Why are people turning far right? It's such a mystery!

NBC Reporter Fears London Terror Will ‘Put Wind in the Sails’ of ‘Right-Wing Movement’

Muslim: Death to the unbeliever! Death to the apostate! Death to the homosexual!

Feminist: Oh! Such diversity these brown people have, how quaint!

Commoner: That’s horrible!

Feminist: You can’t say that, that’s racist! You only say that because he is brown!

Commoner: He’s whiter than I am! He just called for your death, did you not hear that?

Feminist: (*dons hijab*) Don’t know what you’re talking about. Anyway, I think talking the way you do is hatecrime!

Commoner: What? So… he just called for people to murder us!

Feminist: You, I’hijabi now!

Commoner: …. he just called for people to murder me, and you say me speaking against that is hatecrime?

Politician: Gee, Feminism is really popular - what can I do to win votes from Feminists?

Commoner: Hey politician! Hey! Hey!

Politician: (*loudly*) BOY, IT IS QUIET AROUND HERE, I ONLY WISH I KNEW WHAT FEMINISTS WANTED…

Feminist: Can you make what he said hatecrime and we will piss on your opponent collectively?

Politician: The people have spoken! Hatecrime is now a crime! Better not hatecrime, you commoner, you!

Commoner: Jesus!

Politician: Right, that’s hatecrime!

Feminist: No, it’s ok to blaspheme against Christians, ‘cause Jesus is white.

Politician: Oh, right, better write that one down…

Muslim: Wow. I wasn’t arrested. What can I do to strike fear in the name of Allah?

Commoner: Bloody Hell! Won’t anyone help?

Left Wing Politician: Not I! Nothing to see here!

Muslim: What about this knife?

Conservative Politician: I hear nothing! Nothingggg!

Muslim: What about this truck?

Antifa: I want to bash people who speak up against the noble Muslim!

Muslim: I wonder if children will count extra?

Commoner: I’m desperate! I’ll support anyone who will save me!

Far Right Politician: Sounds like my cue!


Other politicians: OMG! He went Far Right! Who could have seen that happening! Clearly this is the fault of someone else!

BBC: GamerGate struck again today, when a commoner started supporting a Far Right ideology. Meanwhile, in unrelated news, someone killed a few people and we’ll never know why, probably white males did it.

Feminist: Toxic masculinity!

Muslim: Shut it, slut!

Feminist: Sorry, sir!

Our Watch - Feminist DV, campaigning for sexism in the treatment of Domestic Violence

https://archive.is/UEr8c

Archived from https://www.facebook.com/OurWatchAus/photos/a.515368445200474.1073741828.514475628623089/1422259271178049/?type=3&theater

20 Mar 2017 11:13:02 UTC

Our Watch

March 5 at 10:00pm·

Don't women have the right to feel safe, respected and treated as equals? By working together, we CAN achieve an Australia free from violence.

Recorded my reply here as they are censoring the dissenting posts.

 "women have the right to feel safe, respected and treated as equals?"

If they were being treated as equals, that would mean being AS safe, respected etc as men are - which is a step DOWN for them.


But if you think women should be subjected to the same violence as men, well, i think that's terrible, but you can always set up your own country.

After all, lesbian DV rates are higher than straight.

And to make it more equal, give the women the same number of DV shelters men have.

None.

And when they need help but have kids?

They'll be treated like men.

And lose their kids.

Yay?

By the way, good think you showed the boy as being quite young, because older boys are banned from shelters too. Such Equality!

Let's see older girls be treated like that, I'm sure it'll be a great success!

Circumcision Master Post

From https://hawkeyedflame.tumblr.com/post/158526105098/tomlintrouble-pro-kink-russel, copied so that I can find the damn links when I need them.



FUNCTIONS OF THE FORESKIN:

• Protection: The foreskin protects the glans, keeping it soft, warm and moist. It also helps balance pH and keep the glans clean. Because the glans itself has no sebaceous glands, which keep our skin moisturized and soft, the foreskin provides this service.
  
  
  
  The foreskin also protects the whole penis from insults such as abrasions, contusions, lacerations, and burns.


