Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:47 am
Well, I've almost survived watching The Revenant. Apparently there was no sepsis or hypothermia in the early 19th century.
Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:I would imagine to your everyday feminist, any man that scratches his crotch, adjusts his shorts or checks his zipper is "jacking it." Either that or Watson and co are raging peeping toms, outside your bathroom window even now.nBrive1987 wrote:snip
Sunder
Depending on how relatively sober she was at the time it could have been 7 blurry images of the same guy.
Seven times a day? If Indy takes after his unmotivated owner, he only licks his balls ONCE every SEVEN days !!!shoutinghorse wrote:CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:I would imagine to your everyday feminist, any man that scratches his crotch, adjusts his shorts or checks his zipper is "jacking it." Either that or Watson and co are raging peeping toms, outside your bathroom window even now.nBrive1987 wrote:snip
Sunder
Depending on how relatively sober she was at the time it could have been 7 blurry images of the same guy.
Indy licking his balls 7 times an hour doesn't count.
The Cato Institute is pro-DACA ergo it must be some sort of secret corporatist/imperialist propaganda. Dan just isn't woke enough.Kirbmarc wrote:Arel is an ideological idiot (no news here) but DACA is actually a reasonable program with good requirements that solves the issues of people who are already in the US, already integrated within the American system (students or high school graduates or people who have served in the US military) and who must have a clear criminal record. We're not talking about "open border" policies, we're talking about a policy made to solve the issue of people who have lived in the US, studied in the US, and need a way to complete their integration within American society since they're likely going to stay (they also have travel restrictions while they benefit from the program).
Hook us up with some links...rayshul wrote:Not sure how closely people are following Gab drama.
Basically Gab, a free speech platform, is being censored by its registrar. Highlighting the very few people who actually have complete control of the internet. It's some fucked up shit guyz
I think you'll find that was hyperthermia. A good show in the first season, but completely lost in the second and mercifully put out of its misery.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Those were invented in 1909 in New York City, at the Knickerbocker hospital, I believe.
I almost agree. Second season wasn't bad. but really, the first blew me away. I have a thing for medical shows (Scrubs, House, The Knick, never tried the other ones like ER).screwtape wrote:I think you'll find that was hyperthermia. A good show in the first season, but completely lost in the second and mercifully put out of its misery.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Those were invented in 1909 in New York City, at the Knickerbocker hospital, I believe.
Interesting...but I'm not sure I have much to add. It's like predicting the effect of a hurricane while it's still happening.rayshul wrote:https://medium.com/@getongab/we-are-at- ... 6629fba4bf
I'm sure the delay in service workers calling him "sir" is inversely proportional to how long ago he depilated.HunnyBunny wrote:
Read those comments. He gets blowback like he hit Irma :mrgreen:HunnyBunny wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/qPTWVfv.pngHunnyBunny wrote:
It's not us: it's her.Kirbmarc wrote:Hillary Clinton still whines that she's just a poor little victim and everyone is so mean to her. This time she's blaming Bernie Sanders for being critical of her during the primaries. Sanders should have simply prostrated at her Highness' feet and refused to say mean words like "ties to corporations" and "play for play".
Clinton may not be a SJWs (she's far too smart for that) but it seems that by hanging around with the likes of Lena Dunham she's learned quite a few things about always playing the victim.In post-election interviews, Clinton has blamed her shocking loss on Russian interference, former FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the criminal investigation into her private email server and latent sexism.
She has been criticized for refusing to take responsibility for her campaign’s shortcomings.
Clinton’s latest explanation for why she lost — blaming Sanders and his supporters — will reopen old wounds from the bitter primary between the two.
I really hope this won't mean she'll run again in 2020. She's not unlikely to lose again.
Let's face it, Hillary, America is just not that into you.According to the latest Harvard-Harris Poll survey, Sanders is the most popular active politician in the nation, at 54 percent favorable and 36 percent unfavorable. Clinton’s favorability has not improved in her time out of the spotlight. She remains underwater at 42 percent positive and 53 percent negative.
That is what Antifa is, though. BAMN is the organized, organizing wing of it in the US. I suppose one could quibble that Antifa itself is just a bunch of idiot teachers and kids randomly coalescing around an idea, but actually it's zombie astroturf, bought, paid for and indictrinated by higher-level ideologues in collusion with the guilty rich and with certain ambitious corporate/financial interests (who see them as a handy societal "bad cop").Kirbmarc wrote:Terrorism is another thing, it's other organized groups which train and supply footsoldiers with a clear goal to cause attacks to destabilize institutions or foster a takeover or spread panic and mistrust in the authorities or to create an ethnic/religious/political conflict. .
