Concerned over Cultural Marxism


Off-Topic Discussions

901 to 950 of 1,362 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

Are there any Muppets on that page, Mama Kelsey?

The Exchange

Wow that double standard bit is spot on and perfectly describes, multiple times, actions i have called out a feminist player for.


LazarX wrote:

a good list of the downsides of being female

1. Women still face a glass ceiling in the work place.

People like working with people that are like them. The people at the top are males, they want to work with other males. I don't see how this is going to change until the people at the top die/retire and enough women fill their slots for it to balance out.

2. Women are frequently charged more for autowork and auto insurance despite being relatively safer drivers.

The mechanic is assuming that the guy knows a little more about auto repair. That he's getting away with it shows that he's right.

Women are not charged more for auto insurance.

Males have traditionally been charged higher rates than women for automobile insurance, and much higher rates for under-30s. This disparity is especially prevalent for males under the age of 25.

3. Women's clothing is priced artificially higher than men's and lacks much of the same practical value.

Buy guys clothes then.

4. Women's diseases are given lower priority in research and frequently treatment.

I think meatrace covered that one.

5. Men who assert themselves are called aggressive and are cited as leadership material. Women who do the same are called bossy and names not fit for polite conversation.

Conversely, Yelling back at a man is standing up for yourself. Yelling back at a woman makes you a monster, and the cops will probably show up to taze you.

So how do you want to change something like this exactly?

6. Despite being the gender that frequently raises the more children then men, Women are frequently denied raises on the grounds that men "need it more".

Some people are stuck in the 50s: they presume that she has a husband who's making more money than she is.

7. Despite being well over 50 percent of the voting population, Women are under represented in Congress, woefully understaffed in executive positions and most locally elected positions.

Vote more women into office. The means of doing so is right there.

But none of that equates with being shot, or being tossed out on the street with no support. You can't just look at one side of the coin, you need a comparison between the two.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Are there any Muppets on that page, Mama Kelsey?

What's a muppet?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Are there any Muppets on that page, Mama Kelsey?
What's a muppet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh_aG5MzPVM

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Are there any Muppets on that page, Mama Kelsey?
What's a muppet?

Best muppet song ever.

Lantern Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Darklight wrote:
When will men be allowed to wear skirts?
No one's stopping you.

Lawfully it might be allowed, but not socially, and social acceptance is the basis for law, so equality must come from the social acceptance, then the laws will change accordingly.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Darklight wrote:
When will men be allowed to wear skirts?
No one's stopping you.

Lawfully it might be allowed, but not socially, and social acceptance is the basis for law, so equality must come from the social acceptance, then the laws will change accordingly.

1) you've undermined your own argument. Its not socially allowed , but it is lawfully allowed (since the 1890's i think...) so apparently social acceptance is NOT the basis for law.

2) You are trying to change what people think, which you can't pass a law to do. You can make it so that the cops won't harass you for wearing a skirt in public. There's no mechanism for legally outlawing others from giving you funny looks or point and laugh. (which is still their right to freedom of expression)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Are there any Muppets on that page, Mama Kelsey?
What's a muppet?

Young grasshopper, I hope you are f*+@ing with me 'cuz you saw I had a birthday recently.

[Shakes cane]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Are there any Muppets on that page, Mama Kelsey?
What's a muppet?

Best muppet song ever.

That's a good one, but I like Bob's better.

I like to think of Waldorf and Statler, hotels of the plutocracy though they are, as two more of my spiritual Trollfathers.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Are there any Muppets on that page, Mama Kelsey?
What's a muppet?

Young grasshopper, I hope you are f&%+ing with me 'cuz you saw I had a birthday recently.

[Shakes cane]

ROTFL!!


thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I disagree BNW. I think the low risk jobs are dominated by men, too. Honestly, I think the high risk to high pay disparity has much more to do with education than gender.

*headscratch*

Unemployment is higher for men than women. How can men be dominating both the high and low risk jobs?

