Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Or what he is peddling to Incels.

Plagiarized with amusement.

Women wear red lipstick because "the lips turn red during sexual arousal" and therefore women do it solely to sexually titillate men, and therefore any workplace where women wear red lipstick is inherently sexual and thus all bets are off and it's open season on sexual behavior (he claims he does not mean to imply this, yet he then goes on to say that he believes that women have some culpability for sexualizing in the workplace by this meager definition - still others insist that he never said that, in which case I might ask what the point of this observation even is? If nobody is responsible for it and he is not suggesting that any course of action is necessary that would incorporate this knowledge in any way, then why bring it up?)

In addition, men sexually harassing women in the workplace is actually women's fault because they wear makeup, which of course is only ever done for the express purpose of sexually titillating men (this is news to me as a male who doesn't find makeup attractive, and whose SO has only ever worn light makeup to an interview to appear clean and professional)

Also high heels are a secret ploy by women to attract men just so they can manipulate men ("silly cuck he doesn't use the word 'secret ploy,' he only said that women deliberately manipulate men using sex! That's totally different!)

When asked what we should do about these things, he suggests, "The Maoists gave everyone uniforms to keep this thing from happening," implying that the only "solutions" are to either (A) go full-blown Communist China, or (B) just allow literally everything and hold nobody accountable for their actions in the workplace. This is clever, but in an extremely sinister way - he's insinuating that communism and sexual harassment are two sides of the same coin. This is borderline newspeak levels of manipulative. Of course his defenders claim that he isn't doing this on purpose. But if you look at it in any other context then this comment seems out of place - he's extremely anti-communist so it's obvious that he's not advocating this course of action unironically, and if he is being ironic then the point is that he's satirizing the idea that people should try to control these behaviors as some kind of totalitarian collectivism. So what does he "actually mean," then?)

We as a society are "deteriorating rapidly" as a direct result of men and women working together because of this "provocation"

Sexual harassment in the workplace won't stop because "We don't know the rules" (literally just don't take any action which connotes a sense of entitlement to another person's personal space or body, it's literally that simple, I've been doing this for more than a decade and I've never once even been accused of sexual harassment and I've never felt inclined to do so)

Good Lord, I addressed all of this a long time ago, in a thread far far away.

I'll address it again when I'm not dealing with engineering homework.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Good Lord, I addressed all of this a long time ago, in a thread far far away.

I'll address it again when I'm not dealing with engineering homework. good stuff, my little lobster.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Good Lord, I addressed all of this a long time ago, in a thread far far away.

I'll address it again when I'm not dealing with engineering homework.


Simply quote your post like a boss would do. Don't bother re-typing points you've already made.

Also, I'm super smart. Because Whirly left a clue at the beginning of the post so I won't fall for his copy-paste from that degenerate Facebook fan-page. WEEEE!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Simply quote your post like a boss would do. Don't bother re-typing points you've already made. shush... It clearly needs to fully fit the narrative DDM.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, I'm super smart. Because Whirly left a clue at the beginning of the post so I won't fall for his copy-paste from that degenerate Facebook fan-page. WEEEE! This is a similar reddit page I read...

The point Jordan Peterson is making is that there's an acceptable level of sexual tension in the workplace. If people say there is no acceptable level of sexual tension in the workplace to the point where even hugging shouldn't be allowed then women shouldn't dress in a way that accentuates their sexual characteristics, and that such a thing is clearly a repressive solution. He's not saying "either anything goes or maoist china with uniforms" he's advocating for a middle ground.

The point he was making about the rules isn't that things like sexual assault or blatant harassment are justifiable, it's that there's obviously blurred lines where it isn't obvious.

Take for example a joke of a sexual nature that when told among a group of exclusively male coworkers doesn't constitute sexual harassment, and is what it is, a joke. If you introduce a woman into the group does it suddenly become sexual harassment if she is not the object of the joke? Does it become sexual harassment based on whether or not she subjectively takes offense to it?

What about a level of flirtation? If some really hot guy flirts with a girl and she's into it, that's not sexual harassment. But if some fat weird looking neckbeard does exactly the same thing and she's not into it is that suddenly sexual harassment? How do you know if someone's into it or not without trying? The point of flirtation is to see if the other person is into you.

Or take comments on someone's appearance for example. If a guy compliments a female coworker on her appearance is that harassment? How is that determined? Is it based on the level of offense she takes? Is that objectification to take interest in someone else's appearance? If nobody is supposed to take any interest in your appearance, why dress yourself up?

Is it not the behavior but whether or not someone takes offense to the behavior? Because that is in fact an impossible and subjective standard to set policy around.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Good Lord, I addressed all of this a long time ago, in a thread far far away.

I'll address it again when I'm not dealing with engineering homework.

Why bother? He's just a troll who is butthurt that JP is better than him.

We have a thread for this!

has jp actually helped any of these young fragile men to get laid, or is he just about justifying sexism/sexual harrassment/rape?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
has jp actually helped any of these young fragile men to get laid, or is he just about justifying sexism/sexual harrassment/rape?

I would imagine bringing up JP's talking points on a first date would act as a vaginal repellent to most women and the date would be both the first and last.

JP helped himself to advertising revenue and money.

Hell of a scam, JP.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
The point Jordan Peterson is making is that there's an acceptable level of sexual tension in the workplace. If people say there is no acceptable level of sexual tension in the workplace to the point where even hugging shouldn't be allowed then women shouldn't dress in a way that accentuates their sexual characteristics, and that such a thing is clearly a repressive solution. He's not saying "either anything goes or maoist china with uniforms" he's advocating for a middle ground.

