21
DemolitionsPanda 21 points ago +21 / -0

Do not confuse the holocaust with the marketing of the "Holocaust".

There have been many massacres, ethnic cleansings and genocides. Steps have been taken to make sure that the Holocaust is indelibly imprinted into the history and psyche of the English speaking world, especially the USA.

Jewish money has a huge influence on Hollywood, and there have been some very well made, big budget movies made about WW2, many of which feature the terrible treatment of the Jews.

In comparison, other ethnic groups like the Gypsies were very badly treated at the same time. No one remembers or cares.

2
DemolitionsPanda 2 points ago +2 / -0

Gynoids and surrogate mothers would do it.

I'd invent AI application which can feel genuine emotions and give affection and encouragement (for companionship). Bonus points if she can talk dirty and mean it.

Then for kids, heterosexuals guys can get married to form a dual income family, then rent the wombs of some women is South East Asia. There is a thriving industry of surrogacy tourism from Laos, Thailand etc.

Think about it. A dual income household. Friendship and support from your 'husband', the itch for relationships scratched by a string of code that you own. It would work. We can do almost all of that today.

1
DemolitionsPanda 1 point ago +1 / -0

It is mostly true. There area was very sparsely populated in some areas, with almost all of the farmland being considered to be too difficult to work with the wooden tools that the locals used at the time.

Bantu speaking locals were moving (slowly) in to colonize from the north, but they had not done that in large numbers or with any real organization.

There had been attacks on the European settlement at the cape, and the (mostly) Dutch Settlers moved inland, looking for an unoccupied area that would not be contested, where they could engage in friendly trade with the locals.

Later when the settlers had achieved some prosperity and were trading with those friendly locals, they attracted a lot of attention; as the trade was giving a better lifestyle to their trading partners. Other major language groups (tribes?) including the Zulu moved because of the opportunities created.

"Apartheid" literally means "apart". It was an effort for the European descendants to build their own things, while the tribal peoples could have their own. An attempt at multiculturalism; multiple cultures running side by side.

1
DemolitionsPanda 1 point ago +1 / -0

You already have a national ID. It is called your Social Security Number. The IRS is all about making sure they are getting tax from every individual. You even have to update your details with them once a year.

20
DemolitionsPanda 20 points ago +20 / -0

You are absolutely, emphatically wrong. Ask the South Africans. The land settled by their fledgling nation was unoccupied when they arrived. Migrants came because it was (more or less) a first world nation on the African continent.

See where they are now.

6
DemolitionsPanda 6 points ago +6 / -0

Perhaps invalidate votes coming from that machine

Or you know, the whole election.

Dude, if you caught your wife smooching another guy, would you accept her protestations that it was just one little kiss, and only that one time? I sure as hell would not. "Honey, I was just tipsy, and I wanted to be sure that you are the best kisser ever! It was only the one time."

At the point where a guy has a USB stick which is capable of compromising a single voting machine and there is an easily accessible USB port ... any voter could have tampered with the machine.

2
DemolitionsPanda 2 points ago +2 / -0

The Australian "Conservatives" government told the Treasury department to begin preparing to implement negative interest rates! There was a national ban on cash transactions of more than $10,000. This was following whitepapers by the IMF on the use of Negative Interest Rates to keep the bubble bubbling along, and as an alternative (supplement?) to "quantitively easing".

Things are beyond crazy.

4
DemolitionsPanda 4 points ago +4 / -0

Men don't like men enough to take collective action like that, Imp.

Look up the ingroup-outgroup tendencies of men vs women. "The Women are Wonderful Effect"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effectt

3
DemolitionsPanda 3 points ago +3 / -0

Hey, you take that back! There are so many daring women fashion writers! They take real risks!

3
DemolitionsPanda 3 points ago +3 / -0

Now do homeless people!

Ooh then do Workplace Deaths next! Then Suicides! Oh! Oh! Then Lifetime Net Tax Payments!

Explain how not enough men are being fucked, proportionally!

5
DemolitionsPanda 5 points ago +5 / -0

Do you remember the Mexican protests from a few years ago? Women were all bent out of shape that only 85% of the murders were men.

The response was to have a strike. A day of absence, where women stop doing the things they do: To show the country how much they need women.

The effect of that protest was ... exactly nothing.

Can you imagine if, say, just Male Truck Drivers took the day off? Or Male Police? Or Male Border Guards? Or (gasp) all three? It wouldn't even be 10% of the working men, and the effects on Mexico would be just about crippling.

7
DemolitionsPanda 7 points ago +7 / -0

Female officers fucking their subordinates continues to be a regular occurrence. Don't forget that one.

2
DemolitionsPanda 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is a light water reactor. It is unsuitable as a breeder reactor.

If the Japanese government wanted plutonium, then that isn't the way to get it.

2
DemolitionsPanda 2 points ago +3 / -1

Imp doesn't suggest a global matriarchy. He maintains that the world is intensely gynocentric.

If you are going to take issue with his points, then at least represent his position correctly.

FYI it is fairly trivial to prove that the world is gynocentric. After that we are just arguing about degree.

Or do you think it was just coincidence that all the women were evacuated from the Titanic? That only men were asked to die in WWI and WWII? Who were they fighting for, do you think?

1
DemolitionsPanda 1 point ago +1 / -0

Didn't shadow banning happen not long after that?

8
DemolitionsPanda 8 points ago +8 / -0

"Why the fuck is this fence here? It is so damn old! Does anyone know what it does? Look, it is made of poorly assembled dry stone, and there are gaps in it. I can see one from here! Wait, is that section of the fence a hedgerow? It is totally shit! Look, I can't see any reason for this fence, so we should just tear it down."

