3
TyCat999999 3 points ago +3 / -0

The scene where he’s teaching Gandhi to talk like him and he says “I…er…uh…” slowly to help Gandhi get it… I die thinking of it even to this day

5
TyCat999999 5 points ago +5 / -0

That’s a shame since the original was hilarious. But in current year, and a show about history to boot, there was no way they were going to be able to keep from tarding out.

2
TyCat999999 2 points ago +2 / -0

I’d like to co-sign on this statement as well. It will be very rare indeed for someone to get as far as bottom surgery without participating heavily in online “support” forums (i.e. grooming grounds). Find me one who never piled on to a skeptic or joined the forum members in a Twitter brigade against a “bigot” talking sense, and I might have a sliver of sympathy. I doubt we’d ever be able to find such a person.

5
TyCat999999 5 points ago +5 / -0

I found that off-putting as well. The absolute obsession with sex that seems universal among online troons ought to be a sign that there’s a disorder involved. The only people who actually refer to women in terms like that are (1) men, and (2) OF thots who call themselves words like that, or sluts, etc. as part of their marketing to attract men as customers. Literally no women just wants to be considered a “cum-dumpster” without being paid for it. This guy is so obviously still a guy. Even if you believed you can actually transition to the other gender through hormones and surgery (and to be clear, I don’t), talk like “cum-dumpster” should tell you that this person has not done so, or that he isn’t “really” a woman even now.

3
TyCat999999 3 points ago +3 / -0

The UK is pretty well fucked as far as speech isn’t it? At least in the US the first amendment still does a solid job of keeping the government out of that game, even if the wider public discourse is about little other than trying to bring cOnSeQuEnCeS to people for exercising their freedom of speech. A lot of defiant Cleveland Browns fans wore shirts or displayed signs tastelessly referencing their QB’s record of sexual assault accusations, but all that happened was some Twitter fags made the pictures go viral. The government couldn’t do anything and showed no inclination to do anything.

Which just goes to show, Americans may have, for the most part, invented Wokeism but as bad as we have it here, the later adopters are in much worse positions. Thank God for the Constitution. It isn’t perfect, it isn’t always perfectly followed, but that old parchment still gets the job done.

3
TyCat999999 3 points ago +3 / -0

I strongly suspect that there are many bisexuals-in-name-only-- white people who are playing the intersectional game with sexuality because that's the only protected characteristic they can adopt.

Or else claim to be “non-binary.” That’s a really easy way to jump up to nearly the top of the progressive stack: buzz your hair if you’re a woman or put on some subtle makeup if you’re a man. Claim that these minimal efforts are actually reflections of your authentic genderless self. You get to be right up near the top of the stack because genderspecialness is condidered a more oppressed status than “mere” sexual deviancy right now. Hell, if you’re a minority too, claiming non-binary status makes you nigh-untouchable.

19
TyCat999999 19 points ago +19 / -0

For the woke Marxist movement (which has clearly completed its long march through our academic institutions) it really isn’t important if the revisions, alterations, reinterpretations, etc. make sense or can be logically supported, it’s much more important that they just keep making them. That way no one can ever have the confidence of certainty on any point, and it’s that much easier to replicate their ideas-of-the-moment in other brains. Another poster has already quoted 1984, but I’m reminded of an early scene where Smith is told that a certain old article mentions someone now out of favor with the Party, and he must go change the archives. He notes how most jobs-worths would simply switch the outcome of the old story (previously if it concerned a now-hated person winning something, just change it to make that person lose the thing) but that he found it more interesting to wholly invent a new situation. If I remember right he changes a fairly unremarkable story into one where the unperson died heroically fighting for the current party orthodoxy back in the day. Point being, it doesn’t matter what the fuck they say or believe or claim, the only point is that they can never let us be certain of anything. That’s to their advantage, always.

1
TyCat999999 1 point ago +1 / -0

It’s not the sort of thing the law usually deals in to this extent, but I wouldn’t mind if there was a law saying the parties could change the rules/functioning of their primaries and conventions, etc. only every twenty years. Say, for an election in a year ending in 0, you can set new rules that are in force for that and the four following elections. Both parties just love too much to look at the ways things didn’t go the way their establishment wanted the last time, and change the rules to make it more likely they get their way this time. Dems do it, GOP does it, it’s fucked up.

9
TyCat999999 9 points ago +9 / -0

You almost have to be that committed to the idea of yourself as glorious truth-telling hero in order to stick with journalism long enough to get anywhere in it. The early rungs on the industry ladder pay like shit, expect 24/7 availability, and fire you at the drop of a hat as departments and even whole papers/outlets collapse or are merged. Other than a few who get to skip to the upper rungs through connections or nepotism and also beat the odds by being sensible and unbiased, the industry is just mostly retards otherwise.

11
TyCat999999 11 points ago +11 / -0

Yeah the minute I see that phrase I know I’m not dealing with a serious person. At least that phrase is still limited to weird supremacist subcultures and associated retards online, at least for now. I guarantee the next time a St. Floyd incident blows up and we get to have another media-driven “racial reckoning” or “national conversation,” the critical theory types will make an attempt to push the idea of “foundational black Americans” into the mainstream. Shit like the 1619 Project, tearing down statues, etc etc is just laying the foundation, so to speak, on which the FBA lie will be built up. They absolutely will try to make “black slaves built literally everything, including microchip technology somehow” into official history that people deny at their peril. At that point, social things like “shut up and listen if an FBA is speaking their truth about their lived experience” and official acts like reparations will be unavoidable. Guys like Internet Rando Bot No. 86937-2 above are most likely just useful idiots, but the academics and powermongers and other more sophisticated pushers of the theory know exactly what they are doing. It also, of course, allows “FBA” blacks an excuse to hate recent immigrant blacks, for not being FBAs, and critical-theory movements never miss a chance to hate someone, anyone, as a way of distracting people from what they’re really trying to do, seize power.

