CONFIRMED!! lol this is dumb

You wear a cape around the house, don't you?

It's fucking crazy, dude. And this is your life, spent one screed at a time. Yelling at people online for using words that trigger you. Seriously, for your own good, go do anything else.

You should really find something else to do that isn't this.

LOL oh man that name. It's like an NPC placeholder name they forgot to update. It's like naming a paki Littleboat Rapist.

Why are you doing this? Some people mean demons metaphorically as they would says orcs or goblins or whathaveyou. Some say it meaning biblically, literally, a hellspawn minion of Satan. Some mean heretic, dark pagan, believer in unsavory demon-gods like moloch or baal, or acting on behalf or in cahoots with such. The most common usage is a stand-in for "really bad dude, like cosmically, spiritually bad," no matter what cosmology they believe.

Why is it important to you, important enough, to take specific umbrage at how people describe malefactors?

Thank you. You never hear this perspective, because 99% of what you can find out easily and quickly is focused on the beginning shit, and still most of those that can get past that find it irrevocably tainted by those episodes.

Where are you at, with Trek--so I can get a feel for your tastes--the different series. Where I am is finally watching TOS fully for the first time, just into the second season, but it's already my favorite. I grew up with and had great affinity for TNG, though as an adult I find it very hit-or-miss, and the miss is surprisingly cringe. Liked the (even-numbered) movies well enough. Watched some DS9, some Voyager, first season of each I'd say, and thought it was okay, but not enough to keep going, mostly because of changing television-viewing habits rather than quality concerns. Hate the reboot movies, hate pretty much all ST content after First Contact, 1996.

Would you say, in hindsight, that this was time well-spent?

There's a staggering number of people out there who haven't grown past the assumption that they must consume some sort of modern content. These people have probably never pirated so much as a 80's Saturday morning cartoon in their lives.

As the content across the board has grown poor-quality, ideology-driven, didactic, a very full, colorful, and blooming garden of rank-smelling trash, these folks have had their expectations lowered and their critical faculties dulled. They've had to either acquiesce to watching agenda-laden drivel with an open (blank, dulled) mind, or are on an ongoing hunt for the least worst content.

I think this is why just about all modern content has that same irreverent tone: If anything was taken at all seriously, it might encourage brains to start engaging, and inviting a critical eye toward the content, and they can't have that. As long as the clown nose is in play, the trash content can always use "Why you taking things so seriously?" as a rejoinder that shields the slop from criticism.

And here I thought I was beyond getting angry at something a politician says. Thanks, shitstain.

I gave enough context for it to be apparent we are not using the same idea of what "dominance" meant here. That one word choice is also the least interesting or important part of what I said, and it provoked you into arguing against a position, supposedly mine, that I didn't actually articulate. You also chose to focus on the word and run with it, abandoning all the sense and meaning of what was said.

This is malignant lawyer behavior. Which, combined with a look-over of what else you've said in this forum, is hardly surprising.

I don't trust anything you say a jot. Your bread is very clearly buttered. I think you misrepresent who you are, and why you're "arguing." You're agenda-driven. It was clear from how you came out of the gate, with a very long screed that had very little to do with my post.

Maybe you're Doing It For Free, but smart money says your palm is greased one way or another.

Ingratiation is what I described. Most obviously, the United States political, social, financial, media, educational, entertainment, arts, and you name it. It's either outright owned, owes all of its financing to (and therefore is behold to) this power-behind-the-throne influence (note I said "control," you called it "dominance," and these are very different things). The United States still for the time being by far the most potent player on the board, this power is considerable--maybe even ultimate.

Is it your position that this is not so?

Holy nuts this is weird. I don't know who you think you are talking to, or what that person has to do with anything I've said, but I don't think I'm even in the same orchard as the tree you're barking up. I could sit here pondering what I said that would provoke this..this thing you're doing, but instead, I'll put a quarter in the hat and back away slowly.

This was the whole point of my post. I don't think you quite got it.

But to wish any group to be eradicated is to invite them to rightfully want to defend themselves.

This is chicken-egg, is my point. They had a strategy of flying-under-radar that was remarkably successful, and put them in soft-to-hard control over just about everything except China and insignificant pockets of savages in the Middle East. All they had to do was keep reaping rewards, governing with a light touch, and don't get caught, and the gravy train has no end in sight.

This "defence," combined with the sudden-onset open arrogance and overt action, is what's going to spoil the whole game for them. They're showing their power, and playing far too much "our-way-or-the-highway," while also subverting and weakening their own safety net, their shield, and their bloodbag.

The jewish dominance can only exist under continued optics of defence. By their own actions, it's looking less and less, hourly, like defence, and more like power-mongering.

These optics of defense are their best shot at prosperity and continuation, and they've been throwing it away. Are they gaining or losing by this? The consequences of over-extension are severe. edit: Which they know, because this has all happened before--it's practically cyclical.

But I'm pointing out here that this video is not some "gotcha" in favor of the Jew haters.

It pretty much is though, if nothing else then due to the comments.

It's bad enough the dude runs to mommy to try and get her to remove the jail-tat guy, but then he actually goes up to him and pushes him. That's clear assault. And many of the comments are not just agreeing that swatzis are bad, but that the guy who got physical and went hands-on is in the right in what he did.