I guess that's because nobody takes any notice of Silverman anymore. I have ignored him since his behaviour toward Justin "The Tache" Vacula.ERV wrote:Yall missed Silverman getting 'The Richard Dawkins Award' this year. Hahahahahahaha
She should have called it "Hey, What's Happenin'!!!"John D wrote:I laughed my ass off at the title of her book... and my wife got mad at me. Haha.
To me the lesson is that large groups of people are terrible things to deal with, especially if there are few rules to guide the group. It is bad enough that I have to work in a company with 200,000 employees... but.... at least we have lots of rules. The rules keep things from going full cult of personality, scapegoating, and other group shit.MarcusAu wrote:Justin has been keeping a relatively low profile of late.
There are several videos on his channel talking about Stoicism.
And (if anyone is interested) he recently did a an interview on the 'Apostasy Now' podcast
https://apostasynow.net/2017/09/04/anp- ... -stoicism/
He's not really said anything outright (that I recall), but he no longer seems to be an activist (though is still involved with groups at a more local level), and apparently is pretty much content to be retired from the culture wars.
Maybe there is a life-lesson in their somewhere.
What really depresses me is that neither Trump nor Clinton seem to accept responsibility for anything. It's always somebody else's fault. I know that this is typical of politicians of all stripes, but sometimes I'd love to see a public figure admitting that they fucked up.Lsuoma wrote:It's not us: it's her.
Clinton's unique combination of being morally preening and crooked alongside a gargantuan sense of entitlement is what gives her Cersei Lannister levels of hate-ability. As a matter of political analysis, she's correct. Being weakened in the primaries was likely a necessary condition for her to eventually lose to Trump. And there's nothing that will weaken a candidate more than running as a mainstream candidate against a more ideological candidate beloved by your party's activist wing. Yes, Sanders' primary goal was to move the Democratic Party to the left and saw weakening Hilary Clinton in the general election as an acceptable trade-off. It's certainly his right to follow his own set of political priorities. But Clinton thought everybody remotely on her side was required to just accept it was "her turn" and do everything in their power to get her elected. The Comey letter was likely another necessary condition, along with the perception she was ill and the DNC e-mail leaks, and with her campaign's failure to react to critical weakening in the polls among certain subgroups and regions in the campaign's final weeks and days, the necessary conditions crossed the threshold into sufficient condition.Kirbmarc wrote:Hillary Clinton still whines that she's just a poor little victim and everyone is so mean to her. This time she's blaming Bernie Sanders for being critical of her during the primaries. Sanders should have simply prostrated at her Highness' feet and refused to say mean words like "ties to corporations" and "play for play".
Clinton may not be a SJWs (she's far too smart for that) but it seems that by hanging around with the likes of Lena Dunham she's learned quite a few things about always playing the victim.In post-election interviews, Clinton has blamed her shocking loss on Russian interference, former FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the criminal investigation into her private email server and latent sexism.
She has been criticized for refusing to take responsibility for her campaign’s shortcomings.
Clinton’s latest explanation for why she lost — blaming Sanders and his supporters — will reopen old wounds from the bitter primary between the two.
I really hope this won't mean she'll run again in 2020. She's not unlikely to lose again.
Let's face it, Hillary, America is just not that into you.According to the latest Harvard-Harris Poll survey, Sanders is the most popular active politician in the nation, at 54 percent favorable and 36 percent unfavorable. Clinton’s favorability has not improved in her time out of the spotlight. She remains underwater at 42 percent positive and 53 percent negative.
I agree that most actual Antifa members are either LARPing revolutionaries or shit stirrers looking for an excuse to stir shit. But Antifa is also under some measure of control by certain far-left organizations, like the Workers World Party and Industrial Workers of the World, who use them as shock troops employing threats and actual violence against anything they perceive to be an opponent on the right, which is definitely a terroristic tactic even if it rarely or never rises to murder.Kirbmarc wrote:
I don't think Antifa are terrorists, to be fair. Hooligans, yes. Idiots, for sure. But terrorists? Seems too much.
