The only big long lasting three here
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,703
Forums are a place for discussions, but that does not mean “create only topics that the majority of people like to talk about”.
Then again, posting spam is not okay either, where the not-extremes are subjective.
Then again, posting spam is not okay either, where the not-extremes are subjective.
I think we are overdue for an Enertro thread
I refuse to believe the accumulation of Enetro posts thus far ease the amount of unrest that has built up
I refuse to believe the accumulation of Enetro posts thus far ease the amount of unrest that has built up
As far as languages go, there needs to be a balance struck between things being clearly ordered and the need for things to be loose and flexible. An as Jordan Peterson pointed out, the personality traits of order vs flexibility seems to be something that differentiate "Liberals" and Conservatives on the political spectrum, the former generally wanting more flexibility and the latter wanting more order. This applies to language as well (and political words are particularly bad on this). Take the word "Libertarian", there's a significant amount of people who thinks this term has so broad a scope it can be used to define people with polar opposite values, and if you try to clearly define the word, they will berate you for not being "inclusive" enough. Which is obviously ridiculous, because if a word is so watered down it can be used to define anything, it defines nothing, and essentially is of no use as a word anymore. Thus you must actively fight against sloppy language use in which words are used to mean things they're not supposed to and thus their meaning expanded, as this sloppy language use is what contributes to the watering down of the language.
Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
As a socially inept person myself I agree with this sentiment and don't expect anyone to expend energy to interact with me (and I wouldn't want pity like that anyway). Though I would add that sometimes I do have something important to say so it would be nice if certain loud-mouthed people could learn to shut up and let someone speak without interrupting for just a few seconds.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Socially inept people can be annoying because you need to put a lot of energy into them just to have a normal interaction. They need to be "carried", essentially.
Shohei Ohtani
As far as languages go, there needs to be a balance struck between things being clearly ordered and the need for things to be loose and flexible. An as Jordan Peterson pointed out, the personality traits of order vs flexibility seems to be something that differentiate "Liberals" and Conservatives on the political spectrum, the former generally wanting more flexibility and the latter wanting more order. This applies to language as well (and political words are particularly bad on this). Take the word "Libertarian", there's a significant amount of people who thinks this term has so broad a scope it can be used to define people with polar opposite values, and if you try to clearly define the word, they will berate you for not being "inclusive" enough. Which is obviously ridiculous, because if a word is so watered down it can be used to define anything, it defines nothing, and essentially is of no use as a word anymore. Thus you must actively fight against sloppy language use in which words are used to mean things they're not supposed to and thus their meaning expanded, as this sloppy language use is what contributes to the watering down of the language. Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
Don't know 'how a language should function' is such a partisan issue now. Or is it just B1rd applying political rhetoric to irrelevant topics again?
CDFA wrote:
As far as languages go, there needs to be a balance struck between things being clearly ordered and the need for things to be loose and flexible. An as Jordan Peterson pointed out, the personality traits of order vs flexibility seems to be something that differentiate "Liberals" and Conservatives on the political spectrum, the former generally wanting more flexibility and the latter wanting more order. This applies to language as well (and political words are particularly bad on this). Take the word "Libertarian", there's a significant amount of people who thinks this term has so broad a scope it can be used to define people with polar opposite values, and if you try to clearly define the word, they will berate you for not being "inclusive" enough. Which is obviously ridiculous, because if a word is so watered down it can be used to define anything, it defines nothing, and essentially is of no use as a word anymore. Thus you must actively fight against sloppy language use in which words are used to mean things they're not supposed to and thus their meaning expanded, as this sloppy language use is what contributes to the watering down of the language. Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
I was going off on a tangent pointing out how the personality tendencies of different political groups translate into arguments about the definition of some political words, as I gave an example of. But mainly the post was just some reflections on language use, rather than a political point. Though the post was somewhat vague itself, because I'm at a public library so I don't have unlimited time to translate vague and indefinite thoughts in to indefinite words.
Here's another example of politically driven word usage contributing to vagueness in this article, and it's something I've always spoken against: the usage of the word "they" for individuals. It makes it hard to tell whether it's a person or group being spoken about. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christi ... university
On this subject of English, George Orwell wrote a good essay about English usage http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_a ... age/0.html
In other news, I got a my comment published in a popular national newspaper, which is cool.
