When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Is she saying white people can't be fat? Surely not. Black people have a monopoly on poor eating discipline and laziness? Surely not. Is she saying it is a term not employed by black people to describe weight? Surely not. Is she saying she is significantly under-educated and confused by common vocabulary? Probably.
Is she saying white people can't be fat? Surely not. Black people have a monopoly on poor eating discipline and laziness? Surely not. Is she saying it is a term not employed by black people to describe weight? Surely not. Is she saying she is significantly under-educated and confused by common vocabulary? Probably.
I am being 100% serious here: I really can't figure out how that statement can be interpreted in a way in which it makes sense.
Truthfully, I think we've reached a tipping point at which claiming discrimination has become the automatic go-to for... pretty much anything.
I'm nearly certain that if a gay, black female were to walk into a random building with a knife and start stabbing people, and after her arrest she were to say that the use of the term "murderer" is offensive, triggering, otherizing, anti-gay and anti-black, that she'd have supporters.
it's 2019. Everything is anti-black. Black people are not responsible for their own actions, anything negative toward the black race is the fault of someone else. Anything positive is because they used to be kangz n ****.
it's 2019. Everything is anti-black. Black people are not responsible for their own actions, anything negative toward the black race is the fault of someone else. Anything positive is because they used to be kangz n ****.
I think you're being a little too specific.
Everything in 2019 is anti-Victim, where the definition of "victim" is "anyone who is not a straight white male."
"Gay, non-white female" merely happens to score the ultimate trifecta of victimhood. Like when the token in checkers makes it to the opposite end of the board and you have to stack another piece on top of it, then it makes it back to the end where it started, and you have to stack a €2 coin on top of that, except that it's not a a real €2 coin, because when you inspect the backside, you notice that it has the words "Omnis Victima Est" above a stunningly realistic engraving of King Neptune impaling a starfish upon a Pickelhaube worn by Otto von Bismarck.
Same deal. Now the piece can move not just back and forth, but side to side and up and down on the Z-axis as well. It no longer has to obey the normal rules of social behavior checkers.
The only way she could have improved her multiplier would have been to claim to be trans / nonbinary. But beyond a certain point, there's no need to run up the score unnecessarily. .
Anything positive is because they used to be kangz n ****.
I have seen some of them walking around with Egyptian referenced garb on. I guess they are claiming Egyptian culture and the pyramids although the greatest structures built prior to colonialism in sub-Saharan West Africa were thatched huts. That is akin to the Navajo laying claim to the Mayan civilization and its accomplishments.
One only needs to claim the accomplishments of others as a badge of their own if they are doing nothing for themselves.
My lineage contains farmers, soldiers, merchants, and alcoholics. But so what if they were Kings instead and I was a Nigerian prince? Would it make you finally respond to my emailed pleas?
CA Democrats Introduce LGBTQ Bill that would Protect Pedophiles who Rape Children
Editor’s Note: It’s becoming more apparent with each passing day that another kind of purported sexual orientation is being pushed as normative, Pedophilia. Last year, Mirjam Heine, a German medical student gave a TEDxTalk “Why perception of pedophilia has to change.” Included in her basic premise, “pedophilia is an unchangeable sexual orientation just like, for example, heterosexuality. No one chooses to be a pedophile, no one can cease being one.” To assert that it’s not only like “heterosexuality,” but also “unchangeable” is deeply disturbing.
As you’ll find in the following article, one aim to normalize it is to begin with “LBGTQ” youth with an attempt to stop the registration of sex offenders if they’re found guilty of “specified” sex crimes and if the “offender is no more than ten years older than of the minor.”
...
However, under their bill, SB 145, the offenders would not have to automatically register as sex offenders if the offenders are within 10 years of age of the minor.
Wiener claims the current law “disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse.”
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, amended by Proposition 35 by voters in 2012 (Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery), requires a person convicted of a certain sex crime to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California.
Wiener says, “Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, ‘sexual intercourse’ (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and ---- intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.”
“This bill would authorize a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors to seek discretionary relief from the duty to register if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor,” SB 145 states.
Proposition 35 was created and passed to protect children from sexual exploitation and sex trafficking. Victims of sex trafficking are often vulnerable children, “afraid for their lives and abused—sexually, physically, and mentally,” the Proposition said.