• Self-cleansing: The penis is an entry point for foreign microbes, just like the mouth and other orifices. Luckily, evolution has already conceived a solution; the urine of a healthy person is sterile and acts as a disinfectant. In an intact male, the urine swirls through the inside of the foreskin, naturally washing away any dangerous microbes. There is never urea found in the foreskin, however, because it also secretes cleansing fluids, similar to the eye (or the vagina).


• Infant protection: In a young human, the foreskin is attached to the glans and protects the urethra from foreign contamination. The neck of the foreskin puts the urinary meatus (the hole from which urine/semen flow) at a safe distance from the external environment. Even when the foreskin unfuses from the glans and becomes retractable, it still spends most of its time covering the glans, protecting it from contamination and injury. An infant needs the built-in protection of an immovable foreskin because it is not yet able to consciously protect its genitals.


• Immunity: The foreskin contains glands that produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme, which is also found in breast milk and tears. Langerhan’s cells, which are an epithelial cell found all over the body and a component of the immune system, are abundant in the foreskin. The mucous membrane of the foreskin secretes immunoglobulin, an antibody. The foreskin also houses beneficial bacteria, just like the vagina, our gut, our skin, and pretty much every other part of the body. The beneficial bacteria are similar to those found at other entry points to the body, and help kill pathogens.


• Sexual pleasure: The foreskin is very sensitive during sex, and facilitates smooth, painless motions during an erection and intercourse. It can sense very fine changes in temperature, texture, and motion. Its own self-lubricating qualities (precum, if you will) allow the penis to slide effortlessly and pleasurably within the foreskin and the vagina, reducing friction and eliminating the need for artificial lubricants.

Reasons not to circumcise:

• Circumcision has no beneficial medical effects (x)


• There is a notable decrease in sexual pleasure among circumcised men (x)


• Circumcision decreases efficiency of nerve response in the glans (x)


• Circumcision is linked to pain, trauma, and sequelae (1|2|3|4)


• Large damage is dealt to erogenous tissue by circumcision (1|2)


• Circumcised penises requires more care in first 3 years of life (x)


• Circumcision leads to abnormal brain development and psychological issues (1|2)


• Circumcision decreases penile sensitivity (x)


• Circumcision is associated with sexual difficulties (x)


• Circumcision causes difficulty gaining sexual pleasure (x)


• Compilation of notable complications from circumcision (x)


• Poorly educated doctors do not know how to clean a foreskin (1|2)

• For most boys, there is no hygiene benefit from circumcision (x)


• The only benefits occur in arid areas with poor hygiene (x)


• The HIV/AIDS risk decrease from circumcision claim is inflated (x)


• There is no case for widespread implementation of circumcision to stop HIV/AIDS (1|2)


• Circumcision does not decrease the incidence of STDs (x)


• Parents choose circumcision for psychosocial factors instead of health ones (x)


• Although circumcision does reduce the risk of a UTI, these infections only affect 1% of boys. (x) Circumcision as a preventative measure for a condition that rare is laughable.


• Circumcision also reduces the risk of penile cancer, but again, penile cancer is so rare that only about 1 in 900 men will develop it anyways. (x)

Medical institutions against circumcision:

• Swedish Pediatric Society (they outright call for a ban)


• Royal Dutch Medical Association calls it a violation of human rights, and calls for a “strong policy of deterrence.”


• College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia: “This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non-therapeutic procedure… Current evidence indicates that previously-thought prophylactic public health benefits do not out-weigh the potential risks… Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue.”


• Australian Federation of Aids organizations state that circumcision has “no role” in the HIV epidemic.


• The German Association of Pediatricians called for a ban.


• The German Association of Child and Youth Doctors attacked the AAP’s claims, saying the benefits they claim, including HIV reduction, are “questionable,” and that “Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia.” (scroll to page 7 for the English translation.)


• The AAP was recently attacked by the President of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists because the evidence of benefit is weak, and they are promoting “Irreversible mutilating surgery.”


