Sign In or Create an Account
Sean Hannity has always been annoying but lately it seems like he's become a complete prick. Maybe he's playing the part of some Jewish handbrake on radicalization?
Why did you have to say this the same day I had a conversation with someone about "massive coincidences and past-life memories?"
Even if that's the intention, which I don't presume, I don't think it works. Truth accumulates. Propaganda washes away.
Thank you, sensei.
Got any tips? I suck at it. The white starts to get leathery before the yolk is done. Even when I turn down the heat, I still somehow fuck it up.
As my grandmother used to say "don't eat garbage."
WTF is this absolutely incompetent formatting?
There are 6 pages, easily arranged in a consistent and well proportioned 3x2 grid. Instead, one of the pages is shown twice, and two of them are 25% smaller than the rest for absolutely no reason.
Here. This took less than 5 minutes to download, edit with mspaint, and repost. That's all it takes to not look like a complete retard.
I challenge the idea that being allowed to get a credit card at will is an unmitigated good.
The first picture is actually what you get from wartime propaganda. The rest of the time, it's more like this:
You need a nation in order to protect the integrity of the things that matter to your society.
If you have no nation, then your society is vulnerable to influence from outsiders, invaders, and infiltrators.
If you take steps to protect the society you've built, through laws, customs, and boundaries, then you have a de facto nation.
IMO, it's no different from Dooming.
There's a lot that's wrong and bad with the world. It's worth identifying and talking about. A lot of those problems are nigh insurmountable, especially from the position of a single individual.
But there is no utility in despair.
Dooming is being content with bitterness rather than hope. That doesn't help anyone, and can impede others who might actually be otherwise helping.
Dooming is demoralization. As such, it should be regarded as suspicious, and a possible avenue of subversion.
This is true of all kinds of Dooming, including when it comes to women. There's a lot to complain about with modern women, and a lot of hard truths to identify. But to turn those realities into hatred or total rejection has no utility. Not to mention, it makes little sense. If you resent something for leading to the destruction of BLANK, then how can you wholly reject something that is precondition for the preservation of BLANK?
43 minute video.
Well, I'll get to it eventually.
I've never heard of Jekyll Island. What's the rundown?
(I know I could look it up, but I'd rather have storytime).
I'm conflicted on how to approach words like "transphobe." On one hand, you're right that the word is bullshit, and you shouldn't let that kind of bullshit language game slide.
But I think that talking about definitions can come across as a wormy deflection, which allows their conceptual premise to persist. They want you to accept that "dislike of trans people" is a bad thing. When you respond with "I'm not scare of them," you're not really contradicting their premise, just their language. When someone calls you a transphobe, you say "Yeah of course. Thank you. Aren't you?" If you demolish the moral premise, then the word games don't matter.
But I suppose it is possible to manage both at the same time. "No, I'm not scared of them, I just hate them because they're disgusting. Don't you?"
And certainly one should never proactively use their language. But when they use it at you, it's important to find the sharpest retort, which isn't always quoting 1984.
I know there are people out there who could never find this funny, and I feel so bad for them. They're really missing out.
WTF do they mean "if they have sandwiches?" Out of everything you might call a meal here, like half of it is sandwiches. Why wouldn't they count the sandwiches?
This picture makes less sense the more I look at it. A single frozen pizza and those mashed potatoes won't split between more than two fatasses. But if 72 cans of soda is "3-5 days worth" for two people, then that means more than 7 cans a day.
My gut says fake and gay.
Both signs look suspiciously shoppable.
And the idea that "bigotry just means you haven't been lectured enough" is, as far as I can tell, pure leftist fantasy. People get bullied and brainwashed into certain opinions, but they don't get "educated" into reversing their moral opinions.
Congratulations, I give this meme the award of "Worst so far."
Things weren't bad, they were stable. Which, from the perspective of an economy dependent on infinite growth, is a "dark age."
That's a weird way to say "I am easily manipulated by men."
You just reminded me of a tip I once heard. It was something like "If a married woman cuts her hair short that's a sign that the marriage is about to fall apart." I don't remember how it was phrased exactly, but it was that drastic.
It took me a sec to realize that wasn't Captain Sisko.
The split makes sense, though, at least intuitively.
Breach in the front. Front fills up with water. Ship tips. Ship not designed to keep half of itself supported in the air at an angle. Back of ship breaks off.
And what's the alternative? A bomb that split the ship all the way through in a vertical plane, without any lengthwise radius to disintegrate more of the middle of the ship?
An easy way to check the logic would be to compare to other shipwrecks. It seems like this would be common among very long, heavy ships, in cold water, that suffered a breach at one end. If there are many examples of those circumstances happening without the ship breaking, then you'd be on to something.
I've come to realize that I don't understand how the pronoun format works.
I thought it was to denote the pronouns for different parts of speech.
i.e. (she/her): "She drove off in her car."
Granted, that doesn't make much sense, because I don't think anyone has ever used different pronoun categories for different parts of speech (Oh yeah, I want to be called "he" when talking about about me but "her" when talking about my possessions).
But these days I'm seeing more things like (she/he), which I can only interpret as ambivalence. But no matter what, it doesn't square up with the "(he/him)" system.
So the ideological core of the comic is "Actually the people we're killing WANT to be killed so it's fine." Jesus Christ.