Wank Dad 2: Electric Wankaloo

[shosta]

Meltdown May takes another victim.

[Mandark]

Honestly I think this year had more of a Meltdown March thanks to the primaries and the rona.

Still got half a month to go and Elon Musk is going hard though.

[VomKriege]

Honestly I think this year had more of a Meltdown March thanks to the primaries and the rona.

Still got half a month to go and Elon Musk is going hard though.

Get your wank brackets in !

[Momo]

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/peltzmadeline/status/1261330674528784384

 

In a month

Corona-chan was supposed to be the downfall of Joe.

Haha Keanu interview goes BRRR

[Pissy F Benny]

[VomKriege]

That's crazy man. Have you ever tasted urine ?

[shosta]

https://twitter.com/quantian1/status/1261719882367995905

[shosta]

this has been an amazing year for Matt tweets and it's only going to get better, and by better I mean worse

[Nintex]

anything but this please 

https://twitter.com/neoliberal_dad/status/1261771755594625030

This is how skynet begins

https://twitter.com/IvankaTrump/status/1262095075963736064

this is how the matrix starts

[shosta]

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1262138822541934592

fucking stop tweeting 

Matt discovering MMT and R at the same time is going to literally give me cancer

[VomKriege]

https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/1261990066223710208

Just a flu Not smallpox.

[team filler]

https://twitter.com/PersianPoetics/status/1261745279860080641

https://twitter.com/PersianPoetics/status/1261787045556629505

https://twitter.com/PersianPoetics/status/1261787693022928896

https://twitter.com/PersianPoetics/status/1261788351658688512

 

[Mandark]

I love quotes from conservatives that make the liberal agenda sound way more badass than it is.

[benjipwns]

that Tweet undersells this "guest"

Ingraham was speaking to Dr. Paul Nathanson, a gender relations professor and author of books including Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture on the podcast episode entitled "Transhumanism and the assault on traditional gender and masculinity."

"I think that the trans people have taken it one step further because by abandoning gender altogether, not simply re-writing it, they're basically trying to use social engineering to create a new species. Which is what, in fact, the transhumanists have been doing for the past half century. Using medical and other technologies to develop a new species.

"So the goal is really quite radical," he added. "We're not talking about people who want to simply do a bit of reform here and there, add a new category. They want, they must, in fact, destroy whatever is in order to replace it with what they think should be. We're talking about revolution, not reform."

Ingraham asks: "And the new species will be looking like what? Will be part human part animal? I mean, will be human mostly…"

Nathanson said, "I think human and part machine,"

[jakefromstatefarm]

futurism is fashy

[Skullfuckers Anonymous]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1262488108630773766

[Tripon]

https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1262466758260281351

[shosta]

I've got some fresh content from this forum's original wank dad

Okay, please tell me if I'm missing some obvious point here, but what is so confusing and offensive about the idea of wearing a mask in order to 'increase freedoms' i.e., opening up more shit sooner rather than later? It is established that wearing even cloth masks reduce the likelihood of spreading the virus. Therefore, if more people wear those, then more shit can open up....I see nothing to be offended and outraged by....What am I missing?

That you're begging permission from the state to go out and do your normal things, do your business, and make a life for yourself. Things you didn't need to wait and ask permission to do before. Things you were free to do via your own autonomy.

You're missing the meaning of freedom.

Are you taking the virus into context here? Surely, the fact that there is currently a virus that spreads from person to person via the air that they breathe out ought to mean something?

All your life there has been a virus that spreads person to person, many through the air. You've probably had a few. If you're quite old, then you've tried to avoid being around sick people, maybe even family members. If you had a baby, you probably kept sick people away from them.

But you still had your freedoms. You had the permission to do otherwise. What you did was your choice.

It's kind of depressing that you don't understand what the word freedom means. Your concept of it is like a child asking things from mommy. Kids don't have freedoms. They legally don't have the right to them that an adult does.

So your answer is: No. You are obviously not taking this virus into context. Holy shit man. Why are you being so condescending, making assumptions about me, and being such an ass when I've just asked a simple question? Is it too much for your brain to handle?

The stupidity of your reply is staggering. I do appreciate your answer though, since it supports my hypothesis that those against even the slightest precautions are as dumb as Schaub.

