Kulturkampf

[Nintex]

New goal: Trumpin China

We're breaking up the "Chinese wall" one meme at a time.

[TylenolJones]

I’m signing up!!!

[Uncle]

these fucking retards are gonna get recruited as sleeper agents  jesus christ

[Nintex]

What is backfire in Chinese?

Their perfectly curated communist propaganda will be as poluted as our social media. 

[Alpacx]

[killamajig]

"I didn't expect the trans/homo phobia from my chinese social app. wtf is this" they ask. 


Is this satire?

[Eric Cartman]

[Alpacx]

LEARN THE CULTURE, MORANS

[Cauliflower Of Love]

Actual transexuals.

[HaughtyFrank]

Western Game studios not beating the allegations

The Male and Female protagonist in Vampire bloodlines 2



It's like one of those "Can you spot the differences?" pictures

[Alpacx]

Western Game studios not beating the allegations

The Male and Female protagonist in Vampire bloodlines 2
It's like one of those "Can you spot the differences?" pictures

I've read that foot fetishists notice the difference between male and female feet. Want to know what type of feet Body Type B has in that image.

[Uncle]

actually interesting to cross your eyes

[BIONIC]

WE KWEEN POSTING NOW:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/badopinions5/status/1697783900758507582?s=46&t=JPGKEBNYMJUqJDkxKVmPjA[/tweet]

[Nintex]

[Nintex]

[Alpacx]

[Nintex]

Even in China they'd rather drive super cars and listen to the Titanic soundtrack 

[HaughtyFrank]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Halsted_19/status/1880333716809216351?t=mmtk2DXuAFyq2ON872kTBw&s=19[/tweet]

[Uncle]

[Nintex]

Traffic sign in the peoples republic of amsterdam to explain which vehicles may enter the emission free zone. This is what happens when the left wins.

[HaughtyFrank]

Is that one sign saying no photographs? 

[Gameboy Nostalgia]

Is that one sign saying no photographs? 

Never let a camera take a picture of you. That's how they steal your soul. 

[Alpacx]

Edit: Oh My God. reading the post:

Maud also alerted us to a list of instructions trans activists had posted online for fellow protesters. The list, titled “This Week’s Jazzy Tactics,” advised comrades to enter the room “with pizzazz,” “wear white and/or keffiyeh,” and, “during transphobic testimony,” “take care of ourselves and one another” with things like “headphones, fidgets, coloring books, bubbles, snacks, treats.”

Oh, and “Macarena."

[HaughtyFrank]

Thought this was an interesting article about the Gaiman situation

There's a moment in the Gaiman exposé where the main accuser, Scarlett Pavlovich, sends him a text message asking him how he's doing. Gaiman says he's struggling: he's heard from people close to him that Pavlovich plans to accuse him of rape. "I thought that we were a good thing and a very consensual thing indeed," he writes.

"It was consensual (and wonderful)!” she replies.

Except: she doesn't mean it. We know this because Lila Shapiro, the author of the piece, breaks in to tell us as much:

Pavlovich remembers her palms sweating, hot coils in her stomach. She was terrified of upsetting Gaiman. “I was disconnected from everybody else at that point in my life,” she tells me. She rushed to reassure him.

But also, we know this because she didn't mean it is sort of an ongoing theme, here. And that's what I want to talk about.

By this point in the article we've been instructed, explicitly and repeatedly, that you can't assume a relationship was consensual just because all parties involved gave consent. "Sexual abuse is one of the most confusing forms of violence that a person can experience. The majority of people who have endured it do not immediately recognize it as such; some never do," Shapiro writes in one section. In another, she explains that it doesn't matter if the women played along with Gaiman when he asked them to call him "master" or eat their own feces because "BDSM is a culture with a set of long-standing norms" to which Gaiman didn't strictly adhere (as the meme goes, it's only BDSM if it comes from the BDSM region of France, otherwise it's just sparkling feces-eating sadomasochism.)