At the moment? Unemployment soared for men at the start of the Great Recession, since the job losses started in construction and other male dominated jobs. That's shifting now though. Those jobs are starting to come back and women have taken a big hit in some of the government employment fields where they have an advantage.

Ah, yes. All those articles about Las Vegas and whatnot. Good catch, Comrade Jeff.


Good evening, Comrade Freehold.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:

How is it you are stating damn near exactly what i was thinking while reading that???

We can agree.

I think I need a shower...


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Good evening, Comrade Freehold.

Sup, dood?


meatrace wrote:
I think I need a shower...

Hee hee!

It happens.


Freehold DM wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Good evening, Comrade Freehold.
Sup, dood?

Not a whole lot. How are you and the whole FAWTL crew doing?


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Good evening, Comrade Freehold.
Sup, dood?
Not a whole lot. How are you and the whole FAWTL crew doing?

So far, so good. A quiet evening here. Doing a lot of writing.


meatrace wrote:
Andrew R wrote:

How is it you are stating damn near exactly what i was thinking while reading that???

We can agree.
I think I need a shower...

You know, apropos of nothing, there are certain people whose agreement on anything controversial makes me think I should rethink my position.


Freehold DM wrote:
Doing a lot of writing.

Oh, what are you writing?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Doing a lot of writing.
Oh, what are you writing?

FDM is a big Whedon fan, I've heard. Probably Buffy / River slashfic.


thejeff wrote:
You know, apropos of nothing, there are certain people whose agreement on anything controversial makes me think I should rethink my position.

[Clears throat]

I'm sure I don't know what you mean, but I would hasten to point out that a certain someone agreed with us on Israel.

Lantern Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Darklight wrote:
When will men be allowed to wear skirts?
No one's stopping you.

Lawfully it might be allowed, but not socially, and social acceptance is the basis for law, so equality must come from the social acceptance, then the laws will change accordingly.

1) you've undermined your own argument. Its not socially allowed , but it is lawfully allowed (since the 1890's i think...) so apparently social acceptance is NOT the basis for law.

2) You are trying to change what people think, which you can't pass a law to do. You can make it so that the cops won't harass you for wearing a skirt in public. There's no mechanism for legally outlawing others from giving you funny looks or point and laugh. (which is still their right to freedom of expression)

I think you missed the point. The fact that it's not socially allowed is nearly as much discrimination as if the law forbid it.

It might be allowed legally, but that's because it's become socially unacceptable to prevent weirdos from being weirdos, so long as they don't hurt or bother other people.

If we want the law to be completely gender equal, then we first must get genders completely equal socially. If they are equal socially then the people who make/enforce laws will see it as odd and ridiculous to be unequal and will act accordingly, thus resulting in laws being adjusted.

So no, not trying to outllaw people giving people funny looks, trying to say you need to encourage people to not have the opinion that it's weird at all. Change society and you change the law, or at least how the law is enforced. (There is a town with a law against eating apple pie and ice cream together, though I doubt it's enforced at all, and that's because of social acceptance)


Set wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Doing a lot of writing.
Oh, what are you writing?

FDM is a big Whedon fan, I've heard. Probably Buffy / River slashfic.

My vengeance shall be fierce!!!!!


DarkLightHitomi wrote:


I think you missed the point.

I did not. You are simply wrong.

Quote:
The fact that it's not socially allowed is nearly as much discrimination as if the law forbid it.

Hell to the no. The power of law comes out of the barrel of a gun. You cannot ask people to face that to do what they want. If you will be dissuaded from something because of the opinions of others you probably didn't want it badly enough.

You can ask for, and even demand tolerance: that is people will put up with you. They won't have you beaten, they won't have you arrested, they won't stop you from getting food shelter or housing.

You cannot however demand acceptance. People have their rights to negative opinions of you. Pushing for it quickly gets hypocritical.

Quote:
It might be allowed legally, but that's because it's become socially unacceptable to prevent weirdos from being weirdos, so long as they don't hurt or bother other people.

Its taken a while, but we're getting to/gotten to the point that the whole "freedom" thing still applies when you don't like what the other person is doing.