1
TyCat999999 1 point ago +1 / -0

He just had to figure out whether would be more profitable in aggregate this week to be a lefty or righty on this issue. His researchers (who he also just fired cuz I’m Elon damnit) gave him the numbers and though online it’s very close, it’s still more profitable to believe in biology right now.

4
TyCat999999 4 points ago +4 / -0

It’s amazing how quickly people’s standards drop when they know someone else will have to clean it up. Not men’s, not women’s, but people’s standards.

4
TyCat999999 4 points ago +4 / -0

I love how fraught the modern “discourse” is. If you just don’t give a fuck, it’s very entertaining. After all the rage leftists threw at people who for disliking black Ariel, they turn around and do this, and gay leftists are also enraged that the makeup artist for Ursula isn’t gay because the original animated Ursula’s look was based on a drag Queen so it’s appropriation or something. And they’re also raging that some of the live action Lilo actors aren’t dark enough for their tastes. There isn’t any way to satisfy these psychopaths, so I just laugh at the whole state of things and go about my day however I would have done regardless.

5
TyCat999999 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yep, I first learned the term from a map of the Roman Empire: Cisalpine Gaul and Transalpine Gaul. Gaul was partly on the same side of the Alps as Rome, and partly on the opposite side.

I won’t let anyone call me cisgender though, I insist on “normal” or “mentally healthy.”

13
TyCat999999 13 points ago +13 / -0

Well said, and so important to grasp for anyone who wants to argue with leftists. There’s literally no point in arguing with them, unless you’re somewhere with an audience and are crafting your arguments for the audience’s sake rather than specifically trying to beat the leftist, or are just getting them to be hypocrites in exactly the way you’ve described, again for the audience’s sake. No one will beat the leftists on the merits because they don’t believe in merit, it’s only down to who did/said it. If that person is politically “good,” then everything up to a fucking genocide would be defended by the leftists since they also consider themselves politically “good.”

6
TyCat999999 6 points ago +6 / -0

I noticed that too, and I thought that was a really funny choice, to play along with his pronoun bullshit in the text, but show him and what he looks like over and over again.

1
TyCat999999 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why should it be? Mad science has advanced since the 70s but it still can’t make a man capable of having babies, like the character in the movie wanted. Sure I know the left uses “man” to also mean “deluded female” sometimes, but the point remains, a man in the old sense (“a male”) can’t have babies. The scene still holds up.

10
TyCat999999 10 points ago +10 / -0

I almost feel like the media picks out the weirdest, most personality-disordered people they can find and writes as if the symptoms of their disorders are revolutionary acts. Meanwhile out here it Normalville no one is doing this crazy shit. Certainly it can’t be said that “Women are…”

22
TyCat999999 22 points ago +22 / -0

Shit, if they only used it that way it would be an improvement. “Something didn’t go my way” is trauma to them. And it isn’t just the white wines, especially among the Gen Z cohort.

4
TyCat999999 4 points ago +4 / -0

Luckily, no one has to have straightness “forced” upon them.

2
TyCat999999 2 points ago +2 / -0

Correct! If I had been a famous writer or artist or movie maker or whatever, I’d just answer all criticism of that kind by saying “I don’t write for your movement.”

Change out “write” for whatever verb is most appropriate to the art form I was in.

1
TyCat999999 1 point ago +1 / -0

Their rhetoric is just so, so shit-eating lol. They gonna get mad if they walk into a gas station men’s room and there is only person in there and he happens to be white? “THIS TOILET IS WHITEWASHING REALITY!!! BLATANT COLORED PEOPLE OF COLOR ERASURE IN THIS SHITTER!!!”

16
TyCat999999 16 points ago +16 / -0

Especially since as best I can tell, they’re quite okay with pedophilia generally. I guess I parse it like this: their philosophy is basically that there is no truth, only power, so they can use rhetoric to gain and exercise power. They have a power-interest in women dominating men in society, so they will say anything to portray men as evil, including the idea that a 30 year old is a creep and too old for a 23 year old. They also have an interest in having sex with children, so other times they will use rhetoric (to include porn in schools) to sexual use kids and/or wear down adults’ resistance to adult-child relations. It all just depends on what they’re trying to accomplish in the given moment.

But when you act that way, eventually you’ll be caught out for hypocrisy. If all you think language and rhetoric are is a means to exert power, it will take all of like thirty seconds for you to say something that completely contradicts something you said before, simply because you’re now pursuing a different interest or end-goal.

3
TyCat999999 3 points ago +3 / -0

I suppose all the black ones just up and left at some point, leaving no trace of their genes in Norway.

by folx
12
TyCat999999 12 points ago +12 / -0

You’d expect people who always say people need to “learn the history” to take their own advice. Pocahontas did not marry John Smith. She married John Rolfe, who was nine years older than her, when she was about 18 (her exact birthdate is obviously somewhat speculative.)

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›