Barothmuk

No, it's a declaration that she knows her rights and is being upfront. Not exactly polite conversation but its absolutely insane to interpret it as a threat. And she presumably actively works to help victims of rape and raise awareness of rape related issues on campuses. Unless you yourself are a rapist it seems odd to be intimidated by this. It always amazes me how the most adamant haters of "3rd wave feminism" literally have no idea what it is. At all. I dislike the 3rd wave too, the thing is you're not describing it even slightly. Ah yes the delusional reddit conspiracy that women run around trying to convict men of rape all the time. Honestly, I agree almost entirely with Namutree. Her reaction to him being uncomfortable came across as bizarre, and he is fully entitled to turn down whoever he wants for whatever reason; however fearing she'll accuse someone of rape just because she's an anti-rape activist who is upfront on her dates is absolutely insane.

I still think the first one was okay. Barely remember the other two.

Seems sensible to me. People are far too sensitive about people being suspicious of them.

I like it. It's like Heath Ledger's Joker ****ed some tacky slav mobster. Although to be fair I hate cape**** and think people take it far too seriously so I'm hardly the target audience.

This thread has certainly turned sour. Or at least more sour than usual.

She's delightfully Australian.

I'm going to guess she said boys have a **** and girls have a vagina.

...what? From the get-go for your ramblings to work we'd have to accept 1. The "cultural marxists" are currently in power. 2. They have chosen to combat the things they were complaining about, i.e. the commodification of everything leading to a "degenerate" culture, by commodifying everything and creating a "degenerate" culture. 3. The reason they have fallen into this trap is because it is "human nature" to, I don't know, commodify everything and create a degenerate culture? (which you are against, despite believing it to be human nature). The Frankfurt School was made up of unashamed sappy humanists.

For a game that's really not my thing I enjoyed it quite a lot.

I'd completely forgot that game even existed

"Voting"

Irony. Taking one paragraph out of its context and treat it as a point in itself. Very good, have you ever considered entering the field of Journalism? I'm hardly well versed in the various views of the members of the Frankfurt school but from what I understand many of their critiques centred around the fact that capitalism commodifies everything; music, art, fashion and so on are all subject to the process of mechanical reproduction, wherein they are stripped of any meaning or originality and reduced to mere products of consumption leaving society with a "vulgar" and "degenerate" culture bereft of any kind of meaning or originality. I say it's ironic because you blame them for the various things they were complaining about.

To be fair I saw people on /v/ cheering as he'd become too much of an SJW. Tired of internet edginess tbh. I can't think of any major examples off the top of my head? Irony.

*Zizek reaction face*

It's hot and there's too many flies.

A friend sent me this Pretty funny.

I think it's inaccurate to try and portray Sanders as some kind of meme candidate. He does legitimately have a grassroots base. That said I have noticed a lot of Clinton supporters trying to play up the "silly young internet fanbase" angle.

Have a shower and get a haircut you stinking hippy. Of course, you speak of religion in the abstract. A wishy washy, ill defined religion, perhaps deism, one of the many eastern philosophies or even the spiritual beliefs of some indigenous peoples. Can many of these things even constitute as "religions"? Aren't many belief systems like Hinduism or shamanism largely European constructs that try to force foreign beliefs within a Western framework? I am interested in none of these questions. What I refer to are specific, concrete, actually existing religions who have served to justify many oppressive acts and institutions and who, according "progressive-minded folks", should be free of any examination or critique. No kidding. That's why I advocating exposing whom they serve and for what purpose rather than trying to hide this behind strawman materialism. Note post on last page

You're not fooling anyone Webb.

Bah, that's the kind of flaccid mindset I was talking about. Nowadays whether its left or right whenever it's religion that's used as the ideological justification for any kind of action suddenly everyone will give these impotent excuses about how "it's just human mature maaaan". Rarely see other ideologies get this kind of free pass.

Yeah, had to re-read a couple of times to make sure I didn't make that mistake.

Christmas and Easter are evil holidays obviously.

Ignoring the Catholic Church's compliance with fascism and Hitler's own religiosity this really isn't relevant to my point. There existing non-religious ideological justifications for oppressive institutions does not mitigate the impact of religious justifications for oppressive institutions. Not really. Only crazy religious ideologues would say the purges or the famines were simply a case of the godless killing the faithful. That said, despite religious persecution frequnetly being that explicit (i.e. "We're godly, they're not. Kill 'em") it'd be incredibly simplistic to say religion was the root cause.

Although obviously facetious and wrong in areas it is correct in noting that religion has served as the dominant ideological apparatus for explicitly oppressive institutions and yet has been given a total free pass by contemporary 'progressives'. This year alone I've seen people argue that structurally band-aids and air-conditioners reflect racist and sexist attitudes in modern society and then have the same people refuse to critique religion because those are people's "deeply held beliefs". All bark no bite.