Let's Jam this Bog with Roasts

[Tuna Hematoma]

Eagles have not won a game since they cut Tim Tebow

[Old Rivers]

out of the two.

[Samurai Clinton]

Goats are my favorite animal.

I dont know why, but maybe Leonard Cohen had one as a pet.

[NearHi]

I would think that your favorite animal would be a leopard and a hen, or maybe two, married hens... so then you'd have Leopard Co-Hens.

[NearHi]

[Izak MD]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-on-earth.html

Ahmed’s looking at a video of himself posted online, while he and his sister Eyman argue inside the family minivan over whether it has 24 million or 24,000 views.

“This is seven digits!” It’s 24 million views, in 24 hours,” Ahmed yelps.

hmmm ok. this kid definitely can't build shit. he can't even count to 8.

[Eukos]

1) He took a RadioShack clock and put its guts in a suspicious looking box on purpose
2) When the cops arrived he refused to explain it to them
3) His parents refused to have the handcuffs removed until they took a picture
4) His sister has been suspended from her school after making bomb threats
5) His parents are political Muslims with ties to CAIR and have been fighting against the local mayor

no more comment necessary

he also claims to be building and soldering CPUs now
if that was true, why doesn't he show THAT to his teachers

[Izak MD]

god white people are fucking stupid

[Izak MD]

hey lets come up with an idea for a hoax

i'm jealous of this that kid's dad, thinking of such a clever scheme that took literally zero effort

[Slime]

Originally Posted by Izak MD

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-on-earth.html



hmmm ok. this kid definitely can't build shit. he can't even count to 8.

hahaha

[Slime]

[Bobby Swisha]

oldd

[Izak MD]

amusing: https://medium.com/@KingFrostFive/ci...e-e8bb1336c8d1

http://time.com/4049106/un-cyber-vio...ical-violence/

[Slime]

Originally Posted by Bobby Swisha

oldd

what thats within the last days

[Slime]

Originally Posted by Izak MD

amusing: https://medium.com/@KingFrostFive/ci...e-e8bb1336c8d1

man, that is nuts.

[Slime]

-

[Slime]

even the ones they do cite properly in that report are completely ridiculous:

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comm...he_uns/cvf0e0c

[Slime]

-

[Trooper]

Hello Lohr. Welcome to 3dmm.com! Just so you know, you can use the "Edit" button to go back and add to your initial post. Hope you enjoy yourself at our community!

[Tuna Hematoma]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCei...ckKsKDF3JX13gA

Best youtube channel. Learn to be Canadian.

[Izak MD]

hahahaha i triggered the fuck out of lohr with that one

[Slime]

a

[Izak MD]

well the amusing thing is that "dumb feminist troll" and "international expert of fuckity-fuck relations for the UN" are now the same thing

i'm pretty inured to A) how completely and absurdly irrational the vast majority of feminist arguments are nowadays, without even the slightest pretense of plausibility, and B) how eagerly people in powerful places swallow it up and report it as supreme truth

at least the 'black lives matter' people talk about real things, like real situations where black kids get harmed by cops

[Izak MD]

in JL austin's "speech act theory," there's a concept called an "illocutionary speech act." the idea is that it's an utterance that doesn't claim to have any truth content -- it's not something where you can agree or disagree, because it affirms nothing. like "i promise to mow the lawn" isn't a true or false statement -- it's performative, in the sense that it's me signaling an intention, setting up a contract wherein i mow the lawn. there's no way that someone can say "you're lying! you didn't just promise to mow the lawn!"

same is true when people get married and say "i do take so-and-so's hand in marriage." again, there's no truth or falsity to the claim. it's a speech act that creates a social understanding through performance.

i think that most feminist arguments work this way on the internet. they're not locutionary, they're illocutionary. they aren't meant to actually make any statements wherein one can agree or disagree. that's not the point.

take, for instance, this argument saying that women should never go to prison for any reason ever: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...nwomensprisons

the argument is completely absurd, but it's supposed to be. all of the sentences are designed to indicate that the writer is very concerned about women suffering in prison, and we should all share certain feelings and emotions about that state of affairs. her solution is irrelevant. it's an implausible and extreme solution that signals a high amount of exasperation and frustration, to which the response should be something like "i understand where you're coming from, sister."

again:

the argument here is that A) the word "bossy" is a gender-specific word used to keep women down, and that B) therefore the word "bossy" should be banned forever.

the actual words coming from these women are irrelevant when taken for their semantic meaning, and their supporters know this. what they're doing is signalling that they're free and liberated, enough to make a ridiculous argument like that.

their followers will say things like "wow. so brave. she's standing up to the constraints placed upon her by the patriarchy" not even bothering to consider the actual points being made. the more absurd the argument, the more intellectually liberated the feminist is. to engage in such absurdity is a demonstration of independence.

if either suggestion from the two examples above were actually taken seriously and implemented, feminists would be very angry about this, and they'd blame the patriarchy for having the nerve to actually take any of this nonsense seriously. and they'd be right!

[Bown]

those bloody SJWs, ruining everything!