Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Wow, thank you that was a really interesting read. It's funny because a lot of Latin Americans I know really dislike Obama because of some of the crazy deportation fiascos that have happened in his time (including feds storming a massive outdoor family gathering with tear gas). I guess if this becomes something Obama's known for, that might limit the damage those PR nightmares ultimately make on his reputation.

At 11/20/14 10:31 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Remember, terrorism is caused by poverty! or something...

No, social injustice makes people more polarised. Most Muslim terrorists are middle class, it's that real social injustice causes an increase in perceived injustice, and perceived injustice leads to anger.

It's also that the harder it is for Muslims on the whole to integrate into a society, the less likely it is that they will integrate in a society and then be moderated by integrating (it's a lot harder to become radicalised when mainstream society makes up your friend circle and family).

And before you make that overused straw-man, none of this is supposed to excuse terrorists or apologise for terrorism. It's just about smart, realistic policy and finding the best way to find peace & better foreign relations.

What are you trying to satirise? In the fight between congress and Obama, Obama's been the one making the compromises. & Liberals are proud of that.

Good satire takes the soul of an argument and shines a bright, unflattering light on it. This is just saying the opposite of what you mean and expecting people to laugh.

At 11/18/14 06:22 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I also find creampies kinda gross. Like, I know it happens, but I don't need to see it, you know?

Yeah, especially since none of the cream pies in porn are real. Read an interview with a porn director on Something Awful a while back, apparently all the cream pies he's done have used turkey paster (or similar). Which makes sense, because semen doesn't show up on camera all that well (without talking about the volume etc etc).

Point is, people actually go to a lot of trouble to give you something totally gross and unnecessary. Someone should send round a memo.

At 11/18/14 06:46 PM, freaksy101 wrote: When a woman is giving a really shitty blowjob and when you can see the dick bulge in her throat. Apart from that nothing really bothers me.

It blows my mind that people exist who don't find that incredibly arousing.

At 11/17/14 04:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote: My gut says no, or at least it didn't happen the way they claim it did.

Chances are this is either an exaggeration (possibly even a flat out lie) or the guy was genuiney assaulted, but assaulted having nothing to do with gamergate. The gamergate movement is too full of naivete, narcissism, and Cartman-esque truth bending for me to trust much if any of what they say, especially when it comes with a clear goal.

Definitely, that'd be my guess too. Without endorsing the whole Quinn- Greyson thing, it's hilarious that in an industry so ridden with nepotism people still have time to throw the toys out the pram for a journalist bigging up his girlfriend's game. I mean, I think Kotaku and Polygon are terrible websites, but of all the things to be mad about in gaming...

But yeah, from what I've seen of gamergate it seems like a big old mix of right-wing, misogynistic conspiracy nuts, self righteous /v/ neckbeards and people who really just don't have any perspective.

At 11/17/14 01:04 AM, WeasleX wrote: Whats recently going on is way too much. One of our members (#GamerGate) was said to have been assaulted recently. I can't confirm nor deny this yet, too recent. If this has happened, I can say that this isn't one sided. Just being able to talk about this risks people getting banned on sites. (Don't know about here though.)

So, did it happen?

At 11/16/14 08:15 PM, TNT wrote: I have to agree with the OP that I'm also disgusted by what they did. Not only is it disrespectful to perform these acts in front of religion (and this goes to any organization/party/business/etc.), but it doesn't even remotely solve anything. Maybe they weren't looking to solve something externally, internally, or both; they just wanted to be bullies, and if that's the case, that makes it worse.

I think this is a textbook publicity stunt - To be fair, no-one's been talking about whether the Pope should be allowed to come and lobby the EU & this is an effective way to draw attention to it. I'll agree that it's very disrespectful, but I'm not certain they could have made this a press issue without being so shocking. Given this, I'm not sure what else they could have done - There aren't feminist equivalents to the Pope who could hope to counter-lobby effectively.