Quote:
If we want the law to be completely gender equal, then we first must get genders completely equal socially.

Biology is a bigger problem. We are a sexually dimorphic species.

Quote:
Change society and you change the law, or at least how the law is enforced.

The laws, as near as I can see, are all already changed. What more is feminism looking for from a legislative stand point? Enforcement is problematic, but more legislation won't help that.

The Exchange

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
thejeff wrote:
You know, apropos of nothing, there are certain people whose agreement on anything controversial makes me think I should rethink my position.

[Clears throat]

I'm sure I don't know what you mean, but I would hasten to point out that a certain someone agreed with us on Israel.

We might agree on much, just not on robbing some to give to others and dealing with crime.


Captain Brittannica wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

I am super privileged... I put that down to the fact I live in the best country in the world.

Unions, Leftists: Defend Aboriginal Opponents of Racist Cop Terror! Free the Redfern Militants! Drop the Charges Now!

Trollin', trollin', trollin', keep on politrollin'

Probably more on-topic

The first one is sad, the second far more complicated than it looks, you missed the Cronulla riots, Siev X and a few other odds and ends.

Still the best country in the world.

Apart from a few things, old boy.

1) It's populated by Australians. That alone has to shift it down some.
2) Too hot. Flashfires. Willy-willys. The weather is trying to kill you.
3) The wildlife is trying to kill you.
4) It's full of Australians. This point really needs to be repeated.

Besides, there can only be one greatest nation in the world, and it's capital is London, sir. What possible counterargument could you make?

1) Australia has 3 friendly beer drinking, barbecue cooking, sport mad people per square kilometer. So if you don't like any of that you don't have to go far to avoid seeing anybody.

The UK has 260 constantly complaining, mostly damp chavs and upper class twits per square kilometer.

2) You can go the beach 9 months of the year, willy-willys only get a meter high at most, fires make things interesting.

In the uk it's either cold, wet, wet & cold, cold & wet or being washed away by the north sea.

3) The wild life will only try and kill you if you provoke it. A significant proportion of the wild life is the cutest in the world.

In the UK your wildlife is lame and boring....badgers are about it and even then you trying to exterminate them because they upset your cows.

4) friendly warm people who per capita are amongst the most generous in the world.

Canberra is the capital of the best country in the world...... Not the most powerful, nor the most culturally significant nor even the greatest - just the best.

:-)


Andrew R wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
thejeff wrote:
You know, apropos of nothing, there are certain people whose agreement on anything controversial makes me think I should rethink my position.

[Clears throat]

I'm sure I don't know what you mean, but I would hasten to point out that a certain someone agreed with us on Israel.

We might agree on much, just not on robbing some to give to others and dealing with crime.

And racism.

And sexism.

And guns, IIRC.

I'm sure there are others.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:


1) Australia has 3 friendly beer drinking, barbecue cooking, sport mad people per square kilometer. So if you don't like any of that you don't have to go far to avoid seeing anybody.

That's somewhat misleading. They're all crammed into the few actual livable areas in the country. If you want to avoid them you'll have to go out into the desert.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
thejeff wrote:
You know, apropos of nothing, there are certain people whose agreement on anything controversial makes me think I should rethink my position.

[Clears throat]

I'm sure I don't know what you mean, but I would hasten to point out that a certain someone agreed with us on Israel.

We might agree on much, just not on robbing some to give to others and dealing with crime.

And racism.

And sexism.

And guns, IIRC.

I'm sure there are others.

actually some of us just agreed on sexism.

I think all races are equally capable and should be treated equally

Guns i rolled into crime


thejeff wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:


1) Australia has 3 friendly beer drinking, barbecue cooking, sport mad people per square kilometer. So if you don't like any of that you don't have to go far to avoid seeing anybody.
That's somewhat misleading. They're all crammed into the few actual livable areas in the country. If you want to avoid them you'll have to go out into the desert.

Yep and you will be the only person in a 50km radius you dont have to get too far from the coast to do that either.

A lot of the country is very livable it's just that there are so few of us we are living in some of the best parts first.

