*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

My understanding is that no actual economist claims that DJIA should be used to represent the market.

---

They do. It isn't a complete representation, but economists do believe that a change in information about the economy will result in a change in the Dow. Not all of them talk about this*, but some do talk about it and it is the theory taught in intro money/banking economics classes.

*Due to political biases, many don't like the theory.

Quote:

---

You're right. Pretty much the only people who disagree with that are economists, who tend to criticize the DJIA heavily and favor S&P500 or Wilshire5000.

---

Both of which have paced the Dow.

Where I was wrong is in saying that the Dow is better than other exchanges. As you pointed out, these other exchanges also show the economy has great preference for Trump.

This is kind of a silly argument. The Dow is meaningful.

Most news outlets will give updates on the Dow 20 or more times a day. Every newspaper in the country puts the previous day's results on their front page. If there is any significant movement at all, it's a story.

They do all this for a reason. People care. And not just people who own stock in those 30 companies.

Can't Robb Stark the Based Sheriff Clarke!

https://twitter.com/SheriffClarke/st...64638408028160

Unless it's about his flimsy ass guns. Homeboy needs to hit the gym.

http://i.imgur.com/BCwRifd.jpg

WTF could possibly explain UK growth forecasts tripling since Brexit predictions?!?!?.

A theory (from the smartest people): the hand-hold heard 'round the world.

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com...=all&strip=all

Bonus: one of them looks like a totem pole and the other a hamster.

Brexit hasn't actually happened and everything that has happened as a result of it has been stopping them doing stupid shit which no doubt strengthens things.

Also George Osbourne has been replaced by someone much more competent.

I'd say May is better than Cameron too but unfortunately her awful views on things such as government surveillance and backwards ideas about technology are pretty damning. Actually thinking about it she's fucking awful.

You're basically right but that is not a worthy shitpost.


Nonshitpost: the change in forecast and Brexit are unrelated.

Sorry I get confused because all you do is shitpost.

If only.

Here's one for you right wing people.

Why do so many people (men and women) hate female comedians and female comedic actors?

Because they're not funny.

Next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Because they're not funny.

Next.

---

So you are right wing?

1-0

Fuller story:

South Park got it right. Hollywood and media elites push the narrative that women are funny even when they're not. The narrative is so internalized that unfunny women are called funny; thus crowding out actual funny women. Steven Crowder lampoons this with his parody video of laughing hysterically at Amy Schumer mentioning her vagina every ten seconds. Some women are very funny, but women in Hollywood that are promoted as funny are typically not those women.

Lisa Lamponelli always made me laugh. I remember watching Sarah Silverman's show when I was a youngster, wondering why such an unfunny show was on something called Comedy Central. That was back before I had any opinion about anything political. Somehow Silverman's entirely unfunny ass got famous and comedy magicians like Dave Chappelle went crazy in the jungle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

So you are right wing?

1-0

---

A+ move. Serious smarts.

FWIW though yes I consider myself right-wing. I consider libertarianism and the Enlightenment and all that good stuff with its roots in the Hellenistic Greeks right-wing. Left-wing is that shit that grew outside of Hellenistic Europe: Marxism and its progeny of fascism and communism and your garden variety socialism and welfarism. Your basic collectivism and statism.

Irony of today: some areas that were never Hellenized (the Visegrad Group) are more freedom-loving than those that were (France).

Maybe it's because all the Huguenots evacuated from France, leaving only the cockgobblers of statism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Fuller story:

South Park got it right. Hollywood and media elites push the narrative that women are funny even when they're not. The narrative is so internalized that unfunny women are called funny; thus crowding out actual funny women. Steven Crowder lampoon's this with his parody video of laughing hysterically at Amy Schumer mentioning her vagina every ten seconds. Some women are very funny, but women in Hollywood that are promoted as funny are typically not those women.

Lisa Lamponelli always made me laugh. I remember watching Sarah Silverman's show when I was a youngster, wondering why such an unfunny show was something called Comedy Central. That was back before I had any opinion about anything political. Somehow Silverman's entirely unfunny ass got famous and comedy magicians like Dave Chappelle went crazy in the jungle.

---

So you're saying that because unfunny women were pushed (why was this?) actually funny women were in some way stopped? Also I'd like to point out that the 80s/90s were a great time for funny women on tv.

