- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2024 00:08
|
|
- The Saddest Rhino
- Apr 29, 2009
-
Put it all together.
Solve the world.
One conversation at a time.
|
Space Whale and I were in a relationship for 5 years. We lived together since August of last year and he left for a computer job in Austin back in July. He didn't tell me he was leaving until about a week before he actually left, but apparently he knew for months before. He had already set his OkCupid account to reflect that he was living in Austin and quote "received a lot more attention". He'd also been browsing the Denver threat earlier in the year because he suspected he was moving there and had asked how the singles scene was there because he was "trying to fill a gap" since he didn't have any family. Presumably this means that he was looking to start a family with someone there. I guess he forgot that I could search his post history on SA.
I don't care if this gets me banned, I hate this website anyway. gently caress Space Whale, he ruined his loving brand new Mustang by driving into rising flood waters. He just bought a brand new Cadillac and I hope he wrecks and ruins that one too. Space Whale is an egotistic, arrogant sociopath who has also talked to many goonettes, flirted with them, talked passive aggressive poo poo about me, his sick girlfriend, and generally made them feel uncomfortable.
He alienated every single one of my friends and everyone in (at least one of) the goon groups on Facebook hates him specifically because of the things he said about me and the way he lied.
He'll probably tell you that I cheated on him after his mom died, which is all well and fine with me, but truth is that I'd been out of love with him for a long time because of the way that he treated me. Everyone else could see it. He just could never admit that he was wrong, he always made me feel like everything was my fault, he told me to "stop acting like a teenager" yet treated me like a child constantly. When I would get depressed, he would make fun of me for crying or make it even worse saying that I brought it upon myself.
My psychiatrist that I had been seeing for years actually dropped me from her care because I brought him with me to a few appointments and she hated the way that he spoke about me.
He'll probably also come into this thread and try to talk poo poo about me but if you ask almost any goon/ette that's in the one Facebook group hamburgers of poo poo or whatever the hell it is, they'll tell you.
A week after he left, he called me crying and boohooing saying how much he missed me and how much he wanted me back and regretted leaving. He constantly talked about wanting to marry me and have children with me. He attempted to pressure me into moving to Texas with him even though I told him I did not want to leave my family and friends behind. I was trapped when we lived together because he would get angry at me if I went out with friends and stayed out late. He gaslighted me and lead me to believe I might have drug and alcohol problems because I would drink when I went out. He said that I would binge drink. He told me that I needed to act my age, even though I was in my 20s, saying that he "didn't get to enjoy his 20s either".
Someone also needs to tell him to stop using the pictures I took of him on his OkCupid profile. Which is Phinix1618.
He would never have sex with me and is into rear end play, and many of my friends, especially the gay ones, suspect that he's also gay.
He thinks that the terrorist attacks in Paris were deserved because of the way they let immigrants into the country.
He also had no issue saying the same thing about blacks that were murdered by police officers.
I've stooped to his level and I have no shame about it.
Ban me.
Have a great day.
(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2015 03:49
|
|
- The Saddest Rhino
- Apr 29, 2009
-
Put it all together.
Solve the world.
One conversation at a time.