The point he was making about the rules isn't that things like sexual assault or blatant harassment are justifiable, it's that there's obviously blurred lines where it isn't obvious.

Take for example a joke of a sexual nature that when told among a group of exclusively male coworkers doesn't constitute sexual harassment, and is what it is, a joke. If you introduce a woman into the group does it suddenly become sexual harassment if she is not the object of the joke? Does it become sexual harassment based on whether or not she subjectively takes offense to it?

What about a level of flirtation? If some really hot guy flirts with a girl and she's into it, that's not sexual harassment. But if some fat weird looking neckbeard does exactly the same thing and she's not into it is that suddenly sexual harassment? How do you know if someone's into it or not without trying? The point of flirtation is to see if the other person is into you.

Or take comments on someone's appearance for example. If a guy compliments a female coworker on her appearance is that harassment? How is that determined? Is it based on the level of offense she takes? Is that objectification to take interest in someone else's appearance? If nobody is supposed to take any interest in your appearance, why dress yourself up?

Is it not the behavior but whether or not someone takes offense to the behavior? Because that is in fact an impossible and subjective standard to set policy around.

I will answer every one of your questions:

Q: Take for example a joke of a sexual nature that when told among a group of exclusively male coworkers doesn't constitute sexual harassment, and is what it is, a joke. If you introduce a woman into the group does it suddenly become sexual harassment if she is not the object of the joke? Does it become sexual harassment based on whether or not she subjectively takes offense to it?
A: No. But if she says those jokes make her uncomfortable and they continue to tell them around her, that becomes sexual harassment and most companies would put them on disciplinary action up to and including termination.

Q: What about a level of flirtation? If some really hot guy flirts with a girl and she's into it, that's not sexual harassment. But if some fat weird looking neckbeard does exactly the same thing and she's not into it is that suddenly sexual harassment?
A: No. It only becomes sexual harassment if she declines but he continues. Hence the word "harassment." One offer to pursue a romantic relationship and then done. Also, the offer cannot be sexually explicit, either. You cannot say, "Let's bang after work." That's goes straight to sexual harassment as it goes beyond any normal human decency to expect that be okay in the workplace.

Q: How do you know if someone's into it or not without trying? The point of flirtation is to see if the other person is into you.
A: How about not being an idiot at work and keeping it professional? Why not try that? Seems easier to do. But if you cannot resist, see my previous answer. Ask once. If declined, don't ask again: ever again.

Q: If nobody is supposed to take any interest in your appearance, why dress yourself up?
A: This one is easy and I already covered it in depth. Better looking, more success. It's that simple.

Q: 1. Or take comments on someone's appearance for example. If a guy compliments a female coworker on her appearance is that harassment? 2. How is that determined? Is it based on the level of offense she takes? Is that objectification to take interest in someone else's appearance? If nobody is supposed to take any interest in your appearance, why dress yourself up?
A: 1. Depends on the compliment. "That blouse makes your boobs look great." No. "That blouse looks great." Yes. That's okay. This is extremely obvious to anyone who is not an idiot. But overly complimenting someone can take it too far. 10 compliments on someone's appearance each day can constitute harassment. Perhaps not sexual. But harassment. 2. Covered this already.

Q: Is it not the behavior but whether or not someone takes offense to the behavior?
A: Yes. Covered this already. If they don't like it, don't do it. Don't be sexually explicit ever. If you continue after being told to stop, that's harassment. If it is in pursuit of a relationship, that's sexual harassment. And if she's scared of you even after one attempt and you get talked to by HR, that's her choice as well (she doesn't have to ever give you a hard "no" or hard decline. She may even feel too scared to reject you and go straight to HR - that's the risk you take trying to puruse a relationship with someone at work you (no "EmperorDMB" you, ambiguous you) dumbass).

Q: Because that is in fact an impossible and subjective standard to set policy around.
A: Wrong. Policy is set in place already. Works very well. Companies also have "no relationship" policies or "must disclose relationships to HR" policies to protect themselves from idiots who don't know how to calm down at work.



Here's the key takeaway from your questions that you're missing that makes everything make sense:

Ask with tact and professionalism just once. If declined, never try again. Ever. Also, you risk getting into trouble for even trying once depending on company policy. Best Advice is to not pursue relationships while at work.



Check it out: I've never had to go talk to anyone in HR, ever, about sexual harassment. I've never had to go to HR about my romantic relationships in the work place (avoided them). And I've been working in the adult world a very long time. I'm very healthy - definitely a red-blooded man. And there are plenty of very attractive women in the work place wherever I work. But here's my secret: my libido has not place in the workplace because I'm not a dumbass.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I will answer every one of your questions:

Q: Take for example a joke of a sexual nature that when told among a group of exclusively male coworkers doesn't constitute sexual harassment, and is what it is, a joke. If you introduce a woman into the group does it suddenly become sexual harassment if she is not the object of the joke? Does it become sexual harassment based on whether or not she subjectively takes offense to it?
A: No. But if she says those jokes make her uncomfortable and they continue to tell them around her, that becomes sexual harassment and most companies would put them on disciplinary action up to and including termination.

Q: What about a level of flirtation? If some really hot guy flirts with a girl and she's into it, that's not sexual harassment. But if some fat weird looking neckbeard does exactly the same thing and she's not into it is that suddenly sexual harassment?
A: No. It only becomes sexual harassment if she declines but he continues. Hence the word "harassment." One offer to pursue a romantic relationship and then done. Also, the offer cannot be sexually explicit, either. You cannot say, "Let's bang after work." That's goes straight to sexual harassment as it goes beyond any normal human decency to expect that be okay in the workplace.

