Youtube comments of RiC David (@RiC_David).
-
1400
-
211
-
74
-
65
-
54
-
35
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
So the dad's, in Ana's words, "this pervy lawyer guy".
Because it was the dad who pitched the idea to his daughter, not the other way around?
Let's be clear (/Obama), in many cases female sexuality is shunned while celebrated in males but this is one of the many situations in which a man is presumed to be, what, throwing a Playboy party for his 18yo daughter so he can lust after at those scandalous 17 and something month old friends who nobody would be able to tell apart from the 18yos anyway?
You're full of shit on that one, Ana, you're just using the 'leering male sex pest' trope/stereotype against real people. You often call men "pervy wankerrrrs" in jest but I've never heard you call yourself a pervert for daring to have a libido, what I hear from you is "get it get it, girl".
Things like this are why you lack credibility with reasonable people. You lack credibility with unreasonable people because they're unreasonable, carry on ignoring those scumbags.
17
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
I just feel like saying that I find the pride many people take in not finding things offensive is misguided. A lot of things, a hell of a lot of things, should be found offensive if they're grotesque awful things. There's just such a stigma attached to the word now that what likely springs to most minds is a caricature of the actual reaction the overwhelming majority of individuals have.
Genuine comedy can create humour from literally anything if done right, but at the same time there are tons and tons of people out there who'll sharpen a stick, jab it into the softest parts of the flesh, then scoff at their target for disliking it. I could get under anyone's skin if I made that my goal, just by knowing what they care about the most; I think our society has moved too far toward admiring the troll/bully by focusing on the contempt for 'taking offence'.
What I notice a lot is people framing others' reactions (especially unspecific collectives e.g. "The Christians got offended" rather than "Mark was offended") with that word, as well as 'outraged', 'crying' etc. while framing their own reactions as 'being pissed off' or just not seeing their own backlash as "I got offended". Usually the actual response to something offensive is "Ugh, that was really bad taste" and the term 'offended' gets used to cast them in a cartoonishly exaggerated light.
I hope this is coherent as I'm tired, ill, and not altogether certain if this all ties together. It is worth noting, however, that our names are basically reversed.
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@AAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD "I still don't get it, what is wrong to be genuine white?"
Of course you don't get it - if you did, you wouldn't be a racist, anti-Semitic homophobe, would you? That requires a lot of not 'getting it'. Based on you giving that much of a shit who other people marry, and not even being able to stomach typing the word "Jew", I'd say you probably also don't get a lot of peace and joy. People who are happy through simple wellbeing and kindness tend not to need a bunch of external scapegoats to pin troubles on.
"Genuine white"...I mean how little can you love yourself for who you are (your traits, your virtues, the effect you have on those around you, the love you create) if you feel the need to view being of Northern European ethnicity as something that carries the tagline "Genuine" like it's a leather handbag or Rembrandt painting?
I like being of English and Irish heritage, I like being of African and Caribbean heritage—I don't consider any of this as some sort of achievement, nor am I proud to not be of Jewish descent. They define my ancestral history and the way I look, what defines me is what I actually do - what people will remember me for when I'm gone.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
"Amplify all voices!"
But then they'd still be equally imbalanced
"Exactly, they'd be equal!"
The racism in America is disgusting. This has been obvious since the police's murders of unarmed black citizens at over 5x the rate.
A digraceful portion of Americans want black people to shut their mouths and not fight the police/government tyranny - they want black people to pretend that they're being murdered equally, they want black people to stop making them uncomfortable by having to HEAR about it.
They want to claim that fighting racism is race baiting. They hear black people talking about being black people and think "that's racism! If we talk about being white people we're called racists"
1) If you're falsely called racists then the individual who said that is wrong. Wrong people exist, your mind should not be blown.
2) You can see here WHY we have need to talk about being black people - BECAUSE IT MATTERS TO THE POLICE SO WE DON'T HAVE THE OPTION OF JUST BEING PEOPLE. If you're part of the majority, you have the option of just being a guy, not a gay guy, a Hispanic woman, a trans guy etc. What reason does a straight person have to talk about being heterosexual? What reason would I have to talk about not being transgender?
It's not that difficult at all, it's willful ignorance and undercover racists coming out of hiding. There is a fight, it's bigots vs bigotry. Keep lying and telling people it's blacks vs whites, gays vs straights - the truth will always eventually become self evident.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
It's nice when some people just display their true colours.
Impregnating a young black girl? Well that wouldn't be a problem. A young white girl though? Well white girls are as pure as the virgin snow, which also just happens to be white, aren't they?
White - innocent, pure. Not only is this deeply ingrained in our language but also in our minds, yes OUR minds - I don't get to be immune to the conditioning, I'm subject to the same thing my European brothers and sisters are.
"Young white girls". They can't be bad, can they? They're (or they used to be) untainted pristine heavenly angels, it goes without saying. Then these black drug dealers---emphasis on the fact that they're black, not that they're providing life ruining substances (without a license!)--taint them with their blackness. Blackness spreads and stains, whiteness can only be victim to this.
It's so many layers deep. I make no apology to anyone who's short sighted. The aversion to black/white relationship is compounded by the colour factor and I resent the fact that I, as someone who loves milky pale skin (as well as many other tones such as deep dark 'black'), notice those same associations in my mind. This is why the headline:
'Unarmed black man killed by police'
paints the victim as less innocent by language alone. Language forms reality.
'White man killed by police'
doesn't even have the "unarmed" part but still the white element suggests innocence. This is why he didn't even need to say "innocent white girls" - it's implied by the word we use to describe the ethnically European people.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Whether religious hatred drove this or not, the following is undeniable:
ANYTHING can be used as the basis for a personal identity (rather than a simple characteristic, it becomes YOU - I am AllahIsAll, I am LogicalAtheist365 etc.
That personal identity can then form a group identity and create an in group with others who wear their beliefs/lack of belief in something specific as a badge
That group identity by extension creates an out group - a rival tribe, an enemy
This makes it possible to justify mistreatment of the enemy. Example 'There is no innocent Muslim, the 'innocent' ones make Islam seem acceptable by suggesting that you can be a Muslim without being a terrorist, thus they are enabling terrorism and they are the enemy'
Religion is NOT needed for atrocity, it helps give an incentive and it helps justify it - *SO CAN HATRED OF RELIGION! So can anything that establishes that the enemy tribe are guilty by identity and paints you as the good guy carrying out justified harm/murder of 'the bad guys'.
Just like religion, just like almost anything, atheism can be benign and it can also form a mentality of 'good guy/bad guy' and it is that mentality which disturbs me in every form. It is what you do with it and that's why I'm not comfortable with the war like, the militant like antitheists who view all theists as 'the enemy'. They've learned nothing from the millenia of religion they oppose. You don't need a book to tell you to do evil things, you just need to believe it's justified - the book helps but it's far from essential, it's the toxic mindset of us vs them.
5
-
Zhanna H
If he didn't post them with the intent of directing them at Christians then I find it just as douchey and quite pathetic for a man of his accomplishment to send them out as a circle jerk for other atheists. Now please, before anybody tells me "Christians do that too!", I know other people do this too - by criticising him I am not claiming that he's the only person doing anything worthy of criticism (this interpretation is so frustrating---just a disclaimer because somebody usually makes this rebuttal).
I wondered myself why Christians would even see his tweet (I must say that I reject your dichotomy of 'Christian or science' - creationist or science would be a truer dichotomy as to believe in the Genesis story would be a rejection of science; it's not like to believe in Christ/the Biblical God you must pretend science doesn't exist...science is what we're using to communicate!) and yes there will be some who, much like the racist/sexist/LGBT hating scumbag/troll crowd here, follow those who they disagree with just to fight them. There are other ways though, retweets tend to carry things to your feed even if you don't personally want to see them. Ultimately even if they're waiting to be poked, it still doesn't make the guy poking them with a stick any more noble.
To retain perspective, these tweets were very mild so it's not on the same level as the nauseating "Have fun praying to your imaginary sky wizard, religious idiots!" crap some immature adults post but it still falls into the 'we get it, you don't believe in God/religion, shut up about it' category.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
doomlord117 "Weed is one of the biggest wastes of money I have heard of. And I mean that in all the ways"
*****
Video games are one of the biggest wastes of money I have heard of. And I mean that in all the ways
sc0tte1
"Not really, it's just a form of entertainment really. Going out and paying 15 bucks to watch a move is more of a waste of money IMO"
Well in my opinions (like it would be anyone else's or anything but) this shows how utterly arbitrary it is for anybody to decry anything as a waste of money as its value can surely only be measured by the enjoyment it brings the customer and the alternatives to which the money would otherwise go.
When it's not winter, I love the outdoors - not in a mountain climbing, white water rafting way but in a cycle somewhere beautiful and find somewhere quiet to just enjoy the day way, and that costs me nothing; the enjoyment I get from that far exceeds the enjoyment I'd typically get from seeing a film at the cinema or watching one via rental. If I were to have some weed with me, that would add another dimension to my day, both outdoors and in, and this dimension with its impossible to describe extra layer of reflection, spiritual comfort, and depth is of far more value to me than consumable commercial entertainment.
What use is it for me to rate the value of somebody else's purchase? Perhaps you'd rather save and buy a nicer car - perhaps that's a frivolous purchase to someone else. Maybe you need that money to spend on a date because you crave sex or companionship and people are your drug (i.e. thing that produces or enhances feelings of satisfaction, pleasure, and enjoyment by releasing the appropriate brain chemicals). Or perhaps you're a perpetual saver who exists to provide a financially secure future for your children, hell maybe you're just a tight fisted penny pincher to whom the value of money is the knowledge that you possess it.
It's pointless to comment for anybody other than yourself and with that said, it's pointless to comment.
4
-
4
-
4
-
George Cataloni "It is a huge double standard. Every other similar case should be aligned to this standard."
EXACTLY
The system/social reaction is wildly broken in the way it responds to male adults with these non crimes - the answer is not to make it just as absurd for women as it is for men!
Manipulation, coersion, force. Nope, nope, nope. Hands a freakin' 17 year old her e-mail address saying (not a quote) "If you're interested, let me know" - he's interested, they have sex.
Professinally? Wrong as hell, she should lose her job without a doubt. Rape? Rape is many things, this is not one of them - to call him a rape victim and her a rapist is an absolute joke.
Just because there's a crowd of fools who would call the man a rapist doesn't mean we should be equally idiotic in the other direction! It's not about attractiveness nor gender, it's about the fact that nobody was manipulated, coersed, or forced - it's about the fact that there's no victim, no causing of harm, and if you question the illegality of drugs but blindly accept this out of touch law then you're a fool.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Anonymous Legio
Again you're perpetuating the claim that acknowledging the racism is making people racist. Racism is a thought process, a (lazy, self serving) way of interpreting the world - things don't make people racist, they bring out the already existing racist way of processing situations: "Jim isn't racist so long as no [race] people with bad attitudes make him angry" <--- Jim is a racist person who doesn't always display his racist tendencies.
Your proposal of ignoring the racial element has not worked. That's been what's done for years despite black Americans being extremely disproportionately harrassed, arrested, given harsher sentences, being threatened, being assaulted, being beaten, being murdered and there are case studies upon case studies upon case studies to confirm this, in case anyone thinks that all these millions of black Americans are just lying - Ryan S do not lie to yourself and lie to everyone reading this: I just showed you the damn statistic that shows how black Americans are 5x more likely to be killed by the police - THAT'S a damn race issue so how dare you tell me that doesn't exist? "most of the cops are good" is a meaningless statement when the hard evidence shows that you have an epidemic problem with police brutality and on the spot public executions: "most of the cops are good" doesn't do jack shit for the millions of victims, does it?
Legio, you're going to tell me that not pretending the appalling treatment of black Americans at the hands of police exists is what's causing civil unrest? Don't spit in my face. What's causing civil unrest is the roaming death squad that is murdering citizens on a regular basis, five times more so (and in less time) if their skin is black.
There's a cancer in your society, and I do not use that term lightly; when you sit there and say "let's not focus on that tumor", you enable it to grow and to kill more and more because you are trying to discourage efforts to remove it. You're damn right this affects Americans of all ethnicity but the reality is if your skin is black then you are VASTLY more likely to experience it. Non black Americans have the luxury of saying "let's not focus on that" - well I wish the police wouldn't focus on ethnicity but until THEY stop seeing race, hell no we should not stop seeing what's in front of our eyes. Problems do not get fixed by being in denial - when your son or daughter is five times more likely to be murdered by a thug in uniform, you tend to give a damn.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Even if he never intended to follow through with it, the damage is done and it isn't Tr*mp who comes out looking despicable, it's Americans - one in two of you apparently.
Mayor Khan, naturally, sees this as being about humans - people, individuals. When I'm at work and I deal with Muslim customers, all I can think is 'One in two Americans want to ban this person from visiting America' and it disgusts me. Whether it's students, tourists, people emigrating etc. these are human beings with their own lives, stories and characteristics - to say "All of you are banned" goes way beyond ignorance, it's a nasty spiteful malice that's made possible by not looking people in the eye - not seeing a teenage girl, an elderly man, a businesswoman etc., just instead thinking about an abstract concept that you associate with something 99.9% of Muslims have nothing to do with.
You've made it personal and if I were Muslim I would despise America - I wouldn't have in the past because in the past it was seemingly just the extremists but if it's truly one in two (and apparently one in every million is enough to tar Muslims) then the United States of America in 2016 is basically one giant hate group. Disgrace of a "free country".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
alienzen "You should get over your hostility to opinions that don't agree with your own, it gets in the way of obective thinking."
And that could be applied to you, you're the one who attacked people for expressing their dislike of her comments.
"give me a rough guess, what percentage of the people jumping on this bandwagon have ever lifted a finger in their entire lives to address the issue of aids in Africa?"
Not many at all, but your premise is that if you haven't "lifted a finger to address the issue of aids in Africa" then you're wrong for expressing disgust at what she said - no, that premise is nonsense. What she said was ugly and completely deserving of criticism - nobody needs to have personally tried to tackle the aids crisis to dislike what she said and verbalise that dislike, that doesn't make sense.
One last thing: "jumping on this bandwagon" - this is not how individuals operate, at least it's not how I operate. How I operate is this: I hear her comments, I feel a response to them, I verbalise my thoughts on them. Ten thousand people may have done the same before me and to you it may look like me "jumping on this bandwagon" but I'm not concerned by other people's response, I'm just responding to the information that comes my way. It seems that your perception of people's behaviour, crudely casting people as "vultures" who don't really "give a shit" but are just jumping on a bandwagon, is dictating how you view individuals you know nothing about. I'm no activist but it's not some binary either/or situation where I'm either working hard to fight the aids epidemic or I'm a vulture who doesn't give a shit. It's extremely patronising for you to talk about objective thinking when you paint this whole scenario so crudely to the point of completely misconceiving people's hearts and minds.
