Culture Thread: Libtards and Republitards are Killing the US

[Spartanmack]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YH0eHzTKEMY

never saw that movie but I knew, as soon as I saw the indian dressed like a barefoot cowboy, things weren't going to end well for them boys.

 

[tinselwolverine]

never saw that movie but I knew, as soon as I saw the indian dressed like a barefoot cowboy, things weren't going to end well for them boys.

I think Dex Parios is Native American; maybe not; maybe she just owes the tribal casino money.

Anyway, maybe Billy Jack should head over to Portland, and between the two of them they could open up a can o? whupass on the Antifa and the white supremists both.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think Dex Parios is Native American; maybe not; maybe she just owes the tribal casino money.

Anyway, maybe Billy Jack should head over to Portland, and between the two of them they could open up a can o? whupass on the Antifa and the white supremists both.

pan sexual graphic novel antiheroine - another reason I feel like I might have been born at the wrong time. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I just feel like things would be slightly better for society if we never knew about things like this.

 

[tinselwolverine]

pan sexual graphic novel antiheroine - another reason I feel like I might have been born at the wrong time. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I just feel like things would be slightly better for society if we never knew about things like this.

We always knew about them.

We just didn?t talk about them much.

The anti-hero has been around in story telling out in the open, pretty much for always.

Bogart is probably the quintessential face.

 

[zyxt9]

The WS do not have to live in Portland, or even Oregon. Let them travel from Dixie for all I care...just so long as they kill and get killed. Their anti-Semitic BS, among the many other aspects of their hate, is enough for me to be good with this hypothetical fate exercise.

 

[Spartanmack]

The WS do not have to live in Portland, or even Oregon. Let them travel from Dixie for all I care...just so long as they kill and get killed. Their anti-Semitic BS, among the many other aspects of their hate, is enough for me to be good with this hypothetical fate exercise.

I'd be happy to see that at well, I just don't think that's close to what's happening right now - what's being billed as a fight between anti-fascists and white supremacists is actually fascists calling themselves antifascists destroying a city and terrorizing anyone who doesn't share their world view.

 

[Spartanmack]

We always knew about them.

We just didn?t talk about them much.

The anti-hero has been around in story telling out in the open, pretty much for always.

Bogart is probably the quintessential face.

yeah, I'm not hearing about the antihero for the first time, I just think we could do without adult comic books or knowing anything about the personal sexual preferences of any of them - heroes, antiheroes, villains, etc. It's fine if they're pan sexual, but why do we have to know or care - other than making out with Lauren Bacall (lucky bastard) Bogart's characters never made a point of foisting their sexuality or gender identity onto the audience.

 

[sggatecl]

I just think we could do without adult comic books or knowing anything about the personal sexual preferences of any of them - heroes, antiheroes, villains, etc. It's fine if they're pan sexual, but why do we have to know or care -

I think it can contribute to a character's story or motivation in some cases. A Handmaid's Tale comes to mind as we're in the middle of that show now. And even Legend (Tom Hardy gangster movie) did it in a way that wasn't in your face to the point of derailing the story.

This article made the point that off-hand mentioning a character's sexuality is no different than other descriptions.

Better yet, answer this: is everything in your writing 100% relevant to the story? I?m sure there are moments when you learn random things about the characters in your book. There will be an off-hand mention of the character?s favourite meal. A certain habit they have. A description of the ring they were on their left thumb.

These little things add flavour to the story. We learn random tidbits about different characters all the time. It makes the characters feel more real, more fleshed-out.

Sexuality could be one of those things. If you are writing a character who?s gay, there is nothing preventing you from mentioning that in the text. Even if it is just an off-hand mention. Sexuality doesn?t have to be a big deal. It?s okay to write only that this woman?s ex-girlfriend used to make her porridge every morning. That?s it. That?s all you need to say. Not every story with a queer character has to have a whole side plot explaining and exploring that.

But I do think when it's shoehorned into the plot and has no bearing on the story at all it's gratuitous and a blatant attempt at feigning wokeness or acceptance. Kind of like casting a black actor because mid casting you realized your cast of rural Nebraskans was all white. News flash: It's Nebraska. People don't except a whole lot of diversity.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think it can contribute to a character's story or motivation in some cases. A Handmaid's Tale comes to mind as we're in the middle of that show now. And even Legend (Tom Hardy gangster movie) did it in a way that wasn't in your face to the point of derailing the story.

This article made the point that off-hand mentioning a character's sexuality is no different than other descriptions.



But I do think when it's shoehorned into the plot and has no bearing on the story at all it's gratuitous and a blatant attempt at feigning wokeness or acceptance. Kind of like casting a black actor because mid casting you realized your cast of rural Nebraskans was all white. News flash: It's Nebraska. People don't except a whole lot of diversity.