Publicity stunts are cheap and vulgar, but they do let the little guy make his voice heard without hurting anyone.

HOWEVER, I don't think they needed to go this far (especially in the Vatican City, when they could have done it outside the EU parliament). I'm not sure I'd condemn their actions, but I don't think I feel OK endorsing them either.

At 11/16/14 05:51 PM, Nickisabi wrote: Colored women aren't making as much as men because they lack the education to get higher paying jobs. That is probably due to the socioeconomic issue of race, not the fact that they are female.

I'd be willing to concede that, except that I've had a lot of real world experiences seeing strong female talent go un noticed and under paid. A lot of this is because of the idea that women will leave work to have children - & I do think the feminist solution should be to raise paternity leave to make it the same as maternity so that who stays at work and who stays at home when a couple have a child simply comes down to who can do which best.

But there are reasons you so rarely see women in top earning jobs like investment banking & stockbroking, and if you don't think sexism is a part of it then I don't know what to tell you.

Calling it "feminist propaganda" is misleading, seeing as it wasn't made by a feminist group. It's bad that people are making fake videos for publicity, but they aren't doing that to further the cause of feminism; they're doing that to get attention & probably to make a few bucks.

I will say it might be symptomatic of the lazy journalism in the trendy left that's been on the rise lately. However, it's not like right wing equivalents don't exist (& the mail online still gets more traffic than buzzfeed) and it's also not like there aren't serious feminists having serious discussions elsewhere.

At 11/16/14 01:30 AM, Warforger wrote: This is not true. [...] In name Kublai was Great Khan, but his authority did not stretch over the territories he said to rule in reality. It was done for when the Ulus of Jochi invaded the Illkhanate, from then on the empire split into 4 entities which would further break down over time.

Damn, that's really, really interesting. Thanks, I'ma look way more into the Mongols.

At 11/15/14 09:42 PM, InsectGadget wrote: Nothing, most people do

No, they don't. You would have to be a genuine misogynist/ sadist/ psychopath to want any woman to be put through what women in Saudi Arabia/ Afghanistan/ IS get put through for not wanting to be a second class citizen.

At 11/15/14 09:27 PM, InsectGadget wrote: I'd love to see this whole group punished by Islamic fundamentalists.

what's wrong with you

I'm not incredibly strong on history, & seeing some of the interesting names coming up in this thread I wouldn't claim this to be a real top 5 but I'd say

1. Genghis Khan. Motherfucker comes along, conquers most Eurasia & builds a ridiculous, competently run empire out of nowhere. Then, when he dies, the whole thing collapses as testament to his greatness.

2. George Washington. A great leader & a revolutionary who never sold out.

3. Ashoka. A great Mauryan king in the days of early Buddhism, he started off a great violent conquerer, but converted after meeting the Buddha and was known for being a kind hearted, principled king who preached peace and goodwill between all religions despite his own zeal (he would eventually renounce all his wealth and titles for spiritual reasons).

4. Clement Attlee. People always look back fondly on Churchill & forget he was a coked up warmonger who would have been happy to see pre-war business as usual resume. Attlee lead Labour through World War 2, co-operating with Churchill as a true bipartisan most interested in his country's wellbeing. After the war, he founded the NHS (Britain's most cherished public institution) and nationalised the railways (Britain's most missed).

5. F.D. Roosevelt. A strong wartime president who modernised America's labour & consumer rights, and managed to get elected FOUR times (after which, he died).

At 10/11/14 07:33 PM, Feoric wrote: Seeing the undeniable similarities between poor whites and poor blacks in terms of how they were being exploited, King decided that these problems were problems of the system.

Note that it was at this point, when he made the movement about underprivileged people of every race, that MLK had to die. & also so did Malcolm X. Funny that.