3
-
3
-
John Lubonty
It's the application of religion, that being the work of the human mind and human nature. Religion isn't a monster that landed on Earth and needs to be slain, it's a process that occurs due to our nature; belief in a creator is not required for this, it simply can be a powerful unifying (and therefore dividing) cause.
The to remove the poisonous element of religion you must remove humans from the planet, otherwise it will always exist in one form or another and if we only recognise the fungus then we'll never learn how to avoid creating hell after hell. All we need is something to band around, create personal identities from, create group identities from, create rules/expectations on what it means to be a '---', see the out group as enemies, attack enemies.
It's sad that the notion of 'God' is mixed up in all of this. This simple explanation of the origins of life itself (that is not necessarily even supposed to be a person like being that exists) could be completely innocuous - it's when it's put through the process I detailed above that it becomes poisonous, and that process is the nature of the human mind. The enemy, to use those same poisonous labels, is within us, it's in the way we think and interact, not in some existential concept.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Joseph Stassup
"they turn around and call us out because we make fun of them for being the glutens they are"
Yes because making fun of people is a shitty scummy thing to do. They "try to gain sympathy"? Well firstly people don't "try to gain sympathy", that's a really cartoonish way of portraying what happens - what happens is sympathy is evoked in people when they observe a situation: the abused person is not begging at their lap with puppy dog eyes, other people simply feel sympathy because they don't like when people are abused or victimised.
There is one party doing something wrong and unethical here - the people who "make fun of them for being the glutens [sic] they are" (it's gluttons by the way, gluten comes from wheat). When you victimise people, they will be seen as the victim, yes.
I don't have sympathy for the bully, I have sympathy for the victim. You seem to have a problem with people being seen as victims after you victimise them - that's a common trend right now, the bully doesn't like being judged and thinks they're the victim - you're not, you're a prick who thinks it's okay to try to make people feel like shit if the person can help that which you're making them feel like shit for. No, it's not on them to adjust themselves to your liking so that you'll be merciful enough to not abuse them, it's on YOU to not abuse people because abusing people makes you a piece of shit.
[Note: don't consider the "you're as bad as me because you insulted me" rebuttal attempt, if you can't see the flaw in that then you should be embarrassed - I'll gladly school you if need be though]
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+ian woodburn "People are mad"
People are 7+ feet tall. How many people are 7+ feet tall? Extremely few.
How many people are mad? Hardly any.
As for that "imagine if" palette swap, you're comparing things that aren't remotely equal. When has there ever been a history of making grotesque caricatures of ethnically European people by painting one's skin white and mocking the second class European population for the entertainment of the black ruling majority?
Your idea of why blackface is bad is extremely simplistic/dumbed down It's not "painting your face the colour of other races is bad", it's something specific, something nuanced, something relating to specific practises, beliefs and attitudes.
The equivalent of blackface is also not "White Chicks" - White Chicks makeup is the equivalent of The Nutty Proffessor played by Eddie Murphey if Eddie was European. Many non-African people HAVE donned similar makeup without noteable complaint, that's because that is NOT what blackface is/was. Look up blackface minstrel to see what blackface actually is.
Again though, next to nobody thought this was racist - if anything over 0% of people stated this was offensive, you and others would react the same way as if 30, 40, or 60% of people did. It's really dumb and really tiring.
3
-
1) People care about BOTH
2) People, that is Cenk, Ana, myself, everybody I've observed here, are not crying, their heads are not exploding, they are not "losing their shit" (my quote), what they are doing is this:
"What a distasteful shirt and what an intelligence insulting bullshit lie".
See? It is you who is blowing something out of proportion - you are blowing the actual response out of proportion in order to create an over the top caricature that you can then deride as ridiculous.
Back to point #1, have you not seen all the videos TYT does about those far worse things? Of course you have. Have you not seen all the empassioned responses? Of course you have. So please do not insult everybody reading with this infant level stupid notion that people can't think about/comment on multiple issues.
(one last potential eye opener: I've spent the last three days in the most abysmal depression of my life and the last thing I could abide was watching news about the world's worst horrors - sometimes some people WANT a lighter throwaway story that won't fill them with suffocating misery. Please get off your fucking soap box and get a clue as to how the human mind works, it has more than one track.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
As much as I love the film (haven't watched it since I was 17 though, being 33 now), I find that interpretation nebulous - not that it can't be right, it just reeks of pseudointellectualism, the sort of thing that predictably draws responses of "Man, you're deep" because it's so overblown.
What you're saying is that to demonstrate our tendency to apply meaning to the meaningless, they produced something without meaning knowing we'd be compelled to find meaning in it. That's okay but it's not a particularly profound or clever thing to do. If that's the intent then they could just as effectively have told a story that doesn't go anywhere and then ends. I just can't get behind applauding the 'prodigious' brilliance of making a film that contains a lot of fascinatingly oddly shaped pieces that don't fit together.
It's not the concept I dislike, it's the notion that it's genius. During my poetry phase in my early 20s, I once tried to write a random and meaningless poem to this same end, noting how I would either create lines that did reflect some underlying thought and emotional connection, or I'd interpret connections and meaning in it as I wrote and later read it because nothing that comes from that pool of creativity can truly be random and meaningless—contrast this to a computer program scripted to spew out words and phrases at random.
Now my own rebuttal is feeling vapid to me. I suppose I just see that as a curious creative experiment but not a demonstration of intelligence (in the 'clever' sense) and seeing it fawned over rings to me like a case of "Whoah, I don't understand this so it must be really smart". Take the 'Emperor's New Clothes' literally and imagine people knowing it's false but agreeing that it's incredible fashion design; it's a far greater acheivement to create something complex and deep that actually does fit together and make sense.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm an evil fictitious character, here's what I do:
"Ah, defenseless children - the perfect target for my deliciously evil deeds.
What's this? They're...p-p-p-ppacking? Drat, drat, cursed and rats! Whatever shall I do? Ah yes, be right back..."
[Retrieves his own gun]
[Unlocks door]
"Oh wonderful, a visitor, what a pleasant surprise! Give the door a big push and come right inside..."
[Child reaches for the door]
BANG, BANG, BANG BANG BANG
[Evil laugh!]
"Your NRA training is all is all fine and dandy and certainly caught me off guard
But my AR-15 came in ever so handy and proved outwitting kids isn't hard!
Such a shame. I was only going to tell them that their grandmother's house was the second cottage on the left but they had to come brandishing weapons, didn't they? One must stand one's ground, you see, this isn't Canada after all."
Or for those who prefer a shorter tale: Once upon a time there were two children safely armed with deadly weaponry. Unfortunately for them, there were three 'bad guns with guns' and so they dispatched the two kiddies with ease.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I love (dislike and am somewhat irritated by) how playing for the NFL is "doing something with your life" and not playing for the NFL and simply being a fan is not, in Jayar's view. I get that if you're playing for the NFL you're trying to be the best athlete in...well not the world because you're the only country that plays the sport, but in the country, but why do you have to be a rich, famous celebrity to be doing something with your life. This is one of the aspects of modern Western culture that I dislike the most - why is a person who's being a good father to his children and living a fulfilling life, hopefully trying to make the world a better place in whatever capacity, not doing something with their life?
During their briefly successful fame whore years, I'm certain that most people in our societ(ies) would say that Heidi and Montag Spencer were "doing something with their lives". After all, they were chasing fame by any means necessary and were well known and being talked about by the public. If you have a dream then pursuing that dream (unless it's, you know, killing all the Jews or something) is admirable but it seems like these dreams always have to be tied to making a lot of money or getting famous. Is a person who's writing novels, not with any likelihood of becoming rich or famous but just because it's their passion, "doing something with their life"? I feel like if they become the next top author, they "are", but if they remain "a nobody" then they're "not". Say they wrote poetry - if they became a historically revered icon then we'd all agree they did something with their life but if their poetry wasn't celebrated, most would say they're losers or at least not doing much with their life.
Y'know?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Brandon Guffey I see that you've already acknowledged the difficulty in being non partisan and made some great comments in response to Jacy. You won't like it, but I'm ultimately going to have to say that Jacy is right when he quite smugly mentions reality having a well known liberal bias.
TYT will present the facts and evidence with their big topics - terrorism, police tyranny, politicians themselves etc. They don't just give their opinions, Fox News style. I've heard some people say that the police brutality/murder of citizens "black lives matter" movement is "liberal propaganda/lies" but the statistics are right there, you're over 5x as likely to be shot to death by the police while unarmed if you're black than white - and those are a few years old, it seemed to spike this year and last.
So if TYT's talking about yet another public execution without trial of an unarmed black male (and that's MY wording, TYT would never outright frame it that way because it'd be politically incorrect) then the guy calling people "libtards" or "regressives" (clever that one) can say "more race baiting bullshit liberal propaganda" but it's not he said/she said. That's the other thing that's becoming increasingly frustrating - "well there's left and there's right so the truth's got to be neither, it's got to be down the middle surely?". Some issues, like gun rights or abortion, are more subjective (and I'm a radical gun control advocate) but not everything is, in fact I'd say most of what they cover is not.
When they cover random stories though they can be terrible in not knowing the full story and there was a time when you'd know when this had happened because of all the dislikes. Now they get the dislikes for merely displaying progressive positions, I think that's why you're receiving less friendly/patient replies. We're sick to death of this crowd of right wingers who pile on the videos and tell the world how bad and how stupid the left is. Your comment sounded like this sort of thing though I can see now that it wasn't.
Good luck in finding something that works for you but see when you can separate the subjective/equivocal from the non because the "call it 50/50" mentality can be maddening".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Social justice warrior is one of the worst terms to gain popularity. Want to improve your society? You're a social justice warrior, and this is an untouchable bad thing.
Since when has labelling people whose world views you disagreed with actually helped us understand 'the other side'? These labels allow for "No point in debating with a [label], [labels] will be [labels]" type thinking.
It dismisses any and every individual you wish to attach the label too because once a concept is established as prejorative (even when it was initially positive or benign, like liberal or "social justice" <-- the most obviously good term possible, justice by definition can only be fair and just or it is not justice) then it can and will be immediately dismissed. It's not "this person is genuinely trying to make something better, fairer, and fix something they believe is broken", it's "they're just another SJW being the heel, being the villain, the contemptuous enemy".
A human being with an opinion on an issue can reach understanding and maybe even agreement with another human being with a contrary opinion but can a lib find understanding and agreement with a neocon? Can an Men's Rights Activist find understanding and agreement with a Social Justice Warrior? Far less likely because you're now both wearing tribal war paint - you're being concepts and those concepts can't coexist.
Liberty - now dirty and stigmatised. Justice - now dirty and stigmatised. To hell with this Orwellian shit - an intelligent argument in favour of any form of fairness can now be swiftly dimsissed with three letters: SJW. I guess me writing this tars me with the label, right? Identifying. Labelling. Dividing. Warring. - this is the micro and this is the macro.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
*****
Oh but you don't understand, Zeds, this is different because this time the crusaders are right! So if they ever do set about forcefully "getting rid of religion" (conveniently there's no explanation as to how this could be done, peacefully or through mass murder), don't worry because these guys are correct in their beliefs/lack of.
The fact that they'd be forcing people (through violence/murder - there's no other way, though even this could never work) to change their personal beliefs into the beliefs(/lack thereof) of the crusaders and tearing away the most basic right a human being has - the right to their own opinions/thoughts/beliefs, that's all hunky dory because this time they're correct and that's all that matters.
Human fucking nature. Religion isn't an alien that landed here, it's a product of human nature - the monster it's created is the monster of human nature. The monster antitheistic crusaders are on the path to creating looks, smells, and sounds just like that same dark side of human nature to me. Instead of "get rid of religion", try saying "get rid of all the Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Taoists, Rastafarians, etc. etc." because that's what's actually being said. My own mother? Yeah, "get rid" of her because she doesn't share atheist's beliefs/lack thereof - she must be "gotten rid of".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sheryl Goolsbee
Like so many others, you don't even understand what privilege means. We ALL have different types of privilege and it has NOTHING to do with having an easy life or not having to work hard.
I have male privilege, you have female privilege, I have privilege that dark skinned black people don't - there are things that affect some people while others benefit from being unaffected and having the option of caring or not. I'm not the first person to explain this simple concept so you must be deliberately rejecting it rather than honestly not understanding.
You ask what black cities have been destroyed by white Americans and when the guy tells you, you say "oh you're not American? Nothing you say counts then" - either the message is accurate or it's inaccurate. If it's inaccurate then you can rebut it, if it's accurate then the messenger's origins are irrelevant.
You don't need to spout racial epithets to be spouting racism, which you shamelessly are. Don't pay lip service to "not saying it to be mean" when you tell me that everybody with my skin colour and bone structure "lacks the discipline to sustain the civilization whites have given" us. Black civilisations have existed long before white involvement in Africa but I guess neither of us can speak about history because we didn't live through it? You say "blacks say the hell with manners" and then say how black people are racist while you're somehow anything but?
Either you think that dark skin, afro hair and broad features carries some sort of genetic behavioural characteristics, which it categorically does not, or you think there's a cultural, social, economical or political reason for the disparities. Which is it? What is your theory? "They're black" is not an explanation, it's your lazy racism and underdeveloped generalisations. You don't distinguish between individuals and collectives and your entire perception is simplistic: "whites do this, blacks do that" - if that's how you dumb down social matters then the world will always look black and white to you.
2
-
Sheryl Goolsbee
There are deeply inaccurate statements in that response, namely the thoroughly false claim that black civilisations prior to white intervention were devoid of infrastructure and not true civilisations - I don't know whether somebody has 'taught' you this or whether it's just assumed but it is factually inaccurate and I will come to that.
Firstly you say the term racist is overused and abused. Racism refers to many things of varying degrees of severity. Here are some of the things you have said which are fundamentally and unequivocally racist:
"blacks say the hell with manners"
You are making an assertion about an entire ethnic group of people. If that is not what you mean then what you mean is something other than what you said. I am black therefore you have claimed that I lack manners. This is a racist statement just as "women don't care about telling the truth" is a sexist statement. I find it hard to believe that you have had no experiences that contradict your assertion but even in that worst case scenario, "all the black people I've known have had no manners" would be an observation "black people have no manners" is a racist generalised assertion.
You do the same thing when saying how "Blacks lack the discipline to sustain the civilization whites have given" - again, you are stating that an entire group of people with shared physical traits (and many different cultures) lack a certain discipline. This, as stated, can not be anything other than a racist statement. Don't ask me why it "has to be racist" - either you're expressing what you mean and your views/assertions are inherently racist or you are failing to properly express what you mean which is perhaps more nuanced than your statements.
Africa. Who taught you that no advanced civilisations existed? The easiest way to do this is for you to tell me what constitutes a civlisation and I will in turn educate you of various pre-Europeanised African civilisations that had these things. The one word 'Kemet/Egypt' would end this discussion but naturally I assume you will tell me that the current people of Egypt, primarily Arabs, were the Ancient Egyptians. I could spend an entire discussion disproving this and categorically showing you that Ancient Egypt was not of some foreign non indigenous African ethnicity but it's not necessary because the rest of the continent boasts everything which you look to in Egypt as proof of civilisation.
