KRISTEN'S BOARD
KB - a better class of pervert

News:

Random Rants

Guest · 51285

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

psiberzerker

  • Guest
Reply #360 on: April 23, 2019, 09:31:46 PM
Did you know that Sarah McAuliffe had dandriff?  Neither did NASA until they found her Head&Shoulders on the beach...

After all, NASA stands for "Need Another Seven Astronauts."

Am I the only one that remembers all the tasteless jokes from back then?  How many Astronauts can you get in a Volkswagen?  11:  2 in the front, 2 in the back, and 7 in the ash tray.



Remington555

  • Guest
Reply #361 on: April 24, 2019, 10:16:10 AM
Am I the only one that remembers all the tasteless jokes from back then? 

No. Where did Christa McAuliffe take her vacation? All over Florida.

Neil Armstrong did indeed speak different words than he had intended, although he denied it and NASA later claimed that static had garbled the missing article (A). There's no mention of the word (AND). First words on the moon.

Jed, the supposed neighbor's name was Mr. Gorsky and the story was an urban legend. Or as Staci put it, a fairy tale, which is about the same thing. Too bad, I thought it was hilarious.  :emot_laughing:

Remmy



Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #362 on: April 24, 2019, 06:58:17 PM
My dad has said that the way you can tell the difference between a fairy tale and a war story is the fairy tale starts out “once upon a time...” and a war story starts out “”Now this ain’t no shit...”

Space stories too I guess.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1719/-56
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #363 on: April 24, 2019, 07:58:26 PM
My dad has said that the way you can tell the difference between a fairy tale and a war story is the fairy tale starts out “once upon a time...” and a war story starts out “”Now this ain’t no shit...”

Space stories too I guess.

I have heard war stories begin and end with "I shit you not.." similar to what your Dad said.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.


Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #364 on: April 24, 2019, 09:28:15 PM
Otherwise they bear an uncanny resemblance to fairy tales.

 :emot_laughing:

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


_priapism

  • Guest
Reply #365 on: April 25, 2019, 03:16:37 AM
Armstrong set foot on the moon at 10:56 p.m. EDT.  So it was 9:56 p.m. in Houston.  I was almost 8, so it seemed late to me.



Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1719/-56
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #366 on: April 25, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Otherwise they bear an uncanny resemblance to fairy tales.

 :emot_laughing:


As one ages, the details become more vague, unless that person wrote it down.

As Jackson Browne wrote in The Pretender:

Where the veterans dream of the fight
Fast asleep at the traffic light


Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.


ChirpingGirl

  • Guest
Reply #367 on: May 18, 2019, 02:17:24 PM
My sisters British wifey was, for a while, a little bit of an SJW. But recently she's really changed. She's pissed off about the UK turning into a shit hole. Her family wants to come here. And she's so happy to be done with college because of the "spoiled, stupid insufferable leftist cry babies". Her family told her something about a "tv license" and she flipped out, yelling about all the problems there and they still go on about tv licenses. "The bloody idiots are banning spoons and harassing people over a telly license while the country is being destroyed." She never, ever cusses, but she said "fucking clown world".  ;D

She's started to drop her British accent, because she's never going back. My sister hates it, we all do, but she doesn't want their daughter to pick it up.



psiberzerker

  • Guest
Reply #368 on: May 18, 2019, 02:30:06 PM
My sisters British wifey was, for a while, a little bit of an SJW. But recently she's really changed...

Okay, here's something I don't understand.  So, I'm going to ask you, because I believe you may understand this better:

How do you define a Social Justice Warrior?  Serious question, because this bothers me.  Now, I don't want to get off on a Rant here, but gun nuts use that term, when they literally arm themselves to fight for self defense, and America.  Why isn't that a SJW?  They're Armed, for Justice, right?  Supergirl is a SJW, and so is Captain Marvel, but the Punisher isn't?  John Wick, Bryan Mills, and Charles Bronson aren't?  Spree Shooters aren't labled SJWs for some reason, Feminists are?