You had your question answered. What you're missing is the definition of the word freedom. You didn't like the answer, so you're acting offended.

Remove yourself from the [joe rogan] sub. You don't belong.

Please tell me you are doing satire? If not, I'm not sure you're smart enough to be using the internet.

[Mandark]

I see you and raise you the Bore's original Qanon acolyte.

I was replying to a comment. There is a lot “suspect” about the logistics and perception of the logistics. To you, unacceptable exists within a framework that is probably disjointed from the intention of what I posted.

Little did we know, [Bill Gates] was involved with developing said deadly microbes

[shosta]

that's gotta be like a garden path sentence or something, I've read it four times and I still don't know what it means

[Joe Molotov]

that's gotta be like a garden path sentence or something, I've read it four times and I still don't know what it means

I'm suspect about the perception of the logistics of this post.

[nachobro]

the forum's original coward

[Oblivion]

I've got some fresh content from this forum's original wank dad

what the odds. i was listening to destiny debate some jordan peterson fanboy and thought of your boy.

one of my favorite moments was how et thought the later released, uncut "in-context" vice interview vindicated jorp's dumbass comments about lipstick and such, when in reality it only made him look worse

[shosta]

Hmmm, not sure I remember that conversation, also there's no need to dig it up and fill me in on it, no really, don't

[team filler]

I've got some fresh content from this forum's original wank dad

Okay, please tell me if I'm missing some obvious point here, but what is so confusing and offensive about the idea of wearing a mask in order to 'increase freedoms' i.e., opening up more shit sooner rather than later? It is established that wearing even cloth masks reduce the likelihood of spreading the virus. Therefore, if more people wear those, then more shit can open up....I see nothing to be offended and outraged by....What am I missing?

That you're begging permission from the state to go out and do your normal things, do your business, and make a life for yourself. Things you didn't need to wait and ask permission to do before. Things you were free to do via your own autonomy.

You're missing the meaning of freedom.

Are you taking the virus into context here? Surely, the fact that there is currently a virus that spreads from person to person via the air that they breathe out ought to mean something?

All your life there has been a virus that spreads person to person, many through the air. You've probably had a few. If you're quite old, then you've tried to avoid being around sick people, maybe even family members. If you had a baby, you probably kept sick people away from them.

But you still had your freedoms. You had the permission to do otherwise. What you did was your choice.

It's kind of depressing that you don't understand what the word freedom means. Your concept of it is like a child asking things from mommy. Kids don't have freedoms. They legally don't have the right to them that an adult does.

So your answer is: No. You are obviously not taking this virus into context. Holy shit man. Why are you being so condescending, making assumptions about me, and being such an ass when I've just asked a simple question? Is it too much for your brain to handle?

The stupidity of your reply is staggering. I do appreciate your answer though, since it supports my hypothesis that those against even the slightest precautions are as dumb as Schaub.

You had your question answered. What you're missing is the definition of the word freedom. You didn't like the answer, so you're acting offended.

Remove yourself from the [joe rogan] sub. You don't belong.

Please tell me you are doing satire? If not, I'm not sure you're smart enough to be using the internet.

[Mandark]

the forum's original coward

I'm the OC.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[benjipwns]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1262425735836299264

[Oblivion]

Hmmm, not sure I remember that conversation, also there's no need to dig it up and fill me in on it, no really, don't

what's great is that it was right in the very first two pages of the last thread. how convenient!

The Cathy Newman interview was a 5 minute segment on TV. They put the whole interview up on YT.  The YT whole interview is what sank them. Vice News followed with another recent interview which was apparently 2 hours long. They cut it up into a 4 minute clip for TV. They have yet to put the whole thing up on YT, as if they recognized Channel 4's mistake in going away from the short soundbite format.

You can figure out the context yourself. Kang made a statement that the Social Studies Warrior stuff stays in colleges, to which Peterson disagreed and pointed towards NBC regulating hugging, and Kang explained that as a reaction towards #metoo as though that justifies it without pause, and Peterson said such a thing as workplace harassment is more complicated than ready made answers can handle and that we have to really questions assumptions about women and men working together, to which Kang said it's no issue and he works with women all the time, to which everyone did a double take because Kang works for fucking VICE, and Peterson was like u srs? and then asked why not regulate make-up, to which Kang seemed unable to follow, and Peterson explained that make-up replicates the appearance of sexual arousal and sends sexual messages. Eventually Kang asked if women who wear make-up (sexual message sender) are somewhat hypocritical if they don't want to receive harassment (which tends to be sexual in nature) and Peterson said yes.

