Seven women and one troon. You know what’d be super interesting? A study that mimicked this setup, but where all but one of the ballon-holders was a confederate.
The study participant would be a woman who thinks she’s playing this game. The man (also a confederate) would pop the troon’s balloon and then, each time the study is repeated with a different participant, you’d have a different number of confederates pop their own balloons.
Your prediction (and I tend to agree) is that a participant woman would be far less likely to pop her own balloon when none of the confederates do so.
Yeah I was just about to say the same thing. If you set up a colony in Antarctica and weren’t hurting anyone, they’d come kill you.
It'll happen to Orania eventually. Mark my words. They’ll send a bus full of bhantu invaders up there and the whites will have to defend themselves and then the (((international community))) will move on them.
I’ve been wondering how that’s going to work. On the one hand, a colony is going to have no surplus for a long time. That means it won’t be able to support a person who doesn’t substantially contribute. On the other hand, the powers that be are going to demand diversity for diversity’s sake, just like they always do.
It’s long been my hope that we get a swarm of robots on the moon turning out bricks from regolith and firing them out to Lagrange points via solar-powered mass drivers. The point would be to make construction of giant space stations very, very cheap. That way, there could be enough of them for a few to slip under the radar with non-woke governance. Basically, Orania in space.
Banned, muted… or just hidden, so you think your comment was posted but nobody else can see it. Reddits user block feature is also unique. If a user (not a mod, just a regular user) blocks you, you can’t reply to them or to any comment that replies to them, or any comment that replies to that one, etc.
It’s amazing how much effort leftists put into avoiding ideas they don’t like.
I’m reminded of that famous Apple Macintosh commercial that only played once, during a super-bowl. In it, the bad guy says, “we have created a garden of pure ideology where each worker may bloom, safe from the pests purveying contradictory information”
The point of the ad is that Macintosh would put the power of a computer - the power of information, into everyone’s hands. It’s hilarious that the left is on the side of the bad guy.
Say infowars is given to the onion (or anyone else) - is AJ prevented from just creating YouTube/rumble/etc videos under a different name?
Can’t he and Owen just quit infowars and start a channel named TruthWars or whatever?
They could run a masculine black man. It’s just hard to find one that’s married and doesn’t have multiple felonies. Obama was reasonably masculine - if only in the easy way he spoke.
Of course, behind the scenes he’s gay. But he fronts as heterosexual.
Trump is a loudmouth at times, and is rough around the edges
Trump runs his mouth in public, but (generally) makes good choices for the country. Lefties prefer someone who says nice things (even if the nice things are word salad) and then supports policies that destroy us all.
And let’s not forget: all the lefties are sexual degenerates in one form or another. Biden was nibbling a baby just last week - how the fuck did we all get comfortable with that?? Walz was obviously a homo who chased teen boys. Harris was an alcoholic slut. They had topless trannies on the white house lawn and butt fucking porno filmed in congress.
Lefties prefer leader that talk nice - talk about DEI and shit - and then are degenerates in private. Trump is ironically wholesome by comparison. He openly wonders if we should nuke hurricanes (lol) but then behind closed doors his biggest vice is that he likes to fuck adult women (and even pays them well)
Women date guys, or reject guys, based solely on vague feelings that emanate from ancient subconscious cognitive processes.
Then, after making their decision, a completely different part of the brain makes up a reason to explain their behavior.
Interesting writeup. It's always been weird to me that fascism is associated with nazis and not with the italians who invented it.
Something I learned recently: the chair the Lincoln sits on in his memorial monument is made of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
probably considered 'far right'
Everyone who isn’t a leftist is called “far right”
I heard some retard in a bar ranting about politics and he called Dr Phil “far right” so I asked him for an example of someone who is on the right but not far right. It was as if he couldn’t even understand the question.
spend the rest of your life trying to help people not make the same mistake.
That’d be the honorable thing to do. Every kid who gets influenced by a tranny or by some perv who just wants to groom them, should get to talk to a detransitioner.
You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Well yeah, sometimes.
Well, you're wrong. All speech, of any nature must always be allowed. And not even the supreme court quote rebuts that:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing a panic"
The speech is protected. Maliciously causing panic is not protected.