Some places are stunning and very livable except there is no infrastructure and we are happy to keep it that way.

Lantern Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:


I think you missed the point.

I did not. You are simply wrong.

Quote:
The fact that it's not socially allowed is nearly as much discrimination as if the law forbid it.

Hell to the no. The power of law comes out of the barrel of a gun. You cannot ask people to face that to do what they want. If you will be dissuaded from something because of the opinions of others you probably didn't want it badly enough.

You can ask for, and even demand tolerance: that is people will put up with you. They won't have you beaten, they won't have you arrested, they won't stop you from getting food shelter or housing.

You cannot however demand acceptance. People have their rights to negative opinions of you. Pushing for it quickly gets hypocritical.

Quote:
It might be allowed legally, but that's because it's become socially unacceptable to prevent weirdos from being weirdos, so long as they don't hurt or bother other people.

Its taken a while, but we're getting to/gotten to the point that the whole "freedom" thing still applies when you don't like what the other person is doing.

Quote:
If we want the law to be completely gender equal, then we first must get genders completely equal socially.

Biology is a bigger problem. We are a sexually dimorphic species.

Quote:
Change society and you change the law, or at least how the law is enforced.

The laws, as near as I can see, are all already changed. What more is feminism looking for from a legislative stand point? Enforcement is problematic, but more legislation won't help that.

You missed the point because you think I was talking about the law, I wasn't, therefore you the point of my post.

Discrimination is discrimination regardless of whether it's allowed or not.

You can't (and usually shouldn't) force people to find something acceptable (you can raise them to however) but you can encourage it, usually through education and exposure depending on the topic you're trying to get accepted.

It is the lack of acceptance that results in discrimination.

Being biologically dimorphic doesn't mean we have to be socially dimorphic. Girls don't like pink because of biology, they like it because of how they were raised "Pink for girls, blue for boys". It is something taught to us since birth, that is why it is that way. We implicitly teach our kids almost everything about our culture. Time to change what we've been teaching I think.

Also, I don't think hypocritical applies in this case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"You've got to be carefully taught"

Lantern Lodge

Ha!

Everything that happened to you as a child was teaching you something. Some it was explicit and intentional, like school, reading, etc. But most of it was unintentional and implicit, like the social cues that indicate respect.

Frankly, whatever your goal is, it is better to, within your own house, take control of this process and learn to explicitly and implicitly teach. Parents who have brats who don't listen and ignore their parents, they are at fault for their childrens behaviour, they often just don't realize it.

If you understand the process, then you shape your kids as you decide. It's certainly not a 100% garunteed thing, but regardless you determine if your kid is a brat running on instinct, or a mature responsible individual, the only question is whether you do so intentionally or not.


Freehold DM wrote:
Set wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Doing a lot of writing.
Oh, what are you writing?

FDM is a big Whedon fan, I've heard. Probably Buffy / River slashfic.

My vengeance shall be fierce!!!!!

Ooh, that sounds hawt. I know I just turned down an offer of a pdf from Comrade Hawkshaw, but when you're done, FHDM, please forward me a copy!


The 8th Dwarf wrote:


In the UK your wildlife is lame and boring....badgers are about it and even then you trying to exterminate them because they upset your cows.

Down with Perfidious Albion!


The 8th Dwarf wrote:


1) Australia has 3 friendly beer drinking, barbecue cooking, sport mad people per square kilometer. So if you don't like any of that you don't have to go far to avoid seeing anybody.

The UK has 260 constantly complaining, mostly damp chavs and upper class twits per square kilometer.

For an antipodean you do raise a valid point about the lower classes. If only there was a benighted island continent we could send the undesirables to where their descendents could foster their unwarrented delusions of adequacy. Oh, wait a moment, we tried that already. Canberra, indeed.


Longing for Australia: The Musical Interlude


350 on Democracy Now


And, to get back to anthropology...

Well, it's been a couple of days, Citizen K(e)rensky, but my (smokin' hawt) female anthropology professor described hunter-gatherer society as pretty much heaven on earth, except for that pesky 50% infant mortality rate...

