Thanks. This is a long-ass, ad-filled article that does not get to the fucking point mentioned in the headline, and I was leaning towards the headline being a sensationalist fabrication - but if 'lying on the stand' was one of the 'enhancements' that earned him extra time, that's some judicial misconduct bullshit indeed.
If he just got extra time for not pleading guilty, that's normal (but whether or not it should be normal is another question). Plea deals have been a thing forever. If the judge was just bitching about him 'lying', that's normal too - judges love to use their bench as a soapbox and lecture people.
But if he specifically got extra time for taking the stand in his defense and saying things that were later held to be false, that's pure bullshit and I hope the guy gets to appeal.
Seriously though, fuck this article. If you assert something in the headline, back it up unambiguously and back it up early. If you bury it at the end of a way-too-long article to get readers to scroll through all your ads, your publication is trash.
If it's not absolute, it's not free speech.
Parents are fighting an uphill battle against the trash fire our culture has become. Children are being completely destroyed by social media and the ideological rot it imposes on them through 24/7 peer pressure. The only foolproof way to guard against it is to not let your kids online at all, which you can imagine is extremely challenging nowadays.
Integrity
Like he has any fucking idea what that word means.
I do think discriminating on the bases of race or gender should be illegal. The only thing that should be considered when hiring someone is whether they can do the job.
Okay, what if someone holds the sincere belief that women or a particular race can't do the job as well as other applicants? Should they be forced to hire them anyway because that judgement is based on race or sex?
And even if that person does not believe that women or a particular race would perform worse, but they simply feel uncomfortable around them or have some personal belief that would be in conflict with hiring them, why should they be forced to? Isn't that tyrannical? Why should the government get to dictate acceptable hiring criteria to private business owners?
You're right that being anti Loli doesn't mean being a closet pedophile.
But fictional art doesn't need to be excused.
Yes but also very much no, we do not need to set a precedent for cops charging people for the trouble of shooting or arresting them.
Even as a freudian slip, she probably meant - or at least would pretend to mean - reducing population over time by discouraging births. Which just leads to more importation of the endlessly breeding Africans and Indians and Arabs of course.
It's still a terrible policy that will cause incalculable damage, but a reduction in population doesn't have to involve killing people.
(But for them it probably does.)
Of course. They absorb and repeat 24/7 propaganda about how terrible the world is. Not in the real ways, which are usually their fault, but the fake ways which only exist to control and manipulate them, and which will never get better because the lies are too useful. Horrible, world ending, trans-killing, black-oppressing stuff that could go away if it wasn't for those evil, ignorant conservatives holding us all back.
Oh, and they're nihilists, taught through the course of their lives to despise goodness, beauty, stability and health, and instead worship evil, ugliness, degeneracy, and sickness, so they're deeply confused and incapable of true happiness. They probably couldn't even recognize it, all they allow themselves to know is moment to moment pleasure.
Honestly, the 'nibble' is nothing. Yeah, we know he's creepy and pedophilic but that isn't pedo behavior, even if the girl isn't comfortable. It's just an old man doing stupid shit with a kid in an attempt to look good for the cameras. It's the equivalent of blowing a raspberry on a baby's belly. It's far too familiar to do it with a stranger's kid but it's not pedophilic.
The sniff afterwards though, that's the Pedo Joe we know.
Up until fairly recently, men and women were definable as separate entities.
Nice to see Ubisoft are taking the historical authenticity of their Assassins Creed games seriously.
This bitch decided to make these accusations just as he was returning from participating in a very popular reality TV show. She waited to do this until he was prominently in the public eye.
Throw the fucking book at her.
Let me just add. They don't really believe they're doing this for the sake of children. That's just the smokescreen, the excuse they need to keep pushing this shit despite the success of the groomer label. Just pretend REALLY HARD that the people trying to protect the kids from you are the ones who are really hurting them, that ought to work.
Don't get me wrong. They delude themselves into believing their own bullshit on a shallow level. Like a method actor playing a part. But they know. They just don't acknowledge, because that would be inconvenient. That would mean being wrong and the evil conservative being right. That, more than anything, must be avoided. Every part of their belief system that isn't about seething hatred of what is good and beautiful, is just about their own ego. Intolerable smugness is at the core of their identity and must be protected at all costs. They MUST be better than you and I. They MUST.
Holy shit I fucking hate these people. They're the ones who claim sexual harassment if a man even looks at them funny but the only reason a young girl would complain about being forced to change around naked boys is because she wants to make a public career? Build her profile?