You MIGHT cause panic through speech, but you might also cause it by igniting a smoke grenade. Either way, the crime is maliciously causing panic, not speech.
And it's wrong to conclude, "he was punished for his speech"
It's wrong in exactly the same way that a Leftist is wrong when they say things like, "he was shot by police for driving while black" - no, he wasn't.
Both of those are the same cognitive error - failure to accurately ascribe a cause to an effect.
I'm a right-wing Conservative blogger
My apologies. Got ahead of myself.
I thought there was general agreement that Jones is entitled to his opinion, even if his opinion is batshit crazy. He did not intend, nor did he participate in any "harassment" - and the case against him was frivolous from the start.
One anecdote: when they demanded he turn over his emails, he turned them all over. Apparently in his spam folder there were illegal photos that he wasn't aware of. They then claimed he was trying to get them in trouble by sending them.
I think that libel and slander laws are fine as they are.
The distinction that I draw is in the mind of the person communicating. The legal term is "mens rea" if you want to look it up.
If I know that something is a lie - I know it for a fact - but I say it anyway - I knowingly communicate a lie - AND ALSO I do this with the motive of materially harming you - "materially" meaning that I intend to destroy your business through repetitional damage, for example ...
... then the issue at hand is NOT the speech. Then the issue is the "mens rea" - the "guilty mind" - and the motive to cause harm.
And I think (hope, anyway) that that's what libel and slander laws address.
So, I'll give an example of something that must be protected, for society to be free, vs. something that should be prosecuted:
Christine Blasey Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of raping her. I should be allowed to believe Ford. For whatever reason, on whatever basis, I should be allowed to have that thought. I should also be allowed to believe Kavanaugh, for whatever reason or reasons are compelling to me.
So, if I go around saying, "Kavanaugh is a rapist!" that must be protected speech. It I go around saying, "Ford is a liar" that must be protected too ...because my right to think that must be protected.
On the other hand, if Ford knows for a fact that what she's saying is a lie, and her motive (especially in waiting until he was nominated to the supreme court) is specifically to materially harm him, then she should be prosecuted ...but not for her speech. She should be prosecuted for lying with that specific motive.
So, I think a person must be allowed to think and say whatever they truly believe ...even if they're wrong. If you really believe that Kavanaugh is a rapist, or your really believe that Bush did 911, or you really believe that Trump is hitler, you must be allowed to think and say it.
But if you don't actually believe, but you say it anyway AND your motive is to materially harm (not emotionally, but materially) then I think you should face financial repercussions.
Yep. I doubt Vordrak knows any of that. It's just like I said to him: he has lived his whole life in an ideological bubble. I am cautiously hopeful that he's willing to stick around and have a discussion, but I have never, ever, seen a Leftist do that. They alway run away, or (on reddit) use bullying tactics like blocking or banning.
Alex Jones deserved to be punished
…for speech. If this is your position then you need to state it in its entirety and stand by it.
You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Come on, say that outright and with no ambiguity, and then stick around and defend your belief. I’d love to finally meet someone who believes this who has the courage to say it and defend it, but so far, without exception, everyone I’ve encountered who believes what you believe has turned out to be a coward.
You’re not aware of this because you just came here from Reddit. You came here from an ideological bubble where you have never been challenged and never needed to defend your positions. So you assume you must be right …. because after all, nobody has ever proved you wrong. But the truth is, this is the very first time in your life where proving you wrong was even allowed.
Some come on! Don’t be a coward! Confirm that you think a person should be punished for their speech.
Remember when formula 1 got rid of the grid girls? Every single one of the girls protested. It was an easy gig and it paid well. Nobody harassed them. They didn’t feel “objectified” - they felt like stars. They loved it
And there wasn’t significant outcry from regular woman either. There certainly wasn’t criticism by fans. It was literally just a few fat ugly feminists who never watched formula 1 anyway.
Honestly, in terms of intelligence, he is about the baseline for what we should expect from every politician. We somehow normalized senior citizens and dumb bitches and forgot what smart people sound like.
Trump is sharp for his age but even he is on the decline.
Did I hear correctly that she’s accused someone else now? I thought I heard that