6
joeyjojoshabadoo1 6 points ago +6 / -0

This is the only tenable plan for the future. Seats of Government need to be de-centralized, scattered throughout rural areas, and to brutally oppress their metropolitan territories. It's what everyone wants. The rurals want to be left the fuck alone, and the metros want "govern me harder daddy." What we've been sliding into is exactly backwards.

1
joeyjojoshabadoo1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ray Wise and Lin Shaye really sell that movie.

1
joeyjojoshabadoo1 1 point ago +2 / -1

LOL what? Of course you're spinning. I just told you why I downvoted, and it had nothing to do with "duh narrative" or whatever, and nothing to do with whether or not he took the original "article" at face-value. It had to do with him either missing or misreading something from the article, then building his post around it. That made it a bad post. Hence, downvote. That's the way this is supposed to work: You upvote truth and insight, you downvote falsehood.

You making this into some kind of thing about belief, or tribes, is spin. You really think nearly 20 people downvoted because they just really like Gavin McInnes? I doubt you could find 20 people in once place who even have a positive opinion of McInnes.

Also, if you're using this "article," the one posted on "lamag" to inform your reality, you have your head screwed on backwards.

1
joeyjojoshabadoo1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Bud, we both know this is a stupid bar. I'm not going to spend my time on this Earth looking through the methodology sections of any given data analysis or literature study. Because "verified" is not a medical or technical term, and we also both know that you'd never be satisfied with any answer given. It's a strategem, and a stupid one, because literally all you have is STUPID WHORES LIE AND KILL THEIR BABIES. THEN SCIENCE CALLS IT MISCARRIAGE.

This is like arguing with flat-Earth, or reptoid conspiracy. Nothing beyond doctor detectives with their fedoras and stethoscopes, sticking their fingers up hoohas to determine cause of fetal death a few million times per year, is going to satisfy you. That doesn't happen, so you're free to continue to persist in your lying murder-sluts hypothesis. May it do you well.

1
joeyjojoshabadoo1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Only literally every medical source and publication that has ever used the word "miscarriage." But you keep on keepin on.

22
joeyjojoshabadoo1 22 points ago +22 / -0

A few observations:

  1. This source is atrocious. It's below "ranty op-ed" level of quality.

  2. Title is inaccurate, McInnes has not "admitted" to anything, and it is a damn way from certain that there was any "hoax" beyond that invented by this..."publication."

  3. Shitty maybe, sneaky probably, but a hoax? McInnes never said he was arrested. The sum total of events is that there was an incident during his podcast, for whatever reason he ducked out during it and didn't return. Then the press went nuts speculating that he might be in Federal custody. I'm not seeing any evidence that McInnes and his organization invented this rumor, or even had anything to do with spreading it.

At present, it looks like the worst he did was let people speculate on what happened without disavowing them of the conclusions they had jumped to.

Also, for crissakes, actually look at the "article." Why would you even re-post anything from these people?

13
joeyjojoshabadoo1 13 points ago +14 / -1

You can spin it that way if you'd like. I down-voted because he said there wasn't anything about arrest in the article, yet there was, by way of a quote from one of McInness' colleagues.

1
joeyjojoshabadoo1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yuh huh. So how many reptoid abortions are going into the jew miscarriage statistics? Mind giving me a ballpark?

5
joeyjojoshabadoo1 5 points ago +5 / -0

Who is even making this error? From the beginning, the center mass of objections never hanged its hat on "fraud." It was the media who from before the first objection was said, pre-emptively said "no evidence of widespread voter fraud." They did this on purpose, to poison the well. They made it sound like this was the only objection, and that it had been debooooonked.

But this isn't the fault of those who objected. The reasonable objections were never given a seat at the table. It's the same stratagem used with the "insurrection" horseshit. A handful of yahoos fight with feds in a place, then far down the block, some yahoos are waved in by smiling security. The media takes a little from buffet bin A and buffet bin B to make them sound like the same people, some kind of unified force of aggression, violence, revolution.

But this isn't the fault of the flies caught in the web, and it's silly to blame them. None of the dupes had a birds-eye view.

1
joeyjojoshabadoo1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Tigana is cool. I picked it up at a library sale for 50c because the cover was bizarre and intriguing. That was what put Kay on my radar, and caused me to notice how incredibly similar his writings were to J.R.R. Tolkein's supposed 'found' works and notes.

At the same sale, I picked up for similar reasons of neat cover, a book by the Watership Down guy, and hoo nelly, that book did not go as well. Who knew the bunny guy was so into rape-slaves?