Here's another example of politically driven word usage contributing to vagueness in this article, and it's something I've always spoken against: the usage of the word "they" for individuals. It makes it hard to tell whether it's a person or group being spoken about. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christi ... university
On this subject of English, George Orwell wrote a good essay about English usage http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_a ... age/0.html
In other news, I got a my comment published in a popular national newspaper, which is cool.
pleonasms are a bitch
keep it simple lads
keep it simple lads
This is basically OT, but in one enourmous thread.
That's why it's good. It embodies everything bad and goodCanadian Baka wrote:
This is basically OT, but in one enourmous thread.
Dawnsday wrote:
That's why it's good. It embodies everything badCanadian Baka wrote:
This is basically OT, but in one enourmous thread.and good
Why do people name themselves Dick even though they know it's penis
Isn't Dick just a nickname for Richard?
I blame our regressive society. Dick has a nice ring to it, and people really went out of their way to ruin it.B1rd wrote:
Isn't Dick just a nickname for Richard?
Funnily enough, one of the first recorded instance of the pejorative "dick" was used by a guy named Head.
Art I commissioned from Brian has reached top results in Google when you search "Libertarian anime girl".
Let it not be said I haven't achieved anything in life.
edit: I like how you use your signature to pronounce your nihilism
Let it not be said I haven't achieved anything in life.
edit: I like how you use your signature to pronounce your nihilism
Comfy Slippers wrote:
B1rd wrote:
Isn't Dick just a nickname for Richard?
I blame our regressive society.
dont compare your third world society to ours
Too real.
mfw I could get a krstni list and domovnica and roll over to Croatia, but it wouldn't change anything. And it's not like another south slavic orgy aka Yugoslavia would fix shit.
btw
we're preventing rabies dudelmao
- based bulgarian
lol wrote:
dont compare your third world society to ours
Yeah, all third-world societies are different! Our third-world society is better than theirs, huh lol?
johnmedina999 wrote:
lol wrote:
dont compare your third world society to ours
Yeah, all third-world societies are different! Our third-world society is better than theirs, huh lol?
who said you can @me
Don't be racist, John. America is a third-world country too, you know.
Cannot post.
Ideology shall paddle forward to be applied, but ends up backpaddling everything else in the process.
(5 years later) can't believe this thread is still going
ikr
It's even pinned now, so it's not in any danger of dying, either.
It's even pinned now, so it's not in any danger of dying, either.
remember when they deleted the last thread
What is dead may never die
A moving corpse can stop movingDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
What is dead may never die
being unable to move != dead
but a corpse is already dead. For the dead to stop moving is even more dead than the dead they are in
America is third world because of a significant presence of people from the third world.
An interesting (((coincidence))):
So, the (((Left))) imports more diversity, crime and violence skyrockets, and then they blame it on the right to bear arms and use it as an excuse for more government overreach on people's rights. In Australia too, the most pozzed state Victoria is having problems with African gangs terrorizing people's homes. Quite a sad state of affairs.
An interesting (((coincidence))):
So, the (((Left))) imports more diversity, crime and violence skyrockets, and then they blame it on the right to bear arms and use it as an excuse for more government overreach on people's rights. In Australia too, the most pozzed state Victoria is having problems with African gangs terrorizing people's homes. Quite a sad state of affairs.
Okay, okay, I was just commenting on the language of this sentence:
dont compare your third world society to ours
It's pretty close looking at poverty or religiosity or how conservative a state is. The eastern rust belt is just a shithole.
Trying to infer loose correlations like that is silly, especially when you can actually look at research on the criminality of all those groups. Religious people commit less crime, conservatives commit less crime, and blacks commit more crime even within the same socio-economic bracket as Whites.Green Platinum wrote:
It's pretty close looking at poverty or religiosity or how conservative a state is. The eastern rust belt is just a shithole.
