10
APDSmith 10 points ago +10 / -0

Not until there is a cost (financial, social, something else) to feminists for doing so. At the moment, the only consequence of a loss is that they try again. What motivation do they have to stop?

7
APDSmith 7 points ago +7 / -0

Seemingly to make the point that anything that doesn't bow down to these people will be destroyed by them.

2
APDSmith 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that the point is to hammer home that they're Big People and are allowed to do this to Little People - us.

It kinda fits in with the power politics thing they seem to go in for too. Getting your capricious whims imposed upon unwilling people is the definition of arbitrary power, is it not?

1
APDSmith 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're talking about a group, in Hollywood, that seems to believe that they determine what will become popular and what won't.

2
APDSmith 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah, but we're talking about a bunch that seems to think that the public likes what Hollywood tells them to like - if you're following that method, yeah, you would ram, the new "star" down everyone's throats until the public just gives in and watches the damn film.

Unfortunately - for Hollywood - it seems that they're running out of money faster than we're running out of patience. Shame.

9
APDSmith 9 points ago +9 / -0

Kindly fuck off. I honestly don't have a great deal of time for someone who starts from the position that all men are monsters. What is it in that person's own history has them thinking that men are unable to look at girls without thinking "I'd hit that"?

26
APDSmith 26 points ago +26 / -0

Apparently, that's what the original reporter, Mia Cathell, is following up on.

Good. If somebody knew then they deserve judgement; if they didn't know, they have abjectly failed in their duty to protect vulnerable kids. Just how many background checks were skipped for the expedited process these two chucklefucks were graced with?

25
APDSmith 25 points ago +25 / -0

To add to this: The brother's assets - including the 75% he got from the father - have passed to the brother's children. She's not proposing to fight probate here, her proposal is to make demands of her grieving nephew. And the demand is "Give me 100% of my father's assets"! I suppose the nephew should be thankful she didn't have the entitlement to ask for her brother's assets too!

by folx
5
APDSmith 5 points ago +5 / -0

If for no other reason than for having seen journalists handling firearms, which conclusively shows that abstinence is not the best form of protection where firearms are concerned.

16
APDSmith 16 points ago +16 / -0

Unfortunately, as far as government is concerned lately, convincing is a poor second best to coercing

16
APDSmith 16 points ago +16 / -0

Unless he's read up on Swiss law - specifically, the Swiss constitution, which guarantees "Freedom of expression and information" - Swiss constitution, article 16...

16
APDSmith 16 points ago +17 / -1

What XR and friends seem mostly to be is a bunch of extremely wealthy children desperately trying to run away from being called on their privilege by their own obnoxious friends, now that misery has become some kind of alternate currency.

And so they're required to make up fantastic tales in which, no, they are the poor downtrodden masses and their acts of wanton vandalism are in fact them standing up to The Man, even though That Man is, by and large, somebody else in their family.

24
APDSmith 24 points ago +24 / -0

Also appears to violate both the first amendment - which she probably doesn't care about because it was written by white men, after all - and the 1964 civil rights act. I suspect the trick there is that she views that as "her" legislation and therefore it - to her mind - only applies when she deems it appropriate.

15
APDSmith 15 points ago +15 / -0

Yup. The women are "reserved and awkward" whereas the men, oh, no, those are "losers".

Or, in other words, the traditional feminist "It's OK when we do it!"

3
APDSmith 3 points ago +3 / -0

Eh, they can have my view counts - it'll show Reacher, some old sci-fi films, almost nothing recent and most notably: No Rangz, no Wheel of Time and no Rig. Put good stuff out, and I'll watch it. Put shit out and I'll watch something else.

9
APDSmith 9 points ago +9 / -0

See, I kinda guessed that with how hard Amazon have been pushing the damn thing and never even started it...

13
APDSmith 13 points ago +13 / -0

Prominent Democrats are extremely unhappy at the possibility of the FBI being required to justify itself before Congress.

I mean, just from an accounting perspective, if they wish to be the DNC political police, shouldn't they be funded by the DNC?

Mind you, getting the US taxpayer to finance DNC campaigns (see recent immigration stats) has been a feature of DNC strategy for some time now, hasn't it?

27
APDSmith 27 points ago +27 / -0

helped kill man deemed incapable of choosing assisted suicide

Maybe I'm being a bluff old traditionalist here, but how does this differ from "murder", possibly "conspiracy to murder"?

14
APDSmith 14 points ago +14 / -0

Not to mention the whole fuss around the EU Lisbon Treaty and the EU Nice Treaty, where the EU's response to losing a couple of referenda about turning the EU from a trade zone into a giant over-arching continental bureaucracy that happened to have a government attached, was the Lisbon Treaty. The EU's response to the lack of public support for their first attempt, the Nice Treaty, was to stop asking the public

12
APDSmith 12 points ago +12 / -0

Ahh, but were Miller a "MAP", wouldn't that count as being very much oppressed to some worldviews?

Yeah, I'm being cautious, I live in the UK and a libel suit is not fun...

3
APDSmith 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'm fairly sure that they are - they're certainly treating the population as some kind of recently-conquered province that may erupt into revolt at any moment judging by the way they're cracking down on dissent.

3
APDSmith 3 points ago +3 / -0

Unfortunately - and I don't know whether this is by design from the people leading the flock of sheep "liberal" discussion - those danger-hair landwhales do seem to know that they need a serf class to parasitise. They need somebody to do all of the icky jobs, after all - but in deference to the doublethink that characterises the fake liberals, they will, in the name of tolerance, despise those people.

2
APDSmith 2 points ago +2 / -0

Joke's on you, it's Rincewind from Discworld

1
APDSmith 1 point ago +1 / -0

Heh, I was speaking to a contractor some years back, their CEO had a fancy new car with an automatic parking feature ... chuffed to bits with his new car as he was, he wanted to show it off, so took it to a multi-story car park, got ready to show it off ...

And the car confused the shadow in front of the concrete wall for a space that was completely open and started reversing back at full speed. Fortunately, the CEO wasn't a complete idiot and managed to bring the car to a stop before writing it off...

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›