Meshugger

...Said he, somehow managing to miss the point completely. lol Aside from having fun with the narrative breaking apart when facing reality, i do hope that this development will be reversed, because otherwise we will have a quite bumpy road ahead of us. No more dinner-party political solutions about GG, but rather problems like a generation of men being disenfranchised from society, which will lead to communities collapsing, which leads to institutions crumbling, which in turn will inevitably lead to caesarism.

Since all these SJWs in gaming are always talking about this mystical 'privilege'.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34667100/poor-white-boys-get-a-worse-start-in-life-says-equality-report

Who me? Yes of course, much of my family are investment bankers as I have mentioned before and we have substantial investments in Saudi and other natural resources...thats not uncommon and doesn't disprove that Saudi is considered an ally of the West But why not ask me the question directly....unless I am mistaking what you are asking? It's good that you come forward and admit your intensions instead of trying to have a moral authority on the matter. I suggest talking to priest for some further soul-searcihng. Dude what is confusing you? My point about Saudi Arabia I would have thought by now is clear. I dont like there culture or like the many areas they lack in SJ....but this would not be enough for me to not go there for work or to accept they are an ally of the West And I have no issues with people in trading in Saudi commodities...but I admit there campaign to undermine the USA shale corporations has caused some serious financial woes. One of my cousins good friends works for a Western Saudi oil trading company and was based in Saudi. He use to love it, he was good friends with someone who knew one of the royal princes and the Saudi's took a real liking to him because he was good, he really knew the oil market. Anyway he never believed the Saudis would last this long, they are really impacting there economy now by keeping oil production low. This guy I know has been basically made redundant because there isn't much work now for people like him Saudi Oh please, we all know that you try to claim a moral authority on the west because it serves your interests. That's what i am talking about. Trying to drag along Elerond with a ruse is another sniveling tactic which is quite frankly, of grade school level. He atleast gets how the game is played, and like the very spirit of Paasikivi renowned, he's diplomatic, realistic and does not pass judgement with stupid jokes. Meshugger, yes I'm glad I hit a nerve. You should be feeling guilty for exactly the reasons you are trying to ignore...a fellow Finn gets what you refuse to understand I thought you would listen to him because he is very candid....oh well I tried ...and I thought the joke was quite good, the thought of you listen to your Finnish friend, I'm funny hey Still sniveling away are we? Again, everyone knows that the Saudis are "allies" out of geopolitical reasons. Without the oil, they would have the same significance as the Vatican in the real world of Risk and here we are, you admitting to ****posting when called out on your rationale on supporting the Saudis as being quite dubious. I would really recommend seeing a priest. They know how to forgive you. Meanwhile, the crisis keep on brewing: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/28/gun-sales-surge-in-austria-amid-refugee-crisis/

You peaked my interest. Please elaborate on why his rhetoric is correct? Basically the core idea is that by being part of the culture, it is impossible to also be an impartial outside observer to it, thus it's futile to pretend that you can be "neutral". Your concept of neutrality itself has been influenced by your culture. It feels pretty self-evident and not at all controversial to me. Also, what he said about Yudkowsky's following more or less holds water. Thank you. Why do i get a vibe of Zizek and Lacan all of the sudden...i wonder.

Oh, that is just precious Weirdly, he is right in many places, but where he goes wrong is the idea that being a "social justice stormtrooper" is an inherently worthy pursuit. I don't find it funny at all, its this type of rhetoric that undermines real SJ change and effort Well the point is, his rhetoric is more or less correct. Just terribly, terribly impractical to actually use as a guideline of real life behavior. You peaked my interest. Please elaborate on why his rhetoric is correct?

Who me? Yes of course, much of my family are investment bankers as I have mentioned before and we have substantial investments in Saudi and other natural resources...thats not uncommon and doesn't disprove that Saudi is considered an ally of the West But why not ask me the question directly....unless I am mistaking what you are asking? It's good that you come forward and admit your intensions instead of trying to have a moral authority on the matter. I suggest talking to priest for some further soul-searcihng. Dude what is confusing you? My point about Saudi Arabia I would have thought by now is clear. I dont like there culture or like the many areas they lack in SJ....but this would not be enough for me to not go there for work or to accept they are an ally of the West And I have no issues with people in trading in Saudi commodities...but I admit there campaign to undermine the USA shale corporations has caused some serious financial woes. One of my cousins good friends works for a Western Saudi oil trading company and was based in Saudi. He use to love it, he was good friends with someone who knew one of the royal princes and the Saudi's took a real liking to him because he was good, he really knew the oil market. Anyway he never believed the Saudis would last this long, they are really impacting there economy now by keeping oil production low. This guy I know has been basically made redundant because there isn't much work now for people like him Saudi Oh please, we all know that you try to claim a moral authority on the west because it serves your interests. That's what i am talking about. Trying to drag along Elerond with a ruse is another sniveling tactic which is quite frankly, of grade school level. He atleast gets how the game is played, and like the very spirit of Paasikivi renowned, he's diplomatic, realistic and does not pass judgement with stupid jokes.

