You know what the funniest thing about the whole AI translations thing really is? AI isn't fool-proof. It's gonna make mistakes every now and then. And a localization company could make BANK by involving AI for the bulk of their work and using current localizers as essentially editors to make sure it works. And these freaks would still be able to control the industry.
But they're literally too stupid for it. They can't see how easy it would be to come out on top. And I couldn't be happier for it.
The meme isn't even about white replacement. Which makes their response awfully suspicious to state when not even prompted. Almost like it's a guilty conscience.
It's not thousands, and after a quick look the image from OP is one of the worse ones, but there are plenty of quote retweets of that specific tweet that are along the same line.
So yeah, OP is doing some clickbait/hyperbole, but that's just on this one tweet as well. There are thousands of tweets like this all the time across a variety of tweets, and none of them get any sort of treatment like other posts do. But nothing is new there.
Firstly, 29 dates in a year. I haven't dated 29 different people in my whole-ass life, you slut.
I'm gonna play devil's advocate here (though she probably doesn't deserve it) and suggest that maybe she's including the dates that lasted a single date (number 19 seems to be like this) while also including longer term relationships (like number 20), which are two very different things. Single dates are opportunities to try and find people, to give them an initial chance to see if the chance at a relationship is worth pursuing.
That said, 29 dates in a single year is more than 1 every fortnight. And I'd say that 19 of these are almost definitely single dates, so assuming that the remaining 10 of those are at least 3 dates long, she'd have a very busy schedule of dating if she also works a standard full-time job (meaning dating is pretty much weekend exclusive). But I doubt that's the case, so she's bringing fuck all to the dating scene while having higher standards than she's expecting the men to have for her, and probably lining up dates multiple days in a row. Zero surprises there.
Oh, also, I love when leftist women like this bitch and moan about "muh mental issues" when dating, when they're supposed to be the most tolerant and loving bunch out there. I don't mind not wanting to date someone with mental health issues, but they're always so willing to try and spread muh awareness and care up until it might effect themselves. Then it's all about getting it as far away from them as they possibly can. Which isn't surprising, that's the case for most leftists. Just look at them regarding immigration.
It truly is amazing how so many men will openly and eagerly state that this is not attractive, and these dumbasses simply cannot comprehend that it's the truth. They truly believe that men as a whole are lying, and then when men yet again tell them they don't find this attractive, they get mad and angry at men for...... well, who the fuck knows what the supposed reason is. The actual reason is that they get mad at men to avoid coming to terms with the reality that they did it to themselves of their own free will under a delusion that they know what men want when they actively dismiss what men explicitly say.
The complete reliance people have on others controlling their experiences has been nothing but a cancer.
And if anyone needs an example of this in the worst extreme, look no further than online gaming now compared to 10+ years ago, primarily the gaming that was on PC at that. Look at how what was once dominated with private servers where every group could have their own corner has now been eradicated into an unironically toxic shithole of mixed groups.
Many here would say they hate those that are SocJus inclined, but the issue would be mitigated if they simply stayed in their little corners, and other groups in there. Let skinheads and feminists have their own servers, but don't pretend like they're going to get along via public servers. This is the issue. And then instead of self-moderation (eg, you the end user curating your own life choices including where you spend your time), people are expected to rely on some central authority, namely the developers/publishers, and then wonder why it all ends up so shit.
This isn't limited to the online either. People need to stop looking to rely on others to tell them how to conduct their lives. To stop looking for people to be banned, excluded or punished simply because it doesn't align with them. Whether it's something as relatively small as gaming to something as major as relying on ever growing government, society at large needs to become a lot more independent about how they conduct themselves.
People who want something "let go" typically only want such things because to remember it would be to hold them accountable in some way.
Best case scenario is that this loser wants it "let go" so he can forget his complicity with authoritarian measures. Worst case, he was actively on the side of authoritarian measures, still is, and fears if people are actually held accountable.
EDIT: Openly calls himself a cultural marxist, it's definitely the latter in some form.
You should also consider the change in standards. Do you think the average first home buyer in the 60s was looking for a house with excess rooms? Most were shitty things with maybe 5 rooms (main bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, dining and either a lounge/living area or a second bedroom for kids). Contrast with today and the standard seems to be 3 bedroom minimum with two living spaces, each with their own TV. Which also applies to other aspects like technological standards, including things like AC, heating or general appliances.
The reality is that the standards of the footprint of a home has increased over the years, as has the standards of what is included in a home. This has priced more and more people out of the market as they refuse to lower their standards, because let's be real: these freaks aren't even remotely ready to lower their lives to the standards of the 60s, but they want 60s prices.