Q: How do you know if someone's into it or not without trying? The point of flirtation is to see if the other person is into you.
A: How about not being an idiot at work and keeping it professional? Why not try that? Seems easier to do. But if you cannot resist, see my previous answer. Ask once. If declined, don't ask again: ever again.

Q: If nobody is supposed to take any interest in your appearance, why dress yourself up?
A: This one is easy and I already covered it in depth. Better looking, more success. It's that simple.

Q: 1. Or take comments on someone's appearance for example. If a guy compliments a female coworker on her appearance is that harassment? 2. How is that determined? Is it based on the level of offense she takes? Is that objectification to take interest in someone else's appearance? If nobody is supposed to take any interest in your appearance, why dress yourself up?
A: 1. Depends on the compliment. "That blouse makes your boobs look great." No. "That blouse looks great." Yes. That's okay. This is extremely obvious to anyone who is not an idiot. But overly complimenting someone can take it too far. 10 compliments on someone's appearance each day can constitute harassment. Perhaps not sexual. But harassment. 2. Covered this already.

Q: Is it not the behavior but whether or not someone takes offense to the behavior?
A: Yes. Covered this already. If they don't like it, don't do it. Don't be sexually explicit ever. If you continue after being told to stop, that's harassment. If it is in pursuit of a relationship, that's sexual harassment. And if she's scared of you even after one attempt and you get talked to by HR, that's her choice as well (she doesn't have to ever give you a hard "no" or hard decline. She may even feel too scared to reject you and go straight to HR - that's the risk you take trying to puruse a relationship with someone at work you (no "EmperorDMB" you, ambiguous you) dumbass).

Q: Because that is in fact an impossible and subjective standard to set policy around.
A: Wrong. Policy is set in place already. Works very well. Companies also have "no relationship" policies or "must disclose relationships to HR" policies to protect themselves from idiots who don't know how to calm down at work.



Here's the key takeaway from your questions that you're missing that makes everything make sense:

Ask with tact and professionalism just once. If declined, never try again. Ever. Also, you risk getting into trouble for even trying once depending on company policy. Best Advice is to not pursue relationships while at work.



Check it out: I've never had to go talk to anyone in HR, ever, about sexual harassment. I've never had to go to HR about my romantic relationships in the work place (avoided them). And I've been working in the adult world a very long time. I'm very healthy - definitely a red-blooded man. And there are plenty of very attractive women in the work place wherever I work. But here's my secret: my libido has not place in the workplace because I'm not a dumbass.
That is a reasonable medium and not the subject of criticism.

The point was about overzealous HR departments who are so afraid of this shit they're willing to ban hugging between coworkers. Or people who instead of just telling the person to stop will immediately go to HR and get the whole thing blown into something it wasn't.

The point wasn't that there should be no rules or standards, the point was that HR departments have gone power mad with those standards.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
That is a reasonable medium and not the subject of criticism.

The point was about overzealous HR departments who are so afraid of this shit they're willing to ban hugging between coworkers. Or people who instead of just telling the person to stop will immediately go to HR and get the whole thing blown into something it wasn't.

The point wasn't that there should be no rules or standards, the point was that HR departments have gone power mad with those standards.

Maaaaaaaan....hugs at work? Physically grabbing someone into an embrace?


Save those for your grandma during the holidays. Kiss her cheeks as well (Just lost mine - miss her dearly). Hold her hands when you walk her to sit down, too.



But at work? Dude...no...stop...don't...


I say let the women hug you if they want. Make sure you let all of your coworkers know that you are an affectionate person and hug freely but have to stifle yourself at work. Then your corworkers will know it is okay to hug you.


But, except for pats on the bug, fist-bumps, and handshakes...no! stop! don't! Leave your coworkers' bodies alone!!!


Edit - I would hug you at work, DMB, if you said you were a hugger. Don't worry, I'd still show you love. But the occasion would be rare. Maybe if you were transferring, quitting, or going on a lengthy vacation?

I'm sorry for your loss DDM

I'm sorry for your loss, too. Thoughts and prayers.

And into ddm's point:

During my school days, I worked on an educational video for grade schoolers. This one incident happened, and the kids embraced to make up.

And the teachers immediately pulled them apart, like they were parents looking after drunken frat kids. And admonished their behavior.

That is one of the saddest things I remember from that era. The kids just learned that well meant, genuine affection is wrong.

But on the bright side. They now teach kindergartners that their Gender can be controlled via the Power oF..

https://media.giphy.com/media/QIiqoufLNmWo8/giphy.gif

nobody would confuse you for an intellectual, putinbot

Originally posted by Valkorion
nobody would confuse you for an intellectual, putinbot get a degree and a job kid.

lmao you're a thirty/forty something year old with 2358 sock accounts including a false flag sock account you made pretending to flame yourself, and you're calling others out for not having lives

I'm calling you out for not having a degree, job or girlfriend kid.

Originally posted by Valkorion
lmao you're a thirty/forty something year old

No, he's older than that.

I still love seeing JP rustle the jimmies of people here. His mere existence seems to cause them pain. *dances to the tune of their cries*

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, he's older than that.

Why I oughta...

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, he's older than that.

Why I oughta...

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Why I oughta...

And you could because I'm only a wee 13 stone.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And you could because I'm only a wee 13 stone. You're in very good shape though and quite sexy if I may say so DDM.

Seriously contemplating eye bag removal btw... Is that too vain?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Seriously contemplating eye bag removal btw... Is that too vain?

Nah. If you have the money, live your life. Enjoy it. Be vain. I think it's possible to be vain and selfless. In fact, I think it's easy. People confuse vanity for selfishness. But it doesn't necessary have to be so.