Later:

"What do you mean that the fence was an important boundary marker? Holy shit was it a reference point for an entire system of surveying markers? It marked the borders of a nation? Why didn't anyone tell me it was important!"

4
DemolitionsPanda 4 points ago +4 / -0

Why would any coke dealer cut his garbage with fentanyl?

Why don't you ask River Phoenix? That was probably a good old-fashioned Speed Ball.

Saint Floyd was probably hopped up on a Goofball, which is meth and fentanyl.

I don't know why Speed Balls are popular, but they seem to have fans.

1
DemolitionsPanda 1 point ago +1 / -0

Tony, right now many mothers are manifestly unfit. Why do you presume fitness for women but not for men? Do you want to think about that or a minute?

https://mensdivorcelaw.com/statistics-show-women-more-often-initiate-divorce/

Women who filed for divorce usually felt confident that they could keep their children.

“The question of custody swamps other variables,” find professors Margaret Biring and Douglas Willen in their article, “These Boots are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers are Women.”

“Our study found that children are the most important asset in a marriage and the partner who expects to get custody is by far the one most likely to file for divorce.”

You are assuming that men who knock up a girl and disappear are a major problem; that just isn't true Tony. Today no woman has to get pregnant or carry a baby if she doesn't want to do that. The reality is that every woman today who has a baby chooses to do that.

Most of the children that are born are born into some kind of relationship. It is very rare that the father doesn't live with the children, at least for a time. Women initiate separation and divorce, and they do it in the sure confidence that they can and will keep the children, and access to the man's income.

Go and talk to some male divorcees. You must know some! One of the worst divorce horror stories I ever heard was from a gay guy. His wife spent more than two years planning the breakup, and she took him for everything. She was fucking furious that he had married her while in deep denial. She went so far as to hook up with his business partner, then with her half of his share plus the business partners share, they shut him out of the business, with a minor interest and made sure he could not get paid. He never saw his kids again. These are not unusual stories.

My ex has been caught twice by Family Services, coaching my daughter to say that she never wants to see me again. The court social-workers know this, and were still sympathetic to her on every occasion. She will never face any consequences for what she has done. This is standard. I actually got away as well as any man I know.

Even if we adopted the changes that I proposed, that men get custody by default, there would be many, many cases of shared custody. Men honestly want to make women happy.

1
DemolitionsPanda 1 point ago +1 / -0

If you are going to play an out-of-print version play the Rules Cyclopedia, which is what eventually became of the Basic, Expert, Companion & Advanced Box sets. It is generally a simpler and more refined version of rules than AD&D 1st or 2nd Edition.

3.5 was fine, but there are better fantasy RPG settings and rules. Personally, I'd rather play EarthDawn.

It is almost certainly available on the high seas, if you go looking.

https://caressofsteel.github.io/demos/dndrulescyclopedia/

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17171/DD-Rules-Cyclopedia-Basic

2
DemolitionsPanda 2 points ago +2 / -0

Women keep the kids in 80% of breakups.

Who decides who gets the kids?

If the women initiates the breakup, then she takes the kids before the father gets home, or similar.

The courts almost never ever take the children from one parent and give them to the other. Therefore the party with the kids wins by default.

You paint a rather bad picture. But if we agree that this is bad, why can it also not be bad for there to be no child support so deadbeats can just go around having kids without lifting a finger to support them in any way?

Women have every control over bearing a child or not. Men do not have reproductive rights past the initial decision to have intercourse or not. If birth control should fail, or should the woman lie about it, then he has no further say in if he should be a father or how much and when he should pay.

You want a solution? Fine. The fathers get custody in every case of dispute. So, men don't control womens' bodies (to force an abortion etc) but they can't profit from the children either.

After that, leave it to negotiation between couples.

20
DemolitionsPanda 20 points ago +20 / -0

Tony, where I live women get paid more the less the father sees the child.

Want to guess on the outcome of that? I'll give you a hint: I've twice had to defend myself from accusations of being a child molester, both made by the same person. Both thrown out of court for having no evidence of any kind. This is a technique that is called "The Silver Bullet" in the USA. Hitting a guy with both a child custody and criminal prosecution at the same time. Women literally teach it to each other in internet forums. Well, it failed the first time (thought it took two years to beat) and the second time was to punish me for asking to see my daughter more. My experience is far from unusual. One conversation with any family lawyer in the field will paint a really consistent picture of the realities.

Women keep the kids in 80% of breakups. If she does keep the children, she is entitled to more of the assets of the union. Here, with two kids she can claim 80% of the assets in a property settlement, plus child support (which is highest if the father has no shared custody) plus she becomes entitled to a government pension until the youngest of the children turn thirteen. Women weaponize the sympathetic court system to get paid. These are facts.

If women want mens' money, then they should negotiate for it. You want no fault divorce? Fine, it shouldn't come bundled with indentured servitude at the threat of jail time (in the USA). Men should be able to negotiate.

If a woman can't solely support the kids, then she should share custody or (gasp) let them be with their dad, who can certainly support them in almost every case. Remember that the Dad's parents probably want to see their grandkids. They can offer help and support, if they want. Right now they are almost entirely cut out.

Your idea that men would walk away and let their kids starve... Holy fuck. Even in the distant past, before this awful situation, that was rare. Mostly what happened was fathers raised their kids, after proving that the mother was at fault for the divorce. If the man was shown to be at fault, then they had to pay.

For a raging faggot you sure are a god damned simp.

1
DemolitionsPanda 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why are you conflating "unicorn" with "unique"?

There are a very, very few female MRAs. There are literally billions of women. Is that rare and special enough for you?

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›