Who me? Yes of course, much of my family are investment bankers as I have mentioned before and we have substantial investments in Saudi and other natural resources...thats not uncommon and doesn't disprove that Saudi is considered an ally of the West But why not ask me the question directly....unless I am mistaking what you are asking? It's good that you come forward and admit your intensions instead of trying to have a moral authority on the matter. I suggest talking to priest for some further soul-searcihng.

The Saudis are tolerated and celebrated by the realpolitikers and the useful idiots because they are bought and therefore follow the current agenda of a global world. That's why the other guys like Putin are hated, and not because for that they care little about the freedoms of their people. Take your friend Bruce for example, how unlikely is it that your family or extended connections have financial interest in Saudi businesses?

Ooooh, Milo you sneaky bastard: http://yiannopoulos.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Twine/Journalism%20Quest.html It's a game!

That's a pretty big claim. 4 u

I somehow get the impression that he is not talking about the survival course that you had to do during serving the military, but rather he's just a dip****. Also, the weasel is projecting as anyone knows that friendship extends political boundries.

Tweet removed. But really, i do not get the hate the guy gets. Is jealousy really this petty? because i cannot think of any other reason.

It practically means that most of us are ****ed either way at the moment, since almost all of us have most likely private information stored on american sites/servers. Going off the grid becomes more attractive by each day. //edit, I mean what the ****: Paging Gromnir for comments the judicial means for "may" or "reasonably likely to" in Federal law.

You're thinking about the ones who where crossed with the comics done by A. Wyatt Mann, which were hoaxes. Ben has said numerous times on /pol/ (to their dismay) that he is not an anti-semite and even asked for their help to track down the guy that boasted about changing his comics. Turns out that life is stranger than fiction and the guy who did it, was in fact a jew. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/11/terrorist-troll-pretended-to-be-isis-white-supremacist-and-jewish-lawyer.html http://garrisongraphics.blogspot.fi/2015/09/joshua-goldberg-troll.html

eeergh, what a mess. In other news, Ben Garrison shares his opinion about our gay friend, jester and trickster: Milo

At this point, I'm probably voting for someone outside of the parties myself. Unfortunately most folks will just blindly for red or blue, regardless of who wins the primary. It would be astonishing if people decided to flee the two party system in droves. But the fact that people basically vote for two parties is only due to the electoral systems used, where the "winner takes it all" (and in the case of a presidential election, you can only have one winner, but you could for example have transferrable votes...). There is no point in voting for a third, smaller party, because you're only taking away votes from the one of the two big sides you're closest to. That is, if you feel it doesn't matter which of the big sides win you could of course vote for a third party. Sadly, this will likely not result in you getting any representation at all for your opinions. You should really not call it two-party system, but "simple plurality FPTP" which is the actual system making people vote for two parties only. Compared to our superior scando-system, where everyone is invited to take part in the concensus, the anglos in UK and US have zero tolerance for giving people who do not win in a winner takes it all-environment any political power. You just need to convince them that being a loser is ok. But at least US has system in presidential elections where one can be winner even if they don't get majority of popular votes. So all is not lost for non-popular kids Touché!

You guys got these conspiracy theories backwards, ISIS is a creation of Mossad, not the CIA. CIA are just monitoring the situation, duh.

At this point, I'm probably voting for someone outside of the parties myself. Unfortunately most folks will just blindly for red or blue, regardless of who wins the primary. It would be astonishing if people decided to flee the two party system in droves. But the fact that people basically vote for two parties is only due to the electoral systems used, where the "winner takes it all" (and in the case of a presidential election, you can only have one winner, but you could for example have transferrable votes...). There is no point in voting for a third, smaller party, because you're only taking away votes from the one of the two big sides you're closest to. That is, if you feel it doesn't matter which of the big sides win you could of course vote for a third party. Sadly, this will likely not result in you getting any representation at all for your opinions. You should really not call it two-party system, but "simple plurality FPTP" which is the actual system making people vote for two parties only. Compared to our superior scando-system, where everyone is invited to take part in the concensus, the anglos in UK and US have zero tolerance for giving people who do not win in a winner takes it all-environment any political power. You just need to convince them that being a loser is ok.