Also, I think eye-bags really make a person look older. You can have crows-feet but little to no eye-bags and look "youthful." A feeling of youth comes from the eyes. You can be very old but have a youthful vigorous look about you because of the feeling your eyes give others when making eye contact.

So as far as investments go into vanity, probably eye-bag removal would be a great investment. Money well spent.

The other areas, you're already doing well: body and fitness. I think there's no better way to maintain youth than to look fit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think there's no better way to maintain youth than to look fit.

^Clearly has never bathed in baby blood.

Putin just find a 20 yr. old and pay him to give you blood transfusions. The younger blood with revitalize you. It works with rats.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah. If you have the money, live your life. Enjoy it. Be vain. I think it's possible to be vain and selfless. In fact, I think it's easy. People confuse vanity for selfishness. But it doesn't necessary have to be so.


Also, I think eye-bags really make a person look older. You can have crows-feet but little to no eye-bags and look "youthful." A feeling of youth comes from the eyes. You can be very old but have a youthful vigorous look about you because of the feeling your eyes give others when making eye contact.

So as far as investments go into vanity, probably eye-bag removal would be a great investment. Money well spent.

The other areas, you're already doing well: body and fitness. I think there's no better way to maintain youth than to look fit. To be honest I agree, fit and healthy is key. Would love to be able to use chemotherapy after training but I Africa it just isn't possible.

Originally posted by Surtur
Putin just find a 20 yr. old and pay him to give you blood transfusions. The younger blood with revitalize you. It works with rats. interestingly telomeres are the key, another thing women beat us with.

4LqZdkkBDas

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
4LqZdkkBDas

I tried. I really did. But I can't make it through the vid.

Also, it's too long. I think 5 minutes is about as long as I can take.

I love her videos she's reformed a lot of my thinking, actually.

Same with Shaun who routinely debunk losers like Sargon and Crowder

Originally posted by carthage
I love her videos she's reformed a lot of my thinking, actually.

Same with Shaun who routinely debunk losers like Sargon and Crowder Don't know who any of these people are. I do know that video was O.K.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
4LqZdkkBDas

And It is Adam and His Side of the Fence that calls us Names when we post Youtube People?

Ahhh Smell the Hypocrisy...

I like JBP.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
I like JBP. Are you a young male?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Are you a young male?

Yep, 27.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
I like JBP.

Still can't make it through it. Too much cringe.

I'd like a written form, not an AV experience. I'd rather read an article than watch a 28 minute video.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I tried. I really did. But I can't make it through the vid.

Also, it's too long. I think 5 minutes is about as long as I can take.

It gets good halfway through.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
And It is Adam and His Side of the Fence that calls us Names when we post Youtube People?

Ahhh Smell the Hypocrisy...

If you are incapable of independent thought, and get all of your opinions from YouTube personalities, I may as well communicate with you in the medium you understand.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you are incapable of independent thought, and get all of your opinions from YouTube personalities, I may as well communicate with you in the medium you understand. Ouch. I approve.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you are incapable of independent thought, and get all of your opinions from YouTube personalities, I may as well communicate with you in the medium you understand.

Where can someone find this independent thought? Is there a channel for that?

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Yep, 27. Surely that's a bit old to be a fan of JP isn't it?

No you're right the demographic reaches the early thirties

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/jordan-peterson-male-democraphic-isnt-going-anywhere/

The only thing that I really enjoyed from JPP was him refusing to use language that was forced by the govt.

Originally posted by carthage
I love her videos she's reformed a lot of my thinking, actually.

Same with Shaun who routinely debunk losers like Sargon and Crowder

Plenty of losers on the left claim to debunk people like Crowder, but tend to be full of shit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think he's alright. I do get frustrated with how absurdly wordy his answers are, however. And his voice and speech patterns are whiny. But I do like some of his points.



I definitely agree with this. Also, I think you're making a dig at Robtard. Robtard is just trolling you and it sets you off. Pretty sure Robtard would admit that Crowder can talk circles around him about gun.

While I agree that Rob is just trolling Surtur, I disagree that he'd ever admit Crowder could talk circles around him about guns.

Why are we pretending Crowder is some mythical debater?

Originally posted by BackFire
Why are we pretending Crowder is some mythical debater?

How dare you imply Crowder isn't great!

The dude struggled to debate a stoned Joe Rogan.

Originally posted by BackFire
The dude struggled to debate a stoned Joe Rogan.

Why am I not surprised.


Googled it and also found this, dude is a ranting retard. No wonder he's so popular with a certain type.

U64PvgflNTk
06:05, he's on some stage ranting like an edgelord tool while trying to suck Milo the Pedo Enabler's cock. So very odd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U64PvgflNTk

Why am I suddenly reminded of all the times Robbie has made cracks about the validity of stuff found on youtube?

Originally posted by Robtard
Why am I not surprised.


Googled it and also found this, dude is a ranting retard. No wonder he's so popular with a certain type.

U64PvgflNTk
06:05, he's on some stage ranting like an edgelord tool while trying to suck Milo the Pedo Enabler's cock. So very odd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U64PvgflNTk

Wow, dude, this is a compilation of amazing owns Crowder dishes out while a very unsuccessful and probably legitimately autistic YouTuber says the opposite (seriously, that guy was extremely awkward...he was tough to watch).

Are you sure this isn't a joke video where he's pretending Crowder is owned just to trick people into watching Crowder deliver his hilarious and amazing smackdowns?

And the rant at 6:05 especially is a pretty damn good one where he puts heckling SJWs into their place.