I hope you have your historical references because I know I do. Tell me what constitutes civilisation and I will do what your history classes have failed to do and teach you about North Africa, West Africa, Ethiopia, Southern Africa and Eastern Coastal Africa. I look forward to it because it is disgraceful that you--and black people like myself--believe that Africa was a continent of mud huts and primitive tribes.
You see how deep rooted your racial ignorance is and how that feeds into your racist beliefs which you feel are self evident? "If these people never built any civilisation then it's obvious they never could". You're stumped when it comes to how people of different skin colour and bone structure could have such varying levels of prosperity. That's because the reasons are complex where you tend towards simplistic explanations like "...culture?" which doesn't even begin to explain a thing.
You asked another person for examples of thriving black communities that were destroyed by whites. Google "Tulsa race riot" and find out about "The Black Wall Street" - the segregated black Greenwood OK district which was more prosperous and advanced than the white neighbourhoods - it was burned to the ground, men women and children were shot, burned and lynched in a massacre you apparently were not taught about yet I, an Englishman, know about. Blacks lack the discipline to build those neighbourhoods don't we? Yet somehow we managed but jealous racist whites destroyed it. I guess "whites lack the discipline to accept black prosperity" - do you know why that's wrong and why I would never be so racist or ignorant to spout such bile? Because clearly there are many many white people who do not fit that simplistic statement.
That is not some isolated incident. All anybody needs to do is look to the history, trace back how things reached their current state, and learn learn learn. It will not be quick and probably far less satisfying than your racism - the truth is like that: complicated and time consuming.
1. What defines civilisation to you, I'll provide multiple examples of it
2. Any other racist claim would you like me to refute (e.g. black American neighbourhoods are in poor shape because of black culture/incompetence)
2
-
Paul Petru Alexandru Cazacliu
"an advantage over the others, granted by a law"
I have never seen this definition. I'm not disputing that it is one meaning of the word 'privilege' but two things:
I will provide the primary meaning as defined by the Oxford dictionary but even doing this completely fails to understand language.
First:
"A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group"
Advantage available to a particular group - privilege. That is precisely what I refer to. Sheryl Goolsbee you said I'd stubbornly deny his definition, I've stated the above definition so I'd like to see your response and whether you "stubbornly deny" its existence.
More importantly:
Even if my stated definition were not in any dictionary, people are using a term to mean a certain thing - me explaining "you're not understanding what people mean by that word" is simply telling them what the other person/group is attempting to communicate. Even if that person/group was misusing the term, which they're not, I'm simply telling them "They're not saying what you think they're saying, here's what they're actually saying"
Official dictionary definitions couldn't be much less relevant. Many people, such as Sheryl, have the idea that privilege--to the people using it to talk about white privilege for example--means "not having to struggle or endure hardship" - that is not what they're saying. I'm introducing clarity by telling her what those people are actually meaning. You saying "my dictionary says it means something else" has no bearing on the message that was being communicated to Sheryl and which she took as being something else.
I hope you're with me. This isn't an argument over which definition is right, it's informing people on what the other person is actually meaning. And yes, it does happen to mean precisely what I said anyway.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Understand something: We can all (virtually all) look at this today and say "what a hideous thing to do, what an obviously fucked up racist society". That will not help us if we don't see the horrors of today with the same repulsion. The same people who enabled this are alive today and are here in our comments section.
The same mentality that led to an innocent 14 year old child being murdered by the government exists today and is more vocal than I've ever seen it. They didn't just decide to do something evil and murder a kid, they told each other this (in 2014 terms):
"Thug George Stinney who was a murderer, a racist, and a criminal was finally brought to justice"
Does that sound alien to anyone? You read it here every day - those people are not just folks with different opinions, those people are enabling the murder of entire cemeteries worth of people, disproportionately black people. This does not happen if society does not accept it; if society accepts it, it happens.
Those people are the poison in society, those people enabled this boy's murder. They will call YOU the racist, the race baiter, the trouble maker. Every one of us is a cell in the body of humanity and every one of us is shaping this world. The toxicity of those enablers can not be overstated.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Caught by the sensitivity police"?
TYT, you realise that nearly every story you do on race, sexuality, gender etc. would be branded "the sensitivity police" with you being that police force?
I don't agree with that but you're fools to suddenly stard using the language of those who describe you. What you're doing here is deciding that if you ask a question you find to be reasonable then it's not "sensitivity police" but if someone else asks one that you find flawed, it's "sensitivity police". This is very tabloid and very short sighted - to brand them "sensitivity police" is claiming that they're not honest people asking honest, if misguided, questions but that they're simply antagonists trying to get in people's faces.
This really really reeks of the black person who'll over compensate by echoing the language of far right conservatives on the one issue they agree with - look at us, we call people "the PC police" too and talk about branding people racist as though it's something only done out of sinister spite, not the same honest suspicions based on often flawed reasoning that you may have of others.
"If you want black people in Friends, make your own show called "Black Friends" " -Cenk
Even you immediately realised how bad that sounded. Everything you say in this video is fine in a perfect world. When there are so many black people in NYC, why would you not see a single black person on Friends? The problem isn't the natural, innocent lack of inclusion but the suspicion that deliberate exclusion may be the case - look at the L'oreal controversy some years back.
My biggest problem with you here is that you're painting anyone who through genuine concerns and suspicions has questioned whether there's something foul at play as a villain. This isn't what you're supposedly about - you're supposed to be about explaining why they're mistaken without demonising them the way your Fox cousins would.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Gary Samuel Kay Your comment wasn't just stating facts for the sake of stating facts though, the insinuation was that it's unlikely he's guilty. That's okay but you then mention his history of being attacked and not murdering the attacker (which is actually seen as commendable and noteworthy in America, you're not the first to praise him for this) - there was not allusion to the fact that it's an unproven allegation.
You're using one accusation of violence to dismiss or downplay another accusation of violence, which is ironic if I'm being kind.
You're flat out lying about "these guys are %100 saying he did it", they literally say that it's just an allegation at this stage. That's direct acknowledgement which is more than you or anybody here gave when referencing his own allegation of violence.
It's just funny to see how outraged some men always get whenever domestic abuse is brought up---innocent until proven guilty, innocent until proven guilty, even though TYT always acknowledge this--but when a man's accused a woman there's *nothing*. More than nothing actually, there's the acceptance of his word.
Is Anthony being accepted at his word more than his girlfriend's being accepted at hers?
It's true that Anthony didn't press charges in his assault accusation (hmmmm, what might this suggest? And even if he didn't lie about it, can you honestly tell me this sort of 'puzzle piece' wouldn't be used as evidence of it being bullshit if it was a woman's accusation?), what does that have to do with the fact that he's belileved at his word but this woman and any other woman's word counts for jack shit, it's all about proof or GTFO.
I've really got you cunted here.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Three things about bestiality: (and feel free to be all Republican and mock me for using the logical, critical thinking that you always preach but don't always practice)
-Why do people always seem to forget that animals can fuck humans? A horny dog will fuck anything - if that something is a human's willing vagina or anus, how does that suddenly become non consensual? So the dog's now raping itself?
-I think the whole "there's no way an animal could consent to receiving sex" is based more on disgust/anger at the concept than honest reason, it's usually a cartoonish expectation of an animal to have to speak to say "yes" like a human. Pack animals can accept other species inc' humans as pack members - the scenario of an animal, dog especially, presenting itself doesn't seem impossible.
-Pardon the pun but let's remember not to get on our high horse (like our old friend Rodell) when we routinely have animals murdered not so we can survive but because we enjoy the taste of their flesh. I'm a meat eater - I contribute to the widespread murder of animals and won't dress it up in euphemism to make myself feel pure. Sex, with care taken not to harm (or more likely be harmed if you're receiving), is one of the least harmful things we do to animals. I love animals and detest cruelty but let's remember that sex to a dog who'll fuck a table leg at Christmas dinner is not the same social phenomenon it is to us.
Is interspecies sex the same as same sex sex? No, all things are different - the world isn't one dimensional; the issue of consent with two adults isn't even dubious or debatable, I'm just saying if you're going to comment on something give it a full analysis or don't come on so strong as though it's laughably absurd - we're all Bill O'Reilly to certain degrees, it's just finding the right subject for us to go all Republican on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Even as young as late teens"
Yeah that's not true, it's even as young as teens - as in once they display fertility traits such as breasts, 'child bearing hips' and what have you.
I just make this distinction because if you're going to say "hey let's keep it real, we're biologically programmed to find the most fertile and youthful females attractive" then let's not pretend that it's this 'modern Western culture social norm friendly' version.
It's unfortunate to have to make the clarification but if I don't, people will say "So you think it's okay to go around fucking 13 year olds?" - I'm talking about turning that corner and becoming attractive looking, not talking about having sex with a person. It's blatant that our culture becomes fascinated by attractive teenage girls like Emma Watson, Chloe Moretz, the Olsen Twins, Hilary Duff, Miley Cyrus etc. and then promptly cools off once they leave adolescence. We can demonise it but that's misdirected contempt, demonise abusive relationships not the uncontrollable appreciation of aesthetic gorgeousness.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Whoah whoah hold on a minute, Cenk and Ana:
Kaitlyn Hunt was 18 when she fucked her 14 year old girlfriend (which I have no problem with as there was no sign that it was abusive) and YOU were FINE with this. That was all roses and young love and sweet innocent but...
...Phil Roberston got with his future wife when he was 18 and she was 14 and Cenk stresses how he waited until they were 16 to marry (so Cenk, do you actually know that he at 16 wanted to marry her at 14 but waited? Nope, you just threw that in there) and you're trotting this information out there like it shames him?
Also, Ana says "it's disgusting" seemingly in response to Cenk's speech about "remember the good old days when we could get 'em young at 15" - Cenk, the boys were young too!. You're making this whole thing sound like he's advocating for middle aged men like him to marry 15 year olds - BOTH parties would be similarly aged youths.
I swear you have no shame sometimes, TYT. When a pretty 18 year old girl has sex with a 14 year old you don't say one word about it being wrong - which I applaud because it was clearly not an abusive, harmful relationship, what pisses me off is that if it's a man, you paint that man as a scumbag. Don't write all this criticism off as angry Jim Crow supporters - it's angry progressives who are pissed off that you don't live up to your own creed and that you misrepresent stories whenever you dislike someone. I don't like Robertson or his beliefs, I just don't like your bullshit either.
2
-
jesushatesyoutoo
Jesus man, I don't know where to begin. What could have been a perfectly sophisticated exchange between you and Bob has descended into you swearing at him and calling him names so if this one takes the same course, I'm going to bail - just letting you know.
Anyway, you ask "So what you are saying is that 14 years old girls should be allowed to get married, cook and make babies?"
Answer: Nope. If that's what I was saying, I'd have actually said that. I didn't say that because I don't think it. How did you get that from what I said? I didn't express any opinion or assert any stance, I simply called TYT up on their hypocrisy of supporting one 18yo who had sex with a 14yo while here maligning Phil for getting with his wife when she was 14 and he was 18 - saying how he "waited til she was 16 to marry her" with a disdainful tone, seemingly implying that Phil was a dirty dog who had to patiently wait until he could marry and presumably have sex with her.
I didn't like how TYT made out like Phil was telling men to marry 15yos when he said "boys". Phil was giving advice in the present day, however few years ago this was recorded, so I don't think your comment about 20 year age differences in "the era that Phil Robertson speaks of" makes sense in this context.
I felt TYT was completely inconsistent with their wholehearted embrace of Kaitlyn Hunt's sexual relationship with a 14 year old while she was an adult at 18 and their disgust at the idea of boys marrying 15 year olds. I think this digust was a result of Cenk making it seem like Phil was talking about himself - look at the commenters who have branded him a paedophile now. Cenk did what Faux News love to do and that's impart messages without outright verbalising them - look at the headline, it blatantly neglects to mention that he's not talking about adults marrying 15yos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MrJayson204
Those people who harp on about "freedom of speech" in response to insulting or criticising religion are just as off the mark as people who yell "I have freedom of speech" when making horrible remarks about children too - you keep saying that society supports that but at the same time, society doesn't support that because there are different views present in our society. Many people in these TYT comments do indeed malign those who mocked this toddler while not maligning those who mock religion - that is a double standard, a double standard does not equate to 'unfair' or 'wrong'.
I don't share their views but in their minds, religion is something adults espouse - something they view as toxic, senseless, oppressive etc. while a terminally ill child's disease is obvious not their choice and a far more scummy thing to attack. I personally feel differently, I think religion can be bad, can be evil, can be benign, good, a wonderful beautiful thing - I don't share their myopic view of "I hate religion (possibly for fair reasons) therefore I'm going to mistreat all religious people regardless of their actions and the content of their character.
There are many different forms of "making fun of people's religion" and I have no love of the Charlie Hebdo/Jimmy Dore style "oh you revere this prophet? Haha! I drew him giving a blowjob" - the only reason they have sympathy with me is that somebody else did something far worse to them, they're not heroes, they're victims but victims who were utter twats.
The only disagreement between us is when you spoke about freedom of speech: "Freedom of expression/speech should apply equally to both statements without any backlash." "It's like the media and society decides what's true freedom of speech and what isn't"
No, you haven't mentioned the government punishing people but you should be because that is all freedom of speech is! It has nothing to do with freedom from backlash, it has nothing to do with one's expression being respected. Sorry for mistaking you as American, I should know better but rarely is someone displaying this misunderstanding of freedom laws not American. A famous person says "I don't want any gays near my children" and inevitably some will say "uh I guess freedom of speech isn't a thing anymore" which makes no sense.
What you're talking about is social backlash, nothing to do with freedom of speech. You keep conflating the two, hence me mistaking your complaint for something it wasn't. Anyone saying "we should respect people's right to make fun of others" is wrong. We should not legally prevent them or punish them but whether we respect them is down to us because we too have freedom of opinion.
I was a dick to you from the start so sorry for that as well - when you said "society will support freedom of speech when criticizing religion" (the Z being an Americanism, adding to my assumption) I see that you didn't mean "uphold freedom of speech laws", you were saying "society will applaud the expression".
I'm a 7 year TYT fan and I hate their adolescent "insult people's faith because having faith is stupid" mentality. Fortunately Cenk and Ana at least try to reel that in most of the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html
..is certainly essential reading (and seemingly more reading than TYT did but what's new?)
All I'll add, because it's such a tangled mess, is that if Dylan was not molested by Woody and if Mia did indeed fabricate this (immensely implausible) story then what she has done is essentially molested that child.