Never let them get away with double standards. They want the prices of back then, they have to live like back then, and maybe it might be feasible for their min wage mooching asses.
Rather than "how dare someone disagree with me on Trump?"
Do you think that's what I said, even a little? You really gonna be THAT disingenuous? Because being that kind of disingenuous would really undermine your entire point.
Which gave me the impression that Liana was always controlled opposition, or at least reluctant to attack her fellow female feminists.
That wasn't it. It's that Sarkeesian was Liana's competition. Liana was competing for an audience, and Liana was happy to align herself with another audience where she might be able to gain even a modicum of traction for her views. And frankly, it somewhat worked. A lot of early GG people, especially outside of the KiA2 splinter, are still very leftist in nature. She found an audience and many fell for it. Same with CHS. They were all still pushing from the same book. It was just about the amount of push. While Sarkeesian was trying to use wrecking balls, Liana and CHS were using hand hammers. By comparison, they're tame, but they're still after the same goal at the end of the day. They're still playing from the same SocJus playbook.
Cool story, she's still just another Anita Sarkeesian, but with an ounce more tact. She's still pushing the same tired topics. She's still a feminist. She's still a grifter. She was less "neutral" and more "tactful", trying to lure flies with honey rather than turds.
Remember, going through official channels of bureaucracy is clearly a sign of being an authoritarian!
Geez, I'm not the biggest fan of Trump, but the vast majority of criticism is just utterly fucking unhinged. I'm glad OP is intent on documenting GG, but I couldn't imagine a more "head in sand" response than what he gave. Literally repeating the establishment mantra about Trump. Utterly insane.
It's not lazy, it's the localizers dogshit attempt at humour. I'd be MUCH happier if the issue with localizers was laziness, but it's not. The issue is that they're dumbasses that continually make changes because they arrogantly think they know better, not realising that if they did know better, they'd be writers and not localizers.
It's pretty sad when "burn it all down, possibly forever" is considered a far better course of action over letting the status quo continue on. And I don't disagree with that assessment, it's just sad that the current status quo is that bad.
Good call. Like I said, I had a very quick glance at the about me and didn't really read it, but I should have caught that one.
Admittedly, it's not from some site called "Plate", and the author isn't some "A. Golding". And if I'm honest, Poe's Law is in full swing when looking into AFRU because it just seems like some troll, but if it is meant to be satirical, there's no dead giveaway in my quick glance around their About Us page.
The government deliberately created all the inflation in our society. For decades they removed our rights to save in stable forms
You can thank Keynesian economics for that one. Even the people who had good intentions (not that good intentions are worth all that much) were pushing this shit. And it's been pushed for so long now that practically nobody in government has any power to truly point out how terrible Keynesian economics are.
But then again, government loves Keynesian economics. Financial transactions are the easiest to tax, so you make policies that incentivises as many financial transactions as possible so you can get as many cuts of said transactions as possible. Keynesian economics are a gold mine for the government.
In this post here you said "When i was on youtube between the years of 2015-2017 i was heavily invested in anti woke content". Despite this claim, you don't know some of the most basic shit about rather well known controversies. It's almost like you speak out of your ass a lot, trying to make it seem like you're "one of us", but continually either don't know basic shit, or you're playing dumb to troll.
Blatant D&C is blatant.
it would lead me to believe, that they were molested by older people as kids. but that's just context i have to infer. because you did not outright state if younger gay people were raped by adults or not.
Information I saw was that the vast, vast majority were older, adult men had fucked them.
because alot of younger straight kids lose their virginity all the time to kids at or around their own age.
It's more common today, but not 30+ years ago. It happened, but it was far far rarer, especially when discussing age groups under 10.
in favor of bashing gay people.
You're such a fucking retard. You have the information put right in front of you, but you kneejerk back to the status quo. Homosexuality is tied to abuse, as is pedophilia. It's not that "gays are pedophiles", but rather that there is a common link through abuse. Contrary to the popular slogan, the vast majority of homosexuals (and no, I won't say all, because I don't believe it to be all) are not in fact "born that way".
And this doesn't even touch on other factors like porn addiction. Seriously, look into how many homosexuals have porn addiction. If they were simply "born that way", these trends shouldn't exist. These statistics and trends should mirror the rest of normal society. But they don't. Because they're not born that way. They suffered from abuse in some form or another (though overwhelmingly sexual in nature). Whether that's at the hand of another or self-inflicted via porn addiction doesn't really matter. But there is a cause.
