NY GRAND JURY VOTES TO INDICT TRUMP

[Origen]

Nah there's plenty of critique of Foucault within the left because of his creepy stance. But he's dead. And you're still literally a fascist, so nobody cares what you think about pedophilia or cultural normative values.

[Origen]

Besides, nobody on the right actually wants to open the "this one dude was a creep, so that invalidates your entire ideology" box because the right definitely has waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more

[Landroval]

Originally Posted by Origen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Besides, nobody on the right actually wants to open the "this one dude was a creep, so that invalidates your entire ideology" box because the right definitely has waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more

I just did, dumbass, and Foucault is still Relevant because your homo professors still circle-jerk his ideas constantly in academia.

The entire platform of the left, "Systems of Oppression" is built on this pedo-homos ideas.

His entire pathology that lead to the articulation of his ideas are that of a pederast..

"Systemic oppression", because they can't buttfuck kids, is the primary perspective of a pederast.

And, I absolutely "called" your next pivot, disavowing your pinko predecessors because of the unsavory connection to your pinko ideals. Babe Truthing your retarded shit out of the park.

[Origen]

Now we're just two dudes with no ideologies. Wanna compare penises?

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by magnetaress [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It would be less of a problem if 1v1 combat on private property was legal and the state had no jurisdiction there on private property.

The best way is for people to choose their friends wisely and be well armed and vigilant. And sober at all times.

I do not fucking understand at all how we can live in this society in this day and age where if someone wrongs us we have to rely on the charity of disinterested and disconnected beuracrats and police.

I’d be down for a 1v1 combat resolution, just not against a woman obv [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Another way would be to ensure that you have left off with every past sexual partner such a great relationship, that no amount of money could ever entice them to lie about you. Because the amount of money offered would be relative to the perceived influence of the male target. For example, I’m sure the gal that testified against Judge Kavanaugh got shitloads of donor money and money from news orgs

So you either have to buy their permanent lifelong allegiance yourself, or somehow foster it through a solid lifelong connection. Bad breakups will fuck you over. And the ex deciding she’s no longer the same political party as you could fuck your over

This is why it’s technically impossible to completely protect oneself from a metoo

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Origen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now we're just two dudes with no ideologies. Wanna compare penises?

Again: It's a France problem. It's always been a France problem.

[unsunghero]

Like for the Russel Brand thing, I’ve heard some of the breakdowns on that

Apparently these news agencies read Russel’s books, then tracked down every single woman he’d ever mentioned having sex with, which was apparently more than 200. Asking them if there was ever a time things got out of hand or might not have been consensual. They also promised them complete anonymity

Basically fishing

And out of more than 200 women, they found like 3 who had negatives to say. I think one said he didn’t use a condom when she asked due to him being too intoxicated, but that he apologized after and got an STD test. And 2 others apparently said it wasn’t consensual or I dunno what. There was one who was supposedly 16 but with age of consent laws in Britain that’s legal

Out of 200 women they found like 2. Whose testimony I haven’t heard so it might be either flimsy or just not true. Because of course neither went to the police at that time so there is no evidence or proof

That shows the length the news agencies will go to smear you if you piss them off

[Landroval]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I’d be down for a 1v1 combat resolution, just not against a woman obv [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Another way would be to ensure that you have left off with every past sexual partner such a great relationship, that no amount of money could ever entice them to lie about you. Because the amount of money offered would be relative to the perceived influence of the male target. For example, I’m sure the gal that testified against Judge Kavanaugh got shitloads of donor money and money from news orgs

So you either have to buy their permanent lifelong allegiance yourself, or somehow foster it through a solid lifelong connection. Bad breakups will fuck you over. And the ex deciding she’s no longer the same political party as you could fuck your over

This is why it’s technically impossible to completely protect oneself from a metoo

Mutual combat is legalized in several states, with limitations on the extent by which you can continue to aggress when the other party capitulates and/or is incapacitated, of course.

The problem arises when one party thinks they can force the other party who does not consent to a Trial By Combat, and is aggressed anyways; then it's called assault.

The krux of the matter being that one can agitate or insult another whilst claiming no desire to enter into fisticuffs, but even in that caveat "provocation" can sometimes be used to dismiss assault allegations if there's sufficient proof.

In my upbringing, it was understood that if a disagreement evolved into a physical altercation with my brother or cousin, who were approximately of the same age, the determination of who was correct was synonymous with who won the fight.

This falls along the same line of thought as, if there's something to be divided and shared amongst the brethren, the person who does the dividing gets last pick, which is why politicians and executive officers in megacorps should get paid less than the lowest paid employee.

[Origen]

Originally Posted by aussenseiter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again: It's a France problem. It's always been a France problem.

Property destruction is not a problem in the grand scheme of things. We celebrate it when it's America carpet bombing a majority-Muslim country yet again, but burn one lousy police station and you can terrorize reactionaries for years.

Some people seem very fixated on throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[arvidez]

Originally Posted by Origen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Property destruction is not a problem in the grand scheme of things.

Some people seem very fixated on throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

self harm is a problem..the bathwater is full of baby blood and that baby is nervous.