:weary: :weary :weary:

aren't you banned from here

THAT's not how it workssssssss

Raspberriel wrote:

Shoegazer maps are good maps

Evening's too edgy for Eze

Izect is that a Win 95 machine :thinking:

No one mentioned my favourite mapper

I had a pretty shit day today as I woke up with a stomach ache which sucked massive horse dick because it meant I had stay at home, and I hate staying at home. My roommates were really nice and cooked some good shit for me to eat but I wasn't having any of their shit because that shit kept making me shit bricks and despite my asshole being fairly loose, it just couldn't handle the shit coming it's way. It eventually ended though with one last trip to the toilet when liquid shit came out of my ass signalling the end of my suffering, making me think to myself, "Man, don't you just hate it when you shit liquid?"
So I searched the exact same thing that I had thought on google, on my phone, while still taking a shit and came across this thread on ign: http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/having-liquid-poop-is-literally-the-worst-thing-ever.452916527/
So I read that shit while still taking a shit and I gotta say... A+
The point I'm trying to get at with this story is, where can I find more quality threads like this?

here’s my “dippy fresh” clone ^^

Damn b1rd’s posting good communist memes now. Does this mean he’s finally rejecting the free market and embracing communism?

It should be clear that the meme indicates the silliness of a third party intervening in the contracts between consenting individuals.

"Oy vey, this person isn't paying you the arbitrary amount of money I believe the minimum amount that a person can live on while having a happy and fulfilling life, so I'm going to destroy your right to be self-sufficient by making it illegal to work at your capabilities and force you into living in idleness off state handouts."

B1rd wrote:

More like she accues you of rape afterwards

I am SleepyDarkrai, I'm 3% from luminal and have only been playing this game for a year and a half. I am edging close to what you'd call "top player" and are most likely going to be one by the end of the year. You will see me in next year's MWC, and the only reason I won't be signing up this year is because I had a large silence that will stop me. Just because snover has been playing for a long time, hence his skill, does't make his disliking to the scores of literally the best player in this game any more just justifiable. I don't fanboy over jhlee because he's simply jhlee, I fanboy over him because he's the best! Even after so lackadaisically taking around a year of hiatus from serious play online and off, he comes back here setting scores on 4k which are verging on 100-200k higher than snover- Sorry I mean "Mr. Top Player", and 5-9k scores which beat out jakads.

"countless players have ss'd this and could even pass this score" as of right now there's probably been like 3 ss ranks on the map in its current state so I dont really understand where you're getting that info from - unless you mean stepmania in which case the judge is absolute piss in comparison to this OD. No one is going to beat this score, I doubt you watched the replay but jhlee was not trying very hard. throughout the entire map he hits less than 200 300s (which is absolutely slamming alone), around 50 of which came from the break in the middle. That leaves around 120 M300s for the rest of the entire map. if someone did miraculously beat his score on this, he will redo it without the hilarious to watch bad ratio in the easy section (which will be around 999100).

Again, I am SleepyDarkrai; A player reaching the top eventually. I post the scores of the best player in the game that I love, and I think that's a good justification as to why I do it. I do not know who you are, but you're just as annoying as snover and that's not good

DJ Enetro wrote:

Izect is that a Win 95 machine :thinking:

na'h, it's....umm....Windows 98


...Second Edition

https://winworldpc.com/product/windows- ... nd-edition

hi just testing if signature works lol, bye

Yuudachi-kun wrote:

I am SleepyDarkrai, I'm 3% from luminal and have only been playing this game for a year and a half. I am edging close to what you'd call "top player" and are most likely going to be one by the end of the year. You will see me in next year's MWC, and the only reason I won't be signing up this year is because I had a large silence that will stop me. Just because snover has been playing for a long time, hence his skill, does't make his disliking to the scores of literally the best player in this game any more just justifiable. I don't fanboy over jhlee because he's simply jhlee, I fanboy over him because he's the best! Even after so lackadaisically taking around a year of hiatus from serious play online and off, he comes back here setting scores on 4k which are verging on 100-200k higher than snover- Sorry I mean "Mr. Top Player", and 5-9k scores which beat out jakads.