Sarah Silverman is actually much hotter than any of those earlier people I can think of and as a result this can only have been a mechanism by worried men in power. Pushing hot girls who weren't particularly funny and blaming them getting famous on being hot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

FWIW though yes I consider myself right-wing. I consider libertarianism and the Enlightenment and all that good stuff with its roots in the Hellenistic Greeks right-wing. Left-wing is that shit that grew outside of Hellenistic Europe: Marxism and its progeny of fascism and communism and your garden variety socialism and welfarism. Your basic collectivism and statism.

---

I bought into the political compass stuff around the time I was introduced into it which was probably 2009 at the latest. I think that does a good basic job of defining things on a political level when talking about them. My views these days are probably considered quite right wing on that scale whilst very libertarian (when I was younger I used to get left and libertarian).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

So you're saying that because unfunny women were pushed (why was this?) actually funny women were in some way stopped? Also I'd like to point out that the 80s/90s were a great time for funny women on tv.

---

Yep. Fran Drescher4lyfe!

Quote:

---

Sarah Silverman is actually much hotter than any of those earlier people I can think of and as a result this can only have been a mechanism by worried men in power. Pushing hot girls who weren't particularly funny and blaming them getting famous on being hot.

---

Fantastic point. Because that's totally true. Hotness was a problem among women comics. Or at least my brand new hairy testicles thought so.

I would say that Silverman was pushed due to hotness instead of some SJW narrative. The SJW came much later. Gamergate later.

Honestly I have no idea if Fran Drescher was funny. But goddamn was she hot. And annoying. She made annoying hot. And funny, because when a chick is hot she's funny. We already had this lesson.

You must be joking somewhat, men are in power of deciding what's on tv. Women get a push based on them being funny coming through* and then hotter women get more chances than ugly ones. I wonder why that was????

*This isn't actually true just my narative is thinking of those same women at todays age rather than the age they were at. Given they were less hot.

Which I should point out isn't that different to men in any sense. Funny does shine through but being hot makes it so much easier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PUu6M8ThhM

Larry Wilmore going full tilt on Milo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

So you're saying that because unfunny women were pushed (why was this?) actually funny women were in some way stopped? Also I'd like to point out that the 80s/90s were a great time for funny women on tv.

Sarah Silverman is actually much hotter than any of those earlier people I can think of and as a result this can only have been a mechanism by worried men in power. Pushing hot girls who weren't particularly funny and blaming them getting famous on being hot.

---

Hahaha Christina Applegate was such a hottie back then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

So you're saying that because unfunny women were pushed (why was this?)

---

There is another thing, referencing Chris Hitchens, that women just aren't as funny as men. It's probably true. Probably to a big degree.

But that still doesn't explain why the women that are considered funny are not. There are still funny women even if fewer of them are funny compared to men.

If I'm being completely honest about it, I would say that It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia is showing us the true nature of things. Dee is funny, but she is one among five. That's probably representative. Also, note that the comedy use with her is just different. It almost has to be more sophisticated than with the men. Dudes, frankly, don't like funny chicks that much. It's like having bigger biceps. No man wants a chick who can pick him up and throw him on the bed like a side of beef. Likewise few dudes want a chick who cracks jokes faster than he does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Hahaha Christina Applegate was such a hottie back then

---

Funnily enough Married with Children was an early comedy I used to watch. I can't remember fancying women in a tv show until charmed though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

men are in power of deciding what's on tv. Women get a push based on them being funny coming through* and then hotter women get more chances than ugly ones. I wonder why that was????

---

Yeah I think that's correct. Silverman and others are certainly funnier than non-funny women, but you are right that sex sells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

There is another thing, referencing Chris Hitchens, that women just aren't as funny as men. It's probably true. Probably to a big degree.

But that still doesn't explain why the women that are considered funny are not. There are still funny women even if fewer of them are funny compared to men.

If I'm being completely honest about it, I would say that It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia is showing us the true nature of things. Dee is funny, but she is one among five. That's probably representative. Also, note that the comedy use with her is just different. It almost has to be more sophisticated than with the men. Dudes, frankly, don't like funny chicks that much. It's like having bigger biceps. No man wants a chick who can pick him up and throw him on the bed like a side of beef.