Joke's on both of you, I'm not watching that video regardless.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wow, dude, this is a compilation of amazing owns Crowder dishes out while a very unsuccessful and probably legitimately autistic YouTuber says the opposite (seriously, that guy was extremely awkward...he was tough to watch).

Are you sure this isn't a joke video where he's pretending Crowder is owned just to trick people into watching Crowder deliver his hilarious and amazing smackdowns?

And the rant at 6:05 especially is a pretty damn good one where he puts heckling SJWs into their place.

I didn't watch that kid, two seconds in he annoyed me as most teenagers do, so I skipped along until I saw the video of Crowder ranting on stage. What I mentioned, the 06:05 time stamp.

Disagree, he came off looking like a whiny edgelord tool.

So Robbie Posts a vid an then makes false claims about it?


Welcome To KMC!!!!!!

Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't watch that kid, two seconds in he annoyed me as most teenagers do, so I skipped along until I saw the video of Crowder ranting on stage. What I mentioned.

I suspect the YouTuber is gaslighting. Trying to get lefties to click the video and watch a compilation of owns from Crowder and he's having a laugh about it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Disagree, he came off looking like a whiny edgelord tool.

Even a superficial viewing, he doesn't come anywhere near looking like that. In context, it's a hilarious smack down against entitled, shithead, SJWs.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I suspect the YouTuber is gaslighting. Trying to get lefties to click the video and watch a compilation of owns from Crowder and he's having a laugh about it.



Even a superficial viewing, he doesn't come anywhere near looking like that. In context, it's a hilarious smack down against entitled, shithead, SJWs.

Not sure. I clicked through about every 20 seconds and it seems to be the same single kid talking to cam and then Crowder talking to kid scene all the way through up until the end where it's Crowder ranting on a stage at a different event.

Disagreed, sticking with edgelord tool and Milo supporter.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure. I clicked through about every 20 seconds and it seems to be the same single kid talking to cam and then Crowder talking to kid scene all the way through up until the end where it's Crowder ranting on a stage at a different event.

Disagreed, sticking with edgelord tool and Milo supporter.

I like Milo and Crowder, both. I especially love how nasty Milo can be with his insults, too. 😂

And I heard Milo's rambling about young boys having sex with older men and it being great or something. Obviously, I think that's gross. But when I was 11, I wanted to bang every hot adult woman I saw and I certainly tried a few times.

Milo's a piece of shit, Crowder's just a silly closeted gay man who rants nonsense.

Milo went a bit further than that. He attacked grown men who where victims of child rape because they dared to voice it up and complain. He's a scumbag, I'm happy his 15mins ended.

I love Crowder's scrawny little beta nerd who cheers him on in the background all the time. Best part of his videos.

Originally posted by BackFire
I love Crowder's scrawny little beta nerd who cheers him on in the background all the time. Best part of his videos.

That weakling may be the beta nerd cheerleader on the show, but he's the Top in the bedroom.

True, Crowder is definitely a bottom if I've ever seen one. Probably asks to be choked, too.

Originally posted by Robtard
Milo's a piece of shit, Crowder's just a silly closeted gay man who rants nonsense.

Milo went a bit further than that. He attacked grown men who where victims of child rape because they dared to voice it up and complain. He's a scumbag, I'm happy his 15mins ended.

Okay, so where's this attack he had against those victims so I can make fun of you for being a hysterical SJW?

Originally posted by BackFire
True, Crowder is definitely a bottom if I've ever seen one. Probably asks to be choked, too.

That resonants with his average like minded viewer/subscriber.

Disagreed, he was victim shaming.

I'll add that maybe he didn't actually mean it and was just trying to be the venom-tipped edgelord in front of McInnes, so Gavin would give up the booty, but he came off as a complete piece of shit.

What Milo had going for him was Conservatives used him as a spear, a gay spear to attack Liberals with and go "see, even a gay agrees with us!" They seem to have largely abandoned him after that interview blew up. If not and he's still a champion in the Right sphere, don't really care, his voice annoys me so I avoid listening to him.

Originally posted by Robtard
Disagreed, he was victim shaming.

Didn't I just do the same thing with my words?



Originally posted by Robtard
I'll add that maybe he didn't actually mean it and was just trying to be the venom-tipped edgelord in front of McInnes, so Gavin would give up the booty, but he came off as a complete piece of shit.

What Milo had going for him was Conservatives used him as a spear, a gay spear to attack Liberals with and go "see, even a gay agrees with us!" They seem to have largely abandoned him after that interview blew up. If not and he's still a champion in the Right sphere, don't really care, his voice annoys me so I avoid listening to him.

I agree he was being an edgelord. That's Milo.


But this video clip of Queen is awesome:

https://imgur.com/gallery/yPTobN9


Never saw the music vid to this song but I laughed. Freddy was the original gay edgelord. But he was busy pissing off the conservatards instead of pandering to them.

Didn't Kurt Cobain go on Headbanger's Ball in a yellow prom dress or something?

Yes, let's high-jack this thread and talk only about Queen and Freddy.

Googled it, he wore some fantastical yellow dress.

Funny you mention that, Headbangers Ball in back on reruns, saw it on my channel selection late Saturday night.

I barely remember the show but the Cobain bit stuck out, might be kind of fun to check it out and see all the crappy bands that you've forgotten about.

I enjoyed 1989 to about 1992/93. Didn't watch it religiously though.

Originally posted by BackFire
True, Crowder is definitely a bottom if I've ever seen one. Probably asks to be choked, too.

