Valsuelm
-
Posts
405 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Valsuelm
-
-
Seriously, it takes so much more work to refute your constant stream of infantile bullcrap than it does for you to write it, as was just made patently clear by your post above. I wish there were some sort of "super ignore list", where I couldn't even see the "view this post anyway" button on your posts, and couldn't even see quotes other people have made of you. Guess I just have to start exercising self-control.
The whole 'view post anyway' thing really does need to go away.
It's supposed to be 'ignore', not 'maybe kinda sorta ignore'.
-
But why would a troll start threads? And yes I was honest when you asked me, I am not a troll....Oby may beAnd...
Here's a very good example of why I sometimes think you might just be a troll.
You're either incredibly daft to ask that question, or you're trolling.
If it's the former, think, the answer is obvious if you do. If it's the latter, F off.
-
I know Bruce can be mercurial, but really this seemed an inconsistency worth pointing out.
...
The whole point of doing it is so it will be pointed out. That's trolling 101, and Bruce does it all the time.
In all seriousness, Bruce purports to be fine with prostitution and not fine with an open marriage. Even if they were honestly held opinions rather than the forum equivalent of Gawker clickbait (no surprise Bruce would defend them, they're peas in a pod) there's literally no point even arguing with someone that disconnected with reality; the level of cognitive dissonance that would be required to honestly hold both opinions renders it utterly pointless.
I always thought of trolling as intentionally riling people up, not posting logical inconsistencies so someone will point them out.
Learn something new everyday, I guess.
The intent of the troll usually is indeed to rile people up, however the vast majority of the time the average troll is indeed logically inconsistent. It's one of the reasons most are very easily spotted, and the main reason most are also fairly easily shut up.
That aside, Bruce drives a lot of conversation on this forum (20% of the current front page threads were started by him, and that's been the norm since before I started coming here), and definitely has some things in common with a troll, even if unintentional. I've questioned his sincerity myself on a number of occasions, and frankly I'm still not 100% sure he's not a troll of some sorts.
-
1
-
-
I'm sure I could find 10 %
What was the 10% that was right?
Going through that scathing and egregiously misplaced assessment of me is not something I feel like doing on Easter...later
Good thing it isn't Easter for a couple more days.
-
Can I ask you a question and please be honest as the feedback is important to me. From my side I consider you someone who I have never had any issues having a debate with. I consider our forum interaction very healthy but how have you found me..am I rude at times, condescending? Or am I normal to you ?
Hi, you didn't ask me. Don't give a ****, here's my answer:
You remind me of my grandfather in some ways. He was absolutely spineless and followed orders to a ridiculous degree. Like I could tell him to go punch my father in the face and the only thing that would stop him from doing so is if my father ordered him NOT to punch him in the face before it happened, at which point he could order him to come murder me and I better hope I get a chance to give an order before it happens. Think this was his coping mechanism to absolve himself of any guilt from having been a Nazi. Dunno the details but sounds like he worked a machine gun and gunned down a LOT of people, so I imagine it left him with some serious scars.
But you don't come across as spineless in that sense. You come across as so god damned absorbed with your image and with being a good person that you as a person have little substance to your name. You do things based on how good they're perceived to be, with that actually taking precedence over your own impulses and gut feelings. I mean sure enough, here you are defending Gawker when some of their own workers and witnesses worked against them in court all because Gawker says progressive stuff and progressive = good right? So opposition = bad? And you're failing at objective thought as you sit here focusing on Hulk Hogan as if that has **** all to do with this. Dude if Hitler has a sex tape leaked, Hitler still has a right to a trial. There is no "yeah but you stole a wallet that time so nope the court system never helps you."