Even without external reinforcement, I can bring myself to believe that I have repressed memories from childhood; certainly with the help of somebody drumming it into you that sexual abuse happened when you were young, it would be easy to make me certain of it - this is just how our incredibly unreliable mind works (read into it if this is unheard of to you). Now most of what makes abuse traumatic is the memory of the experience - often abuse isn't physically painful or harmful, it's the echo of the experience that leaves lingering problems.
With that said, causing a child to believe that they've been sexually abused is almost paramount to actually sexually abusing them. These are things I hadn't given thought to until there was an allegation of similar abuse of a very young relative some years back - she didn't frame it as something traumatic or bad, just unusual, and so her father was instructed not to enfore the notion that something terrible happened so that she would likely not remember it later in life (unfortunately her mother was more hysterical and lacked the sense to follow this instruction). Most people have this (understandable) idea that sexual abuse is like having your hand cut off - you're never getting it back, you're scarred for life, but if the experience wasn't traumatic at the time, future trauma can often be avoided. In this way, reinforcing the idea that a person should feel abused and traumatised is a hideous, hideous thing to do and could well be every bit as damaging as actually abusing someone.
It's all a lot of "ifs" but we shouldn't see something like that as a terrible lie but no more, because it would be so much more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+McQueenPress I love seeing people own language/terms that have become primarily associated with specific (and polarising) things that go beyond their regular definition. In this case I mean "patriot".
I'm very much fascinated by language because I realise how powerful of a tool it is and how it's used in the way a craftsman uses their tools - to create. Words are essentially magic spells because they dictate people's reality and the right wing media empire has been working this magic masterfully for decades. What makes it all the more effective is the pervading notion that 'words don't matter', which would be laughable if it weren't so maddening!
While language should be about definition, it's primarily about association. The definition of liberal can be positive (by almost everyone's standards) but through repeated negative emotional association it can become a trigger term that acts similarly to a hypnotist's triggers. All a right wing broadcaster need do is introduce something as a "liberal [etc.]" or "a leftist [etc.]" and their audience is primed. While we still have enough agency to potentially judge what follows on its own merits, it's an uphill battle and it requires awareness of the psychology at play.
Some of the most charged trigger terms right now are 'sensitive, offended, feminist, misogyny, sexism, racism, equality, political correctness, justice' and I hate seeing it happen. Any time I see someone not avoid using a conditioned term because "a patriot is a white conservative American who owns many guns and has a narrow view of what it means to be an American".
Hope this wasn't too long and off topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If the identities of "liberal" and "conservative"/left and right did not divide Americans so pathetically easily, this would not be possible.
"Tell em one side's red, the other's blue - they'll fight amongst themselves and we'll get away with whatever we want".
We can all, and always will, have clashing opinions but if we have clashing identities then we're fucked. If you can drop "liberal, conservative, progressive, the right, the left" etc. from your vocabulary then you'll have two hands that can actually realise their collective power.
I'm English and we have our own divides (mainly economic) but some things won't leave us fighting amongst ourselves because it's obvious that it affects all of us and that the people carrying it out aren't ANY of us. If issues are divided amongst left and right, e.g. "Been another mass shooting? Here's how your tribe feels" "Child killed be police? Here's what the other tribe things, see that you don't" then the simplest of news stories become polarising.
You see why "get money out of politics" is empowering? It's NOT polarising! It's not thing left vs right puppet show.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Edward Proxy I'm not really clear on what you're deriding as the "that you could feel anything about your family's history so to invoke it as if people should just understand that descendants of slaves have a certain feeling that you should respect" example still left me uncertain.
I don't agree with, or even understand, Kanye's assertion but I'm not sure what you're asserting either.
As for the certain feeling, I would say that my view of my country (England), its heritage, my present day society and other colonised countries' societies is coloured by my feelings about my black ancestors. Some white English people might be more embracing of our history and not understand why I have mixed feelings and glorify it less. Note that I have white English and Irish ancestors too so I'm a perfect example of how this is NOT about saying "today's people are responsible" because I clearly don't hold myself responsible for my other ancestor's treatment.
Some people have a flippant "who cares, it was ages ago" attitude to the African slave trade and many don't grasp how the resentment of our treatment is still alive in us descendents. This is basically what you said in the first part of that message. Finally, the fact that some are indifferent to it means almost nothing to me - many people don't care about politics, sociology, history etc. We all go about our lives, so I must criticise that subtle language that portrays the opposite as being unable to get on with their lives, but those who just think "who cares" are not role models to me. Nobody's saying be crippled by it but know how things came to be - treat it like we treat the Nazi holocaust. Treatment of slavery tends to be "Shut up and don't make white people uncomfortable".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+NoHeartsXYZ Being of any given "race", which is merely a collection of physical traits passed on by parents with similar DNA, defines nothing of a person's actual self. Since birth, we are separated by gender, not race - we have boy's toys and girl's toys, boy's clothes and girl's clothes. Feeling that you should really be Asian, not black, means you feel a kinship with their CULTURE which we are all free to do regardless of our "race". To be "transracial" would simply be embracing a different "race's" culture, which many already do.
Gender, as you already know, runs much much deeper than race and this is internalised from the moment we learn to talk. It is also not some capricious whim as you paint it as being - go and find some youtube channels of transgender individuals and replace your '2 + 2' ignorance with people's personal accounts of their existance.
Again, know that over 1/2 of all transgender people try to kill themselves. Why is this? It is because of what you are doing. For you this is just some issue you'll briefly discuss then move on from - you, when combined with all the other ignorant people in society, are actually making the lives of strangers who've done nothing to you into utter miseries from which they're willing to commit suicide to escape.
Think about that before you move on to your life that doesn't involve dealing with the contempt and resentment of almost everyone you encounter - all because you try to live a happy life by adjusting your external shell to reflect your internal reality. You really can't live and let live so you'll do your bit to help innocent people die and family after family be in tatters after yet another kid or young adult kills themselves because of the pain you callously and carelessly perpetuate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
You're right that I missed the core of his argument but I disagree with his/your actual argument all the same.
The biggest reason for this and problem you're making is that you describe scenarios in which the woman would not be seen as the victim. Shane asks "So if that woman charges a man with a knife, he has no jurisdiction to stop her?" which is ridiculous because obviously he would; you say "if i walked up to a guy 3 times my size and started punching him and he knocked me out i seriously deserved it" and if a woman did this she would not be seen as the victim. Many people would say "he could have avoided straight up punching her out" but it would not be what happened here.
It's true that most people are more uncomfortable with a man hitting a woman than a man hitting a man with whom there is the same strength disparity. I don't think this 'gut feeling' is a bad thing so long as all incidents are judged on their individual merits. Shane says "A MAN SHOULD NEVER HIT A WOMAN" but he's not quoting anybody in particular - I, and many others if you asked them for a full, nuanced response, would say "A man shouldn't ever hit a woman, however in some instances it may be excusable". I still work from that core belief that it's something that should be avoided but yes there are reasonable exceptions. The deeply internalised aversion to men beating up women is rooted in good and, so long as we assess everything with reason and case-by-case judgement, it's hardly something I think we need to purge like a poison.
The problem with your argument is you both suppose that a much stronger man beating up a much weaker man because "sonofabitch had it coming" would be seen as acceptable - to who? Shane makes the same mistake in his second point - he claims that when people dress like Hitler or burning Twin Towers, "we don't even think down to this...but the second someone dresses up as Ray Rice and pulls a fake doll around, we are all damned" and this simply isn't true. TYT has even done stories that featured those twin towers costumes - Shane just assumes that "when something else happens, everyone's okay with that".
The easiest comparison and most fair test would be if that were Ray Rice's boyfriend who was physically petite. I don't think that, had everything happened exactly the same way, it would have been viewed as fine. You're both claiming that there's this black and white 'water good/fire bad' thinking regarding women and violence but you can't point to who exactly is thinking/saying this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Government (police) is out of control and oppressing with tyranny - rise up, rebel, and overthrow your government (police), African Americans - all the right wingers will be with you 100%.
If that last statement isn't true then do not waste your intelligence treating those "patriotic, freedom, don't tread on me" right wingers as though they have an ounce of honesty, credibility, or integrity. They are lying, racist, scum. The racism is *implicit - if they were not racist liars then they would see these African Americans simply as Americans who are being 'trodden on' and would call for them to stage a bloody revolution.
They do not because when they say "we the people" they mean "we the white people" and if that is not true then show me the 'fight government tyranny' right wingers who want African Americans to revolt. I'm sure some honest, genuine ones exist but are they the exception or the rule? Don't judge any individual without knowing which s/he is - ask them where they stand on these police execution of blacks, then you will know.
Anybody who responds by 'shifting the goalposts' instead of rebutting what I just typed above there will be ignored. I'm open to discussion but if you don't respond to what I wrote, don't expect me to respond to your "forget about that, talk about at this thing instead". Make your own thread about that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember those 'Revealing the Secrets of Magic'? Let me reveal the magic at play here:
1) Take some vague response some individuals may have had to some specific scenario or incident
2) Post your parody version of this in a scenario where such a response would be absurd
3) In doing so, establish the unspoken insinuation that "Such a response is always absurd, as evidenced by my absurd parody version"
4) Render oneself immune from criticism or scrutiny because "We're just joking!", exploiting the human brain's innate difficulty with recognising when things can be more than one thing i.e. both a joke and intended to make an actual point that is genuinely held
5) Repeat the joke, this time applying it to whoever points out that you're using deceptive means to make actual points under the false guise of meaningless humour.
So, your job at this point is to say "Lol did we offend you! Lol are you triggered", completely sidestepping the criticism and equating that criticism of a deceptive smear tactic with a person having a traumatic episode because of lobster discussion. Alternatively say "TL;DR!" because, per troll rules, this is about scoring one liners - not making accurate observations, booring.
This generally works because people are generally gullible and are swayed more by 'who can get the biggest laugh' than 'who spoke the most truth'. Politicians know this, they think everyone listening is too stupid to see through the trick just as you think everyon reading is too stupid to see through the trick, perhaps those performing the trick aren't even aware of the insidious element and think it's just meaningless humour.
It is a discrediting tactic, a sleazy one at that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If he's "impossibly racist" then give us some quotes! I'm not saying he's not, I'm saying it's frustrating when you use these powerful adjectives (that you're usually very specific with) without seemingly going by anything but this quote:
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. /// Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy"
The "entitlement" and "welfare" quotes certainly suggest that he thinks welfare and entitlement (whatever that specifically means) are connected to black people but when you talk about him being "impossibly racist" I feel like there needs to be more to go by. Case in point, his quotes on homosexuality from that GQ interview were not hateful or bigoted. Now it turns out from a "newly unearthed" video clip that he is homophobic and hateful but you weren't saying "from these quotes, I suspect he's hiding nasty prejudice" - that would have been fine but you instead acted like he'd said something terrible in those quotes and that's what caused many, myself included, to disagree because I try to remain objective and careful when assessing things and so have you in the past.
You lose credibility when you take someone saying "I don't judge but the Bible says it's a sin" and say "he said how he hates the gay community" or take someone saying "I don't think black people were treated badly back then" and say "he's impossibly racist". Again, they may be, but call it as you see it and then speculate from there - don't misrepresent quotes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For anybody wondering (including those who have already assumed, reacted, and commented):
Public university - must be secular, this is 'Murrica
Private university - have at it, Hoss, this is 'Murrica
Or, you know, you can just not bother with the reality shaping details and just yell
DOOOUBLE STAAANDAAARD...and social justice warriors!
Justice in society, now officially bad.
Words matter, I've already heard people say "oh it doesn't actually mean people fighting for justice in society" - well then you're fucking idiots for calling them "SJW"
Words shape thoughts, thoughts shape reality. When Glenn Beck first said "if you hear the words "social justice" run a mile" everybody here laughed, 2/3 years later and the reassociation has taken place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zoe Mosaic
The child in this situation was supposedly 10 so that isn't what I'm talking about. I know that some, maybe many 10 year old females are fertile but I'm saying that signs of fertility (developed breasts, widened hips and thighs) are attractive because they advertise fertility. We can't acknowledge that in a 20 year old but claim that it doesn't have this biological built in effect in a 15 year old because that makes us uncomfortable.
You said "I don't have the urge to screw a preteen" - that doesn't relate to what I said. Preteens do not have those signs of fertility I spoke of and even if they did, recognising someone as looking attractive =/= having the urge to have sex with them.
Usually the two coincide but they don't have to. I'm bi but my range of sexual desire for males is limited, there are plenty of guys who I see as fine looking, gorgeous even but don't actually want to have sex with. Likewise with adolescents, I can acknowledge that "that's a stunning girl/boy" without wanting to have sex with them.
Most importantly though is this point: the problem isn't attraction, it's one's actions. We don't need to pretend our friend's wife/partner is not an attractive woman, we just need to not have sex with them. Sure one way is to deny deny deny and surpress surpress surpress but that tends to be ineffective at actually preventing wrongdoing. Those of us who are able to openly accept that someone looks attractive and understand why pursuing sex with them would be wrong are, in my personal experience, far less likely to do wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ron Brown
Okay well thanks for responding now. My two main problems with your validation of the term:
-The name is still "social justice warrior" and when this is applied not to people who fight for social justice but people who exhibit this list of extreme traits, it tars the notion of "social justice" and turns it into a prejorative - how can this possibly be a good thing?
-As with all of these negative labels, it will be applied by many/most to anybody who the speaker dislikes or disagrees with. If I'm discussing alleged feminist oppression or racism, I'll be branded a "social justice warrior" and then the circular logic can be employed to dismiss my points rather than assessing and rebutting them (after all, they're SJW arguments and we already know how we feel about SJWs so they can't have valid points).
I've actually fought for social justice in the literal definition of the term that actually makes sense - I've defended individuals who are unjustly maligned for their unchosen mental wiring rather than their actions. Before the label, this was a hard enough battle but perspectives are thankfully improving quite drastically. Now I can just be branded a "social justice warrior", because you can't expect everyone to share that convoluted definition, and my fighting for a needy cause is now a bad thing because "ugh, social justice".
Nobody is going to know the people they see online - the "they flip out over anything/whenever someone..." is just an assumption based on the fact that they're commenting right now. It's just "oh here they go again" - we see different people expressing similar things and process it like it's the same individuals constantly responding to everything at all times. It's stereotyping. Numerous different people are observed and their collective behaviour is attributed to one person - the archetypal "SJW". It's a caricature. You say how "they" expect white people to subordinate to people of colour - who the hell actually expressed that? If anybody actually said this (and it isn't just an exaggerated claim on your part) then they've got to be such a tiny percentage of individuals that to reference that as 'typical SJW views' is just dishonest.
Straight white males aren't demonised - not by TYT certainly, not by myself, not by others I observe. Are there racist non white people who dumb it down to "it's those white people"? Obviously. Racist white people, homophobic straight people, sexist males - those are the people who are being criticised (and no that doesn't mean racist non white people aren't criticised - you'd criticise them wouldn't you?). If someone says "Ugh look at that group of CEOs, all male", I'm not offended as a man - I understand that they're not demonising males, they're criticising the fact that there's nothing but males. When someone says "yeah America is the land of justice for all....if you're a rich straight white male", they're not demonising rich straight white males! They're attacking the disparity in experience/treatment.
