Lurker > Firewerx

ShinobiNinjaX posted...

Firewerx posted...

Normal-Human posted...

Kineth posted...

Most people have dark hair.

Unless you have blonde hair/blue eyes being a white supremacist makes no sense

I think the belief that having dark hair/brown eyes necessarily means you're not white makes even less sense.

Not really not white, but like, not the pinnacle of whiteness? Lol

It's like people who claim to cherish the value of superior intelligence because a Mensa test once scored them in the 98th percentile, even if they begrudgingly accept that they're not geniuses. They believe they still qualify for membership of an exclusive, nay elite club.

Normal-Human posted...

Kineth posted...

Most people have dark hair.

Unless you have blonde hair/blue eyes being a white supremacist makes no sense

I think the belief that having dark hair/brown eyes necessarily means you're not white makes even less sense.

I don't despise the French people. I'm not locked into a mental timewarp in which the events of summer 1940 unfold over and over again, Groundhog Day style until the end of the universe, or imagine there's a real thing, an actual national character defect, called "French cowardice". (The stoicism of the French nation between 1914-18 in the face of the losses it endured was nothing short of epic. Tragic, but epic.)

The actions of the French government, on the other hand, might be another matter. And it's not so much because elements of it collaborated with the Nazis more than seventy years ago. (It's worth remembering that the Allied forces in North Africa were happy to leave the Vichy administration in place there -- which meant that Jews were still being dragged off to slave camps in the Sahara under the noses of American troops who didn't lift a finger to stop it.)

It's more because in 1994, the French government (more specifically, the lyse) under Mitterand chose to continue to arm, train, and support the government of Rwanda even while it was in the middle of perpetrating one of the worst genocides of the 20th century. That's the most sickeningly shameful stain of blood and dirt on the record of France's Fifth Republic.

It's possible to feel lonely even when you're surrounded by other people. Sometimes, especially when you're surrounded by other people.

The23rdMagus.

I'm pretty sure there are quite a few teenage boys who think there aren't enough 40 year old women who want to fuck teenage boys.

Statistically most of us are likely to die in a hospital bed surrounded by uncaring strangers; imprisoned in our failing bodies, unable to communicate, our memories eroding, drifting in and out of consciousness just enough to feel terror as we sense ourselves sliding unstoppably into the darkness forever.

It's not dying alone you should be afraid of. It's spending your life alone.

Um, most of those seem to be pretty valid examples of unhealthy (or maybe wrongheaded) ideas about what monogamy means...

Milkman5 posted...

ugliest.

they are the fattest statistically and have messed up teeth

That's just the guests on The Jeremy Kyle Show.

Hope the family don't decide on cremation.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Garioshi posted...

Pow Pow Punishment posted...

Islamist is used to refer to ideological hardliners, coming in-between moderates and militants/terrorists. I've seen it used by the BBC and also by Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris.

No, Islamism is the ideology that states that fundamentalist Islam must dominate the world. It's the ideology that ISIS has.

That is not the ideology of ISIS. They do not have an "ideology" to them every single word in the book is meant literally.

So... Literalists.

MorbidFaithless posted...

So...what are you saying? We should be formless blobs that only react based on external stimuli and have no emotions, needs or passions?

I don't think he's saying that at all, but I think it's natural for social creatures to feel they belong to something bigger than just themselves, even if it's only an extended family. The problem is when identity is fetishized, when you believe that differences are far more important than similarities.

I think they're daring each other to shit on cars and pedestrians.

Hay fever never seemed that much fun.

The current incumbent in the Oval Office is Donald Trump. Does this mean his supporters are unable to bring themselves to utter a word of condemnation for this murder, and for the President's own failure to do so, without constantly deflecting to the previous administration? Or does it mean they're willing to turn a blind eye because they can't tolerate even a whisper of criticism against him?

Straight questions. I don't expect straight answers, though.

RoboXgp89 posted...

Mead posted...

Cruddy_horse posted...

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump has some very choice words for Saudi.

Interested in another arms deal?

that's hilary not trump

Good to hear that Trump's above getting blood on his hands by shaking on dirty deals with Middle Eastern despots.

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Meddling with another country's internal affairs is a bad idea in general.

Unless it's Venezuela, Cuba, Iran...

If the costs are similar to those for Harry and Meghan's wedding earlier this year, then excluding security costs, the central government -- in other words, the British taxpayer -- will be forking out the equivalent of around $834,000 to pay for the wedding of a woman who's ninth in line to the throne. She never paid a penny towards my wedding, so I don't see why I should pay fuck all of anything for hers.

Blighboy posted...

The United States will condone the murder of journalists

Journalists who dare to criticize their government are, after all, "enemies of the people".

Well, at least now we know why Dr Huxtable chose to go into OB/GYN.

Annihilated posted...

Firewerx posted...

Annihilated posted...