But let's not focus on that so much, cause this is about you. You focus on being perceived as good, you don't seem to react on your ACTUAL thoughts, opinions or emotions. No, you silence those. Great example: I will confess that I am very cautious around the transgender community because probably a third of the transgender individuals I've met are damned crazy, in my opinion. They'll look in a mirror and see the sexiest woman alive, complimenting themselves, then ask for a compliment and I'll be sitting there thinking "dude I can see your ****ing adam's apple and you still have a man-jaw, let's be real here." I also think one should acknowledge that biology IS going to work against transgender individuals in the sense that, for example, biology is smart: what men consider a nice ass is often a sign a woman can provide safe childbirth, and did you know attractive people tend to have higher IQs? Your body tries to advertise all it's strengths and problems: there's an evolutionary reason why warts or a bad scent will disgust people for example. And for transgender individuals? Your body is gonna recognize "something is wrong." It won't feel disgust (usually), it won't feel anger or hate, but it DAMNED WELL won't feel attraction. As such, if I meet a transgender individual that can calmly admit to being transgender and understand they stand out like a sore thumb and rarely (if ever) attract their desired gender, but the gender swap makes them feel better all the same? More power to these people. The ones I've met that seem to be living in this fantasy world where OMG IM A WOMAN NOW AND EVERYONE THINKS I LOOK FEMININE AND I MUST NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE MY PAST NAME AGAIN!!! Yeah, they can gtfo. I keep my distance from these individuals not because transgender individuals bother me, but because delusional individuals bother me (I've met women who've attempted to lie to me and others about their fake boobs; same **** here, that bothers me), and sadly the delusion quota in the transgender community - in my experience - has been high. Nowhere near a majority, but still high. I've met three such individuals in my lifetime, which is three more than I cared to meet.
I do not think my reaction is abnormal, offensive or strange. I just explained to you my reasoning, I in no way think anything I said was unreasonable. At no point did I state I was against transgender individuals or their rights; they deserve all of that. All the same, yes if I meet a transgender individual, I'm gonna be asking in my head if this is gonna be a normal one of a "I AM THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMAN EVER I WAS NEVER A MAN WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT" one. And the moment I get a hint of the latter type, I'm gone.
Now let's talk about you: I can imagine you having the same impulses where you see a transgender individual and your mind/body reacts with a "NOPE." That's natural. But what I can't imagine is that you'd admit to this....actually I could imagine you saying it now that I've brought it up solely for the sake of trying to come across as relateable, but admitting to it on your own, without someone else provoking it out of you? No, you'd claim there's no issue whatsoever, because you wanna be a good person. You'd NEVER admit to anything that can remotely resemble prejudice, because what would people think!! You've gotta continue trying to look like the nicest, most morally good person ever! And so you lie. You lie to yourself, you lie to others. You convince yourself you don't have these impulses, you tell everyone those impulses don't exist. But in doing so, you fail to sit down and critically ask yourself who you are, what makes you tick and why you think the way you do. On two seperate occassions, I have respectfully confessed my "prejudices" towards the transgender community to a transgender individual. On both cases, we had a meaningful discussion that helped me understand myself and the transgender community better. The second individual was even happy to hear me say what I said, and then began complaining that so many people now "fetishize" or use the transgender community for political statements without understanding them themselves. They'll sit there and claim ridiculous things like anyone who doesn't find a transgender person attractive is a prejudice bigot, or they'll attempt to downplay how serious a gender change is, the result being that actual experts or support groups are sometimes laughable because they've been fed bull**** by some hipster SJWs who just said **** to make the trans community feel more accepted rather than speaking about what they truly are and what problems they truly face. (wish I could recall the exact details, sadly this convo took place two years ago)
I'm not afraid to admit to any thought that goes through my mind because what purpose is there in ever lying to myself? When I was 14 I saw a documentary on an assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler. In it, they determined a table leg saved Hitler's life by diminishing how much of a blast from a suitcase bomb hit him. To try and make everyone feel better about those terrible results, one of the German war veterans in attendance said they think Hitler had to survive that, because he believed that had Hitler died that day, he would've died a hero rather than a villain, because this was before his artocities came to light.
That blew my mind. The idea that the guy who's synonymous with the word "evil" almost died a hero...? Blew my mind. It made me realize...do my friends like me, or do they only like the ILLUSION of me that I've presented? Of course I only show them my best traits, of course I hide my worst....but what's the point in that? I do want to be judged. I do want people to know who I truly am, and that way, I can know if people truly like and agree with me or not. Even if the world determined I was a terrible person, all the same I am who I am and I should be proud of who I am, and wear my personality on my sleeve like a badge of pride.
....Then there's you. Sometimes I read your post and I feel like you're my antithesis. I get the sense that you and I are, in many ways, complete opposites. Every post of yours is so polite it could make school children nauceous. Every single discussion has to end peacefully or on a good note or it'll bother the hell out of you. At all times, you have to remind people you're progressive, you care about women (weird to me that it's ALWAYS women) and you're a good person. I look at that and say what point is there in forcing a convo to end on a good note? You can't do that; you're kidding yourself and lying to yourself, because if a convo ends on a bad note, it ends on a bad note. And the constant reminders about how much you care about women or in this case, the workers at Gawker, just comes off as total bull. In my mind, you're either a troll, or you're a sad little man who is so haunted by fears that people might perceive you as a bad person or that you ARE a bad person, that you let those exact fears govern your every opinion, to the point where the opinion forms before the reasoning behind the opinion has even made sense in your brain. Hey, what I'm saying may hurt, but it's called "honesty," and as I've said you can learn a lot from it.