• The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has taken a position against it, saying it is harmful and will likely be considered illegal in the future, given the number of men who are angry that it was done to them.


• The Central Union for Child Welfare “considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person… Circumcision can only be allowed to independent major persons, both women and men, after it has been ascertained that the person in question wants it of his or her own free will and he or she has not been subjected to pressure.”


• The Royal College of Surgeons of England: “The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it non- retractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age.”……..“The parents and, when competent, the child, must be made fully aware of the implications of this operation as it is a non-reversible procedure.”


• The British Medical Association: it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks… The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.


• The Australian Medical Association has a policy of discouraging it, and says “The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns.”


• The Australian College of Paediatrics: “The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit…. Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication.


• The Royal Australasian College of Physicians: “Some men strongly resent having been circumcised as infants. There has been increasing interest in this problem, evidenced by the number of surgical and non-surgical techniques for recreation of the foreskin.


• The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons: “Despite uncircumcised men reporting greater sexual satisfaction, which was statistically significant, Kigozi et al (2008) concluded that adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men.”


• The Norwegian Council of Medical Ethics states that ritual circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, that it is without medical value, and should not be paid for with public funds.


• The Norwegian Children’s Ombudsman is opposed as well.


• The Denmark National Council for Children is also opposed.


• And recently, the politically appointed Health minister of Norway opposed a ban on circumcision, yet the ban was supported by the Norwegian Medical Association, the Norwegian Nurses Organization, the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children, and the University of Oslo.

Beer to be 'purged' by the New Puritans

Brazilian Beer Company’s New Ad Campaign Paints Over its Past ‘Sexist’ Images

So feminists complained that a woman was dressing too sexily and demanded she cover up and wear hijab, the slut.

The company caved under the pressure and started printing beers with the slogan “The Future Is Female.”

This is a reference to the genocidal fantasies of Alix Dobkin and her group of fanatical lesbian separatists, who hoped to exterminate all men and boys.

Because that’s the sort of message you want printed on a beer, amiright?

All About Beer Magazine vowed that it would not feature beers that are sexist, offensive or otherwise “fall into poor taste.”

So what is poor taste?

Sexy women.

Why?

Because it makes feminists feel inferior, and they are in the elite power structures of society.

They constantly claim to be oppressed, and yet have the least of their insecurities catered to. They demand prettier women be removed like the crazed Queen from Snow White, and demand women be made to cover up their bodies, whilst walking around in far less for their slut walks.

So what is the difference?

Men like to look at the sexy women, and feminists hate male sexuality.

If a man is happy, he must be corrected.George Orwell said:

“ If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.”
“The Future is Female”, drools the Feminist, imagining that boot to be hers.

Unwanted child is no grounds to sue mum for lying about taking the pill?

 Unwanted child is no grounds to sue mum for lying about taking the pill

Sex is about consent. If two people have sex, they must trust each other.

She lied.

What would have happened if a man lied about contraception?

Feminist say that that is rape. Feminists have changed laws in some places to make that rape.

Yet I consistently see Feminists defending this decision.

He was the responsible party, not her.

He should have worn a condom.

Even though women can sabotage condoms or use them to get pregnant anyway, sometimes a long time afterwards.

The ‘theft’ itself was alarmingly easy to carry out. One night, after sex, I took the used condom and, in the privacy of the bathroom, I did what I had to do. Bingo.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2056875/Liz-Jones-baby-craving-drove-steal-husbands-sperm-ultimate-deception.html


Ex-girlfriend hid sperm and used for in-vitro pregnancy: suit

Men deceived into fatherhood are struggling to rescue their reproductive rights from the whim of women. Bettina Arndt reports.

Women have even tried, and presumably sometimes succeeded, to get pregnant when no penetration has occurred.

So where is the Feminist outrage at the double standard?

An appeals court said a man can press a claim for emotional distress after learning a former lover had used his sperm to have a baby. But he can’t claim theft, the ruling said, because the sperm were hers to keep.

https://archive.is/iXbjS from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/#.Uc9r3n3LfK4 archived 29 Jun 2013 23:21:11 UTC


I am very much reminded of the case of Julian Assange, who was alleged to have also lied about a condom.