Think I'd go for a mean green machine, all about that force-affinity. Wouldn't say no to a red one though, them motherfuckers go so hard they occasionally break the other sabres, but fuck that dark side sheiiiiiiit tho on the real real dawg yanowhamsayin

At 11/15/14 08:34 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: These filthy whores should try pulling one of their edgy little stunts in saudi arabia and see how far that gets them.

Why is that even vaguely relevant? They're protesting because they don't like big religion having political influence - In other words, because they want to avoid the EU becoming more like Saudi Arabia.

& seeing as these people are radical feminists I don't think "filthy whores" is likely to be a very accurate term.

Government planning inherently makes systems more fragile, so while some level of regulation/ redistribution can have a massive payoff in terms of improving overall opportunity and living standards AND be worth the fragility that comes with it, total government planning is never going to be the best idea.

The more power you give to any one body and the more power it will be able to abuse - the state needs some power to keep order, and if the state has access to a decent amount of capital it can do some great things for its people. However, governments are made up of human beings and corruption is a fungus that will grow wherever you allow it to grow.

SO I don't think communism would work anywhere but tiny communities without a military for dictators to hide behind, where everyone's voluntarily engaged in serving the communal good anyway.

Just looked this up on rt, it's not even slightly sectarian it's a protest on the Pope interfering with politics in the EU. What's so bad about a woman's naked body anyway?

At 11/14/14 02:42 PM, AxTekk wrote: world war II

World War I, sheeeeit.

I think the reason women's suffrage came so late to Switzerland was just that Switzerland was such a stable country that there were less opportunities to reform. For example, women in Britain got the right to vote largely because of their success filling male positions during world war II and the early successes of women's rights in America largely came as part of a wider movement for civil rights. Switzerland didn't have to deal with fighting a world war or an internal moral crisis, so it's political traditions went widely unchallenged I think.

At 11/13/14 09:33 PM, RyderOmega wrote: I'm not arguing what the rules say. I know what the goddamn rules say. I'm just arguing that having such rules are completely insane and asinine.

And I'm just saying if I wanted completely unmoderated discussion I'd go to /b/. Community standards are a good thing bruh

At 11/13/14 07:25 PM, Monster-64 wrote: You are absolutely correct, but just because we have the freedom to use those words, doesn;'t necessarily mean that we can't have a constructive conversation.
HOw about this? If you call a user a faggot just to call him a faggot, then that should be a bannable offense, but if there's actual discussion material to the post, it's not.

Hmmmm that's very true actually. However, I think that in practice whether or not exceptional circumstances get treated as exceptional depends more on the mods than the rules.

At 11/13/14 07:17 PM, Monster-64 wrote: Shitposting and flaming is a funner method

But seriously, we all have the freedom of speech. We should be able to say any words we want.

We are, but in order to use a forum it might make sense to put in restrictions. Not because it's necessarily wrong to say whatever words but instead because we want a space where we can have conversations without them. I guess it's just about community standards.

Like, I don't believe stormfront should be taken off the web, but I am glad people on newgrounds aren't allowed to post inflammatory shit like that. We're just better off without that stress.

At 11/12/14 07:12 PM, RyderOmega wrote: You've got to be fucking kidding me. Saying tranny is against the rules? That's retarded. Why the fuck would that be against the rules? We're allowed to call each other autistic, retarded, and faggot, yet we're unable to use tranny? The fuck kind of bullshit is this?! Why are the rules made to cater to individuals who are too soft to take everything said in this BBS as nothing more than just text?

Wow the autism. & yes you CAN say autism, but you can't say faggot.

And maybe the rules are just trying to promote we talk respectfully rather than shitpost and flame.

oh my fucking god you wizardly ruse man

At 10/11/14 02:10 PM, lapis wrote: [...] Honestly, apart from the votes gained (or not lost in the case of Labour) by appeals to British exceptionalism, I think part of the conservative opposition to the ECHR is that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which guides the court) is about the right to privacy, and they may fear that in the future some uppity peasant may ask the ECHR to judge on the surveillance state that both Labour and the Tories have been creating for the past two decades. Also, the Tories hope to outflank UKIP (which just won its first seat in parliament) on the right. Anyway, it's sad that opposing human rights is a perceived vote-getter in the UK nowadays.

