Search results for:

All my heroes ride full pelt into the back of JCBs.

Which, yeah, big surprise about how much of a nob he rides like.

Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzGiY81-lRE#!

New forum deserves a happy elephant gif

Yup. It's pretty great. Looks especially nice on my phone.

Geography is hard!

How do I ignore people?

Where's the ignore function? Dear god, where is the ignore function?!

Poor stupid Eejit.

The Times of Israel is also awesome. In a completely different way. Hot on the back of their quickly deleted blog 'When genocide is permissable', they bring us the equally as awful but in a very different way 'Does this war make me look fat?'

It must be fun working for their editorial team.

I'm a twat and so's my wife!

I like it! 'Sure, I signed you up to a bunch of porn mailing lists. But you're the asshole, buddy!'

You need a lot of guts to take a position like that. Guts or a complete lack of self-awareness. Or both.

www.sadtrombone.com

No. His point - if he has one - is to repeat hasbara talking points so that he can come to a false conclusion about how both sides are just as bad as each other and he can sit smugly in the political centre like the hack that he is.

At its very core, this is a tribal religious conflict[/URL]

I mean, this is bullshit. Yes, there's a tribal element to it. And yes, Zionism is religiously motivated colonialism, and that is part of the problem. But to reduce the Palestinian side of the conflict to 'religious tribalism' is to ignore this:

And therefore be a massive cock.

Doctrines are an expression of man's will to power, not the cause of it.

You were on far stronger ground with this. This was a smart thing to say.

And so what, he posted some links? Half his article is fucking spurious nonsense. He lambasts Hamas for using human shields, but completely neglects to mention that there is far more evidence for Israel using human shields than there is for Hamas. He asks 'why would Israel deliberately kill civilians?' and comes to the conclusion that it wouldn't! Loooool! He claims that the occupation of Gaza ended in 2005 - shame the fucking UN or the international law community doesn't agree with him on that one.

The whole article is literally paragraphs of lies, half-truths and half-cocked fantasies that lead up to a fucking strawman conclusion:

So you really don't have to choose between being "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestine." If you support secularism, democracy, and a two-state solution -- and you oppose Hamas, settlement expansion, and the occupation

which is just self-aggrandising 'look at me I'm so rational and centrist' bullshit. I support secularism, democracy and a two state solution. I don't agree with Hamas' tactics, I oppose settlement expansion and the occupation. And yet somehow I manage to be pro-Palestinian. How strange.

Yep. I'm unashamed to say that I'm on the side of the people who are the victims of a racist, colonial state. I'm also unashamed to say that I'm sick of reading propaganda dressed up as neutral, ideology-free reportage.

I mean, look at point 1 there. You'd have to be thick as shit to think that was a balanced point. I'm not saying there's no anti-semitism in the Arab world, but the way it posits that as the only possible reason that Sunni and Shia would unite in support of the Palestinian cause is borderline racist. You think maybe Sunni and Shia wouldn't also unite because they both have recent historical experiences of the injustice of colonialisation? Or because they fucking hate the USA and Israel is obviously a US client state? Nah...couldn't be that, could it? Must be because the fucking darkies are barbarian Jew haters. Only possible reason.

Fuck that guy.

By which, I mean the author of the article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/picking-a-side-in-israel-palestine_b_5602701.html

This was a pretty strong, balanced article I thought.

Makes my comments about religion look pretty stupid, with a few choice quotes from the Koran.

Balanced? Looooool! I read that article the other day. A more accurate headline would've been '7 things (some of which I just made up whilst taking a shit) to consider before deciding to support Israel in this conflict'.

I mean, it claims that Israel ended the occupation of Gaza in 2005. No. They withdrew settlers and troops in 2005. That doesn't mean the occupation ended. It just means that the flavour of it changed. They still control the airspace, the airwaves, the borders, the registration of births/deaths/etc., the import export of goods. Fuck, I could go on. And that's just one fucking stupid point out of seven stupid points. Fuck that guy.

The ignore option! I forgot about the ignore option. For so long I just thought of it as a way of silencing Jeez, so much so that I forgot it could be used on other people.

Goodbye EdwardZ. No more of your weird racist undertones for me.

Amazing.

I think part of it is also the fact that the justice system - from the police to the courts - is so appallingly shit at taking rape seriously and prosecuting it successfully.

So, to go back to your original example of the advice to lock your doors when you go out or you might get burgled. Imagine you lived in a society where burglary was rife and no fucker - from the police to the courts - did anything about it. All you got was bombarded with messages to lock your doors, and god did you really think it was a good idea to go on holiday without putting a timer on your lights, and maybe you were asking for it anyway with only that flimsy yale lock on? You'd be pretty fucked off at the general tone of the conversation.

Basically, we live in a culture where a shit ton of guys think it's ok to rape (or don't even really know what rape is or what consent consists of), and instead of tackling that problem society spends its time telling women to modify their behaviour because that's the much easier option. And because of patriarchy, obvs.