Waal, she will have Brianna to help hour out, since s/h/it will get elected in the midterms, right?jugheadnaut wrote:Clinton's unique combination of being morally preening and crooked alongside a gargantuan sense of entitlement is what gives her Cersei Lannister levels of hate-ability. As a matter of political analysis, she's correct. Being weakened in the primaries was likely a necessary condition for her to eventually lose to Trump. And there's nothing that will weaken a candidate more than running as a mainstream candidate against a more ideological candidate beloved by your party's activist wing. Yes, Sanders' primary goal was to move the Democratic Party to the left and saw weakening Hilary Clinton in the general election as an acceptable trade-off. It's certainly his right to follow his own set of political priorities. But Clinton thought everybody remotely on her side was required to just accept it was "her turn" and do everything in their power to get her elected. The Comey letter was likely another necessary condition, along with the perception she was ill and the DNC e-mail leaks, and with her campaign's failure to react to critical weakening in the polls among certain subgroups and regions in the campaign's final weeks and days, the necessary conditions crossed the threshold into sufficient condition.Kirbmarc wrote:Hillary Clinton still whines that she's just a poor little victim and everyone is so mean to her. This time she's blaming Bernie Sanders for being critical of her during the primaries. Sanders should have simply prostrated at her Highness' feet and refused to say mean words like "ties to corporations" and "play for play".
Clinton may not be a SJWs (she's far too smart for that) but it seems that by hanging around with the likes of Lena Dunham she's learned quite a few things about always playing the victim.In post-election interviews, Clinton has blamed her shocking loss on Russian interference, former FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the criminal investigation into her private email server and latent sexism.
She has been criticized for refusing to take responsibility for her campaign’s shortcomings.
Clinton’s latest explanation for why she lost — blaming Sanders and his supporters — will reopen old wounds from the bitter primary between the two.
I really hope this won't mean she'll run again in 2020. She's not unlikely to lose again.
Let's face it, Hillary, America is just not that into you.According to the latest Harvard-Harris Poll survey, Sanders is the most popular active politician in the nation, at 54 percent favorable and 36 percent unfavorable. Clinton’s favorability has not improved in her time out of the spotlight. She remains underwater at 42 percent positive and 53 percent negative.
It looks like she has every intention of running again in 2020, but this will probably result in her reaching an even lower point in her career than Nov. 8 2016. She acknowledges she has a likability problem, which she seems to ascribe in part to a lack of natural political talent and in part to latent misogyny. She totally dismisses the extent to which this metastasizes into hate-ability, and thinks this is only the domain of benighted grotesques. Her political usefulness has largely cloaked her hate-ability to those on her own side, but with many on the left now seeing her as beyond not-useful, but actually an enemy, she'll be completely exposed and the levels of vitriol coming from her own side will stun her.
That said, if Donald Trump could win in 2016, it's at least possible Clinton could win in 2020. Her best argument is that the only way to truly erase the 2016 election is to elect her in the re-election. If Trump derangement syndrome is still running wild in 2020, she may have a chance to win both the primary and general.
Ha! Brianna Wu has a sense of entitlement exceeding even that of Hillary Clinton, so I doubt she'll be behaved through the primaries. After her inevitable loss in the primaries, I see her as being a latter day incarnation of Suey Park during her supernova, railing more against liberals than conservatives.Lsuoma wrote: Waal, she will have Brianna to help hour out, since s/h/it will get elected in the midterms, right?
Yep. Needed the sarcasm tag :-)jugheadnaut wrote:Ha! Brianna Wu has a sense of entitlement exceeding even that of Hillary Clinton, so I doubt she'll be behaved through the primaries. After her inevitable loss in the primaries, I see her as being a latter day incarnation of Suey Park during her supernova, railing more against liberals than conservatives.Lsuoma wrote: Waal, she will have Brianna to help hour out, since s/h/it will get elected in the midterms, right?
No, I got the sarcasm. Was just playing along.Lsuoma wrote:Yep. Needed the sarcasm tag :-)jugheadnaut wrote:Ha! Brianna Wu has a sense of entitlement exceeding even that of Hillary Clinton, so I doubt she'll be behaved through the primaries. After her inevitable loss in the primaries, I see her as being a latter day incarnation of Suey Park during her supernova, railing more against liberals than conservatives.Lsuoma wrote: Waal, she will have Brianna to help hour out, since s/h/it will get elected in the midterms, right?