|
The Woman Racket has some pretty interesting reviews on goodreads
quote:Yellow Rose rated it 1 of 5 stars
I really wanted to like this book the book started out great. It explained the roots of feminism and how communism is behind this whole social engineering. I will mention the good points on the book and then move on to the very bad and disturbing. A very good quote from the book really sums up on what feminism is really about. "Extreme feminism is therefore a disguised re-branding of the perennial conspiracy of the elite, and a natural doctrine for rapidly changing times where new economic conditions make established chivalrous habits appear out of date" (52). Indeed, it is a conspiracy of the ELITE, it is not the fault of all women, and most women do not even want to have careers. In fact, many women are speaking up against feminism and how it has hurt all women, especially the upper and middle class women. As the author beautifully points out by saying "Women have woken up to not just the stress and thorough lack of empowerment that work actually provides, but what is for women the pointlessness of it" (133). Indeed most women are unhappier then ever before, because patriarchy actually protected women through families wage laws, no fault divorce women used to be treated as productive and important members of society. Not anymore, however most tradition women are shunned and treated as if they are less then important. Society is based of on the stability and successfulness of the family unit therefore the family is the building block of a better society. With so many single mothers, and working women we see the degradation of society caused by feminism (which is the creation of the elite to destroy the family). In fact, when back in the days it was shameful for a man not to provide for a family today a man happily makes his wife get a job. What I guess I am trying to say is that what the author fails to acknowledge is that feminism has hurt women in so many more ways then men. Feminism has freed the irresponsible men from taking responsibility for a family life. Now bachelors and unmarried women are accepted as a normal part of society.
Book was acceptable up until page 160, I thoroughly enjoyed the book. However then the insanity became obvious. First, the author suggests that domestic violence is a female on male phenomena. Although I do not doubt that men are abused by women, I doubt that it is more then when men abuse women. In fact, the majority of the men who do abuse women are live in boyfriends not husbands. This is a constant attack of feminists that husbands are wife beaters (especially traditional husbands) that is a lie fabricated to turn women and men against marriage. In addition, I feel that the author by stating that domestic violence is a female on male phenomena is trying to stir up gender problems by blaming domestic violence on women. I feel Moxon, should have just stuck to the notion that domestic violence is non-gendered instead of attacking women.
Then the chapter on Rape now my own opinion is that yes there is an epidemic of false rape charges. This especially comes from loose women who act irresponsibly "hook up" with the first guy at a party. (Because feminism has promised these women that they like men can have sex no matter with whom, they will have fun either way). This is yet another feminist propaganda meant to make women miserable, because after the "hooking up" most women feel lonely since the guy saw them nothing more but a piece of meat so he did not call her. So our modern girl is hurt and resorts to take revenge upon the guy by saying he raped her. Hence, a false rape is reported. Then the problem emerges he seems to have a problem with the fact that rape is seen worse as murder. It is an emotional murder, and the fact that the author says that rape leaves no damage to the woman's well being just tells me that he is either ignorant or just hates women. In fact when De Tocqueville visited America he mentioned the freedoms of women to be safe on the streets, because rapists were put to death. Today however a woman does not have such security at all. In fact, if the rapist is unlucky he might get five years max. It is truly pathetic how feminism has made society not respect and care for women.
Furthermore, he thinks that women prostitutes exploit men. (Insane even for an anti-feminist like me). This guy just hates women he is not an anti feminist at all he is a hater plain simple as that. Then he says "white slavery" is a myth. So in essence, he just called all the young girls who are trafficked from eastern European countries as whores, who already knew what they were going into. The author is such a despicable person to think that these women are willful whores. The book turned to a train wreck after page 160, so if any women anti feminists want to read it. Read up until then all the rest is insane garbage. (less)
flag2 likes · Like · see review
Damaskcat
Sep 10, 2013Damaskcat rated it 3 of 5 stars
The author's whole premise is women have never been downtrodden, have always been privileged as a sex and have been protected from harm by men. If you accept this premise then you will agree with all that follows. While I don't dispute the scientific findings quoted such as women's intelligence tends to cluster around the middle of the spectrum whereas men are more represented at the highest and lowest points, I cannot agree with the conclusion that on this basis men are badly treated. I would say individuals are badly treated if they aren't recognisably normal and this applies just as much to women as to men.
I understand what the author is saying by keeping women confined to the home men were keeping them out of harm's way though this is - and always has been - a purely middle class issue. Working class women have worked outside the home since the Industrial and Agrarian revolutions deprived them of the ability to add to the family finances by selling their surplus produce once their own families had been fed and clothed. He denigrates the campaign for female suffrage as being misplaced and mistimed and suggests women had always been able to vote. He does not make it clear what elections he is talking about and I can only assume he means bodies such as Parochial Church Councils since Local Government, as we know it now, did not exist until late in the 19th century.