That warranted a gigantic police operation, even though "the two Swedish women who accuse WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sexual misconduct were at first not seeking to bring charges against him"

https://archive.is/Y4kfm archived 4 Mar 2017 13:21:45 UTC from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-charges-idUSTRE6B669H20101207

Further Reading:

https://community.babycenter.com/post/a52628875/pregnant_from_sperm_retrieved_from_a_condom

A reply to Philip DeFranco

I am superior to you because I don't do sexy shoots

So what did Emma say that makes her seem hypocritical?

"Do as I say, not as I do"

I find this whole thing about being 18 and everyone expecting me to be this object..I find the whole concept of being 'sexy' embarrassing and confusing.

Personally, I don't actually think it's even that sexy. What's sexy about saying, 'I'm here with my boobs out and a short skirt...have a look at everything I've got'? My idea of sexy is that less is more. The less you reveal the more people can wonder.

https://archive.is/IJtp2

archived from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/4421737/Emma-Watson-describes-her-concept-of-sexiness.html

6 Mar 2017 12:43:18 UTC

I am superior to you
because I can do this
then
criticise you for doing this

“As I was watching [the videos] I felt very conflicted, I felt her message felt very conflicted in the sense that on the one hand she is putting herself in a category of a feminist, but then the camera, it felt very male, such a male voyeuristic experience of her and I just wondered if you had thoughts about that or if you had any of your own thoughts about any of it really …”(source)

Emma Watson, making it clear that Beyonce's body is not her choice; Feminists will sanctimoniously decide for women what they may do - they are the new puritans, but an especially hypocritical variety.



The trouble is, "Classical Feminism" never existed - what you are describing is egalitarianism.

When Dworkin et al took over the teaching of Feminism at universities, and shaped the leadership of Feminism, then they determined how the movement was defined. It's exactly the same as Communism.

Young Communists will often argue that Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc etc are all irrelevant, because the bulk of communists were really, really nice. But they didn't oppose the authoritarian policies, and as we see in America, are very content with opposing liberal ideals such as Free Speech.

Feminists, as a group, campaign against businesses such as newspapers and Hooters, that use female sexuality - they call it objectification. But the businesses do not force women to work for them. Is it not "their body, their choice"?

Emma: Feminism is about choice!

Feminism: We will decide your choices for you.

It's not technically the first time she's done topless modelling,

but it is interesting that what she was wearing in her recent shoot
would be banned for strippers in some US States

And you can say "oh, they are just the radicals", but where are all the nice feminists protecting those women's choices? When feminists jump onto runways to attack models because they feel modelling is objectification, there's no condemnation of it by Feminist leaders.


One of the things that surprised me when I learnt Modern History was that most Nazis were nice. They had no idea they were bad people, they didn't do violence themselves, they were good folks... but they didn't oppose the ones who were doing the horrors, because their leadership said things that made them feel good.

It's the same with Feminism. Feminists don't oppose organisations like NOW, they don't speak up when #HeForShe says that men must learn to serve women, they just want their feelgood fix and if that hurts men and women ... so be it.

Objectification: It's fine when she does it.

Emma's true self finally revealed!

Further Reading:

The "No More Page 3" Campaign. https://archive.is/PiSkf

Hooters objectifies women? https://archive.is/fF8FW 3 Mar 2017 02:03:05 UTC



Feminists are body-shaming ME', claims model who was savaged
after starring in 'Are You Beach Body Ready?' ad

'That b**** ruined my walk!': Model explains why she PUNCHED topless feminist protester who stormed Paris Fashion Week

Feminists point out that no, feminism is not about choice

Maybe the whole thing was just trolling?

Excerpt from Battle of the boobs:

"The No More Page 3 campaign called for the banning of boobs from the pages of tabloid newspapers like the Sun, because, it claimed, pictures of topless women have no place in print media.



However, the official campaign’s Facebook page celebrated Watson’s shoot, sharing an article that said ‘Emma Watson’s boobs prove we still need feminism’.

