😵‍💫 Skitzocow Insert Symbols Here / Warped Ellipsis

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Gotta love "terrorist roommates." Were they yelling allahu akbar and exploding themselves with suicide vests or something?

What a lunatic.
 
She's salty today.

warped said:
a thing that bothers me about “mental illnesses aren’t a disability” is that it’s qualified with “oh well they’re not always disabling”

hey guess what, physical conditions are not always disabling either

the entire point of the word “disability” is “thing that has impedes you enough to cause detriment”

which means chronic pain isn’t a disability until it interferes with your life, but for some reason that’s never listed as an exclusion in disability support groups

missing a finger isn’t a disability either, but again, never a listed exclusion

what about the person who gets around just fine but might need a cane? don’t even try calling all of them “disabled”. even people who might depend wholly on a cane won’t accept your terms, because they get around just fine–needing a cane doesn’t stop them at all

you’d think vision impairment always is, but no, glasses aren’t a disability, nor is missing an eye

everything is only a disability when it interferes enough. nothing is automatically a disability. not every impairment is a disability.
but every disability is a disability. discounting a disability because of its subcategorization is idiotic. that’s like discounting half the types of dogs because you have a personal vendetta against lap dogs.

so listing exclusions is nothing but disabled elitism.
the problem is that we are taught to think of *the absolute worst cases* when we think of “physical disability”, the “obvious ones”. which is inherently ableist, because it’s quite clear that all of the above people are impaired in some way from the average person–but for some reason all of this detail only comes up when we talk about mental illness, as if the only possible impairment the brain can have is retardation.

disablism exists among disabled people. disabled people are bigoted against each other.
Click to expand...

Also:

warped said:
troll whines about being called a bigot

troll gets abusive and calls me abusive

people agree with the troll.

no problem here, just the whole of sj eating itself and proving yet again how much it loves abusers and can’t recognize jack shit about what’s going on

which oddly was what the troll was whining about, just to do exactly that–and nobody noticed. “I’m not an abuser, i abhor abuse, watch me prove it by being abusive!”

good job troll, trap well set.
Click to expand...

This might have to do with an argument on tumblr.

I've tried colour coding between different people. Warped in red, but correct me if I'm confusing the people.

the source is here http://warpedellipsis.tumblr.com/


warped vs tumblr said:
fierceawakening:

warpedellipsis:

fierceawakening:

warpedellipsis:

barrydeutsch:

theunitofcaring:

fierceawakening:

The discussions I’ve been having today have got me curious about words SJ uses for its enemies and how broad they can be. Like “antifeminist” or “cissexist” or the like. It’s hard to know if the person labeled these things is kinda problematic or clearly horrible. So I got to wondering about whether we can nail things down to paradigm cases, and how interesting it is that I don’t think we can:

When we say someone is “an antifeminist” or “a misogynist,” are we thinking of a man who wants to restrict abortion rights through legislation, a guy who wants to find a mail-order bride because he’s heard that Asian women aren’t “bitchy” like Western women, a conservative woman who believes in complementarianism, or a young woman who thinks “feminists” are “fat, hairy lesbians“ and doesn’t want people to think she is one, but does vote?

When we say someone is “colonialist,” are we thinking of someone who believes that Enlightenment thought and values “civilized” the world and things have literally gone downhill since Western empires fell, of someone who has a few stereotypical beliefs about POC that are hurtful and perpetuates microaggressions, of a young white affluent student with dreadlocks, a bindi, an Om hennaed on her hand, and a cool looking image of Kali badly printed on her favorite shapeless canvas bag?

When we say someone is “cissexist,” are we thinking of a parent who tried to force his child into conversion therapy or swears by Zucker, a politician who pushes for a bathroom bill, a parent who thinks being gay is fine but this gender stuff sounds like an Internet trend, a cis lesbian who says “get your cotton ceiling off my body,” a radical feminist who thinks some but not all spaces should be for “women born women only,” a radical feminist who thinks “males invade women’s space and should be driven off, violently if needed?”

When we say someone is “white supremacist,” are we thinking of David Duke or Neo-Nazis, or are we thinking of a white philosophy professor who can’t think of any black philosophers to assign along with Aristotle and Kant?