Shapiro spends a lot of time thumbing the scale like this, and for good reason: without the repeated reminders that sexual abuse is so confusing and hard to recognize, to the point where some victims go their whole lives mistaking a violent act for a consensual one, most readers would look at Pavlovich's behavior (including the "it was wonderful" text message as well as her repeated and often aggressive sexual overtures toward Gaiman) and conclude that however she felt about the relationship later, her desire for him was genuine at the time — or at least, that Gaiman could be forgiven for thinking it was. To make Pavlovich a more sympathetic protagonist (and Gaiman a more persuasive villain), the article has to assert that her seemingly self-contradictory behavior is not just understandable but reasonable. Normal. Typical. If Pavlovich lied and said a violent act was consensual (and wonderful), that's just because women do be like that sometimes.

Obviously, this paradigm imposes a very weird, circular trap on men (#BelieveWomen, except the ones who say they want to sleep with you, in which case you should commence a Poirot-style interrogation until she breaks down and confesses that she actually finds you repulsive.) But I'm more interested in what happens to women when they're cast in this role of society's unreliable narrators: so vulnerable to coercion, and so socialized to please, that even the slightest hint of pressure causes the instantaneous and irretrievable loss of their agency.

The thing is, if women can’t be trusted to assert their desires or boundaries because they'll invariably lie about what they want in order to please other people, it's not just sex they can't reasonably consent to. It's medical treatments. Car loans. Nuclear non-proliferation agreements. Our entire social contract operates on the premise that adults are strong enough to choose their choices, no matter the ambient pressure from horny men or sleazy used car salesmen or power-hungry ayatollahs. If half the world's adult population are actually just smol beans — hapless, helpless, fickle, fragile, and much too tender to perform even the most basic self-advocacy — everything starts to fall apart, including the entire feminist project. You can't have genuine equality for women while also letting them duck through the trap door of but I didn't mean it, like children, when their choices have unhappy outcomes.

Some of this (most?), I think, is an unfortunate side effect of all our traditional sexual mores having been discarded in favor of vapid, anything-goes sex positivity with a monomaniacal focus on consent. We barely even have the vocabulary anymore to describe bad or cruel or execrable behavior that is wrong without being rape. Instead, we're left with two categories of sex, consensual and criminal, the unspoken understanding being that you're only allowed to complain about the latter, because heaven forfend you yuck the yum of the guy who gets off on making women crawl around on all fours and drink urine. It should surprise no one that women in this milieu are performing intellectual acrobatics to redefine their terrible-but-consensual sexual experiences as actually rapes; it's the only way anyone will acknowledge that something bad happened to you.

https://katrosenfield.substack.com/p/on-what-women-want

[HaughtyFrank]

Edit: Oh My God. reading the post:

Maud also alerted us to a list of instructions trans activists had posted online for fellow protesters. The list, titled “This Week’s Jazzy Tactics,” advised comrades to enter the room “with pizzazz,” “wear white and/or keffiyeh,” and, “during transphobic testimony,” “take care of ourselves and one another” with things like “headphones, fidgets, coloring books, bubbles, snacks, treats.”

Oh, and “Macarena."

[DavidCroquet]

Thought this was an interesting article about the Gaiman situation

There's a moment in the Gaiman exposé where the main accuser, Scarlett Pavlovich, sends him a text message asking him how he's doing. Gaiman says he's struggling: he's heard from people close to him that Pavlovich plans to accuse him of rape. "I thought that we were a good thing and a very consensual thing indeed," he writes.

"It was consensual (and wonderful)!” she replies.

Except: she doesn't mean it. We know this because Lila Shapiro, the author of the piece, breaks in to tell us as much:

Pavlovich remembers her palms sweating, hot coils in her stomach. She was terrified of upsetting Gaiman. “I was disconnected from everybody else at that point in my life,” she tells me. She rushed to reassure him.

But also, we know this because she didn't mean it is sort of an ongoing theme, here. And that's what I want to talk about.

By this point in the article we've been instructed, explicitly and repeatedly, that you can't assume a relationship was consensual just because all parties involved gave consent. "Sexual abuse is one of the most confusing forms of violence that a person can experience. The majority of people who have endured it do not immediately recognize it as such; some never do," Shapiro writes in one section. In another, she explains that it doesn't matter if the women played along with Gaiman when he asked them to call him "master" or eat their own feces because "BDSM is a culture with a set of long-standing norms" to which Gaiman didn't strictly adhere (as the meme goes, it's only BDSM if it comes from the BDSM region of France, otherwise it's just sparkling feces-eating sadomasochism.)