It can and offhand mentions aren't much different from Bogie smashing faces with Bergman or Bacall - that's not foisting sexuality onto people unnecessarily to push an agenda in my opinion. I'm not opposed any mentions of sexuality as part of character development - Omar was one of my favorite characters from The Wire (Bunk was the best), his sexual preference was part of his character development and added to the story, but it wasn't pivotal or pushing an agenda on the audience one way or the other.

I don't recall ever wondering if any superhero, anitsuperhero or villain was gay or straight, pan sexual or polyamorous nor do I recall the straightness of any of them being any part of the story so the idea that they're somehow exclusionary is complete and total nonsense. I suppose it's fine for adult comic books for adults into that kind of thing, but I don't think sexuality needs to or should be part of preteen or adolescent entertainment.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Republican Rep Nancy Mace is pretty hot.

She?s showing quite a bit of boob in the photo; a little surprised Ben allowed it; making the Daily Wire look like the SI Swimsuit edition.

At 43, she?s single and she?s had a lot of husbands.

I did a search for her religion and what came up was she?s a huge LGBTQ rights advocate.

Maybe she swing both ways.

Nice.

Just don?t do it with a staffer like that one chick from the Simi Valley did.

With what Nancy Pelosi did to her - imagine what Kevin McCarthy would do about that shit?

 

[Michchamp]

that's a rough 43... yikes

 

[byco42]

I don?t know where else to post this ? We are the threat to them

Excerpt below:

For the first time, the Department of Homeland Security has designated domestic violent extremism as a national priority area within the Department of Homeland Security grant program. And that means that more than $77 million will be allocated to state and local and other partners to prevent, protect against, and respond to domestic violent extremism.

In addition, the Department of Defense is incorporating training for servicemembers separating or retiring from the military, who may potentially be targeted by those who seek to radicalize them.

We will work to improve public awareness of federal resources to address concerning or threatening behavior before violence occurs. And on that, I would just note that one of the things we?re talking about is the need to do something in this space, like the ?See something? ? ?If you see something, say something? concept that has been promulgated previously by DHS. This involves creating contexts in which those who are family members or friends or co-workers know that there are pathways and avenues to raise concerns and seek help for those who they have perceived to be radicalizing and potentially radicalizing towards violence.​

More mind control, divisiveness, and deception. If we are fighting amongst ourselves, we can?t then resist the inexorable force of governance for governance?s sake. We are this much of an inconvenience to the people who claim to serve us.

EDIT: And technology companies are more-than-willing accomplices:

Finally, you asked about tech companies, and it?s an important part of the strategy because a great deal of the relevant recruitment, radicalization, mobilization to violence does happen online. Again, that?s not me saying that; that?s the experts and professionalswho assessed that in that March 2021 report assessment and continue to assess that.​

Yes, the ?experts and professionals? who are ever anonymously cited.

So, there are a number of ways in which we?re trying to augment our efforts to get at that challenge. One is by enhancing, augmenting the information-sharing the government does with tech companies so as to facilitate their more assertive voluntary enforcement of their terms of service on their platforms to protect other users from those who might pose threats of violence.​

I expect that this means more surveillance, not less.

We, as a government, see different things from what any particular tech company might see. Any particular tech company often knows its own platform very well. But the government sees things ? actually, threats of violence ? across platforms. They see the relationship between online recruitment, radicalization, and violence in the physical world.​

Remember, government is stocked with the brightest and the best. We need to be thankful for that.

And so, helping to illuminate these threats is a process that has already begun between the government and the tech sector. And it will continue, again, specifically on this issue set, given the priority we?re placing in addressing it.​

Anyone wondering why the tech sector is so eager to co-operate with ?government??

Link

Link

As we quarrel, debate, and disagree with each other, the Powers Who Are consider all of us who critically think as an obstacle to their scheme of global control. The electronic prison that is being erected about us is being sold as ?more bandwidth!? ?Faster streaming and upload speeds!? ?Less privacy and more monitoring!? (Wait, not. That.)

 

[Spartanmack]

I don?t know where else to post this ? We are the threat to them

Excerpt below:

For the first time, the Department of Homeland Security has designated domestic violent extremism as a national priority area within the Department of Homeland Security grant program. And that means that more than $77 million will be allocated to state and local and other partners to prevent, protect against, and respond to domestic violent extremism.

In addition, the Department of Defense is incorporating training for servicemembers separating or retiring from the military, who may potentially be targeted by those who seek to radicalize them.