The reason some people don't appear to be worried about rich straight white males is that the worst problem those traits cause them are having to hear about the problems affecting other people. OF COURSE they're not getting the focus, they need THE LEAST focus - they're THE LEAST affected by discrimination! Doesn't mean they're never affected, means they're the least affected when compared to other groups that have bigger problems than "some people are bitter towards us for having the most power".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Franky Baby
Let me break that down:
"Fuck Jenner and any other transgender. As a human being I have the rights to hate your guts as long as I don't bother you,"
Of course you have the right, nobody's going to come and lock you up for it. Naturally, if you express such senseless bigotry--hating someone who has done nothing to harm you or anybody else--then people will verbally engage you over it. This won't happen if you don't first announce your bigotry so if you don't like being challenged then just stop telling the world whose guts you hate
"and you don't bother me by trying to make me accept someone's mental illness as being normal."
By "bother you" you mean when YOU click on The Young Turks videos. YOU came to them/us, they/we didn't come to you.
Normal? Nobody is claiming that gender identity disorder is normal, it's obviously abnormal. You, like many, don't seem to understand what "normal" means - it means common/standard, it doesn't mean "good"; good/bad/neutral has nothing to do with normal/abnormal.
If you're averse to mental illnesses then you should LOVE gender reassignment because that is the CURE for the disorder. Jenner no longer has a mental illness because the illness/suffering has been remedied.
Or would you rather she stayed living as a man even though that caused disorder for her? You don't give a shit about ill/healthy, you just have a problem with things that are abnormal don't you?
"And the fact that you can't accept my view, makes you an intolerable asshole also."
You probably mean "intolerant" rather than "intolerable" but either way you hating innocent people is not interchangeable with other people hating the fact that you hate innocent people. I know it sounds like a great "gotcha!" argument but if you apply a little bit of intelligence, it falls apart upon analysis. I accept that hateful people exist but I will challenge any such person I see publicly declaring their bigotry so in that sense, no I don't accept it. This is because your hatred creates suffering in those who have harmed nobody while my 'hatred' of your hatred does not.
I don't even hate you, by the way, I just think you're absolutely pathetic and surely have some real issues to harbour such bile.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheHigherVoltage
I've said already that yes legally, based on the constitution, it should be disallowed on public land - however, people should let it be because it's not pushing a religion (in the way a ten commandments monument was, in my view) and they should likewise let it be if it were celebrating Hannukah or Eid. I don't care about rules for the sake of rules, I care about the actual effect - a sign saying "Accept Christ as your saviour" is pushing religion, a nativity scene is just celebrating a religious holiday and it doesn't matter to me whether I share that religion or not, I'm not going to get bent out of shape and be all pissy about somebody wanting to celebrate it.
You mention special treatment - again, I think people should be fine with any little setup of dolls etc. to celebrate a religious holiday, the reason Festivus poles of beer cans does not count to me is that it's not something that legitimately exists as part of people's culture that they just want to celebrate innocently - it's a deliberate satirical mockery done in retaliation, again not Festivus itself as a whole but this specific demand that they put up Festivus poles.
You say you don't see how it's pissing on Christians when Christians are pissing on the constitution anyway. So you do see how it's pissing on them but you think it's justified in retalitation? Which one? You qualified it with "when", implying that it's not a piss-take because [justification]. I'll say again that I understand that it's breaking public ground rules but that I think it's petty of people to make a fuss over them doing it. This isn't religious indoctrination, it isn't mixing religoin with law or politics, it's a non issue and they should just let them put up their nativity and have a merry Christmas; I think it's a pissy thing to take them to task over.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+RubberusDuckus Polluting minds eh? So if people agree with any of their points or views, they've been polluted like...like this computer program that can't know any better.
If they agree with anti-feminist views then they're not being polluted, they're seeing the truth right? But feminist views - not even a genuine perspective, not even an other side of the coin but a pollution that removes agency and free thought.
My biggest issue with the feminist/anti-feminist war is that so many people on the latter side sound a lot like their description of the other. The second biggest issue is that actually browsing various feminist sites yields a starkly different understanding than hearing their opposition's account of 'third wave feminism'.
No doubt there are feminists who make overly generalised statements and deeply flawed observations but that's not exclusive to feminism by a long shot. My enemy is 'generalisation/the labelling of strangers and the conflation of individuals with collectives' and that's something human beings are prone to doing, not one demographic or sociopolitical movement.
There are so many examples of practically everything all available to us online in 2016 that if we want to confirm that [group] are [trait] then we can find individuals expressing those traits. What is so rarely even acknowledged is the question HOW MANY?
Here's a feminist making an absurd generalisation. How many feminists do that and how many do not? What percentage? The further we get from specifics the more we create a confirmation loop, every day sharing the latest example of some flawed point Anita Sarkeesian made while not registering every sound point made elsewhere. Throw in some hyperbole "Everything's sexist to them!" and some opposition written parody "Typical feminist: [caricaturised representation" and we go so far in one direction that we become a reflection of the thing we're fighting against.
geekfeminism.wikia.com is a wiki/site I spent a lot of time reading and assessing and although I obviously haven't perused every last entry, it made sound, nuanced points that just don't resemble the portrayal its opposition present. Also, I see FAR more anti-feminism than I do feminism; I have to go out of my way to find feminism, I have to go out of my way to avoid anti-feminism. I do wish anti-feminists would just stop seeking feminist blogs/videos out and accept the fact that different people have different perspectives. Unless people are spreading suffering/bigotry, why not live and let live?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Amsterdam Cenk, a city in The Netherlands, not "Europe". Come on, Europe is a continent filled with many countries each with their own culture, laws, and politics. And yes it's literally each country is different, not in a New York New Jersey way but in a New York, Alaska, Alabama way.
You mentioned Russia, you realise that much of Russia is Europe right? That's Eastern Europe - Northern Europe and Southern Europe have their own distinct culture, laws, and politics that tend to drastically contrast with one another.
Europe is not a United States, it's not a collective held together by shared principles. You're some of the more globally aware Americans out there (in the media) so it's pretty depressing to hear even you guys talk about "how Europe handles things".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You don't shoot a child until that child's fired a shot - yes there's the potential of them shooting at a police officer but a child (particularly one who it will later turn out did not have an actual gun and was not trying to shoot anyone) being killed is a greater tragedy than a police officer being shot at - if that isn't the greater tragedy in your world then okay, I think that's hideous. It's not a "shame" that a 12 year old was killed, it's a tragedy.
If it takes an hour long standoff while you call for backup, get a sniper in if necessary (this happened recently where a gun was shot from a person's hand) then you do it - the problem is you and many others don't value a non police officer's life, even a child's life, enough to think it's worth the time, money or bother.
You're here talking about the ground level ways it could have been prevented, well that's out of the question once the situation arises - what can be changed by that point is how is the situation dealt with. You're comfortable with absolving child killers of responsibility because "tough situation", nobody would speak this way if it were their own child (DON'T tell me about how you wouldn't have let this arise, IF you were their parent and IF this happened, you would not be saying "tough situation, you did what you could"). I don't need a blood relation to feel that way, a child being killed is the worst thing that can happen in this existence - clearly not to you though, a policeman potentially being shot is worse than that to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Simon Željko The protestors have absolutely nothing to do with our exchange here - I've never said that I supported them shouting down Sanders nor have I criticised you for your criticism of them (I could call out some of the liberties you took in again writing their narrative - suspecting that they've never faced any form of oppression).
All of my responses have been to your FIRST comment. This one: _"Professional victims. These people just use their victim status as a political tool. I don't even believe they actually are offended. It's just they see something they can use to either get attention or to shame people for saying things they don't want to hear even when they're true (especially if they're true?). They are bullies.
The worst part is that these people aren't against offense as such, it's just when they don't like it. PC is just a prescribed list of things you can and can't say. Nothing more and nothing less. Something can be wrong, insulting and be politically incorrect, but that can also be politically correct if it's said about a different group of people. In some cases it's even politically incorrect NOT to insult and offend. PC is anything but unbiased. Nowadays it's more often the tool of bigots than anything else.
What's ironic about PC is that it's supposed to be a liberal thing, when liberals have historically been anything other than PC. Without the early critics of religion, satirists and generally people who dared to go against the dogmas of their times (which is all PC really is) we would still be under the boot of various tyrants. These people think they're liberal, when they act completely illiberal._"
And that comment was in response to the original post that regurgitated the utterly baseless claim that people "go around looking for things to be offended by".
I could do the same as that, here:
"These anti-PC types, as they call themselves, are nothing more than racists, homophobes and all manner of bigots merely looking for respectability by hiding behind the shield of "political correctness". All they care about is being able to hate people who are different to them without being criticised."
That's what most online discussion consists of: here's how I picture them in my head, now I'm going to state their inner thoughts and personal motivations--which I can't possibly know--as fact. My example is actually more objective despite its impossible generalisation because at least we can evidence the fact that some people are indeed bigots who use the resentment of overzealous guidelines for respectful communication ("PC gone mad") to push society away from compassion and acceptance. The OP's "they go around looking for things to be offended by" is just a narrative in his mind and one that can't possibly be evidenced. Same with your "professional victims" claim - you're just demonising people whose underlying motivations are not visible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's horse shit. You don't deal with people who do sick, depraved things by doing sick, depraved things like mutilating their body. What a person 'deserves' is not the same as what is okay for someone to do - he deserves to get raped, right? So would someone be a "hero", as you disgustingly put it, if they raped the guy? No, they'd be a sicko - they wouldn't be protecting kids, they'd be indulging in sadistic revenge fantasies and to applaud that is twisted.
If a person had taken a carving knife, cut off a woman's breasts and chopped up her vagina, cutting her genitalia out of her body as much as physically possible, I would never think "in what scenario is this okay" - would you? Would you think "well if she had it coming then it's acceptable"? Because if so then don't dress up your animalistic depravity as the protecting of children.
Finally, not that it makes it in any way acceptable but it's far from guaranteed that a two year old would carry any memory or traumatic effects from being molested. I say this after a child in my family was molester at a similar age (she claimed it, at least, and I think it's unlikely she made it up). She mentioned it to her mother nonchalantly because at that age they don't know whether it's abnormal for a boy to get them to do things with his penis - it's a terrible thing to do regardless but this notion that they're going to be forever scarred at that extremely young age just isn't accurate. Our societies also cuts up the penises of its boys - surely this is a horrible experience of suffering but people don't assert that they're going to be mentally scarred for life - sex shocks us more but our reaction to it doesn't make it automatically more damaging than violence.
While I don't doubt that there are sexual abuse victims who indeed are permanently traumatised, there are also sexual abuse victims who resent being told "you're damaged for life, you'll never overcome this" and I can only imagine their frustration at this.
1
-
Angela Brown
Remember that I'm firmly distinguishing between two things - what a person may deserve and whether it's okay for a person to do something. Many people have done things so terrible that you could say there's no suffering that they don't deserve; whether it's okay for another person to apply that suffering is something else.
I would never, ever, think it's okay for a human being to bury another human being alive - I think that's unbelievably sick, twisted, and vile beyond description. For a person to do that to another, no matter how guilty the other, would be crossing a line into the depraved themselves and for that they could no longer claim innocence - they'd be a sick animal too. Surely you can see where I'm coming from here; to call that person a hero is appalling.
If they were caught in a landslide and were naturally buried alive then so be it, I wouldn't sympathise or grieve them. We as human beings are capable of going to very dark and yes very sadistic places when we witness seemingly evil acts; this place should not be celebrated as heroic because it's the same place respondible for the evil. If the only difference is motivation then, well it doesn't speak well of a person if the only difference between them and what you could call a monster is what motivated their hideous acts. This isn't 'good', this is not what 'good' is. This is vengeance.
You didn't like me calling it sadistic but it is sadistic by any understanding of the word. The distinction is only that you think the sadism justified, that doesn't change what it is. I completely understand your feelings and I've felt them myself, I just see them for the ugliness they are and think it's terrible when people embrace that darkness so willingly. Take someone who we call a twisted monster for torturing others for pleasure, well if we then torture him or her because they have it coming, and we feel satisfaction in subjecting them to unthinkable horrors then we've fallen to their level. Sure we can point out that 'they started it' but we're now a sadistic torturer too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ThE DuCk Okay my post's getting zero love so I'm piggybacking on yours! For what it's worth, I wrote it before scrolling down and seeing yours:
I'm an evil fictitious character, here's what I do:
"Ah, defenseless children - the perfect target for my deliciously evil deeds.
What's this? They're...p-p-p-ppacking? Drat, drat, cursed and rats! Whatever shall I do? Ah yes, be right back..."
[Retrieves his own gun]
[Unlocks door]
"Oh wonderful, a visitor, what a pleasant surprise! Give the door a big push and come right inside..."
[Child reaches for the door]
BANG, BANG, BANG BANG BANG
[Evil laugh!]
"Your NRA training is all is all fine and dandy and certainly caught me off guard
But my AR-15 came in ever so handy and proved outwitting kids isn't hard!
Such a shame. I was only going to tell them that their grandmother's house was the second cottage on the left but they had to come brandishing weapons, didn't they? One must stand one's ground, you see, this isn't Canada after all."
Or for those who prefer a shorter tale: Once upon a time there were two children safely armed with deadly weaponry. Unfortunately for them, there were three 'bad guns with guns' and so they dispatched the two kiddies with ease.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
abdallaha92 Yeah I get your angle too, I just like questioning it. If that guy is indeed not just saying "Hey she's hot" but actually delving into some fantasy about having sex with her, the girl he's imagining isn't a child. Once you tell him she's a child (which is quite ridiculous in itself - there's obviously a significant transition period between child and adult; they're far closer to adult than child, nature is fluid even if we insist it's like a switch being flicked) then it makes his hypothetical fantasy seem uncomfortable. Meh..
I don't think our sex drive is impure anyway so to me it's not conditional. It's not pure if they're your wife but impure if they're not, it's not pure if they're over your local age of consent to sex but impure if they're not. Actions can create suffering but fantasising about having sex with someone under 18 is only bad in the way your religion might say something's bad so you must believe it is. There's no suffering, there's no victim, it's just an arbitrary taboo.
I think it bugs me the most because the entire point of adolescence is to become fertile and advertise this fertility which we experience as someone becoming attractive looking. I completely understand having laws/taboos regarding having sex with people but it's this pretending that developed teenagers are no more attractive than 8 year old little girls that irks me because it's so obviously false and I hate when people are guilt tripped into a falase pretence. Whether it's Chloe Moretz, Emma Watson, Miley Cyrus, Hilary Duff, The Olsen Twins, we play this game of dancing around the fact that they're gorgeous and shaming anyone who doesn't play the game and just says "Of course they're attractive, let's not pretend they're little children".