SJ uses these terms in very elastic ways, and I question that. Because a lot of them sound extreme, but we’re really using them to refer to people whose views are really not as intensely bad as that. And I think that leads to some really weird cruelty at times.

And assuming the goal is to take power away from the first group and win over the second group, I don’t know if grouping them helps us achieve that goal? Like, you can plausibly help the philosophy professor by proposing some readings that she can add, or giving a talk in which you present an approach that uses those authors so she feels like she knows how to lecture about them. That’s not going to work on David Duke.

Distinguishing between “ignorant/saturated in bad ideas” and “committed to bad ideas” and “committed to harming others on the basis of those bad ideas” isn’t just about kindness to the ignorant people, it’s often more useful for achieving your goals. Being able to tell the difference between people who don’t share your values and people who share your values but don’t realize they do, or don’t know how to collaborate with you, is really strategically important.

Unsurprisingly, I have some disagreements with Fierceawakening’s OP.

First, it’s odd to argue against using terms that can refer to people with a range of views, and a range of terribleness (from “not at all” to “flee in terror!”) - while all the while using the term “SJ” with no visible irony.

Second, OP seems to me to be opposing how the English language works (and maybe how all languages work, I’m not sure). I can’t imagine any term for ideological groupings that would not include a variety of people. You talk about “words SJ uses for its enemies and how broad they can be“; but aren’t words SJ uses for SJ’s allies also broad? “Feminist.” “Anti-racist.” “Queer.” These are very broad terms, that encompass a huge range of views and people.

There is a legitimate need for words which refer to general concepts. If we decide not to use the current terms, all that will happen is that new terms will be generated and used (”blue tribe” “SJs” “tumblrites” etc). In some cases, the new term will be superior because it will have discarded some negative baggage that had attached to the prior term. But you’re not going to be able to get rid of general terms.

It’s worthwhile to be aware that Christina Hoff Sommers has different views from Roosh has different views from Dave Sim. And we have words for those things - CSH is a libertarian leaning conservative while Sim is an anti-secular religious fundamentalist, for example. But it’s also worthwhile to point out that they have things in common, and the term for one of those things is antifeminism.

Third, there’s a tendency in anti-SJ dialog - and I’m not at all sure FA is anti-SJ, so this is just a thought, not a claim that FA is anything - to try and erase conceptual areas by claiming that the words for those concepts are too unkind to be part of reasoned discussion. People claim that it’s too insulting and hurtful to use words like “antifeminist” “homophobe,” “racist,” “misogynist,” “transphobic,” etc.. But what’s actually being objected to, as far as I can tell, is not the words but the concepts.

But it is valuable and necessary to have - for example - a word that means “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women.” That a word has a range of meaning does not mean it has no meaning, and it would benefit no one if we no longer had a word that means “misogynist.” (Well, no one, except for those who’d prefer that misogyny never be discussed.).

I agree we should distinguish between Cathy Young - a affable and kind anti-feminist who can be reasoned with - and Madeupname, a vile twitter antifeminist who delights in sending rape threats to women. But the way to distinguish is the way I just did it, not by refusing to use the word “anti-feminist.”

ETA: When I wrote “except for those who’d prefer that misogyny never be discussed,” I wasn’t intending to imply that FA is such a person. My apologies if it seemed like that’s what I was saying.

I think this whole thing is more an issue of who you tend to run with than what your ideology is. This is only an issue if you run with people like that. You don’t need to hang out with militant radicals to believe that the philosophy professor is an issue that should be fixed. But if you do hang with them, you will see that the professor ought to be fired and blacklisted instead of offering suggestions to add to the booklist. You don’t have to adopt everything that’s said under the guise of SJ–you don’t have to be a militant radical. You aren’t timid or harboring latent bigotry for not Hulking out over every little thing and blacklisting everyone for any tiny offense no matter whether it was intended or just said in anger.

But I’m pretty sure OP already knows that, and is in fact treating all SJ as one hivemind while treating its “enemies” as individuals.

How about asking me what I meant instead of sniping in apparent hope I won’t see it?

