Posts

some absolute madlad made a mod that reemplaces like the 5 minutes of dialogue with the entire bee movie script

~6000 hours over the course of 2011-2013

He could’ve had a point if he was faster;

There are always going to be people that want to control other people and have a deep seated need to do so, there will always be people that don’t like being told what to do. The causes change but the basic conflict between Control and Rebel remains, and of course if Rebel ever wins they become Control.

In one of the more high-profile examples of censorship during this time period, officials arrested famed labor organizer and socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs who criticized the war and the draft. Debs famously stated during his speech in Canton, Ohio: “You need at this time especially to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.”

Federal officials charged Debs with violating the Espionage Act of 1917. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld his conviction in Debs v. United States (1919).

Rose Pastor Stokes was prosecuted, in part, for writing to a newspaper: “I am for the people and the government is for the profiteers.”

Murphy details numerous examples of draconian restrictions on free speech during this time period, including:

Authorities in Pittsburgh banned music by the German composer Ludwig van Beethoven during the course of the war. 
The Los Angeles Board of Education prohibited all discussions of peace. 
An Ohio farmer, John White, was imprisoned for stating that soldiers in American camps were “dying off like flies” and that the “murder of innocent women and children by German soldiers was no worse than what the United States’ soldiers did in the Philippines.” 
A Minnesota man was arrested under a state espionage law for criticizing women knitting socks for soldiers, saying: “No soldier ever sees these socks.” 
Twenty-seven South Dakota farmers were convicted for sending a petition to the government objecting to the draft and calling the conflict a “capitalist war.” (Hudson, citing Murphy). 

 
We have only seen whispers and a vague desire to carry it out to that without much reaching that level. The localized authoritarianism and rhetoric that has been increasingly deployed in some spaces however leaves me speechless and makes me wonder if something deeper is amiss. As if the libertine moment we currently live in is only the result of a power vacuum of moral systems as opposed to one that can last itself, as much as I would prefer everyone to get along and am not the “lets start a civil war right now!” type.
 
@Dex Stewart  
Two points:
 
Anti-Isreali does not equal anti-semitism, even if the two often go together and I think that applies with a lot BLM, I don’t like seeing those two stances blended together so fully.
 
That picture:  

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

 
It can be funny when figures and such have even the vaguest connections of politics ain’t it?
 
@Anonymous #372F\  
Agreed.

1. Who am I?  
2. What am I?  
3. Am I accepted by others?  
4. Do I accept myself?
    
   These four questions have been the driving point behind everyone. At some point, everyone asks themselves these questions, and if they don’t have the answer or don’t know how to properly ask them, they feel completely out of place. And after that, a number of things can happen.
    
   I believe that those with gender dysphoria, by and large, have major issue answering any and all of these questions because they are so focused on community adhesion that they completely miss the concept of a functional community where everyone is comfortable. They may delve on thoughts that shouldn’t relate at all with the reference material such as, “What do others at school think about me,” when the reference material is about what they themselves think about being slightly feminine.
    
   From my observations, it all relates back to this illusion of being far more important than they really are, while simultaneously seeing that, to many people, they’re nothing. They want to fit in, but then they see that standing out gets them some sort of attention, and they also like being different as most humans do, but they also want to be with a group of some sort because humans are extremely complex when it comes to where and who they align with. Before you know it, you have groups trying to expand the group, gain traction, have no clear goal or intentions, are completely fooled by their own illusions, and the rest of the world is forced to be civil with them while these people demand things they already have. What they want after is unreasonable at best.
    
   >nuanced mindset  
   A nuanced mindset would be looking at real data, understanding real science, and not caring what emotions play in the process because science and medicine have literally nothing to do with emotions, until you get to chemistry, which is the dirty side of physics.
    
   If the subject matter was as easy to spot as you attempted to assert, humanity would be jumping at the opportunities to correct it on a physical, determinable level, because the majority of the world is eugenic in their own desires and beliefs, and attempting to change the world when you’re such a minor part of the population will get you, among other possibilities, pushed away. Set aside. Forgotten, ignored, and any actual accomplishments vanish before the greater work can appreciate them.
    
   I’m not trying to be tough on you; but reality is extremely raw and often disrespects our own preconceived notions.

@Maulkin
It’s hiding from our bodies that’s led to the issue of people turning into screeching apes at the sight of a nipple. Exposure numbs & normalizes.

We must now consider Christian morality as regards sex, what Christians call the virtue of chastity. The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of “modesty” (in one sense of that word); i.e. propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle. Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally “modest,” proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). Some of the language which chaste women used in Shakespeare’s time would have been used in the nineteenth century only by a woman completely abandoned. When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other people uncomfortable. i do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and i therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing. at its present stage, however, it has this inconvenience, that people of different ages and different types do not all acknowledge the same standard, and we hardly know where we are. While this confusion lasts i think that old, or old-fashioned, people should be very careful not to assume that young or “emancipated” people are corrupt whenever they are (by the old standard) improper; and, in return, that young people should not call their elders prudes or puritans because they do not easily adopt the new standard. a real desire to believe all the good you can of others and to make others as comfortable as you can will solve most of the problems.

Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no getting away from it: the old Christian rule is, “Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.” now this is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts, that obviously either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong. One or the other. Of course, being a Christian, i think it is the instinct which has gone wrong.

But i have other reasons for thinking so. The biological purpose of sex is children, just as the biological purpose of eating is to repair the body. now if we eat whenever we feel inclined and just as much as we want, it is quite true that most of us will eat too much: but not terrifically too much. One man may eat enough for two, but he does not eat enough for ten. The appetite goes a little beyond its biological purpose, but not enormously. But if a healthy young man indulged his sexual appetite whenever he felt inclined, and if each act produced a baby, then in ten years he might easily populate a small village. This appetite is in ludicrous and preposterous excess of its function.

Or take it another way. You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act — that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? and would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us?

One critic said that if he found a country in which such striptease acts with food were popular, he would conclude that the people of that country were starving. He meant, of course, to imply that such things as the strip-tease act resulted not from sexual corruption but from sexual starvation. i agree with him that if, in some strange land, we found that similar acts with mutton chops were popular, one of the possible explanations which would occur to me would be famine. But the next step would be to test our hypothesis by finding out whether, in fact, much or little food was being consumed in that country. if the evidence showed that a good deal was being eaten, then of course we should have to abandon the hypothesis of starvation and try to think of another one. in the same way, before accepting sexual starvation as the cause of the strip-tease, we should have to look for evidence that there is in fact more sexual abstinence in our age than in those ages when things like the strip-tease were unknown. But surely there is no such evidence. Contraceptives have made sexual indulgence far less costly within marriage and far safer outside it than ever before, and public opinion is less hostile to illicit unions and even to perversion than it has been since Pagan times. nor is the hypothesis of “starvation” the only one we can imagine. Everyone knows that the sexual appetite, like our other appetites, grows by indulgence. Starving men may think much about food, but so do gluttons; the gorged, as well as the famished, like titillations.

Here is a third point. You find very few people who want to eat things that really are not food or to do other things with food instead of eating it. in other words, perversions of the food appetite are rare. But perversions of the sex instinct are numerous, hard to cure, and frightful. i am sorry to have to go into all these details, but i must. The reason why i must is that you and i, for the last twenty years, have been fed all day long on good solid lies about sex. We have been told, till one is sick of hearing it, that sexual desire is in the same state as any of our other natural desires and that if only we abandon the silly old Victorian idea of hushing it up, everything in the garden will be lovely. it is not true. The moment you look at the facts, and away from the propaganda, you see that it is not.