"countless players have ss'd this and could even pass this score" as of right now there's probably been like 3 ss ranks on the map in its current state so I dont really understand where you're getting that info from - unless you mean stepmania in which case the judge is absolute piss in comparison to this OD. No one is going to beat this score, I doubt you watched the replay but jhlee was not trying very hard. throughout the entire map he hits less than 200 300s (which is absolutely slamming alone), around 50 of which came from the break in the middle. That leaves around 120 M300s for the rest of the entire map. if someone did miraculously beat his score on this, he will redo it without the hilarious to watch bad ratio in the easy section (which will be around 999100).

Again, I am SleepyDarkrai; A player reaching the top eventually. I post the scores of the best player in the game that I love, and I think that's a good justification as to why I do it. I do not know who you are, but you're just as annoying as snover and that's not good

dammit, you too?

Now do one one for Mass Shootings in America

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

B1rd, have you ever actually shot a gun? :3c

I'd like to.

B1rd wrote:

I'd like to.

sometimes I really wish people were stopped from having opinions on topics they have no real experience with

I know more about guns than most people do. I don't need to have personal experience with guns to have knowledge on abstract theories such as gun control and the right to bear arms. Shooting a gun doesn't magically fill your brain with knowledge on anything other than how to aim and pull a trigger.

B1rd wrote:

I know more about guns than most people do. I don't need to have personal experience with guns to have knowledge on abstract theories such as gun control and the right to bear arms. Shooting a gun doesn't magically fill your brain with knowledge on anything other than how to aim and pull a trigger.

no, but it can give you some insight on why certain people feel uncomfortable about them, while others find them to be a hobby that's even relaxing at times :3c
it's hard to really fully comprehend how deadly/dangerous guns can be if you haven't messed around with one personally

I've seen enough people shot on Liveleak to be able to comprehend how dangerous they are. And for that matter I've seen even more people run over by cars. The fear of guns is mostly an irrational byproduct of people being subject to senationalised mass shootings in the media. You're much more likely to be killed by the traffic around you than by an average joe open carrying a hand gun.

Firearms aren't just a hobby, bearing arms entails the responsibility of protecting yourself, your family and your liberty from criminals, invaders and tyrants. Unfortunately this conception has been lost in most places of the world and people have been foolish enough to give up their means of defence and instead place that duty on the state, which is foolish. The right to bear arms is the right to protect all your other rights, and any right you can't physically enforce is a right you don't really have.

B1rd wrote:

You're much more likely to be killed by the traffic around you than by an average joe open carrying a hand gun.

Oh shit, B1rd's making the argument that fear of terrorism is irrational since the chance of it actually affecting you is so incredibly low compared to other things.


First the communist meme, now this. B1rd, are you actually slowly becoming more left-wing by the day? I'm proud of you, girl.

Everyone can see through your disingenuousness. Immigrants should be kicked out of the country en masse because they commit crime and drain resources, not just because they commit terrorist acts.

Baby steps, I suppose! Just keep applying the logic of pros vs cons in terms of real numbers rather than scary feels and allow your political beliefs to flex a bit, you might be surprised.

Right, because a tick drinks only a "little bit" of blood, that's perfectly fine and you should do nothing about it.

If that tick's an essential part of a well-functioning economy that ultimately produces more blood for you than it sucks, then sure! Profits are what matters rather than simple "revenue" and "costs" in a vacuum, after all. (Particularly if you're being silly and only looking at the costs.)

Yes, even though immigrants take in the most welfare [1][2], have high unemployment rates [3][4], and are empirically a fiscal drain on the economy of Sweden to the sum of 1.35% of the GDP [5][6], not including resettlement costs (to put that in to perspective, that's a larger share of the GDP than the USA spends on the navy, and also keep in mind, most of these immigrants are young and are yet to burden the healthcare system as they age), these immigrants somehow, and unquantifiably, a "boost the economy"? How are they an "essential part" of an economy that they just came in to, which is bending over backwards to accommodate them?

And maybe you've had a change of heart and gone full capitalist on me, but profits aren't all that matter. Even if immigrants were a "boost to the economy" (or really, a boost in arbitrary macroeconomic markers), the increase in crime [7][8][9] and breakdown on societal cohesion and social capital that inevitably results from increasing racial heterogeneity [10] more than outweighs the benefits.