Firewerx posted...

Annihilated posted...

Firewerx posted...

Annihilated posted...

And yet only one the left says is a shithole country.

Here's the problem with people who use the phrase "shithole country": they use it to mean that anyone who comes from a "shithole country" is, by definition, subhuman shit. Not that they're struggling under extremely difficult conditions, or enduring oppression, but that they themselves are the problem.

So you're just proving my point then.

What was that, exactly?

I already know that leftists think Americans are subhuman shit, especially those who come from red states. RebelElite even came right out and admitted it just now. So what was the contrast exactly?

So your complaint is really about the hypocrisy of the left having the same toxic prejudices as the right but just not admitting it?

I never said the right had any of those prejudices. But the left most CERTAINLY does.

Both left and right are staring into a mirror: always highlighting the hypocrisy of the other side. Whether you're left or right, there isn't some kind of twisted virtue in accusing the other side of having the same prejudices as your own. Seems to me that's a reason for feeling instead like you've lost a bigger argument, not won the smaller one.

Annihilated posted...

Firewerx posted...

Annihilated posted...

Firewerx posted...

Annihilated posted...

And yet only one the left says is a shithole country.

Here's the problem with people who use the phrase "shithole country": they use it to mean that anyone who comes from a "shithole country" is, by definition, subhuman shit. Not that they're struggling under extremely difficult conditions, or enduring oppression, but that they themselves are the problem.

So you're just proving my point then.

What was that, exactly?

I already know that leftists think Americans are subhuman shit, especially those who come from red states. RebelElite even came right out and admitted it just now. So what was the contrast exactly?

So your complaint is really about the hypocrisy of the left having the same toxic prejudices as the right but just not admitting it?

Annihilated posted...

Firewerx posted...

Annihilated posted...

And yet only one the left says is a shithole country.

Here's the problem with people who use the phrase "shithole country": they use it to mean that anyone who comes from a "shithole country" is, by definition, subhuman shit. Not that they're struggling under extremely difficult conditions, or enduring oppression, but that they themselves are the problem.

So you're just proving my point then.

What was that, exactly?

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Firewerx posted...

they use it to mean that anyone who comes from a "shithole country" is, by definition, subhuman shit.

Don't hurt your back shoveling words into people's mouths like that.

Never heard anyone use the phrase who didn't make their opinions transparently clear about the kind of people who come from "shithole countries". Don't kid me there aren't noisy concerns about importing the "shittiness" of these countries by admitting immigrants and refugees from them, as if these people are synecdoches of the country itself.

Annihilated posted...

And yet only one the left says is a shithole country.

Here's the problem with people who use the phrase "shithole country": they use it to mean that anyone who comes from a "shithole country" is, by definition, subhuman shit. Not that they're struggling under extremely difficult conditions, or enduring oppression, but that they themselves are the problem.

When they say "a problem", do they actually mean "a minor irritation"?

thelovefist posted...

Firewerx posted...

MarqueeSeries posted...

Hitler was a monster but the position Germany was put in after WW1 basically gave him his stage to stand on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_referendum,_1929

It was a referendum on whether Germany should pass a law formally renouncing the Treaty of Versailles and banning the collection of reparations. Fewer than 15% of voters even bothered to turn out. Again, despite the conventional wisdom in today's school classrooms that Versailles stoked the German public so badly they rushed to vote Nazi out of spite, it seems to demonstrate instead a remarkable apathy about the Treaty as a specific issue.

The economy was booming when that was done. Demagoguery works most effective in a poor economic situation which Hitler exploited in his rise to power.

Exactly. And the role of German mismanagement in the financial crisis after 1929 is often overlooked. Real German public-sector debt between the wars had little to do with reparations (which Germany had stopped paying even before Hitler came to power -- despite the debts being rescheduled twice under the Dawes and Young Plans, spreading them thinner over a longer period to make them less painful). The central Reich governments only significant foreign borrowing was the Dawes and Young loans; the real profligacy was elsewhere. Once the Dawes Plan opened the floodgates to foreign credit, German municipalities and states -- who had considerable fiscal autonomy under the Weimar constitution, including the right to float loans in Germany and abroad -- went on a wild borrow-and-spend spree, which worried both the Reichsbank and the Americans who issued stern but unheeded warnings against it. These loans went to feed the ballooning size of government spending which was simply unsustainable given the unreformed tax system.

Maybe if the German electorate had been capable of a little more self-criticism and a little less self-pity, and put a bigger share of the blame for the Depression where it rightfully belonged -- on the shoulders of their own fiscally irresponsible governments -- instead of heaping it all on "greedy, spiteful" foreigners and "treacherous" German Jews, Hitler's lies wouldn't have been quite so seductive. Of course Nazi propaganda wasn't going to admit to uncomfortable truths about responsibility for the situation in Germany. But there's no need for us today to keep scraping the "poor Germany" violin over Versailles.