---

The joke with dee though is she's always the butt of the jokes whilst none of the jokes really apply to her. The whole thing is a parody on women not being funny and those that are must not be hot.

The whole men develop being funny to pick up hotter girls I can somewhat buy into but I don't think I've ever met a guy who doesn't like funny girls & the exact same applies for women. Maybe being a loud and confident girl is off putting to men generally but being funny isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

The joke with dee though is she's always the butt of the jokes whilst none of the jokes really apply to her. The whole thing is a parody on women not being funny and those that are must not be hot.

The whole men develop being funny to pick up hotter girls I can somewhat buy into but I don't think I've ever met a guy who doesn't like funny girls & the exact same applies for women. Maybe being a loud and confident girl is off putting to men generally but being funny isn't.

---

On Sunny, yeah I wouldn't have made that point except for the latest episode focused on Dee.

For a few seasons I think they've been playing with Dee, reluctant to jump into centralizing her as a comedic figure. But they did so in the latest episode and the patience paid off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

But that still doesn't explain why the women that are considered funny are not. There are still funny women even if fewer of them are funny compared to men.

---

True. e.g. andreaespadatv is hot as fuck, and yet completely unfunny yet still somehow passes as comedian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

The whole men develop being funny to pick up hotter girls I can somewhat buy into but I don't think I've ever met a guy who doesn't like funny girls & the exact same applies for women. Maybe being a loud and confident girl is off putting to men generally but being funny isn't.

---

Point taken. I'd say Rogan has had lots of funny women on his poddy who are also hot. They are probably more careful with their loud and interjecty-ness than men have to be. I could see them being extra witty and less boisterous than men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

On Sunny, yeah I wouldn't have made that point except for the latest episode focused on Dee.

For a few seasons I think they've been playing with Dee, reluctant to jump into centralizing her as a comedic figure. But they did so in the latest episode and the patience paid off.

---

The latest episode was kind of them claiming that exact role for her though in a slight reference to south park. When Cartman did it OMG don't fuck with him, when she did it it was considered rock bottom.

The joke is that the only kind of demographic she isn't hot in is a young 20ish applying for women in movies role & her being in improves is the standard not hot chick thing to do. The idea that anyone here goes to a bar and sleeps with her and that isn't amongst the best things that ever happened to them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

True. e.g. andreaespadatv is hot as fuck, and yet completely unfunny yet still somehow passes as comedian

---

I don't know who that is but is that not essentially Ashon kutcher?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

True. e.g. andreaespadatv is hot as fuck, and yet completely unfunny yet still somehow passes as comedian

---

I don't know her but checked her gram and video reminded me of vines.

Some vines chicks are quality funny.

There are lots of guys who are meant to be funny and just aren't but if they are hot they are hot and if not it doesn't matter. With women if they are hot they are hot and if they aren't OMG ITS SEXISM THEY AREN:T FUNNY!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

The latest episode was kind of them claiming that exact role for her though in a slight reference to south park. When Cartman did it OMG don't fuck with him, when she did it it was considered rock bottom.

---

You don't think they were breaking new ground? I thought what she did was more sinister than what The Gang typically does. I could be wrong though, I haven't thought much about it, but that was my first and second impression. Even though they're all shitty people, she seemed to actually be worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

You don't think they were breaking new ground? I thought what she did was more sinister than what The Gang typically does. I could be wrong though, I haven't thought much about it, but that was my first and second impression. Even though they're all shitty people, she seemed to actually be worse.

---

Dennis. That's kind of the whole point.

That being said the point wasn't about why women might be treated differently in comedy now i twas about why that would ever happen in the firstplace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PUu6M8ThhM

Larry Wilmore going full tilt on Milo

---

They could have Milo in a noose if they didn't go down the silly conspiracy route. Milo is a fake. Yeah, maybe he believes what he says. That which he focuses on typically is very important stuff, but the dude is a total fake. Check out videos of him from years ago. He was a 100% different person. This hyper gay hyper Trump hyper-anti-SJW persona is a facade. He showed his skin in this video, and the others pounced and they were onto something. But they got into the weeds with nonsense, giving Milo an out.