Trying to infer causation from loose correlations like that is silly, especially when you can actually look at research on the criminality of all those groups. Religious people commit less crime, conservatives commit less crime, and blacks commit more crime even within the same socio-economic bracket as Whites.Green Platinum wrote:
It's pretty close looking at poverty or religiosity or how conservative a state is. The eastern rust belt is just a shithole.
I can't edit any longer.
Pretty funny for you to say this.B1rd wrote:
Trying to infer loose correlations like that is silly
It goes without saying we're talking about Christians. And don't throw some minor objections and imply that what I'm saying is unfounded. I was talking about all crime, not just violent crime, but if you want to specify homicide: https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpres ... economics/
As for conservatives committing less crime,
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... t_in_crime
It's self reported so you can't be sure it's accurate, but it's not like you can prove that conservative ideology is the causation of increased crime, so pointing out that Republican states have higher crime rates in meaningless.
As for conservatives committing less crime,
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... t_in_crime
It's self reported so you can't be sure it's accurate, but it's not like you can prove that conservative ideology is the causation of increased crime, so pointing out that Republican states have higher crime rates in meaningless.
Pretty funny you have nothing to say excepting indirectly implying things.Green Platinum wrote:
Pretty funny for you to say this.B1rd wrote:
Trying to infer loose correlations like that is silly
Well you did clearly miss the point of my post before. Your hatred for the left has left you blind. There is no point.
No, you're just using lame excuses to avoid to confronting anything thing I've said (as editing your post shows). If you're not going to actually address my arguments then you're just wasting my time.
Haha
I love such comparisons that both the left and the right come up with. Listen, the entirety of the USA is a shithole and everyone there is to blame. Not the whites, not the negros, not the yellows. It's about their national culture being completely fucked up. From the way they raise their children to the way they function as humans - just fucked up.
Such mentality is slowly creeping up to Europe, where old traditions and life are being replaced by feces.
Traditionalism > cancer
Such mentality is slowly creeping up to Europe, where old traditions and life are being replaced by feces.
Traditionalism > cancer
What do you mean? You haven’t done anything, have you?Momi wrote:
I'm personally very sorry for everything that has been happening recently, to all of OT
deepMomi wrote:
I neither know, nor does it matter because I feel bad either way
Oh shit, what's up AqoAqo wrote:
(5 years later) can't believe this thread is still going
How irritating are smug and condescending Europeans who think that they're just culturally and politically enlightened compared to the USA. The US's problems aren't its culture, they're a result of an over centralised and corrupt political system that has progressed over decades and a failed melting pot experiment, both of which Europe are going to experience with the EU and its mass migration policies. We'll see who's laughing then.Aurani wrote:
I love such comparisons that both the left and the right come up with. Listen, the entirety of the USA is a shithole and everyone there is to blame. Not the whites, not the negros, not the yellows. It's about their national culture being completely fucked up. From the way they raise their children to the way they function as humans - just fucked up.
Such mentality is slowly creeping up to Europe, where old traditions and life are being replaced by feces.
Traditionalism > cancer
Culture is largely an expression of genes. If anybody supports mass immigration, he should be required that they spend at least a year living in a country where the proposed immigrants make up a majority.
Bahavior is part of culture too, not just appearancesB1rd wrote:
Culture is largely an expression of genes.
B1rd wrote:
Culture is largely an expression of genes.
l m f a o
Imagine being this deluded, hooly shit. Tell me, B1rd, when you were a NEET who was taking government benefits, did your strong white male genes guide you down that path?
lol
Okay that did make me laugh. It's healthy to make such jokes every now and then, Birdman.
All the problems with the citizens of North America stem from them and them only - not their government nor their..... genes.
All the problems with the citizens of North America stem from them and them only - not their government nor their..... genes.
Aurani wrote:
Okay that did make me laugh. It's healthy to make such jokes every now and then, Birdman.
All the problems with the citizens of North America stem from them and them only - not their government nor their..... genes.
I'd disagree but my genes are preventing me from forming an opinion other than the one I currently hold. Oh well, off to vote for the Conservatives; it's in my British blood after all. Except whenever Labour are winning. Genes fluctuate like that, it's quite incredible.
Wait, maybe B1rd thinks that his stubbornness is caused by a fucking genetic limitation instead of his ego lol.