Every post you make comes across as the most fake, disingenuine thing ever. You're like the definition of those guys that ask "how was your day" purely for the politeness of it but don't actually care or pay attention to the answer. I mean I have no doubt that you're gonna respond to this post with something along the lines of "oh ok this is a very helpful post and I thank you for your input!" What I do doubt is if you actually read it. So many of your posts are just empty statements that fail to say anything beyond "good point." You never explain why or how, you never explain your reasoning, you never provide evidence you actually read or comprehended what anyone says to you, you never do anything. And hell, you never voice criticism ever unless it's deemed allowable by your weird overly-progressive moral compass.
So yeah, if I'm being as frank as possible, you seem like a sad individual who is living your life letting the opinions of others govern who you are and how you should act, all out of fear of being perceived as bad or evil or something. You hear "WOMEN GOOD, MEN BAD" and repeat it like a friggin' caveman without being able to explain ANY of the reasons behind your logic, and why? Because one they're not logical and two it's not YOUR false logic to begin with. You just parrot all the "good karma" political stances you've heard without bothering to comprehend them (if that's even possible), and that's evident by how poorly you argue them....if at all. As I said, your posts are nonstop empty statements devoid of any substance, and it always seems evident that you're more concerned with your image and seeming like a good person than you are in....well, actually having a god damned debate.
Seriously though, here's a challenge for you: quote one post for me in this entire thread where you actually make an argument. You'll find that all of your arguments are "I don't think so." That's it. You just disagree without stating why. Anyone else on these forums, whether I agree with them or not, I can expect them to explain to me why they think the way they do. But you? You cannot even back up any of your own stances or beliefs, and I'm personally of the opinion your opinion about Gawker "changed" not because we actually convinced you, but because you noticed you were the ONLY person in the entirety of the forums that was opting to defend them, thus you perceived what you're doing must be "bad" and caved not because you actually listened to anything anyone said, but because for you, life is just a desperate attempt to be perceived as a good person.
Well I'll tell you, it's not working. I've said before, quite frankly, that I don't respect your opinions, because as I just pointed out, I don't think your opinions have any reasoning behind them. Why would I give time of day to a person who has their opinions solely due to peer pressure or some other weird social phenomina with their thinking pattern? I respect those who can say "I am against strong criminal charges for false rape accusations because A, B, and C," not those who say "I am against strong criminal charges for false rape accusations because it is wrong and I have always been a nice man who respects women and is concerned with achieving equality for them."
Nothing that you say makes anyone think "wow what a nice guy!" Infact I'm often sitting here thinking "wow what a fruit" or "Bruce is the poster child for that saying 'Don't be too open-minded or your brain will fall out.'" I also think there's probably a lot of people that think you can be rather passive aggressive, which if you didn't know, can be a very ugly personality trait to have.
Yes that's a wall of text, and yes that's a wall of text that neither you nor anyone else asked for. All the same, I posted it because quite frankly, if you go through this thread, it's "Everyone else vs. Bruce's drunk-as-hell moral compass." Half the thread is you grasping at straws and attempting to downplay Gawker's horrendous acts. And why? Because they're on your "side" and they're "good progressives." ....That's another pet peeve of mine: people that blindly defend others on their "side" without actually asking if they agree with that person or group whatsoever. But I've ranted enough. Point is that quite frankly I think you irritate the ever-living hell out of a lot of people, it's just some are more reluctant than others to say it.
[spoilered only to save screen space.]
If I have time later, I may add to what you say here, but I want to at least say I very much appreciate the energy and time you took to write that, and I agree 100% with your observations on Bruce. While they very likely might be lost on Bruce himself (and seem to be based on his replies), know at least that you are not alone in your observation and opinion on this matter.
Thank you for writing what you wrote.
Yes I keep saying that, Im glad he wrote that because I now understand the issue
Some people judge me on expected Internet etiquette, I cannot do that as I am only capable of one way of acting : RL Etiquette
Hence the misunderstandings which you are perpetuating
No Bruce.
I at least am not judging you by some 'internet etiquette', and I don't think Longknife or at least most of the rest of the people here are either.
I fully expect you to be just about exactly as you are on this forum in the 'real world', and the same goes for almost everyone else here.