If you don't like Milo, just know that he would have much less sway with conservatives if liberals stuck to reasonable positions like those in the video did at first. His opening depends upon the ridiculousness. His opening comes from things like 36 genders. While I was watching the video, even though I'm generally pro-Milo, I was on Wilmore's and co's side, but then they veered into the standard leftism hallucination and I remembered why Milo has so much power.*


*Calling Milo out early on his confusion was A+. It's intuition into his fakery. But then they ignored Hillary's Saudi hypocrisy and drumbeated the fictional Russia myth. They gotta get their shit together if they want to beat people like Milo. The day the left admits that Democrats have been lying non-stop for years and that America isn't the worst place in world history is the day they start winning battles again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

A+ move. Serious smarts.

---

Also fuck off doing this it makes me like you less.

That wasn't my standard attempt at persuasive and/or ridiculing language. I thought you legitimately got me to say something I might not have otherwise said. I was impressed.

Unlike in Britland, we don't have to call each others' mothers cuntgrubbing sallywags just to get along.

I was under the impression you were being sincere.

Love your haircut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Love your haircut.

---

Do you ever wonder why everyone is on coke when MDMA is much better drug?

I prefer Dr. Pepper.

Literally me too. Medicinal.

I find her funny and not hot (at least definitely not as a preggo).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUezzUZYD70

But agreed being hot helps.

Since the previous video was taken down, here it is again for those that missed it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cDLflyQ8TA#t=453.926111

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6O92PE551I

Fantastic. She's great. Thanks for showing.

https://www.cnet.com/news/congressma...android-phone/

In a reality-based universe, this would be as big a deal as Clinton's emails.

At first I was like: because compromising an account used for shitposting is the same as one used for classified information /s

But then I was like: compromising an account assumed to be the voice of the President could actually be an enormous disaster.

And now I'm like: it's easily as important to make sure that Trump's device is as secure as it was for Crooked's devices. Too bad the left blew all its capital to hold him accountable by screaming nonsense at the top of its lungs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

https://www.cnet.com/news/congressma...android-phone/

In a reality-based universe, this would be as big a deal as Clinton's emails.

---

I can just imagine it.

Hacker 1: "We've done it, we've hacked Trump's phone. Now we can tweet a bunch of chaotic nonsense that will scare the shit out of everyone."

Hacker 2: "Uhhh, yeah."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

At first I was like: because compromising an account used for shitposting is the same as one used for classified information /s

But then I was like: compromising an account assumed to be the voice of the President could actually be an enormous disaster.

And now I'm like: it's easily as important to make sure that Trump's device is as secure as it was for Crooked's devices. Too bad the left blew all its capital to hold him accountable by screaming nonsense at the top of its lungs.

---

I challenge you, go for 20 posts in either of these threads without mentioning The Left or The Right (particularly not in a derisive manner), just sticking to your opinions without trying to be a card-carrying member of either.

The O/U is on 20, too bad I don't have PokerStars money, I'd take props on this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

But then I was like: compromising an account assumed to be the voice of the President could actually be an enormous disaster.

---

slowclap.gif

See Wuf? You *ARE* completely capable of reasonable thought. :p ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

And now I'm like: it's easily as important to make sure that Trump's device is as secure as it was for Crooked's devices. Too bad the left blew all its capital to hold him accountable by screaming nonsense at the top of its lungs.

---

"Crooked" wasn't POTUS at the time. Plus, a server has better security (you know, people manage such servers) than a run-of-the-mill android phone. Have you heard the news about the amount of Twitter-specific hacks that happened last year?

"OurMine" are notorious for this. If a bunch of script kiddies can, how about state sponsored actors?

[TECH_RANT]
For starters, Twitter's 2FA is particularly shitty, as they only use phone number auth. It's shit. It's 2010's, and as we know, in the tech industry a year is more like a millenia. There are so many vectors of attack for this I'm not even kidding. Godspeed.
[/TECH_RANT]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

At first I was like: because compromising an account used for shitposting is the same as one used for classified information /s

But then I was like: compromising an account assumed to be the voice of the President could actually be an enormous disaster.

And now I'm like: it's easily as important to make sure that Trump's device is as secure as it was for Crooked's devices. Too bad the left blew all its capital to hold him accountable by screaming nonsense at the top of its lungs.

