aluminiumtrioxid

Fix'd.

Isn't it illegal to sell those? Edit: apparently only if you're serving in the military. Guess you learn something new every day.

Mesh's creative use of selective quoting aside, the article's tone is overall far from condemnatory. It's definitely not labeling him a pervert, and doesn't really justify the complaints about "how ****ed up our media is". Hence the need for citation.

You... do realize this is clearly not intended to look like an authentic job posting, right? The "fake universities" line alone would sink any such reading. Noticed that too, but the issue is...what are you proposing this actually is? Read the full context of the email and then ask what it could be, if not fake slander being prepped. Maybe I'm not a creative thinker or the obvious answer somehow alludes me, but I don't see alternative explanations that make more sense. Satire intended to look like it came from random internet people? It's not like other presidential campaigns didn't sink serious money into manufacturing internet memes either. citation?

You... do realize this is clearly not intended to look like an authentic job posting, right? The "fake universities" line alone would sink any such reading.

I love how the very researcher you invoke in support of your argument basically disses the hell out of your position: "Curbing the demographic trend" is truly the only final feasible solution to the problem, indeed. That's just his opinion, he doesn't even decribe social solidarity by diversity even would work. Well, the problem is, your opinion is also an opinion (one which, incidentally, seems to be rooted in an incredibly poor understanding of history and philosophical principles that have been universally viewed as preposterous in academical circles for centuries). While a general sentiment of anti-intellectualism seems to be on the rise, I, for one, would rather trust the word of a guy who's been studying the subject most of his life over some rando on the internet. The study says otherwise, feel free to provide a study or an argument that says that demographic diversification/heterogeneity is an advantage for social cohesion for a nation, and how, anytime you want. Besides, why should I or anyone else here care on whose opinion you trust more? Interesting how you skipped point 1 and 3 as they build up to the whole picture of the decline. You're putting words in my mouth. I never claimed heterogeneity is advantageous for social cohesion. I pointed out that the very researcher you cite to support your idiocy believes that the answer doesn't lie in embracing "ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism". As for skipping points, I think it's probably for the better if we don't touch your rant on how Hillary "has no signs of strength, vitality and lucidity", as it is exactly the kind of "feelz before realz" thinking you're keen to decry as irrational when it suits you. There is a reason the halo effect (and its inverse, charmingly named "the horns effect", as I've learned recently) is acknowledged as a form of cognitive bias, not "a reliable method by which we should be selecting our leaders". The part where you ruminate on how "leadership reflects the currents of the masses", while at the same time managing to paint "virtuous" leaders as exemplars without whom society inevitably falls into decline is just utterly incoherent, which is kind of an impressive feat, given that you're practically ripping off Plato and Confucius here, who might have had terrible ideas, but at least managed to phrase those in a not completely self-contradictory fashion. Your third point has a glimmer of rational thought in it (TPP is bad news), but then once again you descend into howling insanity with "certain groups climb the ladder faster due to having better inner cohesion" (gee whiz, and here I thought having wealth and connections was the fast-track to the top, but no, apparently any group with any socio-economic background can just saunter right there if they just have enough inner cohesion!), and then you top it off with...whatever you're trying to get at with the bit about armed uprisings of people who feel the system is rigged against them. At this point, I can't even follow.

I love how the very researcher you invoke in support of your argument basically disses the hell out of your position: "Curbing the demographic trend" is truly the only final feasible solution to the problem, indeed. That's just his opinion, he doesn't even decribe social solidarity by diversity even would work. Well, the problem is, your opinion is also an opinion (one which, incidentally, seems to be rooted in an incredibly poor understanding of history and philosophical principles that have been universally viewed as preposterous in academical circles for centuries). While a general sentiment of anti-intellectualism seems to be on the rise, I, for one, would rather trust the word of a guy who's been studying the subject most of his life over some rando on the internet.

I love how the very researcher you invoke in support of your argument basically disses the hell out of your position: "Curbing the demographic trend" is truly the only final feasible solution to the problem, indeed.

tbh I'd be more surprised if we had, given that the sound generation capabilities of the average vagina are rather limited

mansplain harder bruce Isn't that ally talk ? #realalliesdon'tmansplain

mansplain harder bruce

It's always easy to dream that way when you can do it on other people's money. This sentiment is, of course, entirely inapplicable to certain highly practical dreams of wall-building and its ilk. The anti-construction engineering lobby has stricken once again, i see. Sure the industry has problems with cutting corners, problems with selection materials with less longviety than expected but they should stop listen to the ramblings of uncle Joseph i c wat u did der

It's always easy to dream that way when you can do it on other people's money. This sentiment is, of course, entirely inapplicable to certain highly practical dreams of wall-building and its ilk.

Man, lucky you've never worked for a large corporation It's easier to put up with when you're being paid to do it! So you'd be okay with it if the government introduced guaranteed basic income?

clear evidence of stalinist oppression

He also claimed that the "theory of evolution is going to be debunked in our lifetimes" and that he "invented a new theory of gravity that is equivalent to Newton's". The days when anything Scott Adams says could be taken seriously are sadly gone by.

I disagree. They share the same marxistic foundation of class distinctions and the distributions of such of which can be decided by a new aristocracy compiled themselves or by a strong leader. The founders of the USA are based on the ideals freedom of Loche, meaning from such ruling powers. [citation needed]

The enlightment was a mistake. Poe's Law in action. I wouldn't want in any other way. clear and effective communication is for cucks Instead of highlighting the false equivalence between leftwing authoritarian revolutionaries of the latest generations and the founders of the USA, it is more fun dwelving in insightful commentary on the consequences of doing such. "Exactly as much as they do with the Founding Fathers" is a completely factual answer to the question "how much do 'SJWs' have in common with stalinists?", ie. the only sane response to both is "not very much at all".

The enlightment was a mistake. Poe's Law in action. I wouldn't want in any other way. clear and effective communication is for cucks

The enlightment was a mistake. Poe's Law in action.

careful Enoch, you're gonna trigger the rightwingers here

Oh my sweet summer child...

That's a very elegantly phrased idea, but I think it's more of a two-way street. You can make laws forbidding discriminatory behavior, and maybe people won't hate the protected groups any less, but it will nonetheless result in less discrimination - which may make little difference from a philosophical standpoint, but I'm pretty sure that members of the group that is being discriminated against will appreciate the increase in their overall quality of life. Which is a worthy goal in itself. Moreover, when you codify the idea of discriminatory behavior as socially unacceptable (such as by making laws against it), that will shape the attitude of future generations in a fairly fundamental manner. It may not change minds in the now, but it will probably have an impact decades down the line.

I didn't say homophobia is extinct. Don't lie.