Yeah you're really upsetting precedent, being a young labour voter and all.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
B1rd wrote:
Culture is largely an expression of genes.
l m f a o
Imagine being this deluded, hooly shit. Tell me, B1rd, when you were a NEET who was taking government benefits, did your strong white male genes guide you down that path?
So tell me, you were the one previously going on about how determinism was valid. So what are the factors in determine someone's behaviour? One is environment, the other is (fill in blank).
So, if you have two genetically distinct populations and subject them to the same circumstances, what will happen? Will they manifest the exact same culture, or will they manifest different cultures?
Don't tell me you've gone full blank-slate theory.
Here is a study that shows that political beliefs are highly heritable, from a left-wing news source at that https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/opin ... liefs.html
B1rd wrote:
Yeah you're really upsetting precedent, being a young labour voter and all.
So tell me, you were the one previously going on about how determinism was valid. So what are the factors in determine someone's behaviour? One is environment, the other is (fill in blank).
So, if you have two genetically distinct populations and subject them to the same circumstances, what will happen? Will they manifest the exact same culture, or will they manifest different cultures?
Don't tell me you've gone full blank-slate theory.
The *same circumstances*? If that's something achievable then yes, I believe that the same culture would manifest, considering how small the genetic variation is between human populations. I don't see how you can reliably create the same circumstances for any two people though, never mind groups large enough to form cultural distinction.
The problem is that blank slate theory can't ethically be tested, and that makes me really sad. Hopefully we can simulate it in the future, or something.
There is extremely small variation between humans and apes, and extremely small genetic variation between humans and all other mammals. I guess the difference between chimps and humans in the same circumstances, their culture would be almost exactly the same! Not just that, there's an extremely small genetic difference between different races of humans and different subspecies of animals (and the genetic differences within races of humans isn't less than between many subspecies of animals), so does that mean that subspecies of animals aren't inherently different?
For all the research you've supposedly done on the subject, you're still extremely ignorant on basic things. There's an entire field of science, quantitative genetics, that is entirely devoted to answering questions related to nature vs nurture, and results consistently show that a significant amount of human behavior is inherited, i.e. genetic. (and if you're a genius, you might be able to work out that if a certain amount of behavior is genetic, that disproves the theory that behaviour is entirely from environmental factors). Did you even click in to the studies that I linked?
And given that a significant potion of human behavior has a genetic basis, i.e. genes interacting with the environment, then it follows that genetically distinct populations will manifest different behaviours, and it's why you can't continue to have White culture if your country isn't majority White. If you take a single individual of one race and insert them in to another group, then likely they will adapt their behaviour to follow that group since the environmental pressure is so strong. But the more people of the different race is a society, the more their genetic tendencies will manifest.
And the fact that the races are genetically distinct can be shown by genetic cluster analysis - if you ask people what their race is, and ask a computer to group those people's genes into clusters based on similarity, then those people's genes will be grouped into the same cluster as others of their self-identified race with an accuracy of 97%.
For all the research you've supposedly done on the subject, you're still extremely ignorant on basic things. There's an entire field of science, quantitative genetics, that is entirely devoted to answering questions related to nature vs nurture, and results consistently show that a significant amount of human behavior is inherited, i.e. genetic. (and if you're a genius, you might be able to work out that if a certain amount of behavior is genetic, that disproves the theory that behaviour is entirely from environmental factors). Did you even click in to the studies that I linked?
And given that a significant potion of human behavior has a genetic basis, i.e. genes interacting with the environment, then it follows that genetically distinct populations will manifest different behaviours, and it's why you can't continue to have White culture if your country isn't majority White. If you take a single individual of one race and insert them in to another group, then likely they will adapt their behaviour to follow that group since the environmental pressure is so strong. But the more people of the different race is a society, the more their genetic tendencies will manifest.
And the fact that the races are genetically distinct can be shown by genetic cluster analysis - if you ask people what their race is, and ask a computer to group those people's genes into clusters based on similarity, then those people's genes will be grouped into the same cluster as others of their self-identified race with an accuracy of 97%.