I absolutely understand that not everyone who fits under the umbrella term SJ, or “subterms” (not a great word but I can’t think of anything better right now) have varying opinions. I myself identified as a feminist for a very long time, despite reservations about some things people believed (usually uses of ironic misandry that I thought were hurtful to marginalized men, or particular focus that I felt could harm women with disabilities like me.)

I didn’t make the decision to reject and wholesale criticize SJ’s internal structure lightly, and for a very long time I tried to navigate a middle way, where I still believed in many of the basic tenets and tried to use them in ways I felt were fairer and kinder. I have many friends who are in that spot right now – lots of people, for example, who say “what I see online doesn’t reflect what I mean by I am a feminist, and sometimes I think I’m going to let go of the word, but usually I just can’t.” This is not where I am, but I do respect it, so I think you misunderstand where I am coming from.

I criticize the blanket use of terms that encompass wide swaths of people because… I’ve noticed something about SJ since my early days. People use these very damning terms and they use them very freely, without checking the nuance of their opponent’s view (it happened to me this morning, for example – someone called me a TERF, when I absolutely believe trans women are women, don’t like excluding people from activism in any way, am not radical, and do not identify as a feminist any more. 0 for 4!)

Weirdly, they use these terms and praise themselves for doing it, thinking that any criticism they get for it is “the tone argument.” Which is odd to me because humans get defensive automatically. It’s an emotional, instant reaction. It doesn’t even necessarily mean you disagree! It just means you feel attacked.

But many SJers often seem to take this very thing – defensive knee jerk reactions – as proof they’re right, and proof that they’re putting needed pressure on some particular piece of the kyriarchy they’re fighting.

When really, they don’t even leave room for the possibility they just ticked someone off by being a jerk.

I’m uncomfortable with movements that are okay with that, even if, as I acknowledge – and hope I always have and always will – That many if not most people are sincerely trying to do good, are generally nice people, and believe these tactics to be the most effective at making lasting change.

(once again this is a problem I have with SJ – I think it can get culty, because it’s easy for people to convince one another that being just a liiiiiittle bit meaner is good, and just a liiiiiittle bit more. And… Etc. It definitely happened to me.)

instead of sniping in apparent hope I won’t see it?

….because a reblog on your OP is somehow hiding? Typed words in nice big font are hiding?

You just did the very thing you’re accusing other people of. And you did it again later on:

But many SJers often seem to take this very thing – defensive knee jerk reactions – as proof they’re right, and proof that they’re putting needed pressure on some particular piece of the kyriarchy they’re fighting.

And again:

without checking the nuance of their opponent’s view

and again:

and believe these tactics to be the most effective at making lasting change.

–

First, you accuse Sj of being harsh in its methods, so harsh and so ineffective that you had to leave it and now you’re preaching about having left. But now you’re turning around and making the very assumptions of people that you’re bemoaning were done by SJ. I “must have been trying to hide”, I “must have been sniping”. Assumptions of malice and lack of attempt to find the nuanced view of your opponent. Now why on earth would you do that, after just having bemoaned it?

Because actions speak for themselves and it doesn’t matter what was behind it when the result is clearly laid out. You just demonstrated exactly why people don’t ask 50 questions before coming to a conclusion about conversations–it’s not possible to do that. You cannot conduct a conversation, much less life, like that. You cannot constantly question your own perception of things, which is exactly what you’re asking people to do. You cannot ask 50 questions about every letter in a two sentence post. You read it and you have an understanding, and that’s the end.

That’s basic life functioning. That happens with everyone–look, you just did it! Four times in a single short post! It is not unique to SJ and to act like it is is beyond disingenuous. Again, you know this–you literally said you know this. You are being disingenuous. This is a strawman.

That’s why people assume you’re anti-sj, that’s why you’re called a terf. That’s why people are called bigots: actions have meaning, words have meaning. You cannot ask people to hang around and engage with someone who’s potentially a jackass. If that’s your hobby, have at it, but don’t expect anyone else to do it. Putting forth that kind of effort for a stranger is absurd. For a potentially jackass stranger? Lol.