And I can't even get my comments past moderation :lol: :lol: :lol:feathers wrote:Our Matt made it to the WEIT frontpage:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... c-schools/
She's definitely running again. Her cronies fought off an attempted coup at the DNC, she still has connections and access to tons of cash, plus her new PAC. The only thing that could hold her back is a run by someone like Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren-women candidates with less baggage and not perceived as in the pocket of hedgefund managers The schisms at Shakesville would be hilarious.jugheadnaut wrote:
Clinton's unique combination of being morally preening and crooked alongside a gargantuan sense of entitlement is what gives her Cersei Lannister levels of hate-ability. As a matter of political analysis, she's correct. Being weakened in the primaries was likely a necessary condition for her to eventually lose to Trump. And there's nothing that will weaken a candidate more than running as a mainstream candidate against a more ideological candidate beloved by your party's activist wing. Yes, Sanders' primary goal was to move the Democratic Party to the left and saw weakening Hilary Clinton in the general election as an acceptable trade-off. It's certainly his right to follow his own set of political priorities. But Clinton thought everybody remotely on her side was required to just accept it was "her turn" and do everything in their power to get her elected. The Comey letter was likely another necessary condition, along with the perception she was ill and the DNC e-mail leaks, and with her campaign's failure to react to critical weakening in the polls among certain subgroups and regions in the campaign's final weeks and days, the necessary conditions crossed the threshold into sufficient condition.
It looks like she has every intention of running again in 2020, but this will probably result in her reaching an even lower point in her career than Nov. 8 2016. She acknowledges she has a likability problem, which she seems to ascribe in part to a lack of natural political talent and in part to latent misogyny. She totally dismisses the extent to which this metastasizes into hate-ability, and thinks this is only the domain of benighted grotesques. Her political usefulness has largely cloaked her hate-ability to those on her own side, but with many on the left now seeing her as beyond not-useful, but actually an enemy, she'll be completely exposed and the levels of vitriol coming from her own side will stun her.
That said, if Donald Trump could win in 2016, it's at least possible Clinton could win in 2020. Her best argument is that the only way to truly erase the 2016 election is to elect her in the re-election. If Trump derangement syndrome is still running wild in 2020, she may have a chance to win both the primary and general.
Because cute shoes, a dress, and make-up = woman.feathers wrote:Read those comments. He gets blowback like he hit Irma :mrgreen:HunnyBunny wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard 2020! :lol: Warren would be good, too. I don't know much about Kamala Harris, and what I know might make me biased against her (namely she decided to ignore Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she talked about islam at the US Senate) so I'm asking people who know more to tell me if it's just a slip-up and she's actually a good candidate or if she's Clinton 2.0.katamari Damassi wrote:She's definitely running again. Her cronies fought off an attempted coup at the DNC, she still has connections and access to tons of cash, plus her new PAC. The only thing that could hold her back is a run by someone like Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren-women candidates with less baggage and not perceived as in the pocket of hedgefund managers The schisms at Shakesville would be hilarious.
She's a Strong Woman who doesn't need Mansplaining. She lost because America is sexist /shakesvilleEven with Sanders, Comey, the memers, and possibly the Russians, Clinton still could've won if she wasn't so arrogant that she thought blue states like Wisconsin, and Michigan were hers by right so she needn't campaign in them, or if she had decent political instincts or at least competent campaign staff. Hey you know had great political instincts? Her husband Bill. Pity she kept him at arms distance the whole time, and didn't listen to him when he told her her campaign was in danger.
Yes, like the Gore campaign in 2000, the best asset was mostly left on the bench with all his baggage, although he at least got to make campaign speeches. If both Harris and Warren run, I suspect Clinton will stay on the sidelines for a while watching them damage each other while a proxy snipes at both, and then jumping in as late as possible when/if an opportune moment arises with her erase-2016 ammunition. It's such an obvious play for Warren to try to recruit Harris early on as a supporter and her eventual running mate. If the DNC remains under Clinton management, they would not facilitate this and would resist it to the best they are able, which may be an early indication where their loyalties lie. Probably the right move for Harris, too, but like Obama in the 2008 campaign, if she thinks she can win she probably will take a shot. I also think Michelle Obama, and hell, even Oprah, remain wild cards, although both will deny it until relatively late. While politics can always surprise, it seems almost certain that the 2020 Democratic nominee will be a woman, and it may be several election cycles before they nominate a man again.katamari Damassi wrote: She's definitely running again. Her cronies fought off an attempted coup at the DNC, she still has connections and access to tons of cash, plus her new PAC. The only thing that could hold her back is a run by someone like Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren-women candidates with less baggage and not perceived as in the pocket of hedgefund managers The schisms at Shakesville would be hilarious.