He is the type that secretly wants to be choked, but is too afraid to ask for it. So if you just do it to him in the heat of the moment, he will cum instantly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, let's high-jack this thread and talk only about Queen and Freddy. saw queen at live Aid, they were the high point.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He is the type that secretly wants to be choked, but is too afraid to ask for it. So if you just do it to him in the heat of the moment, he will cum instantly.

Originally posted by Robtard
it was brilliant.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I still agree with his sentiments on it, though. And, sorry, you know my position on sex. When I was 14, I only went after 25 year olds. I don't think there's anything wrong with that as long as the person is fully aware of how relationships work (manipulation, abuse, etc.).

Even at my age, now, I think women look their best at 25-ish. I like women 18-30 in looks best.

I saw a Queen Tribute band at Tracy Club and my Nan tried to touch the impersonators member... I was uncomfortable. But they were really talented.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I like women 1.8-3 in looks best.

That's better.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like Milo and Crowder, both. I especially love how nasty Milo can be with his insults, too. 😂

And I heard Milo's rambling about young boys having sex with older men and it being great or something. Obviously, I think that's gross. But when I was 11, I wanted to bang every hot adult woman I saw and I certainly tried a few times. ... I find Milo an abhorrent man DDM, do you politically align with him?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
... I find Milo an abhorrent man DDM, do you politically align with him?

I do not find Milo to be abhorrent at all. Not even a tiny bit. A provocateur who likes to troll, yes, but not an abhorrent. I think calling him something like that makes you, specifically, a homophobe and possibly racist since he is attracted to black men. I know and understand how British people use "abhorrent" and it is usually in reference to homosexuals and transgenders. It is a euphemism, bigoted but polite, British people use to express distaste for LGBT people.


To your second point and actual question:

Here are my political beliefs:
https://i.imgur.com/ObeqY5d.png


And here are the US political parties I best align with:
https://i.imgur.com/j36j497.png

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not find Milo to be abhorrent at all. Not even a tiny bit. A provocateur who likes to troll, yes, but not an abhorrent. I think calling him something like that makes you, specifically, a homophobe and possibly racist since he is attracted to black men. I know and understand how British people use "abhorrent" and it is usually in reference to homosexuals and transgenders. It is a euphemism, bigoted but polite, British people use to express distaste for LGBT people.


To your second point and actual question:

Here are my political beliefs:
https://i.imgur.com/ObeqY5d.png


And here are the US political parties I best align with:
https://i.imgur.com/j36j497.png He's views on sex with children disgust me as do many of his other views. His homosexuality shouldn't be a problem to anyone. So you align with him politically?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
So you align with him politically?

I posted my political positions and they are very clear.

Which ones would you like to compare and contrast with Milo's?

I personally love Milo.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I posted my political positions and they are very clear.

Which ones would you like to compare and contrast with Milo's? he's a strange figure to align with at all. Btw, we reserve abhorrent for nonces and nonce enablers/supporters.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
I personally love Milo. really? Interesting.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
he's a strange figure to align with at all.

Anything specific, though? Is there a particular political position of mine you would like to compare and contrast with Milo's?

Or is it just you being bored, digging up quotes, and trying to create controversy with those quotes?

haermm

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Btw, we reserve abhorrent for nonces and nonce enablers/supporters.

Oh no you don't.

https://i.imgur.com/ELNizX0.gif

You done messed up when you tried to troll. You should not have used the label "abhorrent" while including the article adjective ("an" because that's the bigotted labels British use for gay people.

Don't try and weasel out of this. Naughty naughty!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Anything specific, though? Is there a particular political position of mine you would like to compare and contrast with Milo's?

Or is it just you being bored, digging up quotes, and trying to create controversy with those quotes?

haermm



Oh no you don't.

https://i.imgur.com/ELNizX0.gif

You done messed up when you tried to troll. You should not have used the label "abhorrent" while including the article adjective ("an" because that's the bigotted labels British use for gay people.

Don't try and weasel out of this. Naughty naughty! not at all, I'm just interested you like someone who comes out with stuff like this.

Yiannopoulos spoke fondly of "the sort of 'coming of age' relationship ... in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable sort of rock, where they can't speak to their parents."

To be honest he obviously has some abhorrent nonce enabler like opinions.

We reserve abhorrent for nonces mate

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
not at all, I'm just interested you like someone who comes out with stuff like this.

Yiannopoulos spoke fondly of "the sort of 'coming of age' relationship ... in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable sort of rock, where they can't speak to their parents."

To be honest he obviously has some abhorrent nonce enabler like opinions.

We reserve abhorrent for nonces mate

Originally posted by dadudemon
And I heard Milo's rambling about young boys having sex with older men and it being great or something. Obviously, I think that's gross.



But try harder to troll better. Remember, you said this:

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
So you align with him politically?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
...do you politically align with him?



Sooooo....are you interested in his politics or naw?

Originally posted by dadudemon
But try harder to troll better. Remember, you said this:







Sooooo....are you interested in his politics or naw? Jason Booth, NCA operations manager, said: "Little was financially motivated; her crimes are utterly abhorrent and are one of many examples the NCA is seeing of worsening cyber-enabled child sexual offending.

That's from the National crime agency...

So you agree with Milo, an abhorrent nonce enabler?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Jason Booth, NCA operations manager, said: "Little was financially motivated; her crimes are utterly abhorrent and are one of many examples the NCA is seeing of worsening cyber-enabled child sexual offending.

That's from the National crime agency...

So you agree with Milo, an abhorrent nonce enabler?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Anything specific, though? Is there a particular political position of mine you would like to compare and contrast with Milo's?

I'm surprised anyone can take the guy seriously tbh.

