Page: 1 2 Next »

PapasOldShoe

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Aug 23, 2017, 12:48 PM
Number of posts: 889

About Me

OMG the huffiest GBCW yet! TM99de99 is "taking a break" because of all the meanie liberals. Well sniffety sniff and suck it up, buttercup, you lying piece of shit! https://www.discussionist.com/102240201 ..............................And here is what you have all been waiting for -- my last hurrah (haha), a reply to a piece of Nazi-loving shit posting paeans of praise for pieces of Nazi shit, who of course still moves among us. -- https://www.discussionist.com/10151803355#post44 -- 44. If I were idolizing a Nazi SS officer ... well, I might not feel stupid. I might feel something a little less sweet-smelling. *** "they'd been found to be innocent of all war crimes and had no inherent allegiance to Nazism" *** Well, lemme see. They fought on the side of the Nazis. They were, to all intents and purposes, Nazis. *** Yer hero there didn't just defend his motherland. He was deployed elsewhere. I wonder what he would have done had he been deployed against Britons or Americans or Canadians. Hm. Deserted? Hm. *** And I wonder where Europe, and the world, would be now were it not for the - huh - heroic actions and sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens. *** There is a wide fascist streak in many eastern European populations that has been on growing display since the fall of the wall. Their chumming around with the Nazis wasn't just circumstantial. *** I'm not the one glorifying Nazis. But I'll bet I'm the one whose post will be alerted on again. Bonne chance! *** This post was removed for breaking the following rule: No personal attacks. *** HAHAHA. Buh bye for now, you Nazi-loving Nazi scum, you!

Journal Archives

Great insight.

Sometimes all the layperson can do is shake their head in open-mouthed incomprehension at what we see, day after day, in the pro-Trump camp. It takes an expert, an intellectual, to figure it/them out and explain the apparent extreme cognitive dissonance to the rest of us.


* Cohen’s admission highlights one of the enduring riddles of the Trump era. Trump’s supporters say they care about corruption. During the campaign, they cheered his vow to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C. When Morning Consult asked Americans in May 2016 to explain why they disliked Hillary Clinton, the second-most-common answer was that she was “corrupt.” And yet, Trump supporters appear largely unfazed by the mounting evidence that Trump is the least ethical president in modern American history. When asked last month whether they considered Trump corrupt, only 14 percent of Republicans said yes. Even Cohen’s allegation is unlikely to change that.


Apparently, "corrupt" means "liberal".

This is actually an important insight, not just in the immediate context, because so much work has been done on corruption worldwide in recent years. The fact is that what unites people all over the planet, who live in every kind of society, who adhere to every religion, and whatever the process by which they are governed, from hereditary chiefdoms to the most sophisticated parliamentary systems, is their dislike of corruption.

If it weren't for investigations and analyses like the Atlantic's, we would think that because Trump supporters use the same vocabulary to express their social/political concerns, they are conveying the same meaning, and we would just keep scratching our heads at how easily fooled they are -- whether by themselves or by Trump & co.

In fact, they are just appropriating the vocabulary of anti-corruption -- or rather, parroting what those who first appropriated it say to them -- to convey meanings that a follower of Mussolini or Hitler would have understood perfectly: "corruption in the sense of the usurpation of the traditional order".

* Why were Trump’s supporters so convinced that Clinton was the more corrupt candidate even as reporters uncovered far more damning evidence about Trump’s foundation than they did about Clinton’s? Likely because Clinton’s candidacy threatened traditional gender roles. For many Americans, female ambition—especially in service of a feminist agenda—in and of itself represents a form of corruption. “When female politicians were described as power-seeking,” noted the Yale researchers Victoria Brescoll and Tyler Okimoto in a 2010 study, “participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e., contempt, anger, and/or disgust).”

Hark, what's that I hear? YOU STUPID, DISHONEST PIECE OF SHIT?

Stupid dishonest shit?

Yeah. I thought so.

Five parts stupid to one part dishonest, in this case.

Watch this space! -- YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT.

No need to elaborate.
Posted by PapasOldShoe | Thu Aug 9, 2018, 06:03 PM (3 replies)

You probably think you know all about Jordan Peterson.

Hell, if you're a fan, you probably don't care. But for the rest of us,

I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s dangerous.

* I thought long and hard before writing about Jordan, and I do not do this lightly. He has one of the most agile and creative minds I’ve ever known. He is a powerful orator. He is smart, passionate, engaging and compelling and can be thoughtful and kind.

* I was once his strongest supporter.

* That all changed with his rise to celebrity. I am alarmed by his now-questionable relationship to truth, intellectual integrity and common decency, which I had not seen before. ...



Read why we non-fans have always thought that -- that Peterson is unethical and dishonest -- since we were forced to know who Peterson is a scant two years ago, in a piece written by someone who has worked with him for years, pushed for him to be given a faculty appointment, and put him and his family up in his own home.