We will work to improve public awareness of federal resources to address concerning or threatening behavior before violence occurs. And on that, I would just note that one of the things we?re talking about is the need to do something in this space, like the ?See something? ? ?If you see something, say something? concept that has been promulgated previously by DHS. This involves creating contexts in which those who are family members or friends or co-workers know that there are pathways and avenues to raise concerns and seek help for those who they have perceived to be radicalizing and potentially radicalizing towards violence.​

More mind control, divisiveness, and deception. If we are fighting amongst ourselves, we can?t then resist the inexorable force of governance for governance?s sake. We are this much of an inconvenience to the people who claim to serve us.

EDIT: And technology companies are more-than-willing accomplices:

Finally, you asked about tech companies, and it?s an important part of the strategy because a great deal of the relevant recruitment, radicalization, mobilization to violence does happen online. Again, that?s not me saying that; that?s the experts and professionalswho assessed that in that March 2021 report assessment and continue to assess that.​

Yes, the ?experts and professionals? who are ever anonymously cited.

So, there are a number of ways in which we?re trying to augment our efforts to get at that challenge. One is by enhancing, augmenting the information-sharing the government does with tech companies so as to facilitate their more assertive voluntary enforcement of their terms of service on their platforms to protect other users from those who might pose threats of violence.​

I expect that this means more surveillance, not less.

We, as a government, see different things from what any particular tech company might see. Any particular tech company often knows its own platform very well. But the government sees things ? actually, threats of violence ? across platforms. They see the relationship between online recruitment, radicalization, and violence in the physical world.​

Remember, government is stocked with the brightest and the best. We need to be thankful for that.

And so, helping to illuminate these threats is a process that has already begun between the government and the tech sector. And it will continue, again, specifically on this issue set, given the priority we?re placing in addressing it.​

Anyone wondering why the tech sector is so eager to co-operate with ?government??

Link

Link

As we quarrel, debate, and disagree with each other, the Powers Who Are consider all of us who critically think as an obstacle to their scheme of global control. The electronic prison that is being erected about us is being sold as ?more bandwidth!? ?Faster streaming and upload speeds!? ?Less privacy and more monitoring!? (Wait, not. That.)

I don?t think the goal is to get us to fight amongst ourselves so much as it is to label the opposition as extremists and terrorists who can then be suppressed. People actually believe that domestic terrorism is the biggest threat facing the US. The DOJ gets to say that because they know a huge percent of the population will accept it without asking for any evidence. This whole planned insurrection narrative is literally falling apart yet the messaging is intact because a few cops cried in front of congress. That?s all it takes.

 

[byco42]

I don?t think the goal is to get us to fight amongst ourselves so much as it is to label the opposition as extremists and terrorists who can then be suppressed. People actually believe that domestic terrorism is the biggest threat facing the US. The DOJ gets to say that because they know a huge percent of the population will accept it without asking for any evidence. This whole planned insurrection narrative is literally falling apart yet the messaging is intact because a few cops cried in front of congress. That?s all it takes.

We always seem to need to have an enemy that someone else identifies.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I?m thinking of re-naming this thread to Culture Thread: Libtards and Republitards are Killing the US.

 

[Michchamp]

I don?t think the goal is to get us to fight amongst ourselves so much as it is to label the opposition as extremists and terrorists who can then be suppressed. People actually believe that domestic terrorism is the biggest threat facing the US. The DOJ gets to say that because they know a huge percent of the population will accept it without asking for any evidence. This whole planned insurrection narrative is literally falling apart yet the messaging is intact because a few cops cried in front of congress. That?s all it takes.

You don't think the goal is to get people to fight amongst themselves? No, That's just the consistent result of this approach going back several decades. They're just getting more blatant and sloppy about it... with their informants getting caught doing other bad things, like the wife beater in MI.

 

[Michchamp]

I?m thinking of re-naming this thread to Culture Thread: Libtards and Republitards are Killing the US.

the Republitards will struggle with that. It's different when they do it, you see.

Cops and Feds only lie when infiltrating Right wing protests & riots, but tell the truth when they claim "Antifa" or "BLM" knocked over a phone booth or broke a store window and they have to beat everyone and conduct mass arrests of everyone on the street. and they never use informants against Left wing movements, no sir...

 

[tinselwolverine]

the Republitards will struggle with that. It's different when they do it, you see.

Cops and Feds only lie when infiltrating Right wing protests & riots, but tell the truth when they claim "Antifa" or "BLM" knocked over a phone booth or broke a store window and they have to beat everyone and conduct mass arrests of everyone on the street. and they never use informants against Left wing movements, no sir...

I think of libtards and Republitards as being boiler plate, talking points tardisans?I guess when libtards and Republitards are on the same page, we could call that bitardisanship?

 

[byco42]

I think of libtards and Republitards as being boiler plate, talking points tardisans?I guess when libtards and Republitards are on the same page, we could call that bitardisanship?

Repub-lib-tards.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Repub-lib-tards.

Fiscally conservative and socially liberal?

How about libertardian?