Anyway, I've said more than enough!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@proteanview (who wants to comment but not allow replies)
"RACISM! IT'S BECAUSE HE'S BLACK! ...Oh, wait.
Wouldn't TYT be telling us it was racism & blacks have it hard in the US if Beaird was black? You see, bad & unfair things happen to white folks, too."
What terrible, terrible reasoning this is. You must know better than this logic - you're suggesting that in order for racism to exist as a motive to police brutality towards black people, non black people can never be the victim of police brutality. If the point you're trying to make with that strawman reasoning is "it's not always due to racism" then yes that's correct, but neither Cenk nor Ana nor anyone else on TYT would say that it is always due to racism. When police brutality is often due to racism though, it only follows that somebody upon learning of an instance of police brutality towards a black person would think "this was likely due to racism".
So if you're then saying "most of the time police brutality towards black people isn't due to racism" then that is in no way evidenced, let alone supported, but this story of a non black person being the victim. They're two separate things that you're conflating - racism often being a motivation for brutality against blacks and police brutality only ever being motivated by racism; this video would disprove the latter but it's the former you're challenging.
I thought you were better at this sort of thing, not that I've ever agreed with what you've expressed in your vids but I at least thought you were above this deceptive strawman reasoning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Neko Yuki
Yep and I was dead wrong for thinking "*surely* that's not a problem..is it?". I should know by now that bigotry is not a product of logic or reason, it's a product of unchecked, unquestioned feeling.
Little bit off topic but some people will say "unjust discrimination is a natural tendency of our brain" and I say absolutely it is! Our brain without the critical assessment of our greater intelligence/wisdom (not saying this isn't also the brain, let's not get bogged down in that) is prone to so many mistakes. There's a person in my neighbourhood, and I have no idea who he is, but when I see him I'm irritated and all I know is that my brain doesn't like him. My guess is his face looks similar to someone else's but I want to give him a dirty look because my 'brain' doesn't know any better.
Thing is, another part of us does know better. When I a group of black teens dressed in the popular youth style, my 'scanning for matches' brain perks up - I've dressed like that myself, I've never had trouble with a group of black kids, I consider myself black too. I'd rather these misplaced prejudices weren't established but the problem is not so much that they exist, the problem is when they're not overridden.
Our brain's too simplistic on some levels. I worked with an unbearable douche who was gay ("but I hate lesbians") and when I call up his memory, "gay" is the identifying label. I don't like that but it's just a crude mental function - all we need to do is engage the other part of the brain that says "he's a douche who's gay, he's not a douche because he's gay". Bigotry is laziness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Frustratingly Froward
White America is the country collectively where not only is the overall population majority white but the positions of affluence and power are hugely disproportionately white. Even if you live in a city where white Americans are the minority population, the people in high positions be it government, coroprations, lobbyists, investors, bankers etc. are huigely disproportionately white.
I would address the rest of your comment but it's childish "you can literally not have ANY OPINIONS without being called a racist, bigot, or sexist" <--- Obviously untrue. You don't get a pass for egregious exaggeration because without that intelligence insulting exaggeration you wouldn't have a scandalous allegation.
Note also that if this was the worst European Americans had to deal with, it would still not approach the black experience which includes:
Stopped by police far more frequently
Attacked by police
Murdered by police
More likely to be given guilty verdict than white equivalent defendent
Significantly harsher prison sentences if convicted
..and that just focusing on the judicial system, there are also loan rates, housing issues, chances of getting job interviews, even the relatively minor but shameful things like items for sale/auction being valued lower if a black hand is pictured.
The list is no secret and you'll notice no hyperbole there. If your worst example was "I frequently get accused of being bigoted" then you should understand that this kills your own allegation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
robstar61 "yeah I agree, people I know tell me they are bi, never done anything sexual, there trying to be edgy/different."
"so went to the one place where they could be sure of still being tormented."
Yes maybe people are trying to be edgy/different - because you do that right? Or it's just other people who you obviously understand less but still can make reliable psychoanalyses of.
And yes Mat maybe they're trying to feel more oppressed, because you don't do that but other people? Yeah other people are totally like that (psst, you are other people)
OR maybe they know what they find attractive and are reporting it to you, who then think "but if they haven't sucked a dick then they must not be attracted". Speaking personally, I haven't had sex with many females but nobody questions my attraction to them (well, few do). My range of male attraction is limited but I assure you, if I could pick partners out of a catalogue and get down with them, you'd have to reassess your nauseatingly patronising and depressingly inaccurate theories.
To put a number on it, maybe 5% of adult males are attractive to me (and 40% of adolescents). That minority though? Every bit as attracted as I am to females. Try asking and listening more rather than bouncing around your 'other people are caricatures' explanations that you'd never paply to yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Me too Puella, I'm bisexual and attracted to adults, teens and older prepubescents and like yourself--like most of us with the uncommon set of attractions/orientation--I've neither harmed anybody nor do I have any urge or desire to abuse or rape anyone.
The problem is when people like The Young Turks --who, don't worry, are not about protecting paedophiles--use the word "paedophile" to mean "child molestation/rape of children".
So long as people use these terms interchangeably there will only be more misdirected hatred, more suffering, more suicide, more dead kids (us, we are the dead kids - the teenagers who kill themselves and whose parents never understand why).
Puella I've been fighting this for years now and more and more people are getting it and acknowledging the self evident truth that NOBODY can be judged by their unchosen attractions and EVERYBODY should be judged by their actions and the content of their character.
One message at a time, one conversation at a time - they won't make it easy for us, we won't have any Lady Gaga songs or people patting themselves on the back for being anti-bigotry but if you and I and everybody else who's personally affected uses their voice then after they're done ignoring us and laughing at us, they'll respond to us with vile ugliness and hatred that will cause the humane to recoil and wake up.
1
-
1
-
Huge Penguin "I do not advocate murder, simple removal of the offending part is sufficient. It is a mercy that many pedophiles who cannot stop themselves have requested so that they may stop hurting others. If you remove the tools for lust, then lust too dies."
Okay, you do not advocate murder - you advocate mutilating innocent people's bodies.
Or do you not? Because you didn't answer a single one of my questions. Set aside your ideas for how child molesters should be dealt with, we are wanting to know your thoughts about innocent paedophiles - people who find children attractive and nothing more.
You are so painfully wrong when you say "If you remove the tools for lust, then lust too dies" - you could not be more wrong unless you realise that the brain is the tool for lust and are advocating removing a person's brain. Where are you getting your poetic "then lust too dies" claim from? It's immediately obvious that you haven't investigated this at all, which is foolish as it's been practiced for decades and decades.
1) Removing a man's testicles does not remove all lust
2) No less than 50% of child sexual abuse does not stem from sexual attraction - it is rape that, just as with adult/adult rape, stems from the desire to dominate and control
You had no problem typing out that original comment and sharing it with the world - we want to know if you meant exactly what you said, which would make you a terrible terrible person, or whether you meant 'child molesters', which would merely make you misinformed and dangerous (because castration would not prevent abuse).
Lastly, please don't expect people to pussyfoot around possibly insulting you when you are telling us that we should be forcibly mutilated because of who our brain perceives as attractive looking.
1
-
1
-
Huge Penguin
Please read because this is not a game, think what I'm putting on the line here and question why I'm taking that risk - I don't want undeserving innocent people to suffer because of misconceptions and misdirected hatred.
It absolutely is comments like your original post (that didn't even clarify that it meant child molesters, not paedophiles) that drive kids to suicide *because people do not develop attraction to prepubescents when they turn 60, they retain them and they first become taboo when the person becomes a teenager.
I've seen first hand the hideous effects of this blind hatred of anyone who finds children attractive - neither myself nor Puella abuse or harm children but broadcasting that attitude to the world indisputably does produce an understandable reaction of depression and suicidal desire in youths who are trying to come to terms with and understand themselves while people tell them (indirectly because they don't realise their sons/daughters/friends/relatives are paedophiles) are despicable people who deserve to suffer.
"If you are a pedophile but have yet to act upon your desire, then you need to stop looking at children as sexual creatures. When you look at a child think about the log term psychological damage that the person will have to live with all the long years of their lives. Think of the pain, humiliation and guilt you will bestow upon them."
But I do not look at children as sexual creatures - that is to say I don't believe prepubescents are just little adults. You don't accurately conceive the reality that is myself and others finding children attractive - *Puella and I are happy to be open books and show you what it ACTUALLY looks like but you've resorted to attacking us for being paedophiles.
WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE. I DO NOT WANT TO MOLEST A CHILD ANY MORE THAN YOU DO.
Think about what Puella and I have to base our knowledge of our selves on.
-We are ourselves
-We've known and spoken to others like us
You, though, this is probably the first time you've spoken to people who are open about their unchosen set of attractions. The rest of your understanding comes from knowledge of convicted child rapists--which is not Puella or me.
You have to stop viewing this as though it's something we decide to "do". We don't do anything. We are not convicted rapists trying not to re-offend, we are people who see something and find it more aesthetically and emotionally pleasing than you do.
Please stop calling us paedophiles who "have yet to act upon [our] desire". I sometimes have crushes on straight (18+) guys. Do I "desire" intimacy with them? In a sense, in that it appeals to me. Do I desire the reality of "acting upon my desire"? No, because the reality would be forcing myself on a heterosexual person.
If you want to understand how we really see the world then that's why I'm engaging you, it's not a game to me. If not then understand that what is in your head is not me, is not Puella, and is not how innocent paedophiles view the world we share.
1
-
Commander Don You're absolutely right about the 100 comments = everyone hates you problem. The vast vast majority of people simply don't express their feelings on any given video or blog post etc. The majority just watch, a much smaller portion of them give a thumbs up/down rating, a smaller portion of them leave a comment. We're seeing that tiny slice of the most passionate viewers. Also, those who are most likely to express themselves are the people who disliked or disagreed with it because there's a lower threshold for expressing yourself:
If you were fine with something, you have little reason to declare that;
if you enjoyed something then you have some reason but enjoying things is the expected/preferred result so most won't stop to comment;
if you loved something then depending on convenience, you may well take the time to tell people - it takes a lot to push people into the 'tell a friend' zone
However, if you disliked something then you're immediately quite likely to tell people. If it's too inconvenient then most still won't bother but I've been compelled to register for some comments section just to voice my rebuttal. Also, if you're the kind of person who expresses their complaints a lot then you're more likely to have these accounts and be frequently use them.
There are so many ways in which our perception of public reactions is skewed. It doesn't help when you have people (like Ana) phrasing things as "The gay community was outraged at..." when, again, probably 16% were "outraged". We're already prone to thinking/talking in absolutes and jumping people together into groups and imagining them all acting in lockstep, terms like "the [-] community" make it impossible not to.
Well that's my daily rant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well they're not going to worship Paris Hilton or the mum from Honey Boo Boo are they?
That's how racism (outward and inward) works - you go with the examples that fit the prejudice/belief. This example of an intelligent and beautiful woman? That's it - that's who represents 'white people'! She's proof!
Their whole ideology is rooted in cherry picking and flat out rewriting history. When they want it to be, 'white' is Scandinavian/Nordic blond, but when they need it to be, 'white' is any person indigenous to Europe. There's enough 'racial' diversity between Italians, the Icelandic, the French, the Greek, the Russian etc. to qualify as different 'races' (race being shared physical attributes passed down genetically) but so long as your eyes aren't narrow and you're skin isn't a certain shade of brown, you can be all one giant family.
Obviously it helps to be able to claim Da Vinci as well as Einstei....wait a minute, wasn't he a Jew? Well they can be white when they need to be too. Hell, any intelligence on my part can be conveniently written off as the product of my mother's European genes despite there being no pattern of intelligence on my maternal side compared to my paternal.
You slot things in where you need to slot them to reach the conclusion you already concluded in the beginning. Welcome to racism.
Did you know that any acts of barbarity committed by an ethnically European person can be explained by "that's what living in the same country as non-whites can do"? This includes Columbus (who may as well be Taylor Swift levels of 'Aryan' if they want) who wouldn't have raped, tortured, dismembered, murdered and mutilated all those red skinned people if it wasn't for those damn red skinned people being there. Hey there's nothing as convenient as racism, I'll give it that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I actually found Idiocracy (or the first 1/3 before I tapped out) to be a bit of a groan fest to be honest. Maybe I'd have liked it more if I hadn't had it hyped up so much but it struck me as really patting ourselves on the back and feeding the belief that "other people are stupid".
Hands up who believes that other people are stupid...
That's the thing (and clever you for knowing where I'm going with this!) - practically if not literally everybody believes this, which tells me that either we're wrong and we have a distorted perspective of other people's intelligence or that many of the accusers are stupid themselves. Does an idiot know they're an idiot? Of course not. So are you an idiot?
That said, there IS a degree of truth to it and unfortunately that degree seems to be growing. My second issue with it is that, just as with labels and stereotypes, it may initially have some specific meaning (e.g. "It's people who judge with emotion and scoring mud slinging points, not making reasoned rebuttals") but it ironically winds up being used as a ball of mud to sling against anyone.
Do you think there aren't Trump supporters saying "He's gonna make America great again! These libtard regressive SJW pussies are Idiocracy come true!"?
It actually strongly appeals to people who react this way because it strokes our egos and disparages strangers. You know how you can record a video about the destructive nature of racial prejudice and be told "You're race baiting" or, even more ironically, "You blacks always cry racism at everything, you're racist! Minorities are racist!"?
Exactly! In a world of "Well that doesn't make sense, you didn't even back up your assertion or quote him at all" that stuff wouldn't fly but in a world of "DUUUH I'm a libral and I'm triggered DUUUH" being seen as a checkmate, Idiocracy becomes just another meaningless slur.
But hey maybe the rest of the film was great!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I love moral conundrums like this because I've been saying for years that the laws, while initially well intentioned, do not reflect what is actually happening. If child porn is victimising a minor then it should be criminal to possess/share - however, the broad one-size-fits-all notion that a sexual image of a minor = that minor being victimised is simply straight up not true.
The biggest problem is it's one of those frustrating "Emperor Has No Clothes" situations where few people want to question it because of the lynch mob mentality where any critical response will be treated as "this guy supports child porn! Let's get 'im!". I loathe child porn, I just also loathe a legal system that is blind and dumb because it's too scared to say "in some cases there's no crime and if there's no crime, it's a crime to punish citizens".
I hate the idea of watching murders, gang beatings, or rapes, but the bottom line is that if viewing it is not creating a victim then nobody should be punished for viewing it. There are so many false beliefs held by people with zero knowledge of the scene (and those with knowledge are often dismissed - who wants to hear from someone who knows how it works? They're tainted, right? If you want to know why I explored these communities just ask) - such as that most CP is adult/minor sex [vast majority is just nudity, vast majority of sex is minor/minor] - such as that the viewers have some link back to the originator and thus encourage them to produce more [most trade privately via e-mail, much of it is old material].