So if the goal is X then there are many things you can do to achieve X. However the vast variables of things you can do (y1, y2, y3) are also varied in public acceptance and personal cost. To fully eliminate workplace harassment we would have to go to some extreme ends. The question is if we want to go that far or not and where do we draw the line on what we are willing to do?  And can we accept that harassment will happen? Must it be rid of at all costs? If you're going to regulate hugging then why not regulate make-up? If we are regulating male sexual expressions then shouldn't we regulate female sexual expressions?

And Jay's response is a goofy "oh its easy its no prob" while ignoring his own employer is in the midst of heavy sexual assault and impropriety accusations.

I would say that Peterson's line of questioning was due a longer talk, but Jay chose to move on. I directly challenged Jay on this, but he said it was Peterson's job to explain and took no responsibility for being the guy running the interview and changing the subject. Kang is pretty much an online troll, so I don't have faith that he was at all interested in the deeper conversation and was just hoping for a gotcha clip to put on the HBO show.

Which is the sort of stuff people are sick of why they're ditching old media.

No. The question was if a very serious business woman wants to avoid harassment and wears make-up, is that somewhat hypocritical? To which he said yes. He also said he was not saying we should eliminate sexual displays in the workplace.

If you're seriously addressing harassment, then these are the questions you have to face. However, if you're just using harassment as a threat against the company in some sort of racketeering operation by HR then you pose dumb solutions like hugging regulations which make it look like you're doing something when it doesn't actually accomplish anything. And since it doesn't accomplish anything, then the problem persists and you blame someone other than the people whose job it is to "fix" the problem. This doesn't help harassment. It only establishes that a company can regulate behavior down to the level of friendliness allowed.

So we give up choosing whether we can handle hugging a worker friend in order to make the appearance of fighting harassment. The line of questioning involves some adept thinking. It's more of a leap to some than it is to the people who get it. So listen to the people who can follow along.

"they should expect to be harassed."

Again, that is not what he said.

Make-up and high heels sends sexual messages to brains. May iliciit chemical reactions in others, even if those others aren't making the choice to see it as sexual. It's something underneath the surface. That element may lead to a random man thinking the woman is open to his own sexual expression.

That doesn't mean he's justified in doing. It doesn't mean she should expect that response. It's not about blaming everything on one person or one thing.  It's about our rules of interaction at work and whether they are fit to the task.

A man noticing a woman's large breasts and instinctively pausing on them. This can be seen as ogling. However, this can happen without any intent or immediate awareness by the man.

Put another way: We've all had awkward boners.

However, those examples are obvious physical displays by the man. We're talking about things a man might to with intent that is not sexual but that is received sexually by women. These would include standing tall, walking tall or exaggerating physical size. (Leaning back, spreading arms.) Displays of accomplishment do this as well.

You can argue that all of these displays are status displays to both men and women, but that goes both ways. A study of women and men and their reaction to images of women with make-up revealed that men see that as status on the conscience report level and women see that as women competing sexually. Self-grooming also falls into sexual display (across species). A simple straight back, chest forward, tightening of the necktie can send signals.

Sexual display and status display are likely intertwined to the point that they activate similar parts of the brain.

I don't think he thinks that sexual allure is the only reason women wear make-up. It is probably hard to detach it from sexual display. All modern uses likely hearken back to that as their origin.  An honest adult woman likely knows how she does her make-up increases her sexuality and that increases her status and power.

*the "full context" vice video is posted by yours truly*

Sweet Jebus

Jay Kang can not follow along with the conversation at all. They did really cut up the interview. Kang also lied about the length of the make-up conversation on twitter. He made it seem like the original clip was the total length of the topic and it was Peterson's fault for not expanding upon it when the truth is they did talk a lot more about it and VICE cut that longer discussion out. Jay could have just admitted the expanded upon it and didn't have space in the time budget rather than blame JBP.

I'd say if you think this makes it worse then you're not understanding the conversation. I'm tired of explaining it though. hungrynoob is right, it's rather futile in effort. People should not still be hung up on the make-up bit at this point.