Yep, that's pretty much exactly it.

At 10/11/14 09:56 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Except "human right" is just a made up label.

Maybe philosophically, but not legally which is the more important part. Beyond the immediate consequences of a country withdrawing internationally accepted human rights for its citizens, doing so also creates a legal distinction between them and other countries obstructing foreign relations and weakening the hold of general international law. Because having a lower standard of human rights inherently limits a country's diplomatic reach and because the ruling classes of such countries tend to have lower regard for international law, countries that restrict domestic human rights often become involved in foreign conflicts as well.

On Saturday it was my friends 20th birthday, so me and loads of our friends went round his to drink, smoke, eat, play videogames and trip major balls.

He decided to sit us all down and show us Too Many Cooks without any explanation as we were all peaking.

We went from hysterically laughing and singing to screaming in terror to laughing again to singing.

It might have been the most emotional experience I've ever had.

At 11/6/14 09:00 PM, Satan wrote:

At 11/6/14 08:43 PM, AxTekk wrote: - Greatly reduces the risk of getting caught in a drug trap.

lolnope. The FBI seized everything, and had it shut down. If I ever sold shit over Silk Road, or Silk Road 2.0 I'd be royally shitting my pants if I were them. inb4proxies/vpns/etc This is the fucking FBI we are talking about.

I'm talking about buyers - they don't have to go down to the trap to pick up with a silkroad type

Not all dealers from Silk Road did drops, some of them actually went and delivered the drugs to you in person, or sent someone else to do it.

True, but you had the option not to meet your dealer on silkroad. Most dealers didn't do drops or deliver in person though, the most successful dealers on silkroad organised stealth delivery schemes (allowing them to deliver to more places simultaneously, and thus to expand).

- Gives all sellers a potentially international market, within which they can retain anonymity and privacy from competitors.

It doesn't, because the chances of sending drugs abroad and not having them found are INCREDIBLY slim. You could get hook-ups with drugrunners maybe, but even then, the chances are slim of getting someone reliable. You'd be better off going outside of Silk Road for that kind of thing.

Okay, not to be a prick but you really don't know what youre talking about here. My weed hookup on silkroad was Canada based, my acid hookup Spanish and I got my RCs from China. & it always got through customs. Obviously, not every seller will figure out ways to go international, but silkroad type setups DO offer the opportunity to go gloval.

Silkroad is an amazing business model - There will always be a silkroad until they come up with something better.

I agree with this, I never said otherwise. It was (and technically, still is) a very profitable "business" model, but there are easier ways to get your hands on drugs than buying them from someone over on Silk Road who will later buy a Lamborghini Gallardo with Bitcoins.

Well, it depends who you are and where you live. I live in a city with a high student population 8 months a year, & I'm reasonably sociable (& involved in the music and graff scenes) so I have hookups a plenty where I live with safe dealers. The other 4 months a year though, I live in a small Oxfordshire town where I don't really know anyone. So, for 4 months a year a silkroad is the best option.

It also depends on the drug - its pretty easy to find weed/ mandy/ coke, but even casual friendly drugs like acid and shrooms can be hard to find on the street. Start fucking with RCs like 25i or 2cl (still casual friendly low risk hallucinogens) and you're really only going to find that shit on the deep web unless you know someone with serious connections. Also depends how much you care about purity - I wouldn't ever do ket from a street dealer in the UK (given the recent drought dealers have been known to swap it out for bath salts) but certified pure ket on the deep web I might mess with.

It all depends on the individual circumstance, but for a lot of very casuals in small towns a silkroad is definitely the best option. Hell, I know dealers whove made a lot of money using silkroad. Really, don't just write off everything bitcoin automatically.