Make no mistake, the less common instances do exist. Having known people and been close to people (IRL and online) whose sole sexual outlet is child porn and who acquire it in a way that has no link to the producers and can in no feasible way feed production that have had their lives completely destroyed, family torn apart, friends lost etc. because of a child porn conviction, I can't just say "who gives a shit, I think that stuff's terrible". As I say, I think watching beheadings or street violence is terrible and disturbing but I don't want those people's lives to be destroyed because of misconceptions and ethics that seem sound on the surface but are full of holes upon inspection.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
Well cheers but going by that and your earlier post, it seemed to be saying "I wouldn't expect TYT fans to see through their crap" and the funny thing about TYT is that most of the time the commenters are far more 'TYT' than the hosts are; that is to say striving to critically analyse stories rather than sensationalise, identifying nuance and gradient rather than painting the world as black and white, and using intelligence over emotion and reactionary thinking.
Heh, typing that out - none of that fits TYT most of the time. Sometimes they'll think this way but the moment I start giving them credit, and I do make a point of commending them when they deserve it, they do another video like this where they write off the criticism and dislikes as "people defending Robertson".
We're cool, it's frustrating being a TYT fan. I will say that Ana actually didn't misuse or even mention the word 'paedophilia', which is something I always worry about and await with baited breath to be honest. It's something I care deeply about despite not actually being paedosexual myself (I reject noun labels like 'a homosexual', 'a paedophile' - they dehumanise and carry decades of association) but...well it's a long story. The point is, I used to really get on their case about saying 'pedophile' when they meant 'child molester' or 'rapist' because, well, if instead of 'rapist' we just said 'homosexual', you can see how damaging that would be to innocent gay people who are doing nothing wrong. To TYT's credit, I haven't heard them do that in a long time. It's unlikely this is due to my pleading/berating but hey, it's progress.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The nature of these privileges is that you only notice them if you DON'T have them.
Don't expect to feel privileged - you only know the difference if you actually live the other experience (or, y'know, don't disregard every single piece of evidence: anecdotal, statistical, empiric, self evident...).
A very good litnus test of a person's integrity is whether they accept or reject being told that regardless of how bad aspects of your world experience may be, there are people in your country who are being fucked over in ways that you are not. They are being fucked over not because of something they have done but because of their ethnicity, income group, religious/lack of beliefs, sexual orientation, inbuilt gender identity etc.
A decent person is not okay with this. Why should any child brought into this world get fucked over while another is better looked after? A decent person finds this intolerable, a decent person does not say "I'm bored of hearing about this" because their cross to bear in this life is to have to hear about people being fucked over in ways they're immune to?
White privilege isn't an attack on white people, you fools, white privilege is an acknowledgement of how white people are attacked the least. Doesn't mean white people aren't attacked? Means other ethnicities are attacked far more and this isn't a pissing contest, it's a problem that needs fixing - not hiding from because some unaffected people don't like hearing about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mistran5lation
I'm pleasantly surprised that your exchange with Bob ended amicably but I can't help myself, I want to respond to what you said here because it was so so bad:
"1) are you saying that there's a huge difference between a 15-year-old girl and a prepubescent girl? That's a difference of about two to four years.
2) So they're just going to get married and wait with the sex until the girl's 18? Yeah, because guys who want to marry 15-year-old girls are totally modest when it comes to sex and would definitely be able to wait three years."
1) Yes - is there a huge difference...wait, first of all since when is that the deciding factor, whether there's a huge difference - Ana said 15 is prepubescent and it's not, as you've accepted now anyway, we don't need there to be a huge difference for that to be flat out wrong --- anyway, yes there's a huge difference between an 11yo and a 15yo! The years during which the most changes take place mentally and physically are puberty - literally during those years that you mention! Ask me what I want to do at age 11: go to the amusement park, that would be heaven; ask me what I want to do at 15: party and hopefully hook up with a girl. Come on, you think there's not a huge difference between a 15yo girl and a prepubescent girl?! That's mad!
2) "guys who want to marry 15-year-old girls are..." (you go on to paint them as horny dogs) - these guys are the same age/age group as the girls! It's Cenk and Ana who made out like he was talking about men but he clearly was giving advice to boys about when to marry their girlfriends - not to men! Furthermore, you can't make (accurate) assertions about people based on who attracts them - I'm almost asexual when it comes to desire for sex but I'm primarily attracted physically and romantically to teens. I've never dated anyone in that young age group (I'm 28) but I hate this notion that the age of the people who look the most gorgeous to me dictates my attitudes or how much of a modest or decadent person I am.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ethan Craig Guess I'll have to watch this "Lorde episode". The last one I remember relating to Miley was the 'The Lottery' episode from almost ten years ago I suppose - I believe Hilary Duff was the attractive young female who came of age and was then discarded once she was no longer forced to pretend she had no traces of sexual interest and was a 10 year old in a 16 year old's body. After she was sacrified, an innocent young and more importantly good looking preteen girl called Miley Cyrus emerged to keep the cycle alive.
I had no idea who Miley was at this time but as soon as I learned of her I knew she would indeed continue the cycle. Child/preteen girl actress/singer enters teenage years, becomes obviously attractive as is the case during the transitional adolescent years during which we're neither fully child nor fully adult, contemporary social norms insist this must not be so despite millions of men being suddenly fascinated by their photographs, girl is pressured to be as 'innocent' (read: free of sexual interest) as possible and is unrealistically presented as all flowers and ponies despite most girls being into boys and partying at this age (mid teens), girl hits 18 and immediately morphs into a hypersexual, grotesque (in my opinion) caricature of normal sexuality due to the backlash of pretending to be a small child til they're 18 and, of course, the marketability of "remember this attractive girl you couldn't admit was attractive? Well now she's masturbating on stage and giving head to everything!".
Okay maybe that wasn't South Park's telling of the process but it's apples and roundabouts - there's definitely something to the 'forbidden fruit which ceases to be forbidden at which point overwhelming male interest plummets' phenomenon. For me, girls like Miley go from being beautiful, gorgeous, desirable etc. to embarrassing and almost grotesque once they go into skank mode which, funnily enough, is when they're supposed to officially start being attractive. Maybe I'm some scary monstrous thought rapist (I'm not) but natural beautiful adolescent is infinitely more attractive looking than whatever the fuck Miley's supposed to be today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They probably (hopefully) know this but these polls/studies don't really work when it comes to constructing a 'perfect person' because even if you just take one individual, most people don't have one type of appearance they find attractive or beautiful. A woman may have the most amazing cheekbones and another woman may have the most gorgeous full lips - they don't necessarily go well together, they're just beautiful features on those two individuals.
Furthermore, beauty is art (to me at least) - it's not like building the ultimate car where you cobble together the most powerful and high performance elements to create a super machine; if you take five beautiful women and meld them all together, what do you hope to end up with? A woman who mathematically combines the sum of all of their beauty into some megabeauty? It's a bit like saying Van Gogh was brilliant and so was Dali so let's pop their most famous works into a blender and marvel at the beauty that comes out!
Maybe I'm wrong and I am one of the few who loves petit figures, curvy figures, thick thighs, skinny legs, rich dark complexions, milky white complexions, broad strong African beauty, slender delicate European beauty etc. It's not like one scores a certain efficiency rating and another scores higher or lower, it's just beautiful or not beautiful - this is why I can't compare different attractive looking people, once you pass that threshold you qualify as amazing looking and then whoever I'm looking at right now is the most beautiful thing I can imagine - it's not like "you look 86% beautiful".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anon Number
As do I and I'll fill in the blank and say that the single most hideously maligned people who are attacked, wished death upon, driven to suicide, you name it are innocent paedophiles who are not child molesters
Does anybody choose who their brain finds attractive looking? No, of course not.
So if an person, through no choice or decision of their own, finds children/minors attractive and does not engage in sexuality with them (as most do not) then why should they be spoken of interchangeably with child rapists?
Be careful not to label a man who had sex with a teenage boy as gay because that's not fair to gay people. Label him a paedophile though because it "has everything to do with pedophilia".
No, paedophilia has everything to do with finding prepubescents attractive, not with raping boys. At least 50% of child rapists/molesters are not sexually attracted to their victim--as with all forms of rape--are there paedophiles who do rape children? Yes. Are there gay men who rape other men? Yes. But don't worry about protecting the least powerless, least understood, least protected group in society today - just make sure somebody doesn't think a True Gayman would rape a boy.
I'm bisexual and I'm attracted to adults, teens, and older prepubescents. I, like most, live a normal life and cause no harm to anyone - I, like many/most, suffer from horrible depression and suicidal tendencies because of shit NOT FROM THE HATEFUL RIGHT but from people like The Young Turks who I've been fans of for 7 years now.
"Oh because we're all about protecting paedophiles (sarcasm)" - yeah God forbid someone who's done nothing wrong but is viewed as a monster whose death would be celebrated be understood or protected from misdirected hatred
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Outside of the disgraceful mainstream media, here's how this thrives:
1) Polarised two tribe system. People come in two types according to this system, liberal or conservative, left wing or right wing. These political leanings are encouraged to be worn as identities - not "I'm in favour of tighter gun control" but "I'm a liberal". Personal identities become group identities and so it becomes "our guys vs their guys".
Someone who might not otherwise defend a racist thug at a Trump rally is thus inclined to say "I'm sick of all this anti-Trump stuff, why isn't there more condemnation of liberals?" even if the answer is "Because it's not happening at liberal rallies".
2) Labels are stereotypes, stereotypes are self confirming - once you believe in it, you'll see proof of it because there are examples of literally everything out there. Why is this relevant? Here are some popular labels:
"PC/political correctness/politically correct" "SJW/social justice warriors" "regressive left"
Watching this video and feel like you're under attack because Jimmy is the enemy tribe to you? Just pick one of the above labels and apply liberally. Magic.
"TYT are regressive leftists" <---who needs rebuttals when you have labels?
3) Every separate news story/incident is strung into one ongoing narrative by the observer.
A story about a 12 year old being shot dead in two seconds for playing with a toy gun should not be polarising. If you're someone whose ongoing narrative is a hyperbole laden "These blacks blame police for everything, everything's racism and it's never their fault" then when you hear of this tragic story, you'll likely go about trying to find a way to defend it. You wouldn't do that if you weren't of the tribal mindset and you wouldn't do that if you took the incident as its own story and judged it on those merits.
I guess the last point would be the childish pathetic cop-out "Oh yeah well what about [something different that I feel I stand a better chance of defending]? I see grown adults do this every day - can't defend the murdering of unarmed citizens? Try to change the discussion into "There are black Americans elsewhere who are doing bad things" because to you, that's what the argument is about - it's black vs white.
Stick to the topic in contention, identify when people are writing an internal narrative to connect separate incidents, identify when labels/stereotypes are being used to dismiss the speaker rather than their message, avoid the "our tribe vs their tribe". Our opponents should be people who are dishonest and/or spreading falsehoods - that's a personal characteristic, not a group identity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Slaeowulf
Simple response: I don't think sex with minors is acceptable and I clearly state that any time the topic is discussed.
By all means, watch my videos on the matter because if anybody actually pays the slightest attention to what I say, they'll see that it's as logical and reasonable as "judge and deal with those who commit sexual abuse accordingly, do not punish or mistreat people who do not commit sexual abuse, have never harmed anybody, and are simply human beings with a set of attractions they did not ask for and can do nothing about, other than live a decent life being a good, responsible person.
Your position, which you keep wrongly assuming others will share, is "hate and abuse people regardless of whether they're living responsible, harm free lives - hate and abuse them for the way their brain is wired".
Until all societies realise that we're all on the same side - that none of us are in favour of child molestation, until all societies realise that the worst thing we can do is turn innocent non offending paedophiles into hated pariahs who fear for their safety, the situation will only worsen FOR CHILDREN and adults alike. Those who, unlike myself, do actually deal with urges are unlikely to confide in their peers or in their doctors for help because misguided people like yourself have taught them to fear violent reprisal.
I want a safer, fairer world and I think the truth in what I say is self evident: this is my actual message, feel free to distort it - if what I actually say was so bad, you wouldn't need to lie about what I said.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I don't like using the word sexist because as soon as you say "sexist", people turn off" -Ana
Very true and the same, though currently to a somewhat lesser extent, is true for describing things as "racist" but #HeresTheThing , the minority of people with that bitter, easily offended (yes, getting angry and agitated over hearing people talk about sexism or racist is also getting offended - I refuse to play into the hands of those who want to "bitch and cry" about things while exclusively accusing others of "bitching and crying" like it only applies to their opposition) kneejerk reaction don't deserve to be catered to, and here's why:
The only legitimate complaint is "is someone unfairly/inaccurately describing something as sexist or racist" and then we answer that question. What you correctly referenced, Ana, is people who are bothered by merely hearing someone reference sexism or racism. Those people get bent out of shape if the world aroud them dares even acknowledge sexism or racism, well those people can go fuck themselves and we shouldn't pussyfoot around trying not to offend them.
Their burden in life is not having to put up with racism or sexism, it's having to hear about it. And those people are the most likely to play the "don't be babies" card! Those hypocrites are the scourge of society and they're also the most likely to shout about sexism and racism if they think it's happening to them. They've already decided they're against you before you begin because they see you as their opposition - they're not worth catering to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Echo81Rumple83
*****
" FOR THE same reason you cant have pedophiles included in human rights statements."
"Don't you DARE lump those psychopaths with the LGBT community; they're two totally different breed of people."
Both of you: if you are using the word paedophile to mean "person who has sex with children", that is NOT what paedophilia means or is. Paedophilia is not an action or behaviour, a paedophile is somebody (adult) who finds children (prepubescents) attractive looking.
If either of you are actually meaning that when you say paedophile, if you are saying that people who through absolutely zero choice of their own find children attractive looking deserve any suffering, any hatred, any mistreatment that people give them, then the two of you deserve any bigotry you receive.
If you in one breath will say "nobody chooses who they find attractive, hating someone for being gay is terrible" then say "people who find children attractive? NO THEY'RE DISGRACEFUL, TO HELL WITH THEM" then you should NEVER expect ANYBODY to give a shit about your situation.
Do not tell me that "paedophiles have sex with children" because this is NOT true of all, by all indications, most child attracted adults. Did you write your brain's programming? No. Did anybody else? No. Did I? No I fucking did not so from the bottom of my heart, if you think I or anybody else should suffer not because of the content of our character, not because of the actions for which we're responsible, but because of what my brain sees as attractive then you deserve every ounce of misery that comes your way for being gay because with one hand you're oppressed and with the other you oppress.