What is this, why is OT making me laugh again? Stop trying to draw me back to posting! =DDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I'd disagree but my genes are preventing me from forming an opinion other than the one I currently hold. Oh well, off to vote for the Conservatives; it's in my British blood after all. Except whenever Labour are winning. Genes fluctuate like that, it's quite incredible.
Wait, maybe B1rd thinks that his stubbornness is caused by a fucking genetic limitation instead of his ego lol.
Aurani wrote:
I love such comparisons that both the left and the right come up with. Listen, the entirety of the USA is a shithole and everyone there is to blame. Not the whites, not the negros, not the yellows. It's about their national culture being completely fucked up. From the way they raise their children to the way they function as humans - just fucked up.
Such mentality is slowly creeping up to Europe, where old traditions and life are being replaced by feces.
Traditionalism > cancer
can I get a source on that?
jokes aside
"Listen, the entirety of the USA is a shithole and everyone there is to blame."
How in the fuck is the entirety of the USA a shithole? Give examples. You could literally replace the USA with any country and that sentence would still be viable.
It's about their national culture being completely fucked up. From the way they raise their children to the way they function as humans - just fucked up.
Okay. Stop. Like B1rd said, you just sound like a stereotypical eurofag who is O B S S E S E D about the Americans they see on multimedia.
you're embarrassing yourself
"Not the whites, not the negros, not the yellows."
oooohh. nice. nice and edgy. you said negro and yellows. edgy. nice
Traditionalism > cancer
Are you implying that traditionalism is dead in the US? Oh no, it is very much alive in non-democrat states. Such states don't tend to be as obnoxious and loud as California or New York, though, hence why you probably think traditionalism is dead.
Traditionalism > cancerWhat even is the cancer in this case?
OT
OT never changes
my humble and uneducated opinion is that US politics needs a full overhaul to either move away completely from the current two-party system, or to somehow clear out both parties of the public and private corruption plaguing them in order to move forward
also, politics should not be a day job but that's not going to be changing at this point, so at the very least there should be transparency in where and how money flows in it. politicians are meant to represent the public, so the public should have a right to see what or who is influencing the politicians
but that's never going to happen so we get to watch the country slowly eat itself up instead
OT never changes
my humble and uneducated opinion is that US politics needs a full overhaul to either move away completely from the current two-party system, or to somehow clear out both parties of the public and private corruption plaguing them in order to move forward
also, politics should not be a day job but that's not going to be changing at this point, so at the very least there should be transparency in where and how money flows in it. politicians are meant to represent the public, so the public should have a right to see what or who is influencing the politicians
but that's never going to happen so we get to watch the country slowly eat itself up instead
I'm sorry I'm triggering you by talking shit about your country, but I'm not going to budge from a firm belief that you can't disprove. Prove me otherwise and we might have a discussion. I mean it's sad enough that every single stereotype about murrica is true, so why even try to defend it?Foxtrot wrote:
can I get a source on that?
jokes aside
How in the fuck is the entirety of the USA a shithole? Give examples. You could literally replace the USA with any country and that sentence would still be viable.
Okay. Stop. Like B1rd said, you just sound like a stereotypical eurofag who is O B S S E S E D about the Americans they see on multimedia.
you're embarrassing yourself
oooohh. nice. nice and edgy. you said negro and yellows. edgy. nice
Are you implying that traditionalism is dead in the US? Oh no, it is very much alive in non-democrat states. Such states don't tend to be as obnoxious and loud as California or New York, though, hence why you probably think traditionalism is dead.
If you want me to be a Eurofag, I'll be a Eurofag. Europe > Murrica
As for the yellows and negros, well, of course you're going to skip the fact that I said white as well. Apparently I can say white, but not yellow or negro. What is this, tumblr? Begone.
As for traditionalism - it depends what you see as such. If you go by the actual definition of it, then no, it's not dead. It's just some twisted and adjusted form of it that turned into what you can call the society you have over there.
I also wanted to add a note about the California and New York example you gave, but the bloody devs made it so you can't edit your posts unless you move onto the new forum, so they can go suck a dick.
Aurani, since this forum won't be existing much longer, I'd like to say that your entire online personality just seems contrived and fake, and I've never sensed any actual sincerity in anything you've actually said.