-
1
-
-
Can I ask you a question and please be honest as the feedback is important to me. From my side I consider you someone who I have never had any issues having a debate with. I consider our forum interaction very healthy but how have you found me..am I rude at times, condescending? Or am I normal to you ?
Hi, you didn't ask me. Don't give a ****, here's my answer:
You remind me of my grandfather in some ways. He was absolutely spineless and followed orders to a ridiculous degree. Like I could tell him to go punch my father in the face and the only thing that would stop him from doing so is if my father ordered him NOT to punch him in the face before it happened, at which point he could order him to come murder me and I better hope I get a chance to give an order before it happens. Think this was his coping mechanism to absolve himself of any guilt from having been a Nazi. Dunno the details but sounds like he worked a machine gun and gunned down a LOT of people, so I imagine it left him with some serious scars.
But you don't come across as spineless in that sense. You come across as so god damned absorbed with your image and with being a good person that you as a person have little substance to your name. You do things based on how good they're perceived to be, with that actually taking precedence over your own impulses and gut feelings. I mean sure enough, here you are defending Gawker when some of their own workers and witnesses worked against them in court all because Gawker says progressive stuff and progressive = good right? So opposition = bad? And you're failing at objective thought as you sit here focusing on Hulk Hogan as if that has **** all to do with this. Dude if Hitler has a sex tape leaked, Hitler still has a right to a trial. There is no "yeah but you stole a wallet that time so nope the court system never helps you."
But let's not focus on that so much, cause this is about you. You focus on being perceived as good, you don't seem to react on your ACTUAL thoughts, opinions or emotions. No, you silence those. Great example: I will confess that I am very cautious around the transgender community because probably a third of the transgender individuals I've met are damned crazy, in my opinion. They'll look in a mirror and see the sexiest woman alive, complimenting themselves, then ask for a compliment and I'll be sitting there thinking "dude I can see your ****ing adam's apple and you still have a man-jaw, let's be real here." I also think one should acknowledge that biology IS going to work against transgender individuals in the sense that, for example, biology is smart: what men consider a nice ass is often a sign a woman can provide safe childbirth, and did you know attractive people tend to have higher IQs? Your body tries to advertise all it's strengths and problems: there's an evolutionary reason why warts or a bad scent will disgust people for example. And for transgender individuals? Your body is gonna recognize "something is wrong." It won't feel disgust (usually), it won't feel anger or hate, but it DAMNED WELL won't feel attraction. As such, if I meet a transgender individual that can calmly admit to being transgender and understand they stand out like a sore thumb and rarely (if ever) attract their desired gender, but the gender swap makes them feel better all the same? More power to these people. The ones I've met that seem to be living in this fantasy world where OMG IM A WOMAN NOW AND EVERYONE THINKS I LOOK FEMININE AND I MUST NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE MY PAST NAME AGAIN!!! Yeah, they can gtfo. I keep my distance from these individuals not because transgender individuals bother me, but because delusional individuals bother me (I've met women who've attempted to lie to me and others about their fake boobs; same **** here, that bothers me), and sadly the delusion quota in the transgender community - in my experience - has been high. Nowhere near a majority, but still high. I've met three such individuals in my lifetime, which is three more than I cared to meet.
I do not think my reaction is abnormal, offensive or strange. I just explained to you my reasoning, I in no way think anything I said was unreasonable. At no point did I state I was against transgender individuals or their rights; they deserve all of that. All the same, yes if I meet a transgender individual, I'm gonna be asking in my head if this is gonna be a normal one of a "I AM THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMAN EVER I WAS NEVER A MAN WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT" one. And the moment I get a hint of the latter type, I'm gone.