I'm not sure if they're agreeing with the teacher-teacher routine, coming out against freedom of (this particular) expression, or cheering on the physicality, but it doesn't really matter. Any of these reasons is antithetical to Americans, and it has to come from feelings of an exalted position--over everybody.

edit:

That's a lot of what's wild about what's happening right now, and why actual jew disgust (as opposed to "anti-semitism," which is a phantom) is rising all across the board, all across the world, at an amazing rate. Jews are swinging dick all over the place, right out in the open where their hosts and protectors can see. I'm watching this through splayed fingers, because it just seems so utterly unnecessary and frankly stupid for them to do this. They've got to know at some level that this is going to create incredible chaos, and that their hides are going to be on the line when it comes.

Sexual encounters in games tickle that same brain part that wants to collect everything, and that wants to avoid FOMO.

This used to be light-hearted, and transgressive in a fun way. With stuff like Leisure Suit Larry, it was overtly silly, and a lot of it was the meta of using a Serious Business (or Education) Machine to do prurient content. The progmob still screams bloody murder over things like Custer's Revenge, but it was only ever silly and fun. There could be something darker here--when I was a kid, most of my dirty material was in games, like banging the frost wizard chick in Ultima 7: Part 2: Serpent Isle. I wouldn't be at all surprised if people like Garriott got a thrill from Putting It where it Doesn't Belong.

It could be just along with the expansion of the "gaming audience," or maybe something changed with the "Hot Coffee" affair, but expectations changed, and a lot of historically un-gamer people started looking for "adult" entertainment in products that were a lot more mainstream. Of course, the blues and the goons, the queers, women, and trannies eventually took control of the gaming means of production, and I believe 100% their purpose is entirely grooming. They mean to bend people.

Fast-forward to today, and I'm baffled that gamers, in the average, give a by, or even encourage, shit like what went down in Baldur's Gate 3. If that's fun, it's a bad person kind of fun, malicious, mean-spirited, warped, and it's definitely an attempt to get normal(ish) people to do things that aren't normal or okay.

AD HOMI PATRONUM!!!

AD HOMENIEM!!!!

You sound like a filthy redditor with your shrieking "fallacy!" even though you clearly don't understand what you're saying.

It's not ad-hominem, incidentally. It's a matter of credibility. Pointing out that Daily Beast and HuffoPo lack credibility is completely apt.

he didn’t make the video, just reposted it. So that’s another illogical take as well.

But he framed it. He told you what you were seeing and hearing, what was said. Unless you happen to be familiar with what you're looking at, and what's being said. Which I fucking doubt.

Never use any words that involve the word "logic" again, retard.

But, it's not just me, several others besides me have pointed out to you what's sitting in front of your face. You're choosing to have a chimp-out over this rather than actually listen and synthesize what's being reported to you. When numerous other people tell you "I see this," your sheer insistence that you're not seeing it doesn't make you right and them wrong, it makes you increasingly more likely to be seeing things (or not seeing them) inaccurately.

She challenged him, he pushed back. That's what happened here. It's not about "wrong," she was swinging dick. I guess that's part of the sport, but you are refusing to see this in her, and assigning all aggression to him.

You're wrong about this. And that's the limit of my interest in this, take it or leave it.

Something along the lines of "Oh, good job. I'm a grandmaster," would've been nice. Instead she retorts him, saying "And I'm a grandmaster" as response to his "I'm a master." A retort is not friendly conversation. There's nothing friendly in her approach. Everything she says is questioning his right to be there. You can call it ribbing or trash-talk if you like, but the one thing you can't call it (though you seem to be determined to do so) is neutral or friendly.

You really don't see this. Hmm.

You really can't tell? Like when he says he's a master, and she counters that she's a grandmaster? Or right off the bat when she peeks under the table to see what he's up to? Or starting her interaction with him with "how old are you?" Or when she says she's "still higher than you?"

Brother, for whatever reason you're glazing this chick. He's not. He's doing better than you.

This is wild to me. The kid is incredibly confident--because he can back it up. He knows it going in, she snarks at him, pulling rank, and he rebuffs it. He mops the floor with her, grandmaster notwithstanding.

He then, and this is the special part, tells her a (to him at least) true thing: That someday (after he has ascended even further) he hopes she'll be happy that she had the opportunity to play him. When he was young and small. Because in the future he's going to be big and famous, and he won't have the time, and she won't have the pull, for this match-up to even happen.

He doesn't defer to her womanness or her superior credentials. That's fantastic.

We all talk about what needs to happen to fix the natural relations between men and women in modernity. It's this. It's don't give her a pass when she's being bitchy, don't defer, and don't make yourself small to appease her.

Damn, that boy is cold as ice. I love him.

My guy.

The overwhelming number of people who were in asylums were not "committed" there or in any way court-ordered to be there. We used to have sanatoriums, wards, and asylums galore, and they were largely not for criminals or enemies of the State. They were for people who were either serially unfit to be left in their own care, and who didn't have sufficient involved community to take care of them.

The loss of these institutions is felt everywhere. Now we have the unstable and unfit, pumped-up with psyche-altering, mood-altering, personality-altering, reality-altering pharmaceuticals, and shoved back into the societal mix. They're free to menace normal citizens, and free to swap mental illness back-and-forth like cupcake recipes with other broken people, compounding their damage.

We need these places back.