Well I hope you enjoyed sharing your opinion. I really don't pay much heed to opinions, because if I did I probably wouldn't be where I am today.
As for your opinion - I can only say that that's your issue, not mine. You ought to adjust your senses in that case.
As for your opinion - I can only say that that's your issue, not mine. You ought to adjust your senses in that case.
Please stay on the line, your call is important to us.B1rd wrote:
Aurani, since this forum won't be existing much longer, I'd like to say that your entire online personality just seems contrived and fake, and I've never sensed any actual sincerity in anything you've actually said.
I'm sorry I'm triggering you by talking shit about your country, but I'm not going to budge from a firm belief that you can't disprove.I can't disprove that some parts of the US are shitholes because they are, I never denied that. What you said is that the entirety of the US is a shithole. Wouldn't you be kinda salty too if I said the entirety of your country is a shithole even though you knew it's not true? I'll just drop this link real quick
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/america ... -2017.html
A lot of these states happen to be "tradionalist" states, and the quality of life is high while crime is relatively low. Can you call such states shitholes since they seem to fit your criteria?
I mean it's sad enough that every single stereotype about murrica is true, so why even try to defend it?By that logic, that means the GOOD stereotypes are also true, so why would that be sad? :\
If you want me to be a Eurofag, I'll be a Eurofag. Europe > MurricaDid Muhammed rape you into saying that? Haha!
As for the yellows and negros, well, of course you're going to skip the fact that I said white as well. Apparently I can say white, but not yellow or negro. What is this, tumblr? Begone.Because saying white is as racist as saying yellow and negro, right? Just drop the act. If you wanted to say actual racist slurs, you could have just said cracker. You could have just said "black" as well, but it HAD to be negro. Real classy.
As for traditionalism - it depends what you see as such. If you go by the actual definition of it, then no, it's not dead. It's just some twisted and adjusted form of it that turned into what you can call the society you have over there.Is it possible to be more vague than this? Begone.
First quote: I was making a point that murrica is a *CULTURALLY* shit place - not that it has bad standards of living or that it offers no attractions. Being a melting pot of cultures makes for a weird amalgam that I would rather stay out of. That's my opinion on it, and I'd rather raise my child in almost any country in Europe than over there. I mean it's enough to say that I'd rather let my child grow up in Israel where rockets hit every now and then than constantly wonder if the kid is gonna get mowed down by some mentally ill person with enough of an arsenal to conquer some Middle Eastern country.
As for Muhammed raping me - real classy indeed. Try being more mature if you want to give me shit for responding to your childishness in a childish manner.
As for the negros - I always say negro, even around people of that colour, and none of them have ever said anything against that, because I never meant it in a racist way. The only people to EVER get triggered by such things are those who spend too much time on certain pages on the Internet. I neither meant to be racist by saying negro nor yellow. If I wanted to be racist I would've said chingchong and nigger, or thief - whichever you prefer. If you're trying to be the sjw Internet police, you can sod off. I'm not into that sort of shit.
As for Muhammed raping me - real classy indeed. Try being more mature if you want to give me shit for responding to your childishness in a childish manner.
As for the negros - I always say negro, even around people of that colour, and none of them have ever said anything against that, because I never meant it in a racist way. The only people to EVER get triggered by such things are those who spend too much time on certain pages on the Internet. I neither meant to be racist by saying negro nor yellow. If I wanted to be racist I would've said chingchong and nigger, or thief - whichever you prefer. If you're trying to be the sjw Internet police, you can sod off. I'm not into that sort of shit.
Since when did "negro" become un-PC?
Both America and Europe have culture, albeit different sorts of culture. European countries have thousands of years of history, their own languages, cuisine etc, America has a legacy of fighting against the British Empire and forging a new country. Though I really love classical European food and music, but I'd have to say I prefer to live in America, it's the embodiment of the European classical Liberal tradition, which didn't really succeed in overturning the established powers of Europe, but found fertile ground in America when the founding fathers essentially founded a country on those ideals with the constitution. Though the American establishments have been corrupted a significant deal, I think the original culture of freedom is still fairly alive.