Defensive knee jerk reactions? That’s pretty insulting, that people are too stupid to tell the difference between “I’m hurt” and “I’m right”. It’s also pretty damning of yourself that you can’t tell the difference between “stop hurting me”, “I’m angry that you keep hurting me”, and “I’m right”. Again, there’s a great big reason that people assume you’re various flavors of antiSJ and in this to be a troll. They’re pretty spot on no matter what else you profess, because saying shit like that says a lot more than any prepped statements of belief.

That brings us to our second point: not everyone is in it for outreach and change. Not everyone is an activist. Very few people are, probably. Most people want to talk about how shitty things are and SJ language is great for that. But here again is an assumption–SJ language does not mean they’re there for outreach and change. They’re there to say “this sucks”. It’s all on you that you think they’re trying to do anything else.

And that’s why I think you’re treating SJ like a hivemind: you know not everyone is in this for outreach. You know not everyone talks about a shitty bigoted thing/person with the mind to change them. You know that–again, you literally said you know about the nuance and groups and such in SJ. You know that not everyone in SJ has the same goals in mind, and you know that there’s assholes in SJ just like there’s assholes everywhere else. You know militancy is not a unique problem. You know extremism is not a unique problem.

None of this is unique to SJ.

But you’re acting like everyone in SJ is the same and that this is unique to SJ.

So what’s the problem, if you know all this? None of this is a problem if you don’t hang out with that sect. It’s a problem if you’re trying to reach people who act like them, but that’s not how you talked in the post. You talk as if you’re still in the middle of it, as if it’s people you choose to follow doing it, as if it’s everyone and not just the whackos doing it.

So. You apparently hang out with that sect you hate, knowing you hate it, knowing you could leave. You apparently still engage with people like that. You act like it’s their problem when it’s you.

Leave.

But you know that. You don’t. So you’re here to troll.

If you want to talk about being an ex-SJ, that’s totally fine. Enjoy. Don’t talk as if we’re responsible for you staying when you want to leave and be somewhere else. Remember, you know all this, but you wrote this anyway. Which means you did exactly everything you complained about and everything you were accused of.

But you’re not going to leave, because of the same thing you accuse SJ of: defensive knee jerk reactions that you take to mean you’re right, that you take to mean you get to be just a little bit meaner every time, because it means you must be putting pressure in the right place, believing those tactics to be the best at making lasting effective change.

What people claim is going on in other’s minds is often a really good indication of what’s going on in their own. And it’s a hell of an indication of just how ugly your attitude actually is.

You had a point, just like the people you’re “criticizing” had a point. But some really weird cruelty got in the way of that.

Your sect is the problem. You’re literally doing what you think you’re criticizing people for. Leave it.

I don’t have a sect. You came in to be mean and I told you off for it and now you’re trying to call me snippy.

That’s manipulative behavior I don’t need to stand for. Stop.

WOW.
You literally get pissed off at people and make a whole post about people making assumptions and not prostrating themselves enough when they challenge you, about people not hedging themselves enough when they talk to you, and you call ME names? When you literally jumped at my throat for simply disagreeing with you and just calling you on your bullshit? FOr responding to a post that is deliberately written to piss people off–and when you got that, YOU CALL FOUL? For responding to a post that criticises people for not allowing disagreement and not allowing dissent? For shouting people down when they’re criticized? Again and again, you keep doing exactly the culty shit you claim to hate and have left.

Wow. I was right. You’re not just an antiSJ troll, you’re literally in the business of abuse. This is exactly the kind of shit I’ve seen you lean towards before, but never so blatantly. You hang out with a lot of shady people like that too, which is how I knew you were talking BS to begin with.

And you’re still unable to fathom why people stick you with all manner of bigotry accusations. Of course you are, you’re abusive. You’re never wrong, you’re always the victim. You’re always right. There’s always a REASON that gives you an exception.

Here, lemme quote you again on your special, special exception to why you’re not in the wrong here: (1) “When really, they don’t even leave room for the possibility they just ticked someone off by being a jerk”, (2) “take this very thing – defensive knee jerk reactions – as proof they’re right, and proof that they’re putting needed pressure on”. That’s literally why you think you’re not in the wrong and why you’re so offended by the absolute nothing that I said.