The author states no inventions have been made by women and there have been no great works in art or music or even literature by women because, he seems to be suggesting, women have always had a great deal of leisure time and have not chosen to use it wisely. He seems to forget women were not allowed to be educated in the same way as men. Their reading was in many cases censored by their husbands or fathers and learning was considered dangerous to women's brains. When you take it in context it is surprising women managed to achieve anything. Oxford and Cambridge did not award degrees to women until the 20th century. The author by omitting this background information seriously distorts the picture.
I don't agree the laws on sexual harassment have rendered all human interaction at work potentially illegal or that such legislation gives women an unfair advantage. The legislation applies equally to both sexes; it is peer pressure which stops men using it. I do agree positive discrimination and quotas are ridiculous and likely to cause more problems than they solve. Susan Pinker's book `The Sexual Paradox' deals with issues of gender at work in a much more objective and rational fashion in my opinion.
Where I seriously part company with the author is in the chapter on rape - welcome to women on the basis of rape fantasies and biology - Mills & Boon romances are all based on the rape fantasy proving that rape is welcome to women. He appears not to be aware that for many women a fantasy is just that - a fantasy. Women in general do not wish to experience their fantasies whereas men do. Romances are read as an escape from real life in the same way men read Westerns or books such as those written by Andy McNab. The author casts doubt on the authenticity of all rape claims suggesting even stranger rape may be unconsciously welcomed by the victim. He does not however seem to be saying the same thing about men where they become victims.
When writing about pornography he suggests men should not be punished for having in their possession extreme images involving children because this is punishing 'thought crime'. I find this suggestion totally abhorrent as is his comparison with reading crime novels or watching films depicting crimes. He seems to forget the moral condemnation which is usually present in such work and which is totally lacking from the extreme end of pornography.
I found his descent into name calling against certain women in the later chapters undermined his whole thesis which is a pity. If he had maintained the objective tone of the first few chapters his argument would have been more persuasive. He quotes far fewer sources in the later chapters, which appear to be largely his own personal opinions, and he fails to quote from some of the great classics of feminist writing such as Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer. His sources, listed in the lengthy bibliography, seem to represent disproportionately male writers and researchers and he appears to regard the word feminism as denoting a man hating virago. He forgets that the term patriarchy is not a term of abuse but a description of the society in which we still find ourselves.
Overall this is a very interesting and thought provoking book which I would urge all men and women to read if they are at all interested in the issues covered. (less)
e:
The Saddest Rhino has a new favorite as of 03:55 on Dec 18, 2015
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 03:52
|
|
- The Saddest Rhino
- Apr 29, 2009
-
Put it all together.
Solve the world.
One conversation at a time.
|
loving lol
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/lawyer-for-martin-shkreli-hikes-fees-five-thousand-per-cent
quote:A criminal lawyer representing Turing Pharmaceuticals chief Martin Shkreli has informed his client that he is raising his hourly legal fees by five thousand per cent, the lawyer has confirmed.
Minutes after Shkreli’s arrest on charges of securities fraud, the attorney, Harland Dorrinson, announced that he was hiking his fees from twelve hundred dollars an hour to sixty thousand dollars.
Shkreli, who reportedly received the news about the price hike while he was being fingerprinted, cried foul and accused his attorney of “outrageous and inhumane price gouging.”
“This is the behavior of a sociopath,” Shkreli was heard screaming.
For his part, Shkreli’s lawyer was unmoved by his client’s complaint. “Compared to what he pays for an hour of Wu-Tang Clan, sixty thou is a bargain,” he said.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 09:26
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2024 00:08
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 17:05
i didn't even notice what was odd about the first picture until i looked through the series
http://i.imgur.com/wKhoFGd.jpg 