Now let's talk about you: I can imagine you having the same impulses where you see a transgender individual and your mind/body reacts with a "NOPE." That's natural. But what I can't imagine is that you'd admit to this....actually I could imagine you saying it now that I've brought it up solely for the sake of trying to come across as relateable, but admitting to it on your own, without someone else provoking it out of you? No, you'd claim there's no issue whatsoever, because you wanna be a good person. You'd NEVER admit to anything that can remotely resemble prejudice, because what would people think!! You've gotta continue trying to look like the nicest, most morally good person ever! And so you lie. You lie to yourself, you lie to others. You convince yourself you don't have these impulses, you tell everyone those impulses don't exist. But in doing so, you fail to sit down and critically ask yourself who you are, what makes you tick and why you think the way you do. On two seperate occassions, I have respectfully confessed my "prejudices" towards the transgender community to a transgender individual. On both cases, we had a meaningful discussion that helped me understand myself and the transgender community better. The second individual was even happy to hear me say what I said, and then began complaining that so many people now "fetishize" or use the transgender community for political statements without understanding them themselves. They'll sit there and claim ridiculous things like anyone who doesn't find a transgender person attractive is a prejudice bigot, or they'll attempt to downplay how serious a gender change is, the result being that actual experts or support groups are sometimes laughable because they've been fed bull**** by some hipster SJWs who just said **** to make the trans community feel more accepted rather than speaking about what they truly are and what problems they truly face. (wish I could recall the exact details, sadly this convo took place two years ago)
I'm not afraid to admit to any thought that goes through my mind because what purpose is there in ever lying to myself? When I was 14 I saw a documentary on an assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler. In it, they determined a table leg saved Hitler's life by diminishing how much of a blast from a suitcase bomb hit him. To try and make everyone feel better about those terrible results, one of the German war veterans in attendance said they think Hitler had to survive that, because he believed that had Hitler died that day, he would've died a hero rather than a villain, because this was before his artocities came to light.
That blew my mind. The idea that the guy who's synonymous with the word "evil" almost died a hero...? Blew my mind. It made me realize...do my friends like me, or do they only like the ILLUSION of me that I've presented? Of course I only show them my best traits, of course I hide my worst....but what's the point in that? I do want to be judged. I do want people to know who I truly am, and that way, I can know if people truly like and agree with me or not. Even if the world determined I was a terrible person, all the same I am who I am and I should be proud of who I am, and wear my personality on my sleeve like a badge of pride.
....Then there's you. Sometimes I read your post and I feel like you're my antithesis. I get the sense that you and I are, in many ways, complete opposites. Every post of yours is so polite it could make school children nauceous. Every single discussion has to end peacefully or on a good note or it'll bother the hell out of you. At all times, you have to remind people you're progressive, you care about women (weird to me that it's ALWAYS women) and you're a good person. I look at that and say what point is there in forcing a convo to end on a good note? You can't do that; you're kidding yourself and lying to yourself, because if a convo ends on a bad note, it ends on a bad note. And the constant reminders about how much you care about women or in this case, the workers at Gawker, just comes off as total bull. In my mind, you're either a troll, or you're a sad little man who is so haunted by fears that people might perceive you as a bad person or that you ARE a bad person, that you let those exact fears govern your every opinion, to the point where the opinion forms before the reasoning behind the opinion has even made sense in your brain. Hey, what I'm saying may hurt, but it's called "honesty," and as I've said you can learn a lot from it.
Every post you make comes across as the most fake, disingenuine thing ever. You're like the definition of those guys that ask "how was your day" purely for the politeness of it but don't actually care or pay attention to the answer. I mean I have no doubt that you're gonna respond to this post with something along the lines of "oh ok this is a very helpful post and I thank you for your input!" What I do doubt is if you actually read it. So many of your posts are just empty statements that fail to say anything beyond "good point." You never explain why or how, you never explain your reasoning, you never provide evidence you actually read or comprehended what anyone says to you, you never do anything. And hell, you never voice criticism ever unless it's deemed allowable by your weird overly-progressive moral compass.
So yeah, if I'm being as frank as possible, you seem like a sad individual who is living your life letting the opinions of others govern who you are and how you should act, all out of fear of being perceived as bad or evil or something. You hear "WOMEN GOOD, MEN BAD" and repeat it like a friggin' caveman without being able to explain ANY of the reasons behind your logic, and why? Because one they're not logical and two it's not YOUR false logic to begin with. You just parrot all the "good karma" political stances you've heard without bothering to comprehend them (if that's even possible), and that's evident by how poorly you argue them....if at all. As I said, your posts are nonstop empty statements devoid of any substance, and it always seems evident that you're more concerned with your image and seeming like a good person than you are in....well, actually having a god damned debate.
Seriously though, here's a challenge for you: quote one post for me in this entire thread where you actually make an argument. You'll find that all of your arguments are "I don't think so." That's it. You just disagree without stating why. Anyone else on these forums, whether I agree with them or not, I can expect them to explain to me why they think the way they do. But you? You cannot even back up any of your own stances or beliefs, and I'm personally of the opinion your opinion about Gawker "changed" not because we actually convinced you, but because you noticed you were the ONLY person in the entirety of the forums that was opting to defend them, thus you perceived what you're doing must be "bad" and caved not because you actually listened to anything anyone said, but because for you, life is just a desperate attempt to be perceived as a good person.