I'm attracted to males and females adult, adolescent, and preadolescent - these are not political views, it is as chosen as the colour of my skin or the fact that I like the colour purple. I don't do ANYTHING wrong and I know many people like myself, people who are shit upon by friends, family, even LGBT people who want respect for them but them alone. If YOU committed suicide, you'd receive sympathy, if some people with my brain programming committed suicide, vile people would celebrate the death of an innocent person all the while spouting "nobody chooses who they're attracted to".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Taidana Kalashnikov "What isn't racist to you people? "
Do you want to know why the world looks the way it does to you? Because you, like so many others, can't grasp the concept of other people being separate individuals.
You ask this individual person what isn't racist to "you people". "You people" means "you viewers of The Young Turks". So you're taking everything that every different individual person has ever claimed is racist, you're rolling it all up into a ball and you're attributing it to one entity - "you people".This gives your simplistic mind the skewed sense that there's a person in existence who thinks everything is racist.
You might make the statement "these people think everything's racist" - but there is no person who thinks that, there are thousands of different individuals stating different opinions on different things at different times.
Thus all it takes is one person, as was the case here, to make one assertion and you attribute that assertion to the entire group ("you people"). I see this stupid mental fallacy everywhere, it's a fundamental failure of our brain to interpret numbers greater than one. Doesn't matter if it's 2 or 2,000,000. Go ahead and try to rebut or debunk what I've said, I guarantee you cannot - you'll have to not acknowledge what I said.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Simply put, nobody cares about you or your opinion. Which is why you will never accomplish anything beyond arguing with others like you on the internet"
Actually I'd say that this depends on how one goes about discussing things with others. Obviously if you go the common childish route of telling people "your a moron, people like you are so retarded [sic]" then no, you'll change nothing other than possibly strengthening somebody's stance, but over the course of the years I've been online (about 18...damn), I've reached many people who have at the very least gained a new perspective on an issue if not drastically altered their stance.
If you're more talking debate surrounging legal issues and things like animal rights/conservation then yes if you care deeply and want to make a change then you should do more than discuss it online. I would wager that most people who care enough to take up activism would also share their thoughts online if they're here in the comments section so there's that but for those of us who simply hold contrasting opinions and want to voice them, I don't think that needs to serve any purpose other than just that in order to be worthwhile or beyond rebuke.
If it is the former (general discussion of social issues) then I think you're really mistaken in dismissing the ground level, as I see this. It's comparable to speaking to friends or colleagues only with a far larger group of speakers and listeners and this sort of platform for communication is where many a belief/opinion/stance is formed, strengthened, altered, or perhaps even corrected if applicable. It's easy to spot a storm but the winds that build it are more subtle, I think most people are too dismissive of the internet and don't see the role this constant exchange of ideas plays.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Makes me wonder if he truly doesn't get it or if the playing of 'both sides' (the two tribe polarised system is a fallacy that goes well beyond oversimplification - it's a control system) against one another is the whole point.
How can you have both sides in perpetual conflict if you make it clear that one side (Trump's violent supporters at rallies) have been doing the attacking for months and months while there's been what, one violent anti-Trump attacker?
When the father pits brother against brother, he controls both and they control nothing.
Note also the use of magical trigger term 'thug'. Labels are stereotypes, once we internalise these labels we can be led by the nose - just apply the label and we'll react accordingly. "Oh they were liberal 'thugs'? Okay, I know how to envision this story now, thanks."
It's that pathetically easy. Even if a term has a genuine definition, it can be applied like a magic spell by those who wish to dictate reality through language.
"She's a feminazi, he's an SJW, they're leftits, those protesters are thugs"
I call it magic because of its effect, not because it's mystical - you set the template then you apply it. Just look at how often you see these. Older ones incluse "hippie, communist" - they're shortcuts to preconditioned responses and if you don't control yourself then this language magic controls you - ALL of us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ugh. John, it wasn't just right wingers (as you'd notice by the overwhelming response right here) and it wasn't a "talking point", at least not to many, myself included. What he said in that quote wasn't bigoted or homophobic in the hateful sense equivalent to racism. I despise homophobia, hell I'm bisexual myself, I just do what we all should do and that's remain as objective as possible - you can say you have a hunch that there's more hiding behind his words but to say, based on that quote alone, that he "hates gay people" as Ana repeated, was just not objective.
NOW, in this newly unearthed video he clearly is homophobic. You can't say "see, told you so!" when the contention surrounded the quote for which he was suspended.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's an unfortunate defect, if you want to call it that, of the mind - we don't see other people as ourselves. If we did, how could we drive drunk or recklessly, piss on the toilet seat, or smoke cigarettes?
Interestingly, we don't even see our future selves as ourselves. We show the same neurological response when thinking about, say, ourselves the next day as we do other people. That's why we screw ourselves up ("I'll go to bed at 3, it'll be fine"), we see it as just some other poor bastard.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
[bit more]
Yeah, it's no fun being told that you, by association, are a shit bag. Anybody can try it out - if you're white, do you like people saying "white people are [x,y,z]"? How about if you're male? "Men are [x,y,z]".
Nobody likes it, because we're individuals. I acted far worse as a teen with adults who established that my role was the rebellious youth, it's self fulfilling.
By the way, nice old school Zelda reference. Blue Wizzrobes will teach any man the true meaning of fear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great analysis. About the purity of the person (note person, not people - specific individuals) championing social issues though, there's never been more character scrutiny and outright..well figuratively..assassination than there is now, not in my lifetime at least (b85) and this is hugely problematic for two major reasons:
1) The negative 'Stan' template is applied to persons who the accuser doesn't know. This is the main reason I abhor the "SJW" stereotype being thrown around - it's the equivalent of scribbling an unflattering caricature on paper, then pointing to it and saying "That's you, that is".
Ask what a "social justice warrior" is, or why such a concept as fighting for social justice would be a bad thing, and you'll see that crudely drawn caricature. That's not a photograph though, yet it will be presented as though it's CCTV footage. Any online post can be shown as 'proof', yet nothing in the post will confirm the litany of background traits that nullify the person's otherwise ostensibly well placed intent. Self serving motives, hypocrisies, lifestyle ("they sit around all day looking for things to be offended by") and so on will be stated and then everybody who believes in the template will slap that picture on the table like a Dismiss-All card.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's not about how bad they are, it's about the effect legalising illegal drugs would have.
People discover these 'legal highs' in the first place because cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, mushrooms etc. are illegal. All those drugs, even cocaine, are *far* better for people to be using than these 'research chemicals' which are unknown, inconsistent, and more powerful.
This is the *result* of criminalisation. Legalise and regulate drugs so they're available, pure, and people are educated on dosage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This was how I found peace and wellbeing just over a decade ago, aged 27 - don't worry, I don't still have it now.
I was the happiest I'd been as an adult—the highs weren't as high as my early 20s, but there weren't the lows, it was a gentle contentment. I was very spiritual at the time, as my videos from that period will attest (I can't go back and watch them, so this isn't a pitch, I'm borderline mortified), but what brought it tumbling down was
—My Zen-like idealism clashing with the worlds of those I reached out to, attempting to mend bridges, who successfully managed to leave me questioning my Bohemian lifestyle
—Money. It's hard to opt out of the rat race when the cost of living increases faster than your waged.
—Companionship. I'd accepted life as an island, with friends but not lovers, but ultimately I still did want love, and women tend to admire ambition in a man. I have passions, but I don't need the world to hear me sing, so to speak (or literally), but that drive to climb or to put something out there into the world will make you more appealing, so it's hard to feel content not caring about that if it's limiting your opportunities to make romantic and sexual connections.
So I'm swimming upstream now, because I think that Sgt. Pepper's Phase version of me in my late 20s was closer to my truest self, but I also accept that I have to get in costume for this performance. Sure, you might find someone who aligns with your feather-in-the-wind spirit, but that doesn't mean they'll just be waiting for you to whisk them away; sometimes those who like solitude as much as you, want to keep it that way.
So now I'm just putting out dodgy solo records, but those were some good years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
...for you, Lili, society CAN'T put a stop to paedos fantasising. As I say, paedos are your neighbours, family, doctors, and children. And many are fantasising about intimacy (sexual or non sexual) with children. They don't tell anyone, because people like you want them to be locked up and hated, but I assure you they exist. And they're getting on with their lives not hurting anybody, unlike many spiteful people.
I will say again, sexual attraction towards children cannot be removed. It...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The way you speak is reflective of this gross simplification people are prone to in this age and region - "a drug", what is "a drug"? Caffeine, cocaine, aspirin, valium, prozac, cannabis, alcohol, nicotine, LSD, antibiotics, heroin, oxygen
Firstly understand that legal and illegal does not define what is and isn't a drug. Secondly...ah, you know what I'm tired of this. Figure it out for yourself or conclude from that freak reaction that "trying a drug is stupid"; can't educate everyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We have a natural tendency to create self identities out of the things we think and do. We seemingly can't just do things or think things, we have to be them - I don't just play games, I'm 'a gamer', I don't just think 9/11 was an inside job, I'm 'a truther', I don't just lack a belief in a creator, I'm 'an atheist'. We love defining ourselves and we love belonging to tribes, so we create group identities - 'we are Buddhists'. From there it's more division, separation, misunderstanding, conflict
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hey I'm not some jobber like the rest of these nobodies, I roll with Hollywood, brother, I run with the elites - big money contracts, creative control, life's just Too Sweet.
I don't care about no Million Dollar Corporations, Jack, because we've got DiBiase on our side too, and between his millions of dollars and Hollywood's 24 inch pythons, I'd say we're pretty well covered. We've got all the gold and we ain't laying down for nobody, not even Uncle Eric.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@werewolf873
Yes, werewolf, yes I do.
Cenk would say...
Cenk: "Now, don't get me wrong..the boy's 13 so we can't have that but...look I'm gonna keep it real here - come on, if I was that kid that would have been a total *win*. I know, I know, I'm the bad guy, I'm just keeping it real here."
Ana: "Cenk, you're the worst"
Cenk: "Look it ain't right, I'm just saying I was a 13 year old boy once and...okay TYT Supreme Court?"
Supreme Court: "Guilty"
I've watched too much TYT, as you can tell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm glad we can discredit the exponential increase theory, because nobody wants to be told that it will get faster and faster until your 60s go by in like two months.
It makes sense that a year when you're 7 does not in fact go by significantly faster than when you're 5, which the theory would imply. Something of note that perhaps obscures our perception would be how, for me, my 20s seemed to go by about as fast as my 30s (too bloody fast) but the 20s felt longer looking back because ten years ago now I would have been 26 whereas ten years ago ten years ago I'd have been 16.
The life changes between 16 and 26 were far more drastic than 26 to 36, so that decade feels longer than the last because it reaches into late childhood/adolescence. I experienced some major changes between 2016 and mid 2019 whereas my life's been largely the same from mid 2019 to today, so it feels like the latter years have sped by compared to the turbulent times. As you alluded, I'd much rather live through those recent years than the ones with a series of unwanted developments, but the trade-off is the existential fear of time whizzing by.
The biggest things to slow time down that I've found are moving home, losing a loved one, changing jobs or starting a new relationship - they delineate different eras and stop it all blurring together. No doubt having a child would have this effect too, though I don't know how their seemingly rapid growth would affect things. Five years is a massive stretch in a child's life, baby to infant, junior to preteen, preteen to preadult - but from an adult's perspective, I guess it'd look like they're morphing constantly?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@observationclone
"I didn't read/ listen to the story" ....No, but you don't really need to, do you? I don't know what's more moronic, that you would comment as you did without even hearing the story, or that you would admit it.
I'll summarise: a black family put in the highest offer on a house, and the white family refused it and took their house off the market when they learned of their race. Still, you know these inner cit...oh wait, it was a £1,700,000 house.
I must have ran out, yes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dadreamzworld
So to become gay you'd need to be pampered and treated like all eyes on you. Cool. Do you have any evidence? Like, could you cite any examples? Because otherwise I'll offer this: to turn a gay man straight, you tell him to listen to ZZ Top and never iron his shirts.
Oh what you don't believe me? Evidence? Who needs that?
You're right, I am gay. But not just gay, I'm also a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, an atheist, a crossdresser, a transexual, a homophobe, and a paedophile.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
(part two)
For increased tolerance of gay people, society needs to see that many people are gay - people they know, like, care for, respect, admire, love etc. It needs to be visible, commonplace, normal.
Straight people don't have to come out because it's the default position, I won't explain more because it's obvious if you bother thinking about it
Also, every gay/bi person who dates will out themselves when they're seen with their partner. Explaining that you're gay beforehand is preferable
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RustArtRed
Got to say that that wasn't easy to digest, but I got what you were trying to say. Here's the thing:
I'm *always* saying myself that sex is not sinful, that sexual desires aren't decadent, and that in the UK and moreso, it seems, in the US there's this very young adolescent view of say where it's revered, yet shyed away from, giggled about, and socially/publically shunned.
However, porn is a different animal to sex in itself, it's a (generally) crude expression of sex.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just talking colours: It's interesting how established associations of colours don't always match your personal perception of them and connotations.
While not being American may help, green has never signified money, greed or envy to me. It was my favourite colour through most of my childhood and adult life and to me was how most people would think of white - the opposite to darkness/evil. Green was the light, the good, the happy and True. This comes through with our association of eco-friendliness and plant life/fertility but other than that, green has mostly negative symbolism in Western culture and that's backwards for me.
Then there's purple, the colour that I only recently started to appreciate. The royal aspect isn't one I relate to it in the slightest; I understand that purple was such a rare and expensive colour to dye fabric with centuries ago that it became associated with royalty and riches. That said, red is the colour I link to royalty if only because of England's Royal Family, and if not red then blue.
Purple to me is the way Prince (the musician) used it - deep, charismatic, androgynous, sexually ambiguous, artistic, sensual. Astrologically it would be mercury, with Queen's Freddy Mercury also embodying my associations of the colour. Interestingly though, both have royalty in their names, which is funny as royalty is the antithesis of every adjective I used to describe purple just now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2) It creates then reinforces powerful and strongly negative connotations to concepts like 'social justice'. I posit that extremely few among us have the slightest clue when it comes to how language functions - yes that's self serving because I am one of the few. Language isn't about definition, it's about connotation; this is entry level English studies stuff so being familiar with that notion alone doesn't get you far, what I refer to is my firm perception that language dictates reality - we think on a conscious level in words, thus our internal world and perception of the external world goes through the language machine, shaped by the words we use to define our world(s).
Our individual realities intermingle to form shared realities with boxed-in concepts (words) as their building blocks. Last week I saw someone use the term "rjw" - "racial justice warrior". Take a cause that is as water tight as it can get, then apply the magical incantation "racial justice warrior" to it and **kazaam**!! The person championing that cause is now snubbed, dismissed, and all-importantly dirtied. If 'socialism' is a dirty term then you only need apply it to turn millions of citizens against something that might help them; without that word to define the formless concept, you couldn't just banish it like the magic that language is.
If the greatest trick the devil ever performed was convincing the world he did not exist, then the devil is this word-magic and the trick is the incredibly fallacy that "Words don't matter" (communicated through dance, naturally).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1