What Does SB 145 Also Do?
Legislators Wiener and Eggman say they are trying to shield LGBT young people from having to automatically register as sex offenders for specified sex crimes. But their bill does much more.
SB 145 would allow a sex offender who lures a minor with the intent to commit a felony (i.e. a sex act) the ability to escape registering as a sex offender as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor. No specification is made as to whether the sexual offender is straight or LGBT.
SB 145 would add a section to the state’s penal code (Section 290.55) stipulating that as long as the offender is “not more than 10 years older than the minor,” they are not automatically mandated to register as a sex offender. There is no age limit or range specified, except for existing law which already excludes lewd acts with childrenunder 14.
SB 145 appears to allow adults to victimize minors by luring them with the intent to have sex, and then shields the predator from being automatically registered as a sex offender, as in the case of a 25 year old luring a 15 year old for sex, or a 22 year old luring a 12 year old.
SB 145, as currently written, appears to allow certain sexual predators to live among the population without anyone being aware.
I have seen some of them walking around with Egyptian referenced garb on. I guess they are claiming Egyptian culture and the pyramids although the greatest structures built prior to colonialism in sub-Saharan West Africa were thatched huts. That is akin to the Navajo laying claim to the Mayan civilization and its accomplishments.
One only needs to claim the accomplishments of others as a badge of their own if they are doing nothing for themselves.
Africa is a pretty cool place -- it's filled with tribes with advanced technology they developed themselves.
and by advance technology, i mean farms stolen from white people and ditches for toilets/baths.
The ultimate goal of liberals is to normalize and decriminalize pedophilia:
That seems like a rather... unimpressive ultimate goal.
Like, ultimate goals are supposed to be stuff like "I want to rule the world" or "I want to have all of the hot dogs" or "I want everyone to love and respect me" or "I want to kill the Bat Man."
Impressive stuff that makes people take notice, and which benefits you in some way.
Saying "I want people to think that peadophilia is normal" is just weak. Where's the benefit? How do you capitalize on that?
This distinction in the law — which is irrational, at best — disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse. For example, if an 18 year old straight man has vaginal intercourse with his 17 year old girlfriend, he is guilty of a crime, but he is not automatically required to register as a sex offender; instead, the judge will decide based on the facts of the case whether registration is warranted. By contrast, if an 18 year old gay man has sex with his 17 year old boyfriend, the judge *must* place him on the sex offender registry, no matter what the circumstances.
One link away from your source. Seems like quite a sensible plan. Your source is obviously very colored. The proposal states that a judge can decide to not place someone on the register if he deems the circumstances to allow it, and the age difference is a maximum of 10 years.
Braineack, your work on miata's and megasquirts proves that you are a smart guy. Yet you are able to call roughly 50% of your fellow countrymen 'simple disgusting people'. To me that is absolutely mind-boggling.
Braineack, your work on miata's and megasquirts proves that you are a smart guy. Yet you are able to call roughly 50% of your fellow countrymen 'simple disgusting people'. To me that is absolutely mind-boggling.
Don't ever be surprised when Brainey gets going on an ill-informed political rant. Everyone who does not bow at the throne of God-Emperor Cheeto is, by definition, a Satan-worshiping child rapist who talks loudly at the theater.
Other (unrelated) things which apparently make people (and organizations) evil include advocating for privacy. Take the following, for instance. If Brainey were posting this, he'd lead with the claim that Mozilla supports child-pornographers! Which, of course, is one extreme edge-case example of the sorts of things that people might do if government weren't peering over their shoulder. It's the old "Oh, but think of the children" argument which can be used to strawman a case against pretty much anything.
ISPs call Mozilla ‘Internet Villain’ for promoting DNS privacy
The UK Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) has provocatively shortlisted Mozilla for the sort of award that, on the face of it at least, no tech company should be keen to win – ‘2019’s Internet Villain’.
Mozilla’s claim to infamy? From ISPA’s point of view, it’s Firefox’s imminent inclusion of DNS over HTTPS (DoH) – a technology many experts endorse as the biggest jump for internet privacy since the expansion of HTTPS itself.