Maybe you've been told a lie you're entire life. And maybe you're not willing to truly entertain the idea because you can't handle the concept of you being lied to so thoroughly that you became complicit. Because then you have to come to terms with your nature. It's no secret you wear "degenerate" like a badge of pride. Maybe you're kneejerking back to avoid your own self-reflection.
Well, it was always a thing until the late 90s. And it doesn't just make them look bad. It's not like they were forced to associate. They feely and often openly associated until there was enough LGBT that said "this is pretty fucked up", and then they got lax and now we're in a similar position as before where a rather large amount of pedos infest LGBT spaces and are defended by other LGBT groups by default.
Any other group that did this would be rightfully dragged over the coals for such tribalism that they willingly hide pedophiles amongst themselves, but this one for some reason gets a pass.
By the way, why don't you go look into when the vast majority of gays had their first sexual experience with another person. You'll find most were definitely minors. Did you also know that sexual abuse (like most abuse) is a cycle that is self perpetuating, with a large number of victims later going on to commit their own atrocities as well? Gee, I wonder if any of this might be linked to one another?
Bury your head in the sand if you want. But the reality is that a lot of these people were at one point victims themselves and that does nothing to excuse the harm they later present to others. Maybe there's a real problem that's being perpetuated under the delusion of being kind and tolerant. Maybe this is resulting in more and more people, namely young children, being harmed.
what a privilege
Really. We want to go down a "muh privilege" route? And you're gonna wonder why I'm not a fan of collectivism, especially when you use it interchangeably to refer to association.
Just to make this clear for me, because you're beyond retarded and often don't write very well: Are you suggesting that you don't know why the LGBT movement would sever ties with NAMbLA and that's it's "pretty fucked up" that they did?
Because this comment would be in direct contradiction to anything you've said prior and an admission that there is in fact a tie between the LGBT movement and pedophiles.
Again, just for clarity here.
I don't need to like something to recognise that the alternative is far worse, or that cultures overwhelmingly don't mix. The "issue" (if you want to take it that far, which it isn't) is more the active nature that many nationalistic elements take. I'm also not a huge fan of how nationalism is often abused and deliberately muddled with state loyalty.
The ideal of nationalism versus the practice and application of nationalism are two different things, and while I'm not against the former, the latter is a bit more murkier. I'm not a fan of collectivism regardless of the collective, be it the communist variety or the nationalist variety (primarily ethno-nationalism). The collectivist nature is the element that I most struggle to find myself supporting. And maybe you'll find that makes me weak, or naively idealistic, or this, or that, and that's fine. I know that it's an area I haven't fully explored in myself, and know that there's some elements that don't robustly add up.
Because I'm not against the idea of immigration (presuming there is assimilation as opposed to the lie of multiculturalism). Isolationism isn't something I support either. But this globalist trajectory everything is heading towards is far, far worse than the negatives I see in either of those positions.
I'd somewhat agree with them, but for opposite reasons. It's easy and shallow to point at Nazi Germany as a negative of "too much nationalism", but far too little look at how it was born from far too little.
To oversimplify it, Nazi Germany was the result of Germany being abused after WW1. This is why Hitler, contrary to popular belief, isn't the primary cause. He was just one man that answered the call of the people. Sure, he directed a fair chunk of it, but mass nationalism was always going to happen.
And the root problem was accepting that abuse in the first place. Having so little nationalism that you allow yourself to be downtrodden.
I'm not a fan of nationalism. But to deny the social importance of such stances is to invite in destruction. The biggest lie out there is "multiculturalism", because cultures do not mix. They might be able to coexist in very limited natures, but they do not mix well. And what's more important is that most people do not understand what culture actually is, focusing solely on superfluous elements like food, dance, music, fashion, etc, and not the important elements like social structures, morality, justice, etc. And because of that shallow understanding of culture, so many are willing to let it go time and again under the delusion that you're being tolerant, or letting people who are antithetical to said culture into your spaces (Islam into Western Nations for a very clear cut example), or laying down and taking abusive structures that are imposed upon you by those looking to subjugate others.
Again, I'm not a fan of nationalism. But the alternative is far far worse.
Don't you bitch that you don't get taken seriously around here?
If that's the case, why are these posts made to be inflammatory to try and phish for angry responses you can laugh about on other subs? Seems like the actions of someone explicitly looking to NOT engage with others, and only try to troll. People who earnestly try to engage don't behave like that.