Civil Rights is renamed Social Justice.  It's not civil rights any more.  It's not women's rights, immigration rights, human rights, it's "Social Justice."  I don't even know what that means any more, or even if it ment anything, except an insult.  I know it's supposed to be a bad thing, and I'm supposed to feel bad for supporting Human Rights.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong, but could you possibly (Respectfully) shed some light on that?  For clarity.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2019, 02:34:25 PM by psiberzerker »



Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #369 on: May 18, 2019, 03:09:40 PM
It’s simply a derogatory term by those who are afraid that their perceived superior position in society is being threatened and reduced by those who are concerned with equal rights for those groups who have historically and currently denied those rights and protections.

It does not address excesses it only serves to insult and denigrate.

It’s the same as calling someone a right-wing nut, or a fascist.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


ChirpingGirl

  • Guest
Reply #370 on: May 18, 2019, 03:10:32 PM
I define an SJW as someone who doesn't live in reality. Who believes in lies and desperately wants to find something to complain about and pretend to be victimized.

Quote
Quote
Supergirl is a SJW, and so is Captain Marvel, but the Punisher isn't?

I don't know anything about them, so can't comment. But I did watch the "batwoman" trailer. That's some SJW feminist bullshit. Seconds in and I could tell what it would be about. The actress has really short hair, so one word popped up in my head "lesbian". And the very next thought "they'll show her making out with a girl, probably black". Yep, it happened. Next I thought she'd bitch about feminist shit. Yep, she did. Then she proceeded to steal Batman's shit and complained about a man taking credit for her actions. Bitch, you ripped off Batman and stole his stuff. That was some insufferable SJW feminist shit.

We could go on if you like, but it's Saturday and we have plans with the kids. So it'll have to wait.



psiberzerker

  • Guest
Reply #371 on: May 18, 2019, 03:13:34 PM
Who believes in lies and desperately wants to find something to complain about and pretend to be victimized.

So, that's everyone.  (Also, everyone is Victimized, whether they "Pretend" to be, or pretend not to be.)

These guys:


Believed that Trump would "Drain the Swamp" (That's what the tiki torches are for, they're calling nonwhites mosquitos) and are playing the victims.  So, by your definition, they're Social Justice Warriors?

When you get back from the zoo or whatever, you care to narrow that down?  
« Last Edit: May 18, 2019, 03:18:07 PM by psiberzerker »



ChirpingGirl

  • Guest
Reply #372 on: May 18, 2019, 03:25:49 PM
Yes. I don't recall singling anyone out.

And we're not going to the zoo.  ;D



psiberzerker

  • Guest
Reply #373 on: May 18, 2019, 03:42:40 PM
I don't recall singling anyone out.

I was asking you for clarification, not accusing you of singling anyone out.  I just want you to narrow it down (When you have the time) so I can better differentiate what groups of people you're referring to, when you use the label "SJW."  I know what Gay means, and I know what "White" means (European American.)  Since you use the term, and it defines a set:  {SJWs} as opposed to non-SJWs, or people who's concerns are worth listening to.  That's all.

Now, back onto the rant:  The main barrier to equality is Conflict, and I Believe (<That's an Opinion, not a statement of fact) that conflict ultimately stems from lack of Empathy.  Lack of Understanding each other's Point of View, because my concerns outweigh your concerns.  My victimization is more important to me than what you've been through, because I was there, and I remember how that made me feel.

PC labels like "SJW" seem to enable that conflict, because they define a set that can be ignored.  Your concerns aren't important, because you're an SJW, and you're just playing the victim.  I just have to look at a happy little girl, in an absurdly ideal family with (I'm guessing) 3 mommies (?) so therefore, no woman ever needs an Abortion, and all those fetuses that are murdered would grow up happy, and healthy, if they weren't murdered in the womb.  (For example.  You said something like that in a thread that was about having a nice day, and not ranting, but it's a common argument for the Pro-life SJWs.)