The fact is third world immigrants are not compatible with the West as their lower IQ and other innate biological differences prevent them from successfully integrating. Sweden is for Swedes, France is for French, and everyone should be able to live among their own kind in their ancestral country of origin. Especially since people of the same ethnicity share similar characteristics thus are more inclined to get along (no, it's not just "you look like me, therefore I like you" tribalism).

Well, first off, refugees aren't the same as "immigrants". They're a specific type of immigrant, people displaced from their home countries by war and are evacuating their own failed states etc. Expecting them to be the same as, for example, a legal immigrant is absolutely absurd.

I don't argue for refugees from an economic standpoint because of that- I think refugees should be accepted into other countries for purely humanitarian reasons, since I would appreciate the same treatment if I were one of them!

Also, I haven't had a "change of heart"- for all of my arguments, I'm not a communist or whatever you might assume lol. I'm pro-capitalism and in favour of social democracy as the system going forward.

Some of your sources are hilariously low quality, I'd just not include them if I were you since they only harm your argument. (Talking about sources 7 and 9, here.)

Last paragraph is a waste of words since meaningful racial differences have been scientifically disproven for quite a while now.


As far as I'm aware, crime increases as a result of immigration tend to even out within 20-30 years..? Something else worth mentioning is that immigrants are going to come into the country at a certain age- late teenagers, adults. Young children almost never commit crime, so the age differences explain a large disparity in crimerates- as well as explaining why that disparity tends to disappear within a generation, since the children of those immigrants will of course go through their childhood years before even really having the opportunity to commit crime, same as the native population.

Immigration is hugely important for the economies of many countries around the world, since it provides the competition and workforce needed in both unskilled work and certain skilled professions.

You've disproved the theory of evolution? If so, I highly recommend you publish your work, I can guarantee a Nobel prize.

You're going to have to accept the reality of human biodiversity sooner or later. Either that or stay in a regressive intellectual sphere that refuses to acknowledge reality. Pretty much every anti-race realism video on Youtube has been debunked; Kraut and Tea and his gang of scientists have pretty much been annihilated and sent into shell shock in their efforts to disprove it to fight the "alt-right", centrists like Sargon and Leftists like Sam Harris acknowledge it, the blank slate theory pretty much has no validity and is only held in place by ideology. The Australian Aborigines have superior eyesight, the Ethiopians have superior long-distance running ability, Whites are better at Swimming, in a majority White America black boxers reigned supreme; I don't think you deny meaningful physical differences between the races, but you're someone riding on this theory that the brain is somehow completely independent of genes and the forces of evolution which leads to the success of certain genes in procreating due to traits that the are beneficial in a certain environment. Yet it's clear that if you use logic, the brain is not independent of the nature of reality. Guns, Germs and Steel is useful in that it correctly asserts that different environments are conducive to different levels of human civilisation; the conclusion however that we can derive from this, is not that there isn't a difference in cognitive abilities between the races, but that the different environments which were conducive to higher levels of civilisation and human development in turn produced a greater evolutionary selection of cognitive traits, as opposed to physical traits. The brain takes a disproportionately large amount of resources to sustain, it's very heavy, and generally a hindrance when you're sprinting across the plains of Africa trying to throw spears at wild animals. However, taking part in a complex agrarian society, intelligence and the ability to plan ahead is very useful. And if you look at all the evidence, of which there is an abundance, it supports the hypothesis that cognitive abilities differ across the races as much as physical and physiological characteristics do.

We all know what type of immigrants I'm talking about when I us the word immigrants. I'm not talking about middle-class whites from the UK, I'm talking about those coming from Syria and third world nations. The necessity for immigration for the economy is largely overstated; it's useful to have a movement of skilled labour, however large influxes of people from countries of vastly different culture and race are not beneficial for the native populace. It's just a product of a spendthrift state trying to expand its tax base to pay for to pay for it's unsustainable amount of spending.