The point of the exploratory discussion is that we haven't had a real exploratory discussion. You assume the matter is settled based on untested assumptions, so the entire conversation sounds like "menacing warnings about unintended consequences" that mean nothing to you when the unintended consequences are real questions for people who look at these things on an evolutionary scale.

Does sexual harassment exist yes? Yes. Do we denounce it? Yes.  Does it still happen? Yes.

So why does it happen? And can we eliminate it? Do we want to fully eliminate it? Where is the line of what we are willing to do stand?

If you fill all these unknowns with assumptions and don't pay attention closely to what people do in response then we are driving blindly upon the subject.

The evolutionary scale is different biologically and socially. Social adaptation and change occurs much faster than biological. They both have a scale that evolves. This question exists on both formats at once, but we have to mostly face it on the social behavioral side while still worrying about the longer term evo scale.

[shosta]

it was a joke about me taking etiolate's side

[Oblivion]

it was a joke about me taking etiolate's side

well it's too late now, isn't it 

[Oblivion]

besides, people who weren't aware of the shenanigans at the time can catch up

[Mandark]

I remember I'd heard Peterson's name and was wondering what deal was. I might have heard about the whole pronouns controversy, but I don't think I'd made that connection.

Then I heard the lipstick quote and it all became clear: this was just warmed-over PUA evopsych stuff and also he's dumb.

[EchoRin]

Peterson really ought to be thanking all those trans folks for giving him some made up conflict for him to get involved with. "This law is going to do X Y Z"

*law passes. Nothing Jordan feared came true anyways. Jordan Big Wank Money train don't care. Woo wooooooo*

edit:

Which reminds me. I saved this a while ago as it amused me.

https://yuki.la/pol/126156281

[bluemax]

anything but this please 

https://twitter.com/neoliberal_dad/status/1261771755594625030

This is how skynet begins

https://twitter.com/IvankaTrump/status/1262095075963736064

this is how the matrix starts

 https://twitter.com/lilly_wachowski/status/1262104754496339968

spoiler (click to show/hide)

The Matrix is about being trans, not being a neocon dickbag.

[close]

[Pissy F Benny]

Peterson really ought to be thanking all those trans folks for giving him some made up conflict for him to get involved with. "This law is going to do X Y Z"

*law passes. Nothing Jordan feared came true anyways. Jordan Big Wank Money train don't care. Woo wooooooo*

edit:

Which reminds me. I saved this a while ago as it amused me.

https://yuki.la/pol/126156281

Peterson can’t thank anyone, he’s at bare minimum brain dead or more likely dead dead

[shosta]

I just don't have it in me to hate read shit anymore  I used to be able to chug a whole one hour interview with any fuckwad mentioned in here but now my tolerance is so low for shapiro type bullshit. Frankly, I just want to live my life without ever encountering it ever again.

[shosta]

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1262744298207850496

you're killing me, matt

[shosta]

He's implicitly saying that people without degrees aren't worth convincing, which is exactly what someone with a Philosophy degree from Harvard would say

[Mandark]

leftists: the democratic party takes black voters for granted because they know they'll vote for the dem candidate anyways

vox guy: the democratic party takes black voters for granted because they know they'll vote for the dem candidate anyways

leftists: fuck off with that horrible galaxy brain take

[Mandark]

hahaha awwwww

Imagining them as the mavericks who lived too fast and burned out for their generation. Dean/Monroe, Hendrix/Joplin/Morrison, Biggie/Pac, Cobain/Staley, and now Peterson/Musk.

Though I guess it's more of a Brian Wilson situation right now.

[Mandark]

I blame Drake.

[team filler]

how old is bro?

[EchoRin]

The only person I know who loved Peterson is an asian American who has Taiwanese roots. He loves Trump, never had a girlfriend, says mysoginst shit, has a problem with rap music, has a problem with feminism, is an unironic 4channer, told me that Phillipinos are the N-word of the Asian race (I know it's a running edgy joke, but coming from this guy it's more only half a joke to him), enjoys coming off as smart (and to be fair academically he isn't dumb. Went to UofM). Oh he probably latched onto the fact that Peterson was ranting about these snowflake and trans issues under the guise of intellectualism and free speech. Always gotta use the shield of "being smart"

This same guy turned my other friend on to Peterson when he was sort of in a personal crisis and seeking out self help sort of stuff. Though this second guy has no bigotry in his bones. He's just one of those artist types. Literally this guy paints for a living to some degree. I know he's also taught art in the past. Not sure if he still does the latter.