To be honest DDM, I'm surprised you didn't say, "I find his views on fuking kids abhorrent, however even Hitler was a vegetarian and some people consider that a good idea which isn't extreme", instead of doubling down mate.

Clearly as a generally decent guy, Tim Pool gaslighting aside, that's how you feel I suspect.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I'm surprised anyone can take the guy seriously tbh.

Since he readily admits to the trolling and humor elements of his opinion pieces he writes, your assessment would be accurate. He's a trolling provocateur and he's there to entertain. He does it very well and he's made millions being that persona.

I did not know much about his statements about his teenage relationship and older men when the controversy leaked. I did not know he was uninvited from CPAC because of it. So I looked it up and included both his and the CPAC's arguments:



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/20/milo-yiannopoulos-denies-supporting-paedophilia-cpac-online-video


More on the topic you wish to only talk about instead of his actual political positions, I've heard similar from gay men (in the real world) that older gay men helped them come out of the closet, explore their sexuality, and escape cycles of oppression and abuse from their conservative families.



I am definitely interested in talking about the politics, though. Would you like to actually talk about some?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since he readily admits to the trolling and humor elements of his opinion pieces he writes, your assessment would be accurate. He's a trolling provocateur and he's there to entertain. He does it very well and he's made millions being that persona.

I did not know much about his statements about his teenage relationship and older men when the controversy leaked. I did not know he was uninvited from CPAC because of it. So I looked it up and included both his and the CPAC's arguments:



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/20/milo-yiannopoulos-denies-supporting-paedophilia-cpac-online-video


More on the topic you wish to only talk about instead of his actual political positions, I've heard similar from gay men (in the real world) that older gay men helped them come out of the closet, explore their sexuality, and escape cycles of oppression and abuse from their conservative families.



I am definitely interested in talking about the politics, though. Would you like to actually talk about some? we call these people nonces in the UK, to be honest I am prejudiced against paedo in first world economies and from first world economies in third world countries particularly, but I don't like any paedo's tbh. Imbalance of power and money is usually the currency in such relationships as you say and Milo fondly talks of.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
we call these people nonces in the UK, to be honest I am prejudiced against paedo in first world economies and from first world economies in third world countries particularly, but I don't like any paedo's tbh. Imbalance of power and money is usually the currency in such relationships as you say and Milo fondly talks of.

I wouldn't call his consensual relationship, at 17, with a catholic priest, "pedo". You care a lot about what Milo did with his penis when he was a teenager.

confused


But don't let the facts get in the way of your virtue signaling monologue. Please continue. Can you take an even stronger position against pedos in your next reply? I'd rather we talk about the politics. You can't tease me with discussions about actual politics and then only talk about celebrity gossip. That's rude!

Originally posted by dadudemon
I wouldn't call his consensual relationship, at 17, with a catholic priest, "pedo". You care a lot about what Milo did with his penis when he was a teenager.

confused


But don't let the facts get in the way of your virtue signaling monologue. Please continue. Can you take an even stronger position against pedos in your next reply? I'd rather we talk about the politics. You can't tease me with discussions about actual politics and then only talk about celebrity gossip. That's rude! Funny, Breitbart found his views stated here too much for them and he lost his book deal... but they are O.K. with you. Bit surprised.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Funny, Breitbart found his views stated here too much for them and he lost his book deal... but they are O.K. with you. Bit surprised.

Correct.

I am definitely okay with Milo losing his book deal with Simon & Schuster and then Milo self-publishing his book, anyway.



Or were you hoping to box me into a false dichotomy with the double bind scenario?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Correct.

I am definitely okay with Milo losing his book deal with Simon & Schuster and then Milo self-publishing his book, anyway.



Or were you hoping to box me into a false dichotomy with the double bind scenario?

It's the entire reason he is bringing up milo.

It's almost adorable he thinks people can't see it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Correct.

I am definitely okay with Milo losing his book deal with Simon & Schuster and then Milo self-publishing his book, anyway.



Or were you hoping to box me into a false dichotomy with the double bind scenario? Not at all, I'm just interested you guys like him.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Not at all, I'm just interested you guys like him.

^^I"ll allow this gas lighting, you're welcome for my permission

Originally posted by Surtur
It's the entire reason he is bringing up milo.

It's almost adorable he thinks people can't see it.

I think he wants me to throw away all of Milo's positions, every single one, because I don't agree with one of his positions.

Which is odd.

It's not a genuine position Whirly is taking. He doesn't wholesale support being against every last thing that Milo politically stands for. That would be incredibly retarded.


He's just doing the double bind scenario, hoping he can throw something that will stick.

Milo, the gay guy who f*cks black dudes, is clearly alt right. Clearly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think he wants me to throw away all of Milo's positions, every single one, because I don't agree with one of his positions.

Which is odd.

It's not a genuine position Whirly is taking. He doesn't wholesale support being against every last thing that Milo politically stands for. That would be incredibly retarded.


He's just doing the double bind scenario, hoping he can throw something that will stick. So tell me what you align with him on. It's been a simple question from the start

Originally posted by Surtur
Milo, the gay guy who f*cks black dudes, is clearly alt right. Clearly.

Jewish, Gay, man married to a black man.*

and lauren southern is a canadian nazi, i can't forget that

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
So tell me what you align with him on. It's been a simple question from the start

I posted literally all of my major political positions. I hid nothing.

Which would you like to discuss?


Ball is in your court.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Jewish, Gay, man married to a black man.*

My bad. Damn, it's almost as if one would have to have some sort of mental deficiency to think he's alt right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I posted literally all of my major political positions. I hid nothing.

Which would you like to discuss?


Ball is in your court. I'm not after a chart mate, I'm after prose defining your position. I don't want to misinterpret anything.