---

A respectable train of thought. Also, it's not just that he's tweeting from his personal phone, he's refused the secret service provided more secure device, and seemingly is using it for all official business. Email, calendar, calls & texts etc. None of that shit is private anymore, though arguably it probably wouldn't be completely so even with a hardened device. If that's the case, this is exactly comparable to Clinton's private email server.

question: what are the ways his account could get compromised?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I can just imagine it.

Hacker 1: "We've done it, we've hacked Trump's phone. Now we can tweet a bunch of chaotic nonsense that will scare the shit out of everyone."

Hacker 2: "Uhhh, yeah."

---

See, the man's got all bases covered, a plan for everything. That reminds me, has anybody seen Bruce Wayne lately?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

question: what are the ways his account could get compromised?

---

Numerous. Click the wrong link, open the wrong attachment, go to the wrong web page, or just have an unpatched vulnerability in the OS or any of the apps he's using. Any specific service account (such as twitter) can be typically easily hacked, unless he has some robust measures for password management, uses 2-factor auth etc. Oh and of course social engineering, but that's an issue no matter the device.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

See, the man's got all bases covered, a plan for everything. That reminds me, has anybody seen Bruce Wayne lately?

---

what's the over/under on Stephen Colbert making that exact same joke on his next show?

On second thought, compromising his twitter might not be that big of a disaster. I was assuming there are no official POTUS twitter accounts, but clearly there are. Obama used it. This means that it is probably the case that the account being hacked and somebody posting something like "JUST LAUNCHED NUKES LOLOLOLOLOL GG" isn't believed by national security to be something other states would take seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Numerous. Click the wrong link, open the wrong attachment, go to the wrong web page, or just have an unpatched vulnerability in the OS or any of the apps he's using. Any specific service account (such as twitter) can be typically easily hacked, unless he has some robust measures for password management, uses 2-factor auth etc. Oh and of course social engineering, but that's an issue no matter the device.

---

Any guesses on what Trump's password is? I'm going with 'Ivanka-36-28-36'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Numerous. Click the wrong link, open the wrong attachment, go to the wrong web page, or just have an unpatched vulnerability in the OS or any of the apps he's using. Any specific service account (such as twitter) can be typically easily hacked, unless he has some robust measures for password management, uses 2-factor auth etc. Oh and of course social engineering, but that's an issue no matter the device.

---

Inb4 Putin sets up GoldenShowers.com phishing site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

what's the over/under on Stephen Colbert making that exact same joke on his next show?

---

have you heard the theory that trump's a time traveler? there's also one that he's ai.

kekology is becoming a religion, and for good reason. it helps answer one of life's four unanswered questions: who are we, why are we here, where are we going, and how does trump keep winning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Any guesses on what Trump's password is? I'm going with 'Ivanka-36-28-36'

---

http://www.reactiongifs.com/lol/hawkings-lol.gif



quality shitpost. the madman hisself would be proud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

have you heard the theory that trump's a time traveler? there's also one that he's ai.

---

You need 'i' to be 'ai'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

how does trump keep winning?

---

He's only winning with 40% of the people according to the fake approval ratings. That's why he needs to hold a campaign rally this weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

On second thought, compromising his twitter might not be that big of a disaster. I was assuming there are no official POTUS twitter accounts, but clearly there are. Obama used it. This means that it is probably the case that the account being hacked and somebody posting something like "JUST LAUNCHED NUKES LOLOLOLOLOL GG" isn't believed by national security to be something other states would take seriously.

---

Obama's was using Secure Devices© not personal devices. He has vociferously complained how he was only allowed to have a shit old phone by the NSA people. People were on his account security from day 0.

There are many many attack vectors brah. Including recovery email, the actual phone number, etc...

Plus, as we have witnessed, Obama's twitter usage does not compare to Trump's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You need 'i' to be 'ai'.

---

Two in a row.

Quote:

---

He's only winning with 40% of the people according to the fake approval ratings. That's why he needs to hold a campaign rally this weekend.

---

55+% in fake approval ratings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

55+% in fake approval ratings.