Shapiro spends a lot of time thumbing the scale like this, and for good reason: without the repeated reminders that sexual abuse is so confusing and hard to recognize, to the point where some victims go their whole lives mistaking a violent act for a consensual one, most readers would look at Pavlovich's behavior (including the "it was wonderful" text message as well as her repeated and often aggressive sexual overtures toward Gaiman) and conclude that however she felt about the relationship later, her desire for him was genuine at the time — or at least, that Gaiman could be forgiven for thinking it was. To make Pavlovich a more sympathetic protagonist (and Gaiman a more persuasive villain), the article has to assert that her seemingly self-contradictory behavior is not just understandable but reasonable. Normal. Typical. If Pavlovich lied and said a violent act was consensual (and wonderful), that's just because women do be like that sometimes.

Obviously, this paradigm imposes a very weird, circular trap on men (#BelieveWomen, except the ones who say they want to sleep with you, in which case you should commence a Poirot-style interrogation until she breaks down and confesses that she actually finds you repulsive.) But I'm more interested in what happens to women when they're cast in this role of society's unreliable narrators: so vulnerable to coercion, and so socialized to please, that even the slightest hint of pressure causes the instantaneous and irretrievable loss of their agency.

The thing is, if women can’t be trusted to assert their desires or boundaries because they'll invariably lie about what they want in order to please other people, it's not just sex they can't reasonably consent to. It's medical treatments. Car loans. Nuclear non-proliferation agreements. Our entire social contract operates on the premise that adults are strong enough to choose their choices, no matter the ambient pressure from horny men or sleazy used car salesmen or power-hungry ayatollahs. If half the world's adult population are actually just smol beans — hapless, helpless, fickle, fragile, and much too tender to perform even the most basic self-advocacy — everything starts to fall apart, including the entire feminist project. You can't have genuine equality for women while also letting them duck through the trap door of but I didn't mean it, like children, when their choices have unhappy outcomes.

Some of this (most?), I think, is an unfortunate side effect of all our traditional sexual mores having been discarded in favor of vapid, anything-goes sex positivity with a monomaniacal focus on consent. We barely even have the vocabulary anymore to describe bad or cruel or execrable behavior that is wrong without being rape. Instead, we're left with two categories of sex, consensual and criminal, the unspoken understanding being that you're only allowed to complain about the latter, because heaven forfend you yuck the yum of the guy who gets off on making women crawl around on all fours and drink urine. It should surprise no one that women in this milieu are performing intellectual acrobatics to redefine their terrible-but-consensual sexual experiences as actually rapes; it's the only way anyone will acknowledge that something bad happened to you.

https://katrosenfield.substack.com/p/on-what-women-want

I’m normally all in on this whole line of argument, but it sort of elides that this girl was 19 year old homeless goofball dumdum, and not like…a sane adult with a normal job. Plus the other story of detail is him humping on his indentured servant lol.

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

also die gaiman die!

[Besticus Maximus]

“I have made post-op girls cum, just for the record,” August shouted.

One for the newsfeed benji

[Potato]

Edit: Oh My God. reading the post:

Maud also alerted us to a list of instructions trans activists had posted online for fellow protesters. The list, titled “This Week’s Jazzy Tactics,” advised comrades to enter the room “with pizzazz,” “wear white and/or keffiyeh,” and, “during transphobic testimony,” “take care of ourselves and one another” with things like “headphones, fidgets, coloring books, bubbles, snacks, treats.”

Oh, and “Macarena."

I've said this for a long time...the best way to defeat this insanity is to expose the mainstream to it as much as possible - preferably by allowing the insane ones to interact with the mainstream directly. 

Nothing will turn the tide more than a normal plumber/accountant/truck driver seeing one of these pink haired lunatics using jazz hands and Macarena during a town hall meeting.

[Potato]

Today I leaned that you can say "It was consensual (and wonderful)!” and still accuse the person of not having consent.

[TylenolJones]

S