Therefore, the Rights of the Unborn outweigh the rights of Mothers, we can get rid of all that stuff like sex education, healthcare for mothers, birth control, WiC, and Planned parenthood, because the ONLY important issue, the only Justice worth fighting for, is the rights of the Unborn.  We can ignore poverty, congenital birth defects, incest, insanity (IDK if you've ever know a child of an insane, abusive parent, or couple of parents, but it ain't pretty) dangerous living condition, neglect, population, housing...  Just as long as the children are born, who cares if they're all happy, healthy, and safe, because I know 1 beautiful little girl who is.

I just have to look at 1 happy healthy safe adorable little girl to ignore all the hungry, scared, abused, hated, homeless, mentally, and physically handicapped little girls and boys.  Abortion is ALWAYS murder, and Never a medical necessity.

Because of 1 little girl.  That little girl smiling, and happy makes it easy to ignore the suffering of every woman out there who's forced to have children they can't keep happy and healthy, against your will.

How is that different from a "Social Justice Warrior?"  



psiberzerker

  • Guest
Reply #374 on: May 18, 2019, 03:59:21 PM
Not singling you out, but focusing on Abortion as a Social Justice issue, because it's a common argument.  All they have to do is look at a happy child, and be happy that he, or she wasn't aborted.  Or put another way, what if the next Einstein is killed in the womb?  

Never mind the equal, and opposite, what if the next Joseph Mengele, or Ilse Koch isn't?  We can't sort fetuses by intelligence, and predisposition to Evil, that's Eugenics, but it's the same argument.  Albert Einstein wasn't born with the Theories of Relativity in his head, and he's a perfect example, because that "What if?" ignores everything that happened After he was born.  What if he was arrested for performing Nuclear Physics (Which Hitler considered a "Jewish" science) and executed at Dachau?

What if that beautiful happy healthy little boy is orphaned, strapped into his child seat when you get T-Boned by a Drunk Driver, and killed in the driver's seat?  No fault of your own, you're doing the speed limit, looked both ways before you pulled out of the intersection, but that drunk driver was speeding, and plowed into your driver's side door.  All you have to do is look at your son, and thank God that his Father wasn't killed by a Drunk Driver.

What if she's born gay to a homophobic father with a thing for toddlers?

Singling out 1 issue like that, to the exclusion of any other, ensures that children are Born.  If they're not born, they will never know the joy of cuddiling up in her mother's arms with a belly full of milk, and fall asleep content.  Without a mother, she will never know that feeling.  She will never cry with a skinned knee, never be Bullied, struggle with Long division, or hold the pillow over her head to muffle the sound of her mommy getting beaten by her boyfriend.  She will never go hungry, and she'll never taste ice cream for the very first time.  She'll never be kissed by a boy, and she'll never be groped on the bus.

I call this a Single Issue Wonk.  Someone who can't just have a nice day.  They can't just look at a happy child, and be happy.  They have to tell everyone that this wouldn't be possible, if her mother went against her character, and arbitrarily decided to murder her unborn child, for no reason.  Not about child hunger, domestic abuse, drunk drivers, sexual assault, and incest.  Just Abortion.  That Single Issue blinds yourself to all the children suffering because they weren't born so lucky.  

I think that's at least as bad as "SJWs" complaining about their paychecks.



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,160
    • Woos/Boos: +3182/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #375 on: May 18, 2019, 04:35:51 PM

Okay, here's something I don't understand.  So, I'm going to ask you, because I believe you may understand this better:

How do you define a Social Justice Warrior?  Serious question, because this bothers me.  Now, I don't want to get off on a Rant here, but gun nuts use that term, when they literally arm themselves to fight for self defense, and America.  Why isn't that a SJW?  They're Armed, for Justice, right?  Supergirl is a SJW, and so is Captain Marvel, but the Punisher isn't?  John Wick, Bryan Mills, and Charles Bronson aren't?  Spree Shooters aren't labled SJWs for some reason, Feminists are?

