This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):
57 submissions to whatever
3 submissions to politics
2 submissions to Theology
1 submissions to ClimateSkeptics
1 submissions to movies
This user has so far shared a total of 15 links, started a total of 49 discussions and submitted a total of 4849 comments.
Submissions: This user has upvoted 83 and downvoted 4 submissions.
Comments: This user has upvoted 3547 and downvoted 213 comments.
5 highest rated submissions:
Pornography is empowering and liberated. But Christmas songs promote rape culture., submitted: 12/5/2018 9:26:01 PM, 206 points (+208|-2)
I am Old Enough to Remember When Selecting "White Male" on a Job Application Felt Like a Good Thing, submitted: 12/17/2017 2:54:46 PM, 142 points (+149|-7)
Jordan Peterson arguing for Zionism, says the world is jealous of Jews. The most intellectually dishonest popular "intellectual"., submitted: 10/6/2018 1:45:23 PM, 118 points (+128|-10)
You're Part of the Ritual: Stop Looking At Porn, submitted: 4/5/2018 5:58:27 PM, 83 points (+122|-39)
I wanted to see how much CO2 we'd produce if we burned ALL the oil in the earth instantly...., submitted: 10/4/2019 4:14:04 AM, 68 points (+68|-0)
5 lowest rated submissions:
The Border Crisis is a False Flag, submitted: 4/8/2019 12:44:44 PM, -10 points (+2|-12)
A Response to MGTOW - Women Haven't Changed - You Have, submitted: 6/14/2019 1:48:23 PM, 1 points (+3|-2)
I Don't Normally Get Angry at Youtubers, But this Smug, Pseudo-Intellectual Hit Piece on the "Alt-Right" And JBP Is An Exception, submitted: 8/6/2018 5:33:37 AM, 1 points (+1|-0)
Anyone Have Any Good Data Pointing to Jews Making Up a Majority of the Top 1% of Earners?, submitted: 8/6/2018 3:50:42 PM, 1 points (+3|-2)
Anybody got any suggestions for excellent books on US history?, submitted: 9/27/2018 8:31:14 PM, 1 points (+2|-1)
3 highest rated comments:
chirogonemd 0 points 101 points 101 points (+101|-0) ago
This SJW bullshit is not at all what the book is about. Mary Shelley wrote that book as a response to the sexual revolution that took place first in France and then in England, which wrapped up her mother Mary Wollstonecraft in a destructive affair with an American in Paris. Mary Wollstonecraft was the first quintessential English feminist, and she left England to go to Paris during the French revolution in order to have an affair. That was her purpose. She ended up learning the hard way that the feminist ideals would bite her in the ass, when she became pregnant and was abandoned. The letters she wrote to her lover (Irwin) pleading for him to come back, and how much she just wanted a home and a family, are like reading "justice memes" today.
Her daughter, Mary Godwin (who would later become Shelley), didn't learn from her mother and literally did the same thing. Mary would be wed to Percy Shelley, the iconoclastic, angelic libertine poet-playboy of liberal England. Percy wanted to study with Mary's father, William Godwin, who'd been an important revolutionary and political writer in England. Both Mary and her mother were suicidal.
Frankenstein was Mary Shelley's counter-reaction to the Enlightenment, demonstrating in the form of a monster, how man "taking control" of his destiny and attempting to master the universe, on the basis of freeing his own passions, creates monsters. Frankenstein is a metaphor for the "human monsters" the sexual revolution created. Keep in mind that Shelley's mother witnessed first-person the horrors of The Terror in France...mobs of humans literally dismembering politicians in the streets. There was also an obsession with electricity during this period that factors into the story, because man essentially thought he was discovering fundamental powers of the universe and would take control of them.
Mary demonstrates sympathy for the monster, but that is the lesson. Neither she, or the generation before her, were learning their lessons from the revolutions. They were still trying to find ways to make heroes out of their monsters, and to view sympathetically the very things that were killing them. The metaphor works just as well over 2 centuries later.
Read E Michael Jones: Monsters from the Id (it's fascinating, and also explains the origins of Dracula, and modern monsters like Alien).
Notice, how monsters were always traditionally defined literally as that which you kill. Today, the monsters have become the heroes. The heroines in stories are fucking the monsters. This is how you know the revolution goes on.
chirogonemd 0 points 91 points 91 points (+91|-0) ago
The goal here is obviously to remove any characteristic that makes these media "internet media", namely the ability for people to voice their thoughts about the content. The goal is to establish a monopolistic platform and eventually just make this all like television media, where corporate publishers have full control. Watch, but don't participate, that is to say unless you have something positive and friendly to say. The very things that made youtube a revolution at the time it was created are being systematically destroyed, because the powers that be recognize that a people shouldn't be able to think for themselves.
chirogonemd 1 points 79 points 80 points (+80|-1) ago
Well, it was nice having Voat back for a couple days. See you niggerfaggots on the other side.
(Turns. Waves hi to FBI.)
Israel did 9/11.
Jews wear tiny hats because they don't work outside; they stay inside and touch kids.
3 lowest rated comments:
chirogonemd 20 points -11 points 9 points (+9|-20) ago
Everybody laughing at the police forces here are honestly fucking retards. Not one of you have any concept what that would be like, or what the right explosive could do to that whole area. The guy who went after the bag didn't do it because of bravery, he did it because of sheer fucking ignorance. I honestly can't believe how many people here are praising that. You're fucking morons.
Not only that, this guy was motivated to go after the bag to steal. You're all actually just sitting here praising a petty thief. Good god.
EDIT: Okay, he wasn't trying to steal. Excepting my very last statement, everything else I said is correct.
chirogonemd 13 points -8 points 5 points (+5|-13) ago
I have to say this one is horseshit. Sure the guy shouldn't have parked there. Dick move. Was the white guy justified to complain? Probably.
But if another man was getting shitty with my girlfriend (who wasn't even the driver) I'd probably be in his face also.
And a shove doesn't justify lethal force. I know our general bias here and I am with that. But a shove shouldn't mean you get to shoot someone in the chest.
There needs to be a real perceived threat of harm to one's life. The black guy shoved and then made no attempt to kick the guy while down, nor did he instantly try to mount him and rain down fists. He also didn't draw a weapon. Also when the white guy drew a gun there was a delay where the black guy noticeably backed away. The white guy took a moment to decide to shoot. Being adrenalized isn't justification to kill.
The white guy was upright and could coherently see that the guy wasn't pursuing further aggressive action. If he was, he'd have already been doing it.
Black or white or brown or yellow. We can't have people pulling guns and shooting others over a fucking shove. Now if there were other exigent circumstances, i.e. the guy had a group that was surrounding him or he'd seen the black guy reaching for a gun, the situation changes.
But as it stands this was wrong. The white dude could clearly see the presence of his gun was diffusing it. He shot because he was angry and startled and wanted to retaliate. That isn't sufficient reason to kill.
Would all the cop haters here be okay if a cop shot a guy for shoving him?
chirogonemd 10 points -8 points 2 points (+2|-10) ago
Blindside? Who got blindsided here?
If you think being able to use lethal force on someone for shoving you, on the grounds you don't know what they could potentially do, you are a retard.
Sure, guy keeps pursuing. You have justification. Guy reaches for a gun or knife, you have justification. But the guy backed away. The situation was diffusing. Use some common fucking sense.
So if a guy shoves you ever, you can shoot him? Never know what he could do! Even if at the sight of your weapon he hurriedly backs away?
Call me crazy I would rather see people who carry use their weapons with some tactical discretion and respect for threat level.
We need to have a reasonable line that constitutes defending your life versus ending a scuffle with murder.