And you're dead wrong on your immigration analysis. The funny thing is is that most immigrants commit less crime than natives, while their children commit more crime and regress towards the racial mean. I think the difference between European immigration and immigration say, to the US, is that the US has a better culture of integrating immigrants, while places like Sweden are synonymous with a parent spoiling their child with entitlements and privileges. If you were actually primarily concerned with helping the refugees for humanitarian reasons, you'd support the relocation of people in countries near the middle east, where not only is it vastly cheaper to pay for, but where the immigrants won't be forced into a completely different culture and society in which they will never properly fit in.

Also, tell me how a native Swede, who lives in a migrant areas, is a journalist with his own newspaper and regular documents crime is somehow not a good source. Most Swedes, especially those who advocate more for immigration live in racially homogenous upper class communities.

Cognitive differences between races aren't simple "evolution". Your beliefs of differences between "races" are at best misinformed and at worst disingenuous. Are you seriously suggesting that the brain is "very heavy, and generally a hindrance when sprinting across the plains of Africa"? Human civilisation as we know it has only even existed for a few thousand years. The fact that different environments are conducive to different levels of technological development isn't an argument that favours racial differences in IQ or anything along those lines, the correlation is simply that with greater resources comes greater advancement, which should be fairly obvious. Going further than that is over-extrapolation.

If you're talking about third-world refugees, just specify that. Plenty of legal immigrants from the third world do just fine, also, and even refugees manage to integrate with time.

I'm in full support of allowing refugees somewhere to stay wherever is most convenient. If Turkey would accept every refugee, that'd be great, since they wouldn't need to travel so far etc to escape war. However, refugees aren't simply accepted to the first country they apply to, hence why they must go further than the closest available country.

I'm not a fan of that source because it's a perfect example of cherry-picking. You can take ANY personal account to support whatever point you want, it's a complete waste of time. There's a reason why I don't use random personal accounts of "a businessman who's life changed when he accepted a humble, intelligent refugee into his workshop!" or whatever ridiculous "source" would support my point- they're useless.

You can't deny that intelligence has a genetic basis. And you can't deny that genes that produce traits that are aid reproduction and survival in a given environment will propagate while those that do not aid in reproduction and survival do not. This is what evolution is, and yes, thousands of years will suffice to produce noticeable genetic changes, especially when there are drastic changes in environment, such as with the advent of agriculture. Human evolution is still ongoing. The hypothesis that there is no racial differences in traits such as IQ have been thoroughly debunked by quantitative genetics looking at the effect of environment vs genes on people of different races. The fact is, that the racial IQ gap has not disappeared even after generations of people living in the same environment.

You could pay any of the neighboring countries a fraction of the price that Western countries are paying for refugees and they would accept them.

And if I were bringing up an example of a single incident of immigrants committing crime, or a single personal account, say, "I went to Sweden and talked to a few Swedes and everything seemed just fine", that would be unworthy of consideration. However a journalist who lives in a immigrant neighborhood and makes an observation on the amount of crime, that is not trivial. Statistics aren't always the be all end all because they are easy to falsify and are often misleading. Boots on the ground reporting is also a valuable tool, and we can see from that that there is an abnormal prevalence of crime that is entirely atypical of what you normally see in developed white countries. Cars being burnt on a frequent basis and emergency services workers being attacked is not normal in West.

Weird how these genetic determinists always insist on filtering using a phenotypic test.

B1rd wrote:

You could pay any of the neighboring countries a fraction of the price that Western countries are paying for refugees and they would accept them.

And if I were bringing up an example of a single incident of immigrants committing crime, or a single personal account, say, "I went to Sweden and talked to a few Swedes and everything seemed just fine", that would be unworthy of consideration. However a journalist who lives in a immigrant neighborhood and makes an observation on the amount of crime, that is not trivial. Statistics aren't always the be all end all because they are easy to falsify and are often misleading. Boots on the ground reporting is also a valuable tool

If you could just pay other countries to take refugees, that's what some countries would be doing.

Also, you know that journalist's account is still a personal account, right? I find it kind of hilarious that you find it easy to discount statistics but value "boots on the ground reporting". Personal accounts are completely worthless simply for the fact that you can show whatever you want with them.

You realise that statistics are just as falsifiable as video evidence, right? Even more so, since you don't need props and actors. Also, props for ignoring the race argument.

We get it the Earth is flat and the moon landing was a hoax.