These people are absolutely sick. No genuine complaint need be taken seriously because it's all a hateful attack on trans kids, all a cynical, sneering attempt to gain relevance. Which is projection because that's exactly how most of them actually operate. So the hateful white girl, who isn't vulnerable or frightened or anything, is an evil shrew who needs to be forced to see the girl dick.
I need to stop before I rule 2.
if he is honest about how he feels about boundaries in a relationship, why is that abusive?
He's a man.
That is the one and only reason.
If he hung out with a female friend, and his girlfriend got jealous and screamed insults, threw things at him, and keyed his car, that would be him being abusive too.
Because he's a man.
This is one thing that actually does harm women more than men. Mark my words, when they finally get fed up enough to complain en masse, it'll be men's fault. Definitely not the fault of the women who pushed for this and shamed everyone who didn't want it.
Excuse me? That's disgusting. The need for them to signal their sexuality on the job is so desperate that it has to be displayed by the HANDCUFFS they use? People being arrested, criminal or otherwise, deserve dignity, and this robs them of it, more even than normal cuffs do.
That's what bothers me about this. The existence of these woke avatars doesn't ruin the setting (at least in small numbers), the fact that they're treated as normal does. If they had the balls to treat it as abnormal or even notable, and let the player respond accordingly, it could even strengthen the setting. Instead, everything has to be safe and inclusive, and the integrity of the setting is destroyed in the process.
Admittedly I haven't read Brave New World yet, just a summary. I see what you mean about 1984, but it's scarily predictive of just how effective propaganda, the fabrication of enemies and emergencies, and the redefinition of words can be, and how effectively leveraging them (and plain old fear) can make people abandon their own interests.
People still have their bread and circuses, and without those I'm sure they would revolt, but they have been very quick to submit to their own subjugation even on things they truly hated, like lockdowns.
Getting the masses to accept squalor without comfort might not seem terribly likely right now, but I think on a long enough timeline, if you can gradually condition their expectations, tinker with their awareness until the truth is completely obfuscated, and turn them against those few who are capable of seeing through it, you can get them to accept anything.
The biggest mistake of our current overlords (aside from believing their their own propaganda and falling into the same decline of competence they're inflicting on the world at large) is moving too fast.
All that is to say I don't find a 1984 scenario particularly implausible, and it's more than a little relevant to our current circumstances. I'll make sure to read Brave New World, though.
We westerners are used to being gaslit by our leaders by now, but this particularly stands out to me for some reason.
A politician this hostile to his own citizens has got to go. And, the French being the French, maybe he will.
It's Atlas Shrugged in that a catastrophic decline in standards and competence is inevitable in a society that abandons (and vilifies) merit. It's not a 1:1 match with the circumstances of the book, but the spirit is the same.
Atlas Shrugged is about the rebellion of John Galt, but it's more about the ruin caused by weak, petty and jealous men with weak, petty and jealous ideas. That ruin didn't occur because the great men abandoned society - it occurred because society abandoned the great men.
It showed a civilization that destroyed itself over progressive ideals and then turned on the people who still had standards and principles, openly despising and devaluing them but parasitically living off their efforts. But most importantly, those parasites could never, ever admit that they were wrong, and that their worthless ideas had failed them. It's not a stretch to imagine that the worthless ideas of our own delusional progressives (mass immigration, affirmative action, rejecting standards as racist) directly led to this outcome.
Of all the fictional dystopias, our trajectory most closely matches Atlas Shrugged. With a heavy helping of 1984, of course.
True democracy would be pretty great.
As long as there's a reasonable way for people to opt out/leave if the majority becomes too tyrannical for them.
With the rise of cancelling people's bank accounts because they have the wrong opinions, I can see the need for some kind of guarantee of service, but at the same time, individuals should be able to refuse service or association for any reason.
Maybe a way to ensure that would be to make it so only larger companies, or better yet corporations, have to provide service to everyone (and that includes people guilty of wrongthink). Treating corporations like individuals is the opposite of what should happen.
Or let people serve who they want, but there has to be a guaranteed, government-backed option that people refused elsewhere can use. And there certainly needs to be a clear path for people to create their own infrastructure without being shut down by monopolies and legal bullshit.
None of which will happen, of course, when they can just destroy freedom of association by forcing you to serve and validate their sacred cows.
He didn't 'break down', at least in this clip. Nonsense reporting.
I don't think I've heard this guy talk at length before. He sounds like a complete moron. Which we already know from his policies of course.