Well I'll tell you, it's not working. I've said before, quite frankly, that I don't respect your opinions, because as I just pointed out, I don't think your opinions have any reasoning behind them. Why would I give time of day to a person who has their opinions solely due to peer pressure or some other weird social phenomina with their thinking pattern? I respect those who can say "I am against strong criminal charges for false rape accusations because A, B, and C," not those who say "I am against strong criminal charges for false rape accusations because it is wrong and I have always been a nice man who respects women and is concerned with achieving equality for them."
Nothing that you say makes anyone think "wow what a nice guy!" Infact I'm often sitting here thinking "wow what a fruit" or "Bruce is the poster child for that saying 'Don't be too open-minded or your brain will fall out.'" I also think there's probably a lot of people that think you can be rather passive aggressive, which if you didn't know, can be a very ugly personality trait to have.
Yes that's a wall of text, and yes that's a wall of text that neither you nor anyone else asked for. All the same, I posted it because quite frankly, if you go through this thread, it's "Everyone else vs. Bruce's drunk-as-hell moral compass." Half the thread is you grasping at straws and attempting to downplay Gawker's horrendous acts. And why? Because they're on your "side" and they're "good progressives." ....That's another pet peeve of mine: people that blindly defend others on their "side" without actually asking if they agree with that person or group whatsoever. But I've ranted enough. Point is that quite frankly I think you irritate the ever-living hell out of a lot of people, it's just some are more reluctant than others to say it.
[spoilered only to save screen space.]
If I have time later, I may add to what you say here, but I want to at least say I very much appreciate the energy and time you took to write that, and I agree 100% with your observations on Bruce. While they very likely might be lost on Bruce himself (and seem to be based on his replies), know at least that you are not alone in your observation and opinion on this matter.
Thank you for writing what you wrote.
-
1
-
-
Hogan and his even more immoral friends, the wife and husband., did something for themselves....not for someone else,its worse what Hogan did
Are you seriously saying that something between consenting adults is "worse" than something done without consent?
Because AFAIK Hogan and Heather Clem were consenting adults in what they did but they did not consent to being filmed or to having said film distributed by Gawker.
Yes for me much worse, this is a subjective judgement
I have been very lucky in life, I have always had very good guy friends, I mean we share everything about ourselves and we completely trust each other and can rely on each other. Some of friends I have been friends with for 15-20 years
Most of my friends are married or have serious girlfriends and I am also always very good friends with the ladies ..but its a real respect and friendship that is outside my male friends. I was raised in a matriarch society and I really appreciate my friendships with women, in fact I often enjoy doing things with women that most men would find boring, in other words " women things "
But for a man to be true friends with a women he has to learn to not act on any physical attraction if it surfaces , its fine to be attracted to a lady friend but you must control how you respond. So there was and always is immense trust between me and all my guy friends about there lady partners, for example my friend would go away for a month for work and I would come down from JHB and stay with his fiancee for weekends. We would party together, sleep in the same house and even the same bed but there was never anything that made the situation uncomfortable
The level of trust was unequivocal and this only made our 3 friendships more durable . So when I hear about someone who is prepared to let his wife sleep with someone like Hogan I lose immense respect for how dysfunctional that relationship really is...despite the fact they probably think " we have a open relationship which makes us stronger as a couple "
Get divorced and then sleep with who you want....but seriously a wife and her husband being happy with that is just .....appalling for me
So yes what Hogan did was morally worse, spiritually worse and a mockery of what a marriage is
This is truly rich, coming from someone who champions gay and transgender rights, and repeatedly has said there's nothing wrong with that lifestyle at all.
Absolute Platinum!
-
Well we will all have our views on what is more relevant or morally questionable but yes both are bad.
Banging a friend's very willing wife behind closed doors with said friend's permission and encouragement is arguably reprehensible on a high moral standard road, but that is a road you do not understand or travel Mr. SJW. Ever.
Please don't pretend to in order to try and cast what is grossly abhorrent by even a low moral standard is a better light.
The relative wrongs here are equivalent to spitting on someone who actually was spitting at you first, vs aggravated assault with a weapon and robbery. And it's the former, not the latter that is actually repentant. Hogan does not defend his actions, he has sincerely apologized for them, repeatedly (not that this should have *ever* been anyone's business to even discuss let alone have apology given to, other than those who are close to Hogan, Bubba, and the wife). Whereas Denton continues to try to justify his pure slime and is entirely unrepentant.