Even with Sanders, Comey, the memers, and possibly the Russians, Clinton still could've won if she wasn't so arrogant that she thought blue states like Wisconsin, and Michigan were hers by right so she needn't campaign in them, or if she had decent political instincts or at least competent campaign staff. Hey you know had great political instincts? Her husband Bill. Pity she kept him at arms distance the whole time, and didn't listen to him when he told her her campaign was in danger.
I want her to run for entertainment value. She was such a bad candidate she lost to Trump... and now she is so fucking smug and egotistical that she thinks she can run again and win. She is still the same piece of shit.... only now she has even more baggage than she did in 2016. She has a strange lack of self-awareness.jet_lagg wrote:I'd welcome another Clinton run in 2020 just to see the inevitable taunts in the primaries. "You lost to a reality TV star."
Maybe then those little circles aren't embossed on the mat, and are actually ova falling from her crotch like the gentle rain from heaven above.katamari Damassi wrote:Because cute shoes, a dress, and make-up = woman.feathers wrote:Read those comments. He gets blowback like he hit Irma :mrgreen:HunnyBunny wrote:
Having survived episode 8 I had to watch it to the conclusion. It was all going so well until he tacked nearly a whole episode of "Where's Annie?" onto the end. The Fire Walk With Me section in the finale was emotional stuff though.jugheadnaut wrote:Anyone watch Twin Peaks:The Return through the end? Can't get my mind off of it this week, to the point it's affecting my productivity. Unlike Mulholland Dr., I strongly doubt there's a coherent explanation that covers almost everything. In his true Lynchian movies, non-linearity is always a major factor. Usually, he's somewhat subtle about it. But here you were basically hit over the head with hints that dreams, alternate timelines and alternate realities were all in play. This leaves enormous degrees of freedom for theorizing, and there have been at least three major theories that sort of explain 70-80% of it, while leaving the rest unexplained or contradictory to the theory. I think the actual answer is that Lynch gave his fans an enormous non-linear sandbox that they can play with for years if not decades, and there will never be a canonical answer, although several of the partial answers are fascinating. Rumor is he was thinking about retirement. If so, I think this is his way of leaving something enduring.
I'd watch it. It's really fucking good.jet_lagg wrote:Re: Twin Peaks. I'd never seen the series until recently, when I decided to watch the whole thing in preparation for the continuation. The first season was incredible. The second season was a monumental chore that really pushed me to the breaking point. Fire Walk With Me was short, which I was inclined to see as an act of mercy from Lynch, so worn down was I by the time I got there. Finally, I was able to watch the pilot of the new series and promptly decided not to waste another 16 hours of my life following someone who was clearly walking in circles. With everyone talking about the finale I'm feeling the tug of TV geekdom's gravity again though.
Irritatingly Massachusetts has one of the latest expected primary dates for 2018, so we won't get to laugh at her loss for over another year from today.jugheadnaut wrote:Ha! Brianna Wu has a sense of entitlement exceeding even that of Hillary Clinton, so I doubt she'll be behaved through the primaries. After her inevitable loss in the primaries, I see her as being a latter day incarnation of Suey Park during her supernova, railing more against liberals than conservatives.Lsuoma wrote: Waal, she will have Brianna to help hour out, since s/h/it will get elected in the midterms, right?
Doubt it's even price gouging so much as airlines scrambling to line up more planes and pilots to meet a sudden and unexpected high demand.Sulman wrote:It's as if...in times of high demand, the price goes up?
Episode 8 ('Got a light?') was my favourite but episode 15 ('There's some fear in letting go') was heartbreaking.Jack Wooster wrote:Having survived episode 8 I had to watch it to the conclusion. It was all going so well until he tacked nearly a whole episode of "Where's Annie?" onto the end. The Fire Walk With Me section in the finale was emotional stuff though.
I really enjoyed Cooper's journey after the 'crossing over' scene. I really enjoyed the dream-like atmosphere.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201709 ... 99fae8.gifShatterface wrote:Episode 8 ('Got a light?') was my favourite but episode 15 ('There's some fear in letting go') was heartbreaking.Jack Wooster wrote:Having survived episode 8 I had to watch it to the conclusion. It was all going so well until he tacked nearly a whole episode of "Where's Annie?" onto the end. The Fire Walk With Me section in the finale was emotional stuff though.
Worse, in Twin Peaks lore.Lsuoma wrote:Osama bin Laden?