The problem, according to the ISPA press release, is that the arrival of this technology in the Firefox browser used by millions will make it possible to "Bypass UK filtering obligations and parental controls, undermining internet safety standards in the UK."
The point of DoH (and the related DNS over TLS, or DoT) is to encrypt DNS requests, which makes it impossible, or at least very difficult, for entities such as ISPs or governments tomonitor which websites people are visiting. And because the DNS requests are sent inside encrypted HTTPS requests they’re also indistinguishable from other web traffic, so they can’t be blocked without blocking all web traffic.
To privacy enthusiasts, this is good because neither ISPs nor governments have any business knowing which domains users happen to frequent.
For ISPs, by contrast, DoH hands them several headaches, including how to fulfil their legal obligation in the UK to store a year’s worth of each subscriber’s internet visits in case the government wants to study them later for evidence of criminal activity.
Years in the making, this is a collision foretold. One side (Mozilla and Cloudflare, the latter providing the DoH resolution that supports the whole endeavor) thinks that internet privacy is an immutable principle that demands a technical solution, the other (governments, police and at least one anti-child abuse campaign group) think that privacy carries risks that must always be qualified through intervention.
Privacy conundrum
The arguments against DoH are technically involved but focus on one central objection.
For ISPs to block undesirable websites (child abuse, terrorism, copyright infringement, etc) they must filter traffic using a domain blacklist. Anything that successfully hides the domains people are visiting makes that approach redundant.
However, as has been pointed out, this layer of filtering can already be bypassed by visiting domains ISPs haven’t added to their blacklists, including ones hosted on the dark web that are only accessible using a browser like Tor.
Then there’s the small problem of VPNs, which not only hide DNS from surveillance but can also hide the user’s geolocation, with the result that they are also a simple way to beat the UK’s forthcoming and contentious law requiring age verification for anyone visiting a **** site (which DoH itself has no effect on, despite claims to the contrary).
The direction of travel is unmistakable – the ways for web users to hide their web habits are growing in number and becoming more affordable, including by using simpler domain shielding tools such as Cloudflare’s 1.1.1.1 app (which will soon be bundled into a full VPN called Warp) or Google’s equivalent, Intra.
DoH inside Firefox, then, is simply a technology that turns this kind of privacy into something anyone can access without having to do anything.
The danger in the publicity-seeking approach chosen by ISPA is it ends up becoming a victim of the ‘Streisand effect’ – by complaining about it, ISPA may be encouraging the very thing it’s setting out to deter.
The reverse effect applies to Mozilla, which, privately, may not be too upset at being called out for implementing DoH, a technology it has not only strongly advocated but which has powerful backing of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in the form of RFC 8484.
Arguably, spying on which domains people visit was always an easy fix to impress politicians that dodged a lot of messier but more effective ways to track bad people in a targeted way.
If the ISPA and its members want to find a way out of this hole, they could do worse than invest time explaining the new realities to disappointed, frustrated lawmakers.
Oh, and I forgot to make a joke I'd been thinking about earlier. The term "African-American" is preferred these days. Calling someone "colored" is kind of Jim Crow...
Braineack, your work on miata's and megasquirts proves that you are a smart guy. Yet you are able to call roughly 50% of your fellow countrymen 'simple disgusting people'. To me that is absolutely mind-boggling.
but am I wrong?
Everyone who does not bow at the throne of God-Emperor Cheeto is, by definition, a Satan-worshiping child rapist who talks loudly at the theater.
but am I wrong?
Every day, liberals get to say whatever vile bullshit they want. Can't handle it when its coming back from the right? Would it have been better if I called them deplorable for all wanting to have sex with minors, and then when caught try to link Trump?
Assuming a literal interpretation, yes. I don't believe it's accurate to say that anyone who isn't a member of the Church of the Almighty Cheeto must be a child-rapist. It's no secret that I'm not really a huge Trump fan, but that doesn't mean that I am therefore an evil liberal. I'm actually quite politically conservative in many ways.
Originally Posted by Braineack
Every day, liberals get to say whatever vile bullshit they want. Can't handle it when its coming back from the right?
Oh, and I forgot to make a joke I'd been thinking about earlier. The term "African-American" is preferred these days. Calling someone "colored" is kind of Jim Crow...
07-09-2019, 12:32 PM
0