And this is coming from someone who barely knows what 'GG' is about, as I found the entire thing shallow, trivial, corrupt, and largely irrelevant to my life as well as the world at large, as are just about all SJW concerns and ventures.
-
So I unknowingly align myself with evil that twists the truth in an effort to change/destroy western culture on behalf of communists and globalists. And I am committed to addressing imagined historical injustices largely fed to me by media owned by the aforementioned, which is only possible because I have little knowledge of history myself.... neverminding that persecuting modern people who never had anything to do with my imagined injustices from the past is an injustice itself.
Fixed
Also, no one is afraid of homosexuals*.
L2Volcabulary right.I'm sure there's some folks out there in a prison somewhere afraid of Bubba wanting them to bend over for that bar of soap, but they aren't afraid of him just because he's a homosexual. They're afraid of him cause he's big, is known to rape men with his buddies, and he doesn't take no for an answer.
Please reject all the 'phobias' that are not really phobias Mr. VC. It's a step off that hazy road to hell paved with seemingly good intentions into a more honest and clear world.
-
KP, any comments?
There very well may be some truth to this.
Voter fraud is nothing new. Certain places like Chicago are notorious for it, and there's a number of good documentaries out there on it in regards to national elections (none that I can link on youtube though). Some focus on the 2000 election in Florida, some focus on 2004 in Ohio, and some just talk about it in general. 'Hacking Democracy' is probably the best one overall in my opinion. I highly recommend everyone find it and watch it if you haven't already.
On top of voter fraud there is the shady and very undemocratic at times primary process of both parties. The Dem's system currently seems more blatantly corrupt, but the Republican's certainly is as well. Just ask Ron Paul supporters from the last election, or do a little research. You'll find that party nominations have been stolen in the past (most recently and fairly obviously by Eisenhower), it's nothing new.
-
Guys this is going to really annoy you....its basically an ignorant attack on white people but it makes no sense
And this is the level of intelligence of Harvard students ?
Having been to Harvard, and even dated one of it's students for a number of years, I can tell you that it's pure myth that one needs to be intelligent to be there. In fact, my experience is that school attracts some of the most thoroughly brainwashed (yet good regurgitators) folks in the nation.
-
In other surprising news:
Tomorrow, the sun will rise in the east!
-
He's also making a strong case for Ftard of the Year award.
I mean I gotta be frank here, I'm starting to have serious doubts Gawker HAS a legal team. This is starting to hit a point where I would at least be reviewing the legal team for professional misconduct. I mean there's only so much a lawyer can do when assigned to guard an idiot, but at the same time....do they NOT have the common sense to speak to their lawyers at all before posting half this ****?
I've little doubt Denton has been advised against making posts such as what you linked. I've also little doubt Denton isn't taking the advice his lawyers give him seriously, on this matter and others.
Incompetent lawyers exist aplenty, but grossly incompetent ones (to the extent they wouldn't advise their client to keep shush about matters involving a case that still is in court, and especially to not tell lies; which is lawyer 101 stuff in the vast majority of cases) aren't that common.
Considering Denton's law firm has won U.S. New's 'Media Lawfirm of the Year' award, it's unlikely they are advising him badly, at least insofar as the bar association or any appeals court will ever be concerned. Maybe there is a method to the madness, but I doubt it's anything more than Denton's hubris. At the end of the day, a lawyer works for their client, and no matter how good the lawyer is, some stupid cannot be saved.
In a somewhat related aside:
One of my all time favorite exchanges I've witnessed in a court of law:
Accused witness on stand: 'Your honor, I've done a stupid thing.'
Judge: 'Well, if people didn't do stupid things, I wouldn't have a job.'
Laughter permeated the courtroom, despite the seriousness of the matters at hand.
-
He's also making a strong case for why he should win the Ftard of the Year award.
-
-
Greatest Russian Song:
All else is poop compared.-
1
-
-
140 million, that's a lifetime of VIP access to strip clubs eh Bruce?
Of course but the 140 million should be used more constructively than just going to strip clubs?
Cocaine and a steady diet of sugarbabies come with a $140 mil VIP access to strip clubs all over the world. What's more constructive than that?
-
3
-
-
But does it not concern you that if Gawker goes under so will its affiliates....I thought we liked the idea of a free media where we get different views on topics even if we dont agree with it?
Gawker is pure dung, as are most if not all of it's affiliates. I'm not even not remotely concerned it will go under, I hope it does (it probably won't).