Civil Rights is renamed Social Justice.  It's not civil rights any more.  It's not women's rights, immigration rights, human rights, it's "Social Justice."  I don't even know what that means any more, or even if it ment anything, except an insult.  I know it's supposed to be a bad thing, and I'm supposed to feel bad for supporting Human Rights.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong, but could you possibly (Respectfully) shed some light on that?  For clarity.


I know you didn't ask me this question, but I'm going to answer it anyway.

The problem with the term "Social Justice Warrior" means three different things:

1) It describes someone who agitates for social justice, all type of social justice.

2) It's a pejorative term used on the Right to demean the people in #1, and, in general, anyone else on the Left who is liberal or progressive (or at least perceived as being liberal or progressive).

3) What Chirping Girl describes.

"Social Justice," in the first meaning, is more of a blanket term. It includes civil rights, but other rights, and other causes, as well. Things like economic rights, immigrant rights, worker rights, and on and on.

Martin Luther King was a social justice warrior (as he put it, "Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness"). So were Cesar Chavez, Harvey Milk, Susan B. Anthony, Betty Friedan, and many others. And so are Malala Yousafzai and Pope Francis.








"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



psiberzerker

  • Guest
Reply #376 on: May 18, 2019, 04:44:03 PM
I'm going on (And on) because this is the place, and it's not just a complex issue.  It's life, full of complex issues, and hard decisions.  My problem is that labels like "Social justice" appear to serve no other purpose than to decide which issues are important, and which ones aren't worth our attention.  It's also used by Homophobes, which are against LGBT people being able to marry, adopt, and raise children without a father.

Is that Social Justice?  I'm not going to say that this is more important than the next Einstein being born, because that's the premise of this rationale:  "What's more important?"  That's the central question here, what's worth worrying about, and what's just "SJW" nonsense?  To the "Right," it's "Traditional family Values," and "God's Will."  According to them, Abortion isn't just murder, but Homosexuality is Abomination, punishable by death.  

Equally important is Gun Rights.  Not Gun Safety, the right to bear arms is guaranteed, but Jefferson didn't say anything about making them Safe.  So, nobody has to look at his son, and thank God that he wasn't murdered in school by a lone gunman for attention.  (I believe that's the primary motive.)  We require that guns have Safeties, multiple safeties so that they can be carried on Safe.  We require seatbelts, and even that you wear seatbelts, or you can be pulled over, for driving with it hanging loose over your shoulder.  

Just in case you get hit with a drunk driver.  There's no laws that you actually use the Safety on your gun.  What's important is we have the right to bear arms, and it's not infringed apon, even if that means that anyone who wants to murder children for attention can get their hands on the tools that make it easy.  As long as the children are Born, regardless of the circumstances, we'll ignore the possibility of them being the victims of Mass Murder, or witnessing Mass Murder.

I have to ask, what about the Survivors of school shootings?  They're the Lucky ones, right?  They're alive, so we tell them to "Stop sniveling," and be happy that they weren't murdered?  No, because it doesn't work like that.  Not being murdered gives you the opportunity, the privilege of being Alive (Until you die.)  That's the bare minimum, whether they're not killed by a medical professional who's actually trained, and swears an oath, a drunk driver just trying to have a good time, or a guy with a gun, who either believes he's the "Good Guy," or the Victim of bullies.

Which one is the SJW?  That's the central question:  Which one's concerns are more important than any others?  Which ones can we dismiss, because it's just "Social Justice," and therefore not important?

If you ask me, it depends on who you ask.  To a mother (Or pervy Aunt) it's the born child's, if you ask a Pro-Lifer it's the Father's, because they invariably err on the side of His rights over the mother's.  First the child, then the Father, and then the woman who has to go through all that Labor.  If you ask a Gun Rights Activist, it's the Guns'.  Rights.  Guns have rights in America, by Constitutional Law.  Guns are better protected in children's schools.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that a child being born, only to leave flowers, and a stuffed animals at the shrine where her friends were killed is incredibly short-sighted.  How we live is at least as important as being born in the first place.  If it's important that no Fetuses are killed, than it should be equally important that no school children are killed, because the rights of Guns outweigh the lives of your children.  (I don't have any, because I know that I would abuse them.)