Spoiler:
Yes, the men spent a lot of time metabolizing intoxicants, even if it was only fermented gourd pulp (please note, Citizen R., you pinkskins have been getting high for a long time), but there was only the most basic sexual division of labor, but, even then, males were quite capable and willing of performing child care and nursing (well, not breast-feeding!) of the sick and elderly. Hunting was mostly a male affair, and, not unlike today, bagging game was a bonus, but it was mostly so the menfolk could get away from the womenfolk (and probably ingest more intoxicants).

Anyway, when I was recruited to revolutionary socialism as a young goblin, the two comrades who drove up to the Burger King in NH to talk to me had me read The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State and it blew my mind, but, even as a naive teenaged communist I was a little suspicious because, well, it was written in the 1880s. I asked that and the female comrade, who had studied anthro at one of those elite Pennsylvania Quaker schools said it was all legit. Good enough for teenaged me!

Years later, I brought it up with my smokin' hawt anthro prof, but I think she was a little frightened of me because I was her age, wore my airport worker uniform to class, reeked of marijuana and was obviously trying to pick her up. The conversation didn't go very far, but there wasn't a single thing that I learned in her Anthro 101 class that didn't jive with what I had learned from the commies.

I requested TOotF,PP,&tS from the library and I got a much newer edition (1972!) with an introduction by one Eleanor Burke Leacock and it re-convinced me of the validity of L.H. Morgan and Engels's work. But, then again, she was a commie, so, of course, she would say that.

As a layman, I was able to follow along with her explication of the two and where they were wrong and where they were right, but as soon as she got into laying out controversies between, say, followers of Morgan and followers of Boaz, the technical jargon flew over my head. I am confident, however, that the irrefutable juggernaut of Marxian criticism will prevail!

Another Marxist article on anthropology that I haven't read yet but am linking anyway


DarkLight wrote:
You missed the point because you think I was talking about the law, I wasn't, therefore you the point of my post.

You mention it an awful lot for something you're not talking bout.

Quote:
Discrimination is discrimination regardless of whether it's allowed or not.

So if someone is walking down the street naked, you get uncomfortable and turn away, is that discrimination?

Quote:
You can't (and usually shouldn't) force people to find something acceptable (you can raise them to however) but you can encourage it, usually through education and exposure depending on the topic you're trying to get accepted.

Which you can't do with adults, really. Or other peoples kids.

Quote:


It is the lack of acceptance that results in discrimination.

Given your definition above that's like saying that a lack of water leads to being dry.

Quote:
Being biologically dimorphic doesn't mean we have to be socially dimorphic.

It does actually. Jobs that require more strength and speed (Cops, firemen, soldiers) will always be male dominated. Hitting a man will never be the same as hitting a woman.

Our brains work differently too. I can't believe that the separation into "men's jobs" and "womens jobs" is entirely social. Socially exagerated certainly, but not made out of whole cloth.

I will try to state this, but it will likely be ignored because the previous two statements usually get the foam going in the politically correct set: There is no reason that A particular woman cannot be a cop/soldier/fire fighter or engineer. But there is (and for the last probably is) a reason that the ratios in those fields will never be 50/50.

Quote:
Also, I don't think hypocritical applies in this case.

"I will make you accept me!" is no different than "I will make you be normal"


I find that last sentence very interesting.

That said, you guys are going in tighter circles now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Some places are stunning and very livable

According to the internet, nowhere in Australia can be considered anywhere close to livable. The only reason Australian wildlife hasn't utterly annihilated the global ecosystem is that the animals there were too busy evolving crap like the platypus' venomous leg spurs instead of leaving the continent.

Lantern Lodge

@BigNorseWolf,

1, I Talk about a lot of topics and/or aspects in each post, I'll try harder to keep them seperate.

2, Yes, mild discrimination. You won't ever actually be rid of discrimination, so it's about picking the things that shouldn't be discriminated against, and keeping any discrimination to a minimum.