1
joeyjojoshabadoo1 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, I am not, and I believe this is what you are doing, not me. "Miscarriage" has a technical definition, and that is: "A spontaneous, unplanned, loss of fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy." In all of the numbers I have referenced, this is the definition used. It is specific in that it says "unplanned," meaning, specifically, not an abortion and not due to the use of abortifacients.

Pregnancy is incredibly complicated, and involves a delicate hormonal, tissue, biochemical handshake between mother and fetus. It often goes wrong, without any purposeful action taken to make this so, and that can and does result in what people, including medical professionals, call a miscarriage. It is common, that is a fact, and that is the series of circumstances that make up all of my previously cited numbers.

You are applying conspiracy theory to the concept of miscarriage, especially with this "outside influences" talk. There is no effort to inflate miscarriage numbers in order to hide abortion numbers, or to obscure the use of abortifacients. Miscarriage is simply common.

4
joeyjojoshabadoo1 4 points ago +4 / -0

And that matters, why? The question on the table is where the material is from. We know where the material is from. I don't care even a little what lawyers managed to finagle what rights to exactly which characters can be used in what way.

2
joeyjojoshabadoo1 2 points ago +2 / -0

Even if this was 100% accurate, which I do not believe is so, as the commonality of miscarriages has been known long before pharmaceutical abortifactants were commonly available, that would still be north of 1 in 10, as a very generous low-ball. "Extraordinarily rare," really?

What's the point in all this, anyway? Miscarriages aren't rare, they are common, and this is universally known and supported by both low and high estimates. What is the point in pretending that this isn't so?

7
joeyjojoshabadoo1 7 points ago +7 / -0

I have no idea where you're pulling this from, but every actual look-up-able source says that it's about 1 in 5 pregnancies for women 20-30, possibly as high as 40% in women over 40, with an overall estimated at 10-15% of all pregnancies.

Where you're getting "extraordinarily rare" from this, again, no idea.

17
joeyjojoshabadoo1 17 points ago +17 / -0

She was inexplicably in every other movie for awhile despite a very obvious lack of acting acumen. Then Weinstein blew up, her inexplicable career suddenly became very explicable, and she stopped getting juicy roles. Oh well Norma Jean. I hope you saved your butthole money.

1
joeyjojoshabadoo1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Eh, I don't really remember it well enough to disagree and know what I'm talking about, but I remember it being very Neil Gaiman-y. And while I was super impressed with that stuff as a teen, now it makes me wince at how windy and tryhard edgelord it is.

8
joeyjojoshabadoo1 8 points ago +8 / -0

The distinction just isn't important to me. If I see a big talking lion sounding kind of like Jesus and bitch-slapping witches, I'm gonna say "Yeah, that's Aslan, and it's from C. S. Lewis's Narnia books," rights be damned, whether or not this particular story mimics one of the books specifically or not.

As I recall, the rights issue has come up previously, with Tolkein's blue wizards. Maybe it was Bakshi's Lord of the Rings animated feature. For whatever lawyerly reason, the rights had been granularly granted to the point where they could talk about the wizards, but had neglected to secure the right to say the names of these incredibly trivial characters who aren't even featured. So Gandalf refers to them, but has to say some nonsense about not remembering their names. Silliness.

I'm sure this is more of same. They have the rights to this, but not that, maybe they can say the name of one tree because it was mentioned in a poem in Two Towers, but not this other tree because it was only named in Silmarillion.

I don't know about you, but it doesn't matter to me. They're clearly pulling a bunch of stuff that may have been mentioned as an aside in the Rings books, but much of it was further fleshed out (maybe by J.R.R., but more likely by Christopher and Guy Gavriel Kay) in Silmarillion. Whatever it is, it's not completely original content.

12
joeyjojoshabadoo1 12 points ago +12 / -0

Whether or not they have the rights to it, it is the material they're riffing on. Valinor, Beleriand, fall of Númenor, the drama with Melkor and Sauron, etc.

It's not an adaptation of the "stories" of The Silmarillion, but there is absolutely no doubt that this is where the material is coming from.

3
joeyjojoshabadoo1 3 points ago +3 / -0

I remember really liking Job: A Comedy of Justice and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I also remember being so disgusted by The Cat Who Walks Through Walls that I stopped reading Heinlein. Never really cared for his Lazarus Long and Jubal Hershaw self-insert books. A lot of fantasy and sci-fi authors do this--fall in love with their own characters--and it always got gross, weird, and boring.

I read Twilight Series and Fifty Shades because I was working at a mostly female call center and they kept raving about those books so I checked them out due to curiosity

I think it's always a good idea to sneak a peek behind the curtain and see what's rattling around in the noodles of potential romantic interests.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›