---

Trump sees the 40% ratings, then goes to speak in front of a big crowd who are all cheering him and he thinks his true approval rating has to be closer to your figure if not higher. Then he goes and rants on twitter about fake ratings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Obama's was using Secure Devices© not personal devices. He has vociferously complained how he was only allowed to have a shit old phone by the NSA people. People were on his account security from day 0.

There are many many attack vectors brah. Including recovery email, the actual phone number, etc...

---

yeah im not saying it couldn't be compromised. im reforming my initial claim that compromise would be very bad since after further thought i think it's reasonable to think that no foreign state would make any immediate decisions based on something from his twitter account. at first i thought maybe they would but now i think that's wrong.

it would certainly be embarrassing for him though

^You're thinking much too small, only about one attack vector, posting on twitter under his name. How about seeing his calendar, would China be interested if he's meeting with Taiwan, or GM that he's meeting with Toyota? Israel that he's meeting with Palestine leaders? Would China be interested in his emails, or say the Dems interested in his correspondence with Bannon? China listening to his phone calls? Or any classified information pertinent to his job leaking out, which was the whole point of the outrage with Clinton's emails?

Yeah that's other stuff. I was responding to the story and how it made it sound like the only thing he uses that device for is twitter. Obviously if he keeps Melania nudes on it, problem.

This is pretty luke-warm as far as hacking concerns go. I find it extremely hard to believe that they tried to give Trump a more secure phone and he just said "naw...this rig I bought at best buy works just fine".

I'm sure there's more to the story than that. I'm far from an expert on cyber security, but I would expect that there are measures that can be taken to make Trump's phone more secure than one off the shelf. Some of those things have already been mentioned in this thread. I'd find it hard to believe that no one at the secret service had the same thought.

Also, it's possible, plausible, and even likely that security measures have been added to Trump's phone. And whatever they are, it's probably best that they be kept secret. The fact that you don't know, and are left to wonder, is probably a good thing.

Furthermore, Trump didn't become a hacking target just since becoming president. This is something he's had to deal with his whole life.

Considering how much burning hatred there is for Trump, the fact that this letter was only signed by 14 members of congress suggests to me that this is total bullshit. 14 out of 535 is hardly a quorum.

And this is no where near the same thing as Hillary. Trump's calendar and personal twitter account are not "classified" information. That's a special designation given to information of particular concern to national security. There are procedures that you MUST follow when you come into contact with that kind of information. Hillary didn't follow those procedures. That's why she got in trouble.

https://i.redd.it/82g795spa9hy.jpg

Oh damn my boy Distinguished Professor Taleb with the elbow from the rooftop!

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/833870349217447937

Quote:

---

If you want to teach someone a real skill, teach him how to fail. He will never learn it in school.

---

Women are replacing men with government and men are replacing women with pornography.

I lold.

Don't mind me

JUST REDPILLING BITCHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opf9uUmiyQI

https://media.giphy.com/media/26ufgS...WqL6/giphy.gif

Very smart man. When he takes a dump on his own head he can tell it's feces almost immediately.


http://i.imgur.com/spKY9tD.jpg

My kids make decisions using 'eeny meeny miny moe" all the time.

Am I racist???

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/%E2...qXy?li=BBnb7Kz

Yes but what do they say for the second line? Who are they catching by the toe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Yes but what do they say for the second line? Who are they catching by the toe?

---

Apparently it doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Apparently it doesn't matter.

---

Of course it matters.

Primark have pulled the t-shirt becuase it's bad press, not because of any legal obligation. There was an airliner that used the rhyme "eeny meeny miny mo, take a seat it's time to go", and there was uproar from the African-Americans on the plane. Legal pressure followed, and courts found in favour of the airliner.

The rhyme was not origianlly a racist rhyme, as far as I'm aware. I think it's "catch a tiger by the toe". Therefore, using the rhyme is not de facto racist.

If people are going to take offence at innocent uses of the rhyme, fuck them. I'm a Birmingham City fan, a crappy football team in England. Our local rivals, Aston Villa, have a song about us, sung to the tune of "Walking in a Winter Wonderland". Does that mean I should take offence when someone sings Winter Wonderland? They also sing "fight fight wherever you may be" to the tune of Lord of the Dance. Let's ban a hymn because a bunch of morons sing silly aggressive lyrics to it.