Originally posted by Surtur
and lauren southern is a canadian nazi, i can't forget that

Lauren Southern took a bit more than a year off.

She came back yesterday (just yesterday, she posted a 17 minute video) after her brief retirement.

I'm currently watching her vid.

She got married and pregnant. Had a baby. Just lived life for a bit more than a year, it seems.

I'm watching it at 1.75x speed because she talks too slowly to me.

2YhyNqXWqiU

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I'm not after a chart mate, I'm after prose defining your position. I don't want to misinterpret anything.

Ball is in your court. Still.

What would you like to talk about? All of my positions are on the charts.

Is she the woman banned from the UK?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I know and understand how British people use "abhorrent" and it is usually in reference to homosexuals and transgenders. It is a euphemism, bigoted but polite, British people use to express distaste for LGBT people. awehuhs

Originally posted by Scribble
awehuhs


Oh, look, an abhorrent responded to my post.


uhuh

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, look, an abhorrent responded to my post.


uhuh I can't believe you're saying this, DDM! And during Abhorrent Pride month of all months! crackers

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Jason Booth, NCA operations manager, said: "Little was financially motivated; her crimes are utterly abhorrent and are one of many examples the NCA is seeing of worsening cyber-enabled child sexual offending.

That's from the National crime agency...

So you agree with Milo, an abhorrent nonce enabler? funny the NCA use abhorrent when talking about Nonces too, I'm shocked you don't find them abhorrent DDM.

But then you really have doubled down for Milo.

Abhorrent is reserved for Nonces.

Jordan Peterson, Tim Pool, Ben Shapiro.

Man these people can trigger the saddest souls

Originally posted by Surtur
Jordan Peterson, Tim Pool, Ben Shapiro.

Man these people can trigger the saddest souls You mean the alt lite?

No not even alt lite

Originally posted by Surtur
No not even alt lite the alt lite in false moustaches and noses.

While some might be stupid enough to think you're trolling here, I honestly think you mean it. That makes me smile

Originally posted by Surtur
While some might be stupid enough to think you're trolling here, I honestly think you mean it. That makes me smile One can troll and be sincere at the same time

Originally posted by Surtur
While some might be stupid enough to think you're trolling here, I honestly think you mean it. That makes me smile The alt right in disguise.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
The alt right in disguise.

The destruction of words is a beautiful thing, I guess?

Originally posted by Surtur
The destruction of words is a beautiful thing, I guess? you seem to be inferring absurdities.

I'm inferring you're not an intelligent person and you routinely use words and phrases wrong.

Sorry if that was not made clear earlier

Originally posted by Scribble
I can't believe you're saying this, DDM! And during Abhorrent Pride month of all months! crackers

Oh shit!

crylaugh


I'm going to get cancelled for laughing at this. haermm

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm inferring you're not an intelligent person and you routinely use words and phrases wrong.

Sorry if that was not made clear earlier I cannot help you struggle to comprehend my reply and you let whatever thoughts you have out of your head without thinking them through. Good stuff.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I cannot help you struggle to comprehend my reply and you let whatever thoughts you have out of your head without thinking them through. Good stuff.

I'm gonna allow this dodge

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Or what he is peddling to Incels.

Plagiarized with amusement.

Women wear red lipstick because "the lips turn red during sexual arousal" and therefore women do it solely to sexually titillate men, and therefore any workplace where women wear red lipstick is inherently sexual and thus all bets are off and it's open season on sexual behavior (he claims he does not mean to imply this, yet he then goes on to say that he believes that women have some culpability for sexualizing in the workplace by this meager definition - still others insist that he never said that, in which case I might ask what the point of this observation even is? If nobody is responsible for it and he is not suggesting that any course of action is necessary that would incorporate this knowledge in any way, then why bring it up?)

In addition, men sexually harassing women in the workplace is actually women's fault because they wear makeup, which of course is only ever done for the express purpose of sexually titillating men (this is news to me as a male who doesn't find makeup attractive, and whose SO has only ever worn light makeup to an interview to appear clean and professional)

Also high heels are a secret ploy by women to attract men just so they can manipulate men ("silly cuck he doesn't use the word 'secret ploy,' he only said that women deliberately manipulate men using sex! That's totally different!)

When asked what we should do about these things, he suggests, "The Maoists gave everyone uniforms to keep this thing from happening," implying that the only "solutions" are to either (A) go full-blown Communist China, or (B) just allow literally everything and hold nobody accountable for their actions in the workplace. This is clever, but in an extremely sinister way - he's insinuating that communism and sexual harassment are two sides of the same coin. This is borderline newspeak levels of manipulative. Of course his defenders claim that he isn't doing this on purpose. But if you look at it in any other context then this comment seems out of place - he's extremely anti-communist so it's obvious that he's not advocating this course of action unironically, and if he is being ironic then the point is that he's satirizing the idea that people should try to control these behaviors as some kind of totalitarian collectivism. So what does he "actually mean," then?)

We as a society are "deteriorating rapidly" as a direct result of men and women working together because of this "provocation"

Sexual harassment in the workplace won't stop because "We don't know the rules" (literally just don't take any action which connotes a sense of entitlement to another person's personal space or body, it's literally that simple, I've been doing this for more than a decade and I've never once even been accused of sexual harassment and I've never felt inclined to do so)


I agree with this for the most part.



I do believe a double standard exists, where men are always perceived as "threat" compared to women, and this is provable by cases where the same judge presides over a minor having sexual relations with an adult, and gives vastly different penalties based on whether the adult is male or female.



But in the end if a guy isn't acting like a creep he has nothing to fear.