Being concerned about Gawker going under insofar as any kind of supportive of free media argument is like being concerned about a roach infested dunghole of a restaurant that's repeatedly epicly failed health inspections, finally going out of business because it lost a lawsuit brought by a customer who ate their food, became deathly ill to the point they lost their livelihood as a result, suffered irreparable long term damage to their body, and the owners were not only unrepentant they argued they had a right to serve such unhealthy dung. That's a business that deserves to die.
-
Gawker will not afford it, and will have to look for external funding. Personally i hope that this will spark a fire that will burn down the rest of yellow media. That being said, seing some justice for one of my childhood heroes is a sign from above that the times are about to get better again.
I liked your post. But liking it wasn't enough. I need to quote it too. For truth, for epicness, for awesomeness, for all the Hulkamaniacs out there!
Also, in case 3:26 isn't enough for anyone reading this as it wasn't enough for me:
-
1
-
-
I'm a fan of the supplies mechanic. For me, it adds a layer of immersion.
Funny, I find it the exact opposite. I'm constantly reminded of an artificial handicap that makes no sense, especially in light of 'the stash'. There is absolutely no difficulty factor in having to go back to pick up camping supplies, there is however an annoyance factor and a break the 4th wall factor.
-
I'm skeptical if this no-brainer feature request thread will go anywhere, as there's already been a few about this. But for what it's worth.
Yes please to this feature which should have been in from day one.
Also, add blue circles for neutral NPCs while you're at it please Obsidian. That way a lot of us won't have a reason to use to IE mod anymore. For two features that are simple to implement and should have been in the game since beta.
-
3
-
-
Its the consequences of his views around foreign policy that should concern people about Isolationism
Yeah, that's what I meant with it. He is not the kind that builds strong international relations.
It is truly comical if you think that anyone that has run for President in the last 20+ years, won or lost, is 'the kind that builds strong international relations', let alone who has actually won during that time.
Not so comical that you even think that is important in a world where almost every single 'leader' of a nation is a bought and paid for puppet. Puppet building strong superficial relationship with puppet is entirely irrelevant.
-
You fail to understand the root, because you do not understand what money is.
Money is a technology which facilitates trade by acting as an abstraction for tangible wealth and labor. To do this, the money needs to be firmly cemented in reality--because goods and labor are both real. Gold and silver have been the best medium for this for many reasons. See The Regression Theorem for more.
The problem today, and for the last century is that money has been destroyed. It is no longer money--a store of value, it's a debt based currency. Fiat. By command. When the link between money and tangible reality (scarcity) is broken or corrupted, it becomes a "something for nothing" scheme. Think Wiemar Germany. You create something of value, I trade you paper...or today, ephemeral electronic bits at zero cost for your very real good/service.
This has destroyed pricing, capital accumulation, and investment. Those most closely connected to the spigot enjoy at scenario where "Heads they win, Tails you lose" by buying assets (which nominally appreciate) before the currency is debased. This is the principle reason why the wealth divides have increased so significantly. It's also the reason why the world economy has ground to a halt. Prices are massively distorted, and capital is not self-preserving in this environment. It forces people into assets, creating bubbles and malinvestment writ large.
Your guaranteed income doesn't solve this problem. It actually exacerbates it. Not only that, but it creates perverse incentive and requires even more State interference to function. To work, an economy would effectively have to formally and fully Sovietize, where this guaranteed income stipend would function as a system of rationing.
There are alot more reasons. Every economy in the entire world is onerous burdened by extraordinary (cascading) levels of taxation and regulatory burden. Outside of black markets, there is not a single free or capitalist economy in the entire world. That's a huge part of the equation, but money is at the root. The use of robotics is only a symptom, because human capital has been out-priced by these market distortions. I could elaborate for a very long time on each of these, but it's money. Money is broken. That's the root.
That's a nice rant and all, but technological advancement would have occurred regardless of our currency. Machines replacing human labor is the primary concern of this video.
It wasn't really a rant. It was an attempt at explaining a problem fundamental to what the video is getting at, yet doesn't mention because the makers of it don't see/understand it. In fact, most people don't (even though it's not even remotely rocket science), which is the #1 reason why it's even a problem to begin with.
-
His loyalty to the Zionists is clear, he was born into the club and never left, so he's free to do whatever. The goyim however, must show up and show their fealty, else there will be repercussions.
But why would a troll start threads? And yes I was honest when you asked me, I am not a troll....Oby may be
Gawker found guilty in Hogan Case
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
You didn't, Bruce did. Or did you forget you were responding to him?
If Bruce is a troll, he is one of the most successful I've seen. If he's not, he's one of the thickest slices of superficial I've ever come across.