Feminists can’t seem to make up their minds: are women publicly baring their boobs good feminists, or bad women?"

Fallout 4 and the Institute: "know them by what they do"

The Institute talks a good talk but if you look at the terminals, you get the real story.

Take Warwick Farm. The Institute likes the look of it's soils.

So does it try to buy the farm? Find somewhere similar? Trade for use of the fields?

Nope.

Stage 1:
Using genetic manipulation, we will develop a unique breed of Cucurbitaceae with similar characteristics to those commonly farmed in the Commonwealth.

Stage 2:
Acquire Roger Warwick, patriarch of Warwick Homestead, and conduct a series of intensive interrogation sessions to learn all we can about his life and family.

Stage 3:
With the intelligence gathered in Stage 2, create a synth replica of Roger Warwick and embed the unit on-site at Warwick Homestead to oversee the operation directly. SRB will handle logistics of this aspect of the initiative.

Stage 4:
Begin covert deliveries of prototype seed batches for planting.

Stage 5:
Collect observational data from embedded unit.

Stage 6:
When sufficient data has been collected, retrieve synth unit and specimens for lab study. Purge all surface evidence of the initiative.

It captures the father of the household and tortures them for everything they need to make a replacement - then kills him or turns him into a supermutant.

Then they send out the fake to share the bed of the widow.

The fake will do the experiments, then help murder everyone who lives there.

All because they wanted to do an agricultural experiment.

Clayton, talking about the people of Warwick Farm,
who will be murdered soon under the instructions of 'Father'.

There are members of the Institute who question the system,
but they are isolated,
and terrified.

Rightly so.

When you walk around the Institute, they constantly tell you "the Synths aren't human! they just aren't human" with a weird desperate need to be believed. They never present evidence for the case that Synths can't feel, and will talk about them feeling emotions, then deny they have any.

The dirtier areas of the Institute
- morally as well as literally
- are hidden from view.

Most living there do not acknowledge their existence,
any more than they acknowledge
that they steal power from the Commonwealth.

I think it's the same with the peoples outside the Institute. They don't see them as real. To be fair, they don't interact with them, for the most part. Their sterile little world - and it is tiny - is all most have ever known. The dirtier parts of it are kept hidden away. And anyone who asks questions, well... the coursers walk around constantly as a threat. In fact, the head of the coursers looks likely to take power in a coup. What's to stop the one person who has command over the coursers from killing everyone in his way?

And the coursers? Are cut-down emotionally, stunted to remove compassion, but with their toughness otherwise far beyond human.

The Institute says that it must recover any Synths that flee,
because they are property
and expensive to make.

Yet the recovery costs them money and resources.
It also makes them enemies.
  If they let Synths leave if they desired,
the Railroad wouldn't exist.

Yet they have the resources
to build fake gorillas that do nothing,
that have no purpose.

They are not part of an ecosystem.
They are not weapons or spies.

They are made because...

We are never told.

It seems that a lot of things are just
done.

I can easily imagine the FRB ruling with an iron grip - only for the next generation of coursers; smarter, even more ruthless - figuring out how to overcome their own safeguards, and deciding, as the Institute's example taught - that the humans, aren't, well, human - and eliminating them is important to the Institute's survival.

Do as you would be done by. How does the Institute treat others?

I do regret that there is no way to simply assume control of it. You can sneak in, turn off the defenses, shutdown the synths, let in an army to take prisoners... but no, the game won't let you do that. The game requires that you blow it up, because ... voice acting... cut-scenes... railroaded... ugh.

Perhaps one day, modders will be able to alter that side of such games, but as it stands, there's very little they can do. Fallout 4 and similar games end up being very rigid except in minor ways, like furniture or outfits. Changing the 'endings'? Nope!

And that's a shame in my book, because none of these endings are any good, and modders could do so much better in terms of writing, if not visual effects or voice acting.

One of the earliest reasons I chose never to help the Institute
was that they lied about the FEV project.

They turned the people they kidnapped into monsters, and fed them cats.

Cats.

Yep, I know it's crazy but that was the last straw.

You kill my Mittens?

You die.