3, No, I can't do it to other's kids or adults (a good thing too), but I can teach other adults about it so they use on their own kids. And it's not just if they want either, once you understand it, you're always using it, it is a natural process, so choosing to take action or inaction is still a choice that you make.

4, I reiterated it anyway.

5, Perhaps it will never be 50/50, but I think your reasoning is wrong. Jobs like police, soldiers, firefighters, strength is the simple way to do those, but it not really required. I myself was the weakest person in every unit I went to, but I always was one of the best at doing the tasks, because I used intelligence and leverage where others simply bashed through to mistakes.

Women are no less capable of useing intelligence and leverage, and they have naturally greater flexibility to balance mens greater strength.

6, Still not hypocritical, hypocritical is publicly supporting something like no- racism, then doing the opposite in private like being racist about who you hire, etc.

Therefore, neither of your comments, nor what we are arguing about, is hypocritical.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Some places are stunning and very livable
According to the internet, nowhere in Australia can be considered anywhere close to livable. The only reason Australian wildlife hasn't utterly annihilated the global ecosystem is that the animals there were too busy evolving crap like the platypus' venomous leg spurs instead of leaving the continent.

They also exploit their elderly: http://blogs.kidspot.com.au/villagevoices/gransploitation/?utm_medium=netwo rk-referral-lifestyle&utm_campaign=kidspot&utm_content=

:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Some places are stunning and very livable
According to the internet, nowhere in Australia can be considered anywhere close to livable. The only reason Australian wildlife hasn't utterly annihilated the global ecosystem is that the animals there were too busy evolving crap like the platypus' venomous leg spurs instead of leaving the continent.

For some reason the fauna only targets 4E players ;-b


Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Some places are stunning and very livable
According to the internet, nowhere in Australia can be considered anywhere close to livable. The only reason Australian wildlife hasn't utterly annihilated the global ecosystem is that the animals there were too busy evolving crap like the platypus' venomous leg spurs instead of leaving the continent.

They also exploit their elderly: http://blogs.kidspot.com.au/villagevoices/gransploitation/?utm_medium=netwo rk-referral-lifestyle&utm_campaign=kidspot&utm_content=

:)

Gotta make use of them before the Yowies come for them.


So, here's one for Citizen Truth:

I went to a New England regional commie conference yesterday and we heard reports from work our organization is doing nationally and internationally. Now, I am aware of Trotskyoid grouplets' propensity for self-aggrandizement and taking claim for stuff they didn't necessarily do, but we were discussing the work our South African comrades have been doing in the wake of the Marikana massacre.

The reporter claimed that our South African section were instrumental in spreading the strike wave to other mines throughout the region and one of the arguments that we had with the miners, over and over again, was that it was a probably a bad idea to kill the scabs. Non-violent resistance in action, baby!

Anyway, I guess the Financial Times was writing editorials about us back in October. (Can't get the article without registering, but here's another one.)

If you're out there, Comrade Derek, I guess I'm not as insignificant as I thought.

Vive le Galt!


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Set wrote:


Best muppet song ever.

That's a good one, but I like Bob's better.

I like to think of Waldorf and Statler, hotels of the plutocracy though they are, as two more of my spiritual Trollfathers.

No, this is the best Muppet song ever.

(Okay, I like Set's example as a legitimate song...but if there's a tune that lends itself better to Muppetization than the one in my link, I'd like to know what it is.)


We also talked about India.

Did you know there has been a tribal uprising led by Maoists going on in India for the last decade? I must admit, I didn't.

But, anyway, I work with a Tamil from Madras and we were talking about the Indian rape stuff and, although speaking with him is very difficult, he described that "Wilted branch" phenom that was talked about last year in the Polygamy thread.

This is obviously word-of-mouth, and not scientific at all, but he claimed that there was something like 75% unemployment for young men in India and that in India, no money equals no women, and that gangs of young men travel around, jealous of anyone else with a woman, and that married couples don't go to the movies after the sun goes down.

Women's liberation through socialist revolution!

Vive le Galt!

901 to 950 of 1,362 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Concerned over Cultural Marxism All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.