At 11/6/14 06:44 PM, Satan wrote: The reason Silk Road was created wasn't because drugs are hard to get your hands on, it existed because someone realised that the value of crypto currencies is unstable, thus making it dead easy to manipulate, and in turn make a potentially huge profit from your sales, as opposed to selling it on the street for a (more or less) fixed rate.

Wow, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Drugs have always been difficult to get your hands on if you're just a very casual user who isn't friends with a drug dealer (most very casual users aren't). This is a massive amount of people willing to buy drugs, but it's a lot of effort for drug dealers to tap into this market and they generally aren't very reliable customers anyway (or big spenders). What a silkroad style model does very well is it gives people a way to get drugs without having to know anyone. On top of this it

- Allows buyers to see large quantities of uncensored reviews for the people they buy from.
- Greatly reduces the risk of getting caught in a drug trap.
- Eliminates the risk associated with seeing drug dealers in person.
- Gives dealers and distributors an open market of suppliers/ manufacturers.
- Gives all sellers a potentially international market, within which they can retain anonymity and privacy from competitors.

Silkroad is an amazing business model - There will always be a silkroad until they come up with something better.

Yeah, I find that too! I think it's because we're not that good at discerning foods just by taste (at least those of us who aren't Michelin starred chefs) - we usually need at least some texture & smell.

First off, as I've said a lot of times in the past - I'm a feminist. However, just because other people claim to be feminist doesn't make them immune to criticism.

At 11/3/14 09:28 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: I'd actually like to know who is that monolitchi "they" you are referring to, and which seems to have share common knowledge, common goals, common understanding of social issues, etc.?

I'm referring to the organisation producing the product (who are responsible for sourcing the shirts).

I'm also referring, to a lesser extent, to the celebs who wore the shirts (who are responsible for choosing where their money goes). However, it is very easy to buy & wear sweatshop sourced clothes so I'm not blaming them too much - Chances are this wasn't the first essentially slave-made item in their wardrobe, and it won't be the last. This being the case, the politics attached to the clothes are pretty much irrelevant.

But it DOES say something that the organisation producing the product didn't check where their clothes were being made, meaning that for all their pretty theorising their actions tell me they actually don't give a shit about labour rights.

Do you understand? If not, please avoid trying to make some kind of global criticism of ALL FEMINISM at once in a 200 post on Newgrounds. It's fucking useless and unrelated to what I'm actually trying to say.

The irony being that if you'd read my posts a little more carefully you would clearly see that that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not criticising feminism - I'm criticising EVERYONE. With very few exceptions. Because pretty much nobody cares about labour rights anymore.

Does that mean that one who fails to find out that the person he or she is buying from isn't respecting human rights, is her/himself not caring about these issues? Come the actual fuck on! If I buy food from a food corp that exploits third world workers and fucks up our ecological system and that I didn't know about it, can you just presume that I just don't care about these things? Or maybe you could try to understand what the actual fuck I'm saying.

Well, regardless of what you're saying, if you're not altering your behaviour then no. You don't care. Or at least you don't care enough to make any difference, even just making sure that you're not economically supporting things you claim not to like.

Put it like this - If someone tells you they don't like Nike but they still buy Nike products, how much do you think they can possibly care about Nike?

I'm sure there are feminists who source their products ethically - I'm one of them. But I don't do so because I'm a feminist. I do so because I care about social justice and equality of opportunity. It's also because of this that I'm a feminist.)

At 11/3/14 04:41 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:

If you're familiar with 3rd wave feminism, you know that a lot of them have included intersectionality in their theory, and that fighting against inequities against women usually means caring about various issues, such as labor rights, since women can suffer from discrimination at work two, just like stated in that article.

Okay let me reword that - There's no inconsistency between not giving a shit about poor people and wanting men and women to be equal.

And that's true. Just because you care about one social issue doesn't mean you care about all of them. & not caring about all of them doesn't mean you're wrong for caring about any of them.