So I guess what I'm saying is these guys appeal to either hateful people who have some issues (example 1)
Or they appeal to people who are in a moment of weakness (example 2)

Sorry EXO, not saying your bro falls into those categories. Just pointing out what I've seen with my own two eyes in the real world.

Oh example 2 dude I'm pretty sure has weaned himself off of Peterson. Thank God.

[EchoRin]

Though this second guy has no bigotry in his bones. He's just one of those artist types. Literally this guy paints for a living to some degree. I know he's also taught art in the past. Not sure if he still does the latter.

You know those failed art school painterly types, never done anything wrong, harmless, except for that one time

Mmm... Oh.. Ohhhhh.

Haha yeah luckily he's not one to take that dark turn.

[team filler]

https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/1262812859983151104

 

[EchoRin]

What? Why the hell would you move your audio only to spotify? Can't even download that shit unless you are subbed to it.

I know why... [Cardi B voice] Money [/Cardi B voice]

[team filler]

it's a youtube thing for me. if it's not there I won't bother 

[EchoRin]

I mean yeah I've only seen his youtube uploaded stuff too. Not like I'm actually a listener so it makes no difference to me.

[Tripon]

Rogan said he's keeping the separate Clips channel on youtube. I'm eh overall on it. I don't have a spotify account and I'm not signing up and a part of that is Joe Rogan being a COVID-19 truther.

[Mr Gilhaney]

What? Why the hell would you move your audio only to spotify? Can't even download that shit unless you are subbed to it.

I know why... [Cardi B voice] Money [/Cardi B voice]

To get money. Last podcast on the left did it recently too.

[team filler]

alex jones was right! joe is a globalist sellout cia cuck piece of shit 

that rogan guy sucks too 

[naff]

well, at least it's getting you to stop listening to the JRE filler.

that shit will rot your brain.

[Oblivion]

Fair enough.

I guess the aspect that really baffles me is while I was the same it caused the opposite effect of me seeing your Jordan Peterson types as pathetic. Like you want to be ultra-masculine? Hit the gym, learn how to fix your own car, it isn't that hard.

the funny thing is jorp has done a better job proving the concept of masculinity is an arbitrary construct than any feminist ever could.

dude is teaching incels how to be a 'real man', while being the least masculine person in the western hemisphere.

[bluemax]

This Matty Y guy is apparently trying to learn Python/R and his graphs have been horrible and amazing in their awfulness.

[Great Rumbler]

Fair enough.

I guess the aspect that really baffles me is while I was the same it caused the opposite effect of me seeing your Jordan Peterson types as pathetic. Like you want to be ultra-masculine? Hit the gym, learn how to fix your own car, it isn't that hard.

the funny thing is jorp has done a better job proving the concept of masculinity is an arbitrary construct than any feminist ever could.

dude is teaching incels how to be a 'real man', while being the least masculine person in the western hemisphere.

JP, in his Kermit voice and barely holding back tears: Please, clean your rooms.

Incels: Now that's a REAL man!

[Oblivion]

also, related to that, i find it equally amusing that comic books, anime and video games have become the battleground in the war to save Western Civilization (tm). and the people who consider themselves fans of those things, who have proclaimed themselves the vanguard against cuckery, when those same people have been looked down upon by society as pathetic, basement dwelling losers.

[EchoRin]

also, related to that, i find it equally amusing that comic books, anime and video games have become the battleground in the war to save Western Civilization (tm). and the people who consider themselves fans of those things, who have proclaimed themselves the vanguard against cuckery, when those same people have been looked down upon by society as pathetic, basement dwelling losers.

 

I think that covers it all. Not sure if there is an Es Jay Dubya war in wrestling so I refrained from those emoticons.

[Pissy F Benny]

The closest shit you get to culture warz in wrestling is people getting over some insane shit says on his cast every few weeks

[remy]

https://twitter.com/GutianGang/status/1251409734785089537

 

Time to do my marxist duty