The woman's world is inherently a relative one. It's not who is what, or even has what, but rather who has more, who is more, more powerful, more influential. Women have been swayed more easily than men by a century of leftist propaganda, brainwashing, and now outright gaslighting. As a result, femininity is on the verge of total destruction as younger and younger women are absorbed into the inherently-political drug/club/sex/tattoo subculture miasma.
Objectively, this transition is not just Another Cultural Phase that someone with leftist sympathies (no matter how mild) can just hand-wave away with the usual, oh, everyone says kids are wild compared to their youth, as we see more and more young women permanently destroy their bodies and minds in pursuit of relative status positions of the new degenerate culture Hollywood, ad agencies, record labels, social media and Valley firms, fashion titans, and others have conspired to create.
Well, obviously property taxes have to go as well, because they're wildly unconstitutional and anathema to the very spirit of the United States as founded. That way, individuals at the margin cannot be hounded from their owned property as you say.
Requirement one is ridiculous, what would possess you to include that? It's self-evident that any dumb bitch can and will get knocked up by any loser who caught her eye at the club. No-way, José.
I know what I said: Heinlein is a great author, but his sexual self-inserts are unsettling and awkward. You took this as an insult for reasons that are obviously clear to you (but no sane man) and replied via an image macro (I suppose I'll welcome myself to arguing on the internet, circa 2008). Your retort is then to cite Duning-Kuger, with the implication (of course) that I must be too stupid--too stupid to realize, naturally, that my point flew over your head, and furthermore which you took as an insult.
You're two-ply, bud.
Careful now, if you use too many of the America Online Chat Room Big List of Flame War Retorts (1996 Edition) too fast, you'll run out before you really get going.
I'm trying to parse whether you think you just insulted me, but in either case you're clearly using a colander to hold the water of your point. If you think Friday and Stranger In A Strange Land (among others) don't have weird, out-of-place author sex self-inserts, by all means, convince us.
One might even make the argument that when stripping his storytelling down to its minimum--and lacking the pretense to inexplicably insert a version of himself into the story with a bunch of babes doting on him for no reason--these books are in fact Heinlein at his best. I mean, I love his works, but the Cool Customer Author/Distinguished Gentleman Who All The Babes Love bit starts to be an eye-roller for me.
That's the not-so-secret secret here for you youngsters. 100% piece of shit then, too.
IG and FB are the reason those stupid-ass narcissistic parties exist. So indulgent, so cringe. What happened to being surprised (and buying neutral baby products prior to birth)?
Hell. they used to drape every baby regardless of sex in the same generic white baby dresses until they were ~3 and it worked out fine.
Wait is $2.25 is expensive gas now?
I say this because I'm in CA and, since ours is always four bucks, I never know what it is in the real world.
Strobeprops.com appears to have a "labor" coupon code for today that is 35% off, as well.
And if Kotaku was involved, presumably, also to share their daily dilating routine.
Certainly easier to revolt back when the other side can't potentially call on firepower many orders of magnitude greater than what you can legally own--or possibly afford.
I'd honestly forgotten about this conversation and I'd moved on.
Replies six times
You're a funny cultist, and it entertains me to antagonize you and your sham cult. I'll keep this going as long as you keep replying, even if and when those replies are you pretending to no longer be replying.
Half of those are Chinese; the other half (the ones with grammar that makes sense) are JIDF.
It's actually fascinating to see the extreme extent to which political lobbyists and state-level full-on intelligence services involve themselves with a Mongolian basket-weaving forum. It's truly staggering, and telling: the twenty-first century Parlor is right in front of everyone's faces, instantly accessible via your fingertips, and yet the average "liberal" (who aren't even in the same zip-code, by values, as their semantic progenitors) not only fail to participate, but either have no idea it even exists or are confidently assured that they needn't lower themselves to actually debate political issues at all (they're on the right side of history, you see).
Of course, David Brock, the SPLC, the ACLU, and the other "connected" hacks certainly do participate. It's slide and porn threads, all day long.
One of the most telling things I've seen was that actual David Brock quote where he said [paraphrasing], we have a bunch of weird losers who just go on the computer all day and flame/troll/slide. These janny/troons are held in open contempt even by their own party, yet they think they're fighting the good fight by trying to silence anyone from actually debating issues. Mental illness aggregated in one spot, on a colossal scale.
