the end of the day they'll never personally do anything good unless forced to at knife-point it's also why so much of the left seems to loathe liberals far more than reactionaries or conservatives, and why you see Fox News having more socialists on than MSNBC
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:The confusion is probably over the way that most of society uses "liberal" as a catch-all term for anyone left of center and the more specific use of it on the left to refer to pro-capitalist folks who support progressive issues, but only if it doesn't materially impact them. The problem with this has always been that left-liberals are a thing. Roosevelt was undeniably a liberal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Norton the First posted:The problem with this has always been that left-liberals are a thing. Roosevelt was undeniably a liberal. The GOP has been engaged in a multi-decade fight to clamp down on any economic populist sentiment from their base and it's had the side effect of pushing out liberals who at least like to play at caring about the less fortunate. The Democratic Party was quite happy to accept them and that faction won control of the party in the aftermath of the Civil Rights voter realignment. If the left faction wins control of the Dems (you can laugh, but it's possible), a bunch of them will undoubtedly migrate back to the GOP, assuming that whoever takes over after Trump isn't some dominionist nutjob who runs on a campaign of kick-starting Armageddon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nathanTbernard/status/1207326033256603649
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
imagine picking that thing as your mascot jesu
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:assuming that whoever takes over after Trump isn't some dominionist nutjob who runs on a campaign of kick-starting Armageddon. *Mike Pence starts that creepy serial-killer grin of his.*
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:imagine picking that thing as your mascot jesu i know, it makes my skin crawl. and the obese frogs are also gross
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1207396046562897921 they're are troops now, bitchez
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
wasn't sanders involved in bringing the f-35 program to vermont? iirc
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
the f-35 is the people's plane now it's good
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Azathoth posted:If the left faction wins control of the Dems (you can laugh, but it's possible), a bunch of them will undoubtedly migrate back to the GOP, assuming that whoever takes over after Trump isn't some dominionist nutjob who runs on a campaign of kick-starting Armageddon. Trump heightened the contradictions to the point where even Boomer liberals would rather choke to death on their own vomit than vote for him over Bernie. But I don't really think it addresses what I said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 21:47
|
|