(The point of immediate contention between them is ludicrous, and I absolutely stay out of that dogfight. The substance of the article stands.)

Long read, but worth it.

Ah, the gibberish; the parroted gibberish.

"censor free speech"

Free speech (freedom of speech) is a right, or a freedom, depending on one's preferred model.

Rights and freedoms are not "censored", i.e., it is gibberish to talk of rights and freedoms being "censored".

SPEECH is an act.

SPEECH is censored.

Sigh.
Posted by PapasOldShoe | Tue Aug 7, 2018, 06:14 PM (0 replies)

May I please help you?

One sets a *precedent*, or multiple *precedents*, "precedents" being the plural of "precedent".

"Precedence" is the order in which people or things do something or have something done to them: their priority or their rank.

Setting precedence would involve saying, for example, that Bill will walk in front of you, and Mary will walk behind you.

I certainly agree that the thinking skills you mention are important!

I hope I have been of assistants ... er, assistance.

Posted by PapasOldShoe | Mon Aug 6, 2018, 06:20 PM (0 replies)

Fearless security expert risks his life by venturing into London sharia no-go zone

https://metro.co.uk/2018/02/05/fearless-security-expert-risks-life-venturing-london-sharia-no-go-zone-7288616/

* Fearless security expert risks his life by venturing into London sharia ‘no-go zone’

* Donald Trump claimed in a conversation with Theresa May this year that there were radical Islamic ‘no go areas’ in London – where even the police fear to tread.

* The idea that there are ‘no go’ zones in London is frequently trotted out by right-wing writers, many of whom have never set foot in the UK. Naturally, the idiocy is echoed by dim bulbs on the internet.

* Alt-righters and other online mouth-breathers are OBSESSED with the idea of ‘no-go zones’ – and claim they’re to be found in major Western cities. This week, an intrepid security expert risked his life to travel into one of the most infamous, in London’s Tower Hamlets.

* Click to expand this thread, it’s well worth it.

https://twitter.com/DanKaszeta/status/959095904543428608

https://twitter.com/DanKaszeta/status/959095923342217216






Come on. Do what he says. Click to read the whole thread. Have yourself a good laugh.

At yourselves.




Then you have no effing clue what you are talking about.

Doubly.


First, FEMEN constantly protested against what it defined as oppressive treatment of women in Muslim countries.

Many Muslim women told them to shove it up their noses and keep their Western cultural imperialism to themselves.


Second, the picture that has you and your acolyte so horrified is a hoax staged by some right-wing scum in Australia ... who don't actually give a shit about women:

http://www.protectionist.net/2012/04/05/faceless-in-the-city/

* A report from a member of the anti-burqa group, “Faceless”:
* The men and women of Faceless made their debut in Sydney on Monday, 2nd April 2012. Members of the public were left speechless upon seeing a contingent of people wearing burqas making their way through the busy streets of the city.
* We spent hours traveling the city footpaths. Along the way we encountered many people who questioned what was going on. We explained to them our mission for the day – ***to test security at a variety of city locations.***


Such constant fail.

Anybody here had a ...........

trabeculectomy?

If you have, you'll know.

(Or you might have had it by its common names, filtering surgery or incisional surgery.)

I had a consult today and am now scheduled to go under the knife on Monday morning. Talk about no lines no waiting.

And then it's bated breath, hoping to be in the 80-85% success rate group.

But oh dear, a couple of days offline. And then a month of no lifting things heavier than a glass of wine.

Just curious whether anyone has had it succeed or fail, or knows of anyone else who did. It's always amazing how you can get a disease or have a procedure you've never heard of, and suddenly you can't turn around without hitting someone else who's had it.

Toronto attacker's motive: he hates women

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-van-attack-driver-profile-alek-minassian-1.4632435

At a news conference Monday night, Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders declined to provide a motive, saying officials were still investigating. But he said the driver's actions "definitely looked deliberate."

Yet one possible explanation has emerged online that suggests Minassian was angry over being rebuffed by women.

An apparent Facebook post by a man with the same name and photo as Minassian's LinkedIn profile refers to the "Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger," a 22-year-old responsible for a deadly rampage in Isla Vista, Calif., that left six people dead and a dozen more injured.

In a video posted ahead of that 2014 attack, Rodger raged about a number of women turning down his advances, rendering him an "incel," or involuntarily celibate. Rodger referred to the men who always seemed to win with women as "Chads" and the women who turned men down as "Stacys."

The apparent posting by Minassian says the "incel rebellion has already begun. We will overthrow all the Chads and the Stacys."

CBC News has not been able to independently verify the post as having been written by Minassian.



"incel" = involuntarily celebate.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=incel

Go to Page: 1 2 Next »