And the grizzled veterans of /pol still emerge to demolish their "arguments", even in slide threads. It's truly a labor of love.
I hate to admit the same with regards to King. The man has truly gone off the deep end but he has a cadence that works so bloody well that even his scary lamp monster books are great reads.
Not surprised about the Expanse authors, nor would I be surprised to hear the same about the showrunners. I know folks in the industry and as you might expect they're all insanely far left, with the expected amount of political knowledge we've come to associate with liberal ideas (read: virtually none, with The Atlantic and NPR as primary sources for everything.
You're not in a religion goofball, but I know you guys are nothing if not rabidly tenacious: are you waiting for the sixth, or is it the seventh reply post to ask what sins I must be concealing to be so hateful on a good, honest faith (in Xenu and DC-9 spaceships)?
Unlike the ShareBlue faggots you're not actually getting paid by the post, and as far as I know no OT VI is going to tickle your balls if you sufficiently evangelize Scientology on the internet, so just give it a rest already.
ATF goons too fat for a full plate set waddling out the back of a busted ass MRAP, Antifa BLM rioters with bullhorns and glocks and molotovs, it's all the same to me fren.
I supremely doubt they're going to get mobilized Armored Cav units to unload 25mm on civilians, no matter what Pentagon deep-state pogue puppets and State Department jerk-offs tell their DNC masters. And if it turns into on NatGuard reservist Abrams slamming on other reservist Abrams depending on how their battalion commanders flipped a coin that morning, well, like everyone else I'll keep my fucking head down until the side I don't like needs to take a piss break.
But I just don't think the US Army is going to roll armored units out of Texas bases and start launching MRLS strikes on the DFW suburbs.
And if they do, find the nearest friendly unit and volun-fucking-teer; half of Franco's troops in Spain were volunteers, after the kickoff. Even with a stint at AIT and a couple of combat tours you're still not going to slot into a frontline unit the next afternoon, but it's not nothing and nobody ever claimed civil wars get fought by the book.
Practice reloading under duress.
The arrangement is: wait until the election. We play nice until this one last chance to do things by the book, the right way, by law. If they throw that out the window then yea, all bets are off.
Holden was definitely a brazen casting choice. Not even remotely how I pictured him, though I suspect the casting directors might have been more right about what the authors intended (both because they had access to said authors, and also are, you know, professional casting directors) than I was. Thomas Jane was great; that dysfunctional role seems to have suited him better than virtually anything else he's been in.
I give both authors a pass, though, because of [my interpretation of] the context of it all. In The Expanse, the UN is a small group of meddling bureaucrats playing with the lives of billions while taking personal payouts from unhinged globalist corporate hacks, while the "dole" on Earth is a preponderance of pathetic, drugged bums on UBI. Sexuality is, of course, a disastrous spectrum. It actually sounds a lot like a plausible What Happens If We Lose situation to me, and neither the books nor the show throw their lot in support or endorsement of this arrangement.
I don't know if either author is based, but at least one of them probably is. As for the showrunners, I can't tell if they were dodging controversy or patting themselves on the back for featuring so many gay characters without realizing their own setting condemns it as the result of decades of disastrous social policy and cultural degradation. As for the current showrunner (Naren Shankar), who knows. Four was the worst book (let's take our space opera and reset it on a single shitty planet; same problem Scalzi had eventually with Old Man's War book 3), but the season was still pretty watchable, so they did a decent job with it.
Well, without putting too fine a point on it, you can read his character as severely traumatized (possibly sexually) as a child, with the associated sexual identity problems often associated with said trauma. I don't know if that's specifically how Wes Chatham is playing the role, but it certainly seems that way to me. Which is, in effect, quite accurate to the observed effects of sexual trauma on male children.
The pursuit of truth is thousands of years old, ironically; I have no doubts at all that most prominent ancient thinkers, once they recovered from the shock and novelty of information-age post-modernity, would instantly appreciate the intellectual challenge of mass, instantly-available information, but curated by elites looking specifically to shape discourse--and their prescription would be the very same skepticism and principles of early epistemology they were teaching in the ancient world. With the right approach, even the young can attain this wisdom.
It's shameful how so little education now is centered on teaching children HOW to critically approach and parse the overwhelming body of accumulated human knowledge, but rather, simply memorizing a pointless subset of a subset of it.