We all pay the price.  We all do, if you're a Socialist that believes that we should all have a share, then we should all share the responsibility.  If you're a Capitalist, and believe that Wealth is a measure of Merit, then you should insure that the children we Force to be born into this world have food, and enjoy all the Rights you take for granted.  The right to be married, even if you fall in love with someone of the same sex.  The right to have children, even if you can't because of a congenital condition (Like not being attracted to Men.)  The right to NOT have children, you can't provide for, or can't love because of some physical, mental, or social defect.  (Like Spinabifida, Pedophilia, or Poverty)

It's a Right if you have a Choice.  It's not a right if someone with Power over you decides for you.  No, you can't have that, because it's Murder, and we'll charge you with Murder.  You have to go through with it, regardless of the circumstance, and then you will be hit with the bill.  If you can't afford a child, you still have to deal with the debt you owe, for having her in a hospital without insurance.  If you don't have a car, then you'll have to pay for the ambulance.  If you're raped, and the Father wants parental rights, he can.

I know, it makes me sound like a "Social Justice Warrior," but I'm for Mother's Rights.  Including the right to decide that you can't be a mother, or you're not ready to right now, as long as You decide not to have sex.  You decide not to let that man's sperm become a new life that may not have the opportunities of a full family.  

I honestly don't believe that anyone else has the Right to make that Choice for all women.



psiberzerker

  • Guest
Reply #377 on: May 18, 2019, 04:50:13 PM
2) It's a pejorative term used on the Right to demean the people in #1, and, in general, anyone else on the Left who is liberal or progressive (or at least perceived as being liberal or progressive).
It's this one that i have a problem with.  When it's used as an Insult, like "Libtard."  I can accept the term if it applies to Nazis marching against the "injustice" of Spanish speaking brown people wanting to be Americans.

The Ku Klux Klan.  As long as we're using it as an insult for people who's political views are ruining this country?  I call the Klan "SJWs."  In fact, I can say that they're worse than women wanting equal pay, or blacks asking for reparations, because those "SJWs" don't kill, torture, and enslave people.  They don't take rights, including the right to Live away from people.  They never beat pregnant black women to make them miscarry, and they don't have a term, "Mung" for the bloody mess that runs down their legs.

If we're fighting against "Social Justice," then that's the kind I'm against.  Fighting for it, Violently.  I can't call feminists "Warriors," because they don't use Violence.  That's my definition, "Social Justice" is one thing, but a Warrior uses Violence.

MLK didn't, so I'd say that Malcolm X might be a better example.



Offline RopeFiend

  • The Cleaner
  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 5,395
    • Woos/Boos: +672/-30
    • Gender: Male
Reply #378 on: May 18, 2019, 05:35:53 PM

The best warriors are the ones that win the cause without violence.

Remember the Golden Rule: you do me, and I\'ll do you (paraphrased)


psiberzerker

  • Guest
Reply #379 on: May 18, 2019, 05:46:57 PM

The best warriors are the ones that win the cause without violence.

All right, but there are Warriors that fight with Violence.  Ideally, we could settle every fight without violence, but in the real world, we don't have an MLK, Ghandi, or Mandella every generation.  We're not all Einsteins either, and there are Nazis out there who would hapilly have killed George Washington Carver before he ever published a single paper on farming practices.

I'm not arguing ideals, I'm asking why a feminist demanding equal pay is a "Warrior," and a guy with a gun collection, a stockpile of ammo, camouflage tactical MOLLE gear, a Black Rifle, and a Ghille Suit isn't?

This is the popular image of a Social Justice Warrior:



This isn't:



That's what confuses me.