Not that I've been to America of course. Though if you're gonna berate a country for not having culture, then Australia is probably the worst in that regard. We didn't even have a war or anything, just sort of got our independence in an undramatic fashion.
Not that I've been to America of course. Though if you're gonna berate a country for not having culture, then Australia is probably the worst in that regard. We didn't even have a war or anything, just sort of got our independence in an undramatic fashion.
B1rd wrote:
We didn't even have a war or anything
...In connection with the Emu question I have this to say: it is a shameful
spectacle to see how the whole democratic world is oozing sympathy for the
poor tormented Emus, but remains hard-hearted and obdurate when
it comes to helping them which is surely, in view of its attitude, an obvious
duty. The arguments that are brought up as an excuse for not helping them
actually speak for us Australians and Aboriginals.
For this is what they say:
1. "We," that is the democracies, "are not in a position to take in the Emus."
Yet in these empires there are not 10 people to the square kilometer. While
Australia, with her 135 inhabitants to the square kilometer, is supposed to
have room for them!
spectacle to see how the whole democratic world is oozing sympathy for the
poor tormented Emus, but remains hard-hearted and obdurate when
it comes to helping them which is surely, in view of its attitude, an obvious
duty. The arguments that are brought up as an excuse for not helping them
actually speak for us Australians and Aboriginals.
For this is what they say:
1. "We," that is the democracies, "are not in a position to take in the Emus."
Yet in these empires there are not 10 people to the square kilometer. While
Australia, with her 135 inhabitants to the square kilometer, is supposed to
have room for them!
I mean, you have half of that equation correct but I find it unlikely that you'll figure out the second half in our lifetimeB1rd wrote:
Aurani, since this forum won't be existing much longer, I'd like to say that your entire online personality just seems contrived and fake, and I've never sensed any actual sincerity in anything you've actually said.
no need to feel bad, it took me a long time as well
also
I mean you're free to say your opinion, but I just don't understand why someone would say that to someone else apart from it being a poor attempt at trying to get them pissed? "Listen, you are FAKE news, I know it because I know you better than you could ever know yourself!"
y'all dumb thots, stop being mongrels towards my baby serbian angel.
fuckin wild ass kids
too bad your qt bby angle can be quite annoying at times!Milkshake wrote:
y'all dumb thots, stop being mongrels towards my baby serbian angel.
Love you, Aurani <3
Milkshake wrote:
BABY ANGLE
Thanks! It's doing great in school too, I'm glad it's not obtuse.
Well I'll admit I overdid it by claiming the ENTIRETY of it was shit. Some places and people there genuinely make me want to visit it, and when I say visit it, I mean *actually stay there for quite a while*. Yes, most crowded places there are filled with the same people I mentioned in the argument we had, but the rural places as well as some towns are absolutely filled with nothing but beauty and niceness. I'll try not to be more reasonable, but it's definitely not some kind of act or fake personality or whatever Bird was on about.Foxtrot wrote:
too bad your qt bby angle can be quite annoying at times!
Love you, Aurani <3
<3
History lesson for B1rd and anyone else who admires the Nazis.
I'm only one minute into the video and already there's bullshit there. The fuck do the Jews have to do with American gun control? He's taking ONE incident in modern history and uses it for his own argument. I'm VERY interested in hearing what he has to say because this is actually just laughable.
"How many Jews would've been put in ovens if they had guns" - that's not how it fucking works lmao
No civilian, no matter how deranged, would've shot someone who told them that they need to come with them because they're under investigation or another specified reason, and by the time the Jews DID know where they were going (aka going to be murdered) they were facing actual soldiers so yeah, good luck giving a random civilian a gun and telling them to shoot 5 fully equipped soldiers with professional training. Even if we make the assumption that they COULD shoot and possibly get rid of their captors, we're talking about a 1 in a thousand case, and even THEN, where is that person going to go? You have to remember, they kinda LIVED IN GERMANY. You couldn't have left Germany without a reason by the time they started mass-killing the Jews. The Jews who did run away, ran away before that started happening, but after they started mistreating them.
tl;dr Most of them didn't see such a thing coming, and even if they did, they would've been powerless to stop it, because owning a gun has shitall to do with being taken prisoner and burned in an oven in a concentration camp.