That's already a given. EDIT:// I do not really care if someone feels like they are born with the wrong sex, seek therapy, talk to doctors, check the options, whatever. Live & let live and all that, but how the media portrays this "woman" is absolutely hilarious. Everyone loses either their sanity or hope and all while the devils run amok. Found the Greer video:

Polandball has all the answers: http://imgur.com/r/polandball/oIybKuo

I'm going to guess she said boys have a **** and girls have a vagina. Pretty much. Said you can't be a woman just by declaring it and getting castrated. I think it was in response to Caitlyn Jenner being named Glamour Magazine's woman of the year. Hahahahaha, what?! I must've missed that completely. That has to be the greatest insult to any woman everywhere. Hear that ladies? The ultimate showcase for what a woman is and for all the virtues it signifies is a MAN deciding to cut his balls off. Hahahahahaha! Dear lord, i cannot stop laughing! Hahahahhahaha

So you want to protect freedom by controlling major private companies? There are a gajillion social media options out there. Twitter will not be at the top forever, and if they make moves that end up making themselves obsolete, they get to hang out with Myspace in the has been pile. Sounds like a win-win. You assume much, chief. I said that Twitter is ****ed in the head for doing this, not that government should control them. Where did you get that silly idea from? My point is that people all over the world where they do not have the freedom to associate and to express themselves are dependent on these platforms, most often american ones since you guys have freedom written into the constitution, and that it is quite troubling, if not very worrysome when companies seems to be hellbent on restricting these very freedoms on the whims of their PR departments. Sure, there are alternatives and new ones will spring up, but i find it a serious issue when this very freedom constantly being pushed around, controlled, and even more serious when people seem to be totally unaware of the consequences of such. Sorry for the belated response but if there are seriously people who would rely on a medium like Twitter for there primary source of information and or direction then unfortunately they would be constantly at a disadvantage as social media is not considered a reliable source of information It was never meant to be that and if you are honest you would realize and accept that So once again to reiterate the point, it makes no substantial difference if Twitter is censored or monitored *sigh* I am surprised you couldn't make a normal response? My points weren't hard to understand ? Everything is clearly answered in the video provided, but as usual you snivel yourself out with non-sequiturs. It doesn't matter what you think about how reliable any social platform is, which is utterly pointless, when the point is that they are the ones that are used whether you like it or not and can be centralized, manipulated or at worst directed, whether you like it or not.

So you want to protect freedom by controlling major private companies? There are a gajillion social media options out there. Twitter will not be at the top forever, and if they make moves that end up making themselves obsolete, they get to hang out with Myspace in the has been pile. Sounds like a win-win. You assume much, chief. I said that Twitter is ****ed in the head for doing this, not that government should control them. Where did you get that silly idea from? My point is that people all over the world where they do not have the freedom to associate and to express themselves are dependent on these platforms, most often american ones since you guys have freedom written into the constitution, and that it is quite troubling, if not very worrysome when companies seems to be hellbent on restricting these very freedoms on the whims of their PR departments. Sure, there are alternatives and new ones will spring up, but i find it a serious issue when this very freedom constantly being pushed around, controlled, and even more serious when people seem to be totally unaware of the consequences of such. Sorry for the belated response but if there are seriously people who would rely on a medium like Twitter for there primary source of information and or direction then unfortunately they would be constantly at a disadvantage as social media is not considered a reliable source of information It was never meant to be that and if you are honest you would realize and accept that So once again to reiterate the point, it makes no substantial difference if Twitter is censored or monitored *sigh*

Dont you think you are egregiously exaggerating....yes Social Media did play a certain part in updating people in some countries around the Arab Spring but it wasn't what implemented the change we saw in some countries. The positive change we did see were people acting and doing things in RL. In other words social media isn't as important or influential as you seem to think 14-15 year olds today do not even watch TV, but rather congregate on snapchat, whatsapp, twitter, and youtube. They are completely dependent on the information 'allowed' on those platforms. If social media is controlled, then so is mainstream social interaction. What, you think organizations reponsible for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) ...do not have a wested interest in this? I am afraid that this pushes anything "unacceptable" into the fringes and we will have more extremists unintensionally among our midst exploding with various attacks because the spectrum is too narrow, all while we have all these governmental institutions experimenting with how to monitor and to control such information. Let people be is simply much to ask, it seems. I understand your concern, I really do. You are worried that the free flow of information on the Internet will be influenced and monitored by organisations or government funded groups that will ultimately censor or control this information and what people will access. I have two points for you to consider Countries like Russia and China already censor and control the Internet in there respective countries ....yet your links seem to be about censorship in the USA and Western countries. Why don't you discuss what is going on in non-Western countries...or do they get a pass ? Programs like Prism will be used to target people that mean harm to the USA, we should be supportive of measures to protect citizens of countries that are potentially targets of cyber attacks and normal homegrown and external terrorist attacks. Don't you feel our governments should do anything reasonable to protect there citizens ? I critisize the US because i hold them to the highest standard and almost every single one of those companies are american. China, Russia and most other countries are in ****-tier when it comes to concepts of freedom and liberty, both culturally and judicially. //edit: Prism is indiscriminate surveillance, which has no basis in any free society.