I think it's considered just female. Maybe there isn't always an "-ism".

MarqueeSeries posted...

Hitler was a monster but the position Germany was put in after WW1 basically gave him his stage to stand on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_referendum,_1929

It was a referendum on whether Germany should pass a law formally renouncing the Treaty of Versailles and banning the collection of reparations. Fewer than 15% of voters even bothered to turn out. Again, despite the conventional wisdom in today's school classrooms that Versailles stoked the German public so badly they rushed to vote Nazi out of spite, it seems to demonstrate instead a remarkable apathy about the Treaty as a specific issue.

Ex-alcoholic here. Although the unfortunate truth is, you're never really an ex-alcoholic, which is why you have to remain permanently on guard.

The only addiction I continue to indulge myself in these days is fat girls.

Back in the old days it must have been hard not to get swept along in the emotional storm of a brief handshake, the slight raising of a hat, and a few formal words of acknowledgement.

The fad of calling people "SJWs", however, will probably outlive Styrofoam.

They say bad habits are the hardest to break.

Completely forgot that was Norman Reedus playing Scud in Blade 2. Couldn't connect him with Daryl in The Walking Dead for a few minutes.

It pisses me off that stories like this are the only ones coming out of Africa that the Western media (or much of it) seem to take any interest in.

UnfairRepresent posted...

The man will face trial for having sex with an underage child,according to Russian police, which carries a ten year maximum sentence.

He could also face charges of murder and dismembering the body, with a maximum 15 years in jail.

Just an extra five years?! How cheap is human life in Russia?

Mullins in The Heat.

VipaGTS posted...

The original movies still exist. They can come back one day if they decide they want to make a real 4th movie.

Harold Ramis might find that tricky.

Would it involve a lesbian catfight?

Was there much of a fuss when Judi Dench was cast as M?

RFC22 posted...

How would time travel destroy bacteria or organisms in our bodies? And if Time Travel could destroy those organisms , could it also destroy the cells needed to fight back against infections/viruses/diseases?

I always wondered about The Fly: wouldn't Brundle have been accidentally gene-spliced with the parasites and microorganisms naturally present in and on his body, even if a fly hadn't gotten into the telepod with him?

Chose one. Chose several.

s0nicfan posted...

http://www.i18nguy.com/chaos.html

Dearest creature in creation,
Study English pronunciation.
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.
I will keep you, Suzy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy.
Tear in eye, your dress will tear.
So shall I! Oh hear my prayer.

Just compare heart, beard, and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word,
Sword and sward, retain and Britain.
(Mind the latter, how it's written.)
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as plaque and ague.
But be careful how you speak:
Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;
Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe.

[lots more cut]

Makes me feel that non-English speakers must sometimes go crazy trying to learn English pronunciation!

Season of Blood: A Rwandan Journey by Fergal Keane.

So you might say these changes weren't driven by common sense, but rather imposed by a small, priestly caste -- and probably would have been met with some resistance.

Is there evidence that pork would have caused sickness noticeably more often than other meats, which surely were all a source of risk in hot climates if not prepared, stored or cooked properly? If not, it would seem to make sense for religious restrictions to ban other meats -- goat, chicken -- as well. When farming other animals for food came to replace pig husbandry, then surely these other animals would have been increasingly recognized as risks in their own right, through bitter experience?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Where's the evidence that any culture would need to be sick from eating it 100% of the time in order for someone to decide that they should probably outlaw eating it via religious means?

If it took them 3,000 years to decide, they were clearly incredibly slow learners.

Note that people were prepared to continue farming and eating pigs, until ordered to stop by religious authorities. And non-Jewish and non-Muslim minorities in the Middle East, in lands where its consumption was restricted but still permitted, continued to eat pork. Why? Were they more blind to the risks?

While prohibitions against eating pork may have been practical, I don't believe it was solely about practicality. It's more like a demonstration of religious power and authority: you take something that people commonly enjoy, and you force them to abstain as a test of their faith -- and it serves to demonstrate the power of that new faith. (Were rules on religious celibacy motivated by concerns about sexual disease?)

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Probably because getting sick from pork sometimes is not the same as getting sick from pork 100% of the time.

Indeed. So what's the evidence that pork consumers in the Middle East were sick from eating it 100% of the time? Why did people have to be forced into giving up pork after the Islamic conquests, if pork was a known source of constant sickness for thousands of years? Even if pork was recognized as a risk of occasional sickness, pigs were nevertheless raised for food for millennia; so people were clearly prepared to tolerate the risk. And why would only a caste of priests have recognized this risk? In other words, if the risk was widely recognized, why would people need to invent religious reasons to stop?

If religious strictures were all about dietary health and hygiene, are there any rules that were obviously directed towards avoiding contamination of drinking water (e.g. keep sanitary facilities at a safe distance) -- if not, why not?