Now let's see what the vid has to offer
"How many Jews would've been put in ovens if they had guns" - that's not how it fucking works lmao
No civilian, no matter how deranged, would've shot someone who told them that they need to come with them because they're under investigation or another specified reason, and by the time the Jews DID know where they were going (aka going to be murdered) they were facing actual soldiers so yeah, good luck giving a random civilian a gun and telling them to shoot 5 fully equipped soldiers with professional training. Even if we make the assumption that they COULD shoot and possibly get rid of their captors, we're talking about a 1 in a thousand case, and even THEN, where is that person going to go? You have to remember, they kinda LIVED IN GERMANY. You couldn't have left Germany without a reason by the time they started mass-killing the Jews. The Jews who did run away, ran away before that started happening, but after they started mistreating them.
tl;dr Most of them didn't see such a thing coming, and even if they did, they would've been powerless to stop it, because owning a gun has shitall to do with being taken prisoner and burned in an oven in a concentration camp.
Now let's see what the vid has to offer
Yeah, it's incredibly sad to see people pushing that argument. They're either completely ignorant as to the historical context of the Jews in Germany at the time, or they're being deliberately disingenuous to pander to people who politically already agree with them and see no need to check the factual accuracy of what they're hearing.
I'm going to assume the latter, because people like Ben Shapiro pull this shit so often that it all being accidental ignorance just seems ridiculous. You can Google this stuff in five seconds.
I'm going to assume the latter, because people like Ben Shapiro pull this shit so often that it all being accidental ignorance just seems ridiculous. You can Google this stuff in five seconds.
So basically, Ben Carson said something wrong? That's an awfully roundabout of saying it.
I agree with Ben Shapiro; even if the Jews didn't have a chance of defeating the Third Reich, self defence is still a right and moral good, even if you die in the process. Much better than dying like sheep.
I agree with Ben Shapiro; even if the Jews didn't have a chance of defeating the Third Reich, self defence is still a right and moral good, even if you die in the process. Much better than dying like sheep.
Awfully convenient though to suddenly shift the subject to guns.
Yeah okay this guy is actually supporting my point and isn't against it.
In my opinion, I don't have anything against owning guns, but under SERIOUSLY HEAVY regulations, or if not heavy, just extremely annoying to deal with.
I would love to use Serbia as an example of that, where you actually need to go through fifty thousand loops, sign a shitton of documents, join a shooting range and go through actual training, get 3 licences and pass a psycho test to get a gun (and no random stores to buy military-grade guns either, those have to be bought with yet more paper signing and other shit).
I would love to use Serbia as an example of that, where you actually need to go through fifty thousand loops, sign a shitton of documents, join a shooting range and go through actual training, get 3 licences and pass a psycho test to get a gun (and no random stores to buy military-grade guns either, those have to be bought with yet more paper signing and other shit).
Sounds good to me, too. I'm pretty libertarian to some extent; I think freedom should be a decent priority. I don't see why Americans seem to think that freedom to buy and use guns should extent to any fucking lunatic though; restrictions that try to ensure that they're in the hands of good people are just common sense, from my perspective.Aurani wrote:
In my opinion, I don't have anything against owning guns, but under SERIOUSLY HEAVY regulations, or if not heavy, just extremely annoying to deal with.
I would love to use Serbia as an example of that, where you actually need to go through fifty thousand loops, sign a shitton of documents, join a shooting range and go through actual training, get 3 licences and pass a psycho test to get a gun (and no random stores to buy military-grade guns either, those have to be bought with yet more paper signing and other shit).
America's violence problem isn't due to lack of gun restrictions, It's due to a multitude of factors, like the drug war, gang and ethnic violence as I've pointed out before. The mantra of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" applies because there are heaps of countries with high gun ownership that don't have the problems America does.
Serbia actually has one of the highest rates of firearm ownership in the world, and has a lower homicide rate than many other European nations.
Serbia actually has one of the highest rates of firearm ownership in the world, and has a lower homicide rate than many other European nations.