They'll just use it to add faggots and browns to older content though.
Clinton offshored his manufacturing job in the 90s.
His computer screen changed position on the desk. Unwatchable.
Too bad everything else about that game was dogshit compared to Wildlands.
To be honest, I've long since crossed the point where I just don't give even the slightest fuck about the trannies in woman's sports thing. There are so many other avenues of attack that the Left is winning on that are actually destructive and lethal, like illegal immigration and White replacement. Caring about the feefees of women is at the very bottom of the list.
According to Anderson, that's actually code for: "I'm not attracted to you, but you're my friend and I don't want to hurt your feelings."
Which itself is actually code for "I'm not attracted to you, but you have resources and utility I can extract from you for my benefit, and I don't want to lose access to that just yet by blowing you off"
Not joking, sterilization should be a requirement for being on WIC/foodstamps/any sort of welfare for more than a year.
Saw the first two seasons of Reacher. First was pretty good, second was mediocre, and was hard to take seriously as a former Army MP. I didn't even know a third season was out yet. That a Terminal List I think are the only live action TV shows I've watched in the last 5 or so years. My watching of stuff is pretty much 99.9% old movies and anime now.
It's funny how that all worked out, because the writers actually wanted Dukat to be Space Hitler the whole time, but Marc Alaimo kept playing him so charismatically that he ended up being a fan favorite, so they had to roll with it. But they never gave up on their intent to have the audience hate him, so they kept putting him in more and more outrageous situations where the only choice was to conclude he's Space Hitler.
They almost ended the series on an episode of Sisko being a 50s writer and would have made the whole show something he imagined, but Ira Steven Behr was talked out of it.
Lol yup. That's the one.
People who don't understand the Confederacy, even among 'historians' are depressingly common. There's a dipshit on YouTube in particular that keeps popping up in my feed whenever I'm watching Civil War stuff, who is a zealous believer in the idea that the Civil War was purely about slavery from top to bottom. He refuses to accept the idea that even one of the lowliest privates could have had motivations for fighting other than preserving slavery. He thinks the entire concept of States Rights is not only unimportant, but was never important to anyone.
Which is utter nonsense. I'm a proponent of both States Rights and secession right now, and would absolutely join a State military to fight for it if the issue were on the table. If it's possible for me, in the 21st century to still value the concept that much, despite all the damage that's been done to State sovereignty over the last nearly 200 years, of course men of the 1860s would be willing to do the same.
The first non procedural act passed by the US Congress and signed into law by President George Washington was a tariff, written by James Madison. Literally the same fucking people who wrote the US Constitution were ok with tariffs.
If they were Muslim at all, 0%.
One with glowing neon lights on it.
It's extremely 90s. If you're into that, which I am, it's a great movie. But you gotta know what you're getting into with hyper-90s stuff.
You wanna reach your hand into the bag of scorpions to try to pull out 'one of the good ones', be my guest. Enjoy your divorce.
The only way to do it is to force them. And you're correct, the right is nowhere near being willing to swallow that bitter truth.
We've been deceived and lulled into a haze of complacency for so long by the lectern and tweed suit class of the right that we're unable to see anything beyond it. The whole 'marketplace of ideas' lark and the belief that enough jawjacking can solve anything. The truth is, it can't. Sometimes it requires people of strength to say "no, we will do this instead because I said so. And I will hurt you if you do not' in order to set things right. We can't even accept the fact that is true, much less come close to implementing it in the handful of areas that it's necessary, like women.
Illegal immigration is another such area. We are so wrapped up in lawsuits and court briefs and the inside and out of US Code whatever and immigration judges and all that. The real answer is quite simple. Enough people having the stones to say "If you're here in the US and you aren't a citizen, get out or we will hunt you down and kill you". Simple yet effective. But uncomfortable.
She illustrates this point by saying that while pundits on the left strive to educate people about policy, pundits on the right are likely to spend more time having long, unstructured conversations like what you'd find on the Joe Rogan Experience.
Another way of phrasing that exact same thing is that while pundits on the left require strict ordered lectures on political beliefs the audience is meant to listen to and obey without question, pundits on the right are more likely to engage in a open dialogue where the ideas beings spoken of can be discussed, picked apart, debated, and analyzed by the listener and the pundit must be able to discuss them from a stance of real belief and understanding instead of reading from an orthodoxy-approved script.
Honest question. Is it not time to make possessing video or images of crimes itself a crime? Consider, we already make possession of CP a crime, even if the possessor has never once manufactured any of it, using the legal theory that possession by itself increases demand, therefore the possessor is complicit in the manufacture. This has been a long held belief and is the sole legal rational behind criminalizing what amounts to pixels on a screen. We already accept this because we seek to reduce the manufacture of CP overall. Well we know that other types of criminals even more directly thrive on increased demand. The 'knock out game' for instance, only became popular because 'teens' saw others doing it on video on TikTok or Instagram and liked the fame they got from it and decided to do more. That is an actual provable direct link in the viewing or possessing of certain images or videos causing the occurrence of the crimes taking place in those videos to drastically increase. People have literally been murdered because those videos were allowed to spread. Would it not be reasonable to start treating videos or images of other crimes the same way we treat CP?
I'm not strictly suggestion we actually do that, but I am interested in real responses about why it is acceptable in one sort of case and not another. Is a 14yo who gets his head caved in on the sidewalk by some black because the black saw it on TikTok and wanted to be famous himself somehow less abused than the 14yo who took pictures of herself naked?
Which in function amounts to "men, you need to slurp up the shit end of the stick anyways and resign yourself to a terrible unenjoyable life in service of undeserving women because the nebulous mass of 'society' needs you to suck it up and do it. You personally might get nothing out of it and will in fact lose everything and spend decades in misery, but that's a risk I'm willing to have you take because my ideals say that the benefit everyone else gets out of your misery outweighs your interest in your own life."
Ie, garbage.
Anyone coming at me with a message of "Listen, I need you to fuck yourself over because these other people will be better off if you do" can eat a bag of dicks.
Equality was one of the very first lies ever told. It was the lie Lucifer told to get Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. That she can be equal to God if she does. The natural order was set in the beginning. Woman was made for man, not man for women. The order is simple. God loves man while man honors and obeys God. Man loves woman, while woman honors and obeys God then man. Upsetting this in any ways leads to destruction 100% of the time. This is what Jesus was talking about when He spoke about how the Church was like his bride. Humanity as a whole takes the subservient and obedient role to the masculine and superior role that Christ takes as the head of the proverbial household.
Male seizure of power may be the only shot at preventing that future
Not may. Is. And it's been that way for 10,000 years across the history of our species. Civilization can only exist when men make all of the rules and hold 100% of the power while women obey and have 0%. The moment that balance is upset, it sets that society on a path of internal destruction. It is a fundamental fact of the life cycle of homo sapiens. Just as it is a fact that ant and bee queens controls the life cycle of the colony, or female black widow spiders eat the males. In many organisms, specific gender roles are just biological facts of life built into their very existence. In ours, one of those facts is that men must be in total control for the species to thrive.
This is the real reason behind that old saying about how women are one of the 'great mysteries of the universe'. They're actually extremely easy to understand fully, but once you do, you learn to loathe them entirely. Most men don't want to go through life with the understanding that half of the people they interact with, and the half that their own instincts are trying to force them to interact with, are pure garbage. So it's easier on the psyche to just ignore the understanding and pretend they're a mystery.
It's westfags attempts at emulating anime style without the decades of cultural and institutional knowledge and skill to pull it off.