Let me add one last thing in my defense: You came in to be mean and I told you off for it and now you’re trying to call me snippy. That’s manipulative behavior I don’t need to stand for. Stop.

Take your own advice. You’re the radical that everyone here is trying to convert, that people are talking to only because they’re doing outreach. Learn from them. I’m not the one routinely being called out for bigotry–your own words–and refusing to learn.

I am done with this, because I am not part of the outreach.
Click to expand...
 
Random Tumblr user said:
I don’t have a sect. You came in to be mean and I told you off for it and now you’re trying to call me snippy.

That’s manipulative behavior I don’t need to stand for. Stop.
Click to expand...

You'll have to forgive Nicole...some guy touched her funbags in college and it somehow made her disabled, so she has all this free time to rant and fight with people on the internet.
 
Ooooh, the drama continues. Feel sorry for tumblrdude who got involved though. There's an edit down below (http://warpedellipsis.tumblr.com/)

warped said:
eta: jackass won’t even respect a block, and on top of that doesn’t have the decency to put my “attack” in context with the abuse they leveled at me. noooo, it’s just me being randomly “mean” without provocation. this is how abusers work. you’d think that move would be obvious, but no, people are stupid and more easily led than brain damaged sheep. this bitch acts just like my parents do. Couldn’t even be bothered to provide a LINK. WHO’S HIDING AND SNIPING NOW, BITCH? How fitting that you keep on doing exactly what you accuse everyone else of. And for the record, “wah, it hurts my feelings when you call me an abuser”, is not a defense, and is exactly the bullshit reversal, playing the victim that all abusers love to do.
Click to expand...
Oh, everything's abuse to you, warped. Telling you to take the garbage out is abuse. Giving you a loaf of bread is abuse. Telling you to move out an get a job is abuse. Be glad you haven't met a real monster, they wouldn't give two shits what you label them as.

And aren't you the abuser who likes to play the victim? Pot calling kettle black much?

warped said:
do other countries with real healthcare see the “no absolutely no hospitals, we gotta stitch up our wounds like its the 1800s” trope as absolutely weird?

and why does that exist anyway, unless you’re trying to play dead? you’re allowed to walk out of the hospital, they can’t keep you. is it solely to avoid being tied up by police? but if you’re a spy, surely you have government id for getting out of that.
Click to expand...
What is she talking about?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing about her mom emphasizing with Lady Gaga probably has more to do with appreciating that a woman who suffered that abuse was able to over come it, work her ass off to become successful in the career that she loved, and only brought up her past trauma to start a discourse on rape culture and how it has affected her and thousands of other women (and men~).

I'm sure at some point it crossed her mind that Lady Gaga had done everything her dumb boob squeezed daughter was failing (if not fully unwilling) to do with her life.
 
Rabbit Bones said:
I'm sure at some point it crossed her mind that Lady Gaga had done everything her dumb boob squeezed daughter was failing (if not fully unwilling) to do with her life.
Click to expand...

This.

Nicole always came across as somebody who latched onto that one incident as the primary reason that she couldn't cut it in college, and even if that never happened, she probably would have flunked out of CMU anyway. Add to that her penchant for getting into conflict with roommates and their friends, and we have how she is today: "disabled".

Because self diagnosis is much easier than taking a look at yourself and realizing you just might be a socially retarded asshole and that nearly everything really is your fault, not anyone else's.
 
yellow yam scam said:
this band sampled ISH on the first track:

http://blackhandpath.bandcamp.com /album/egregore
Click to expand...
I lolled.

In retrospect, as horrid as Warped is, it could be worse. Remember that according to her she has been through something as bad as rape. If someone was seriously convinced they or someone they care about had been raped what would they do? How would they react?

Not that her attitude doesn't stink. The problem is she's leaning on that incident to be NEET and be a jerk to everyone around her.
 
redcent said:
I lolled.

In retrospect, as horrid as Warped is, it could be worse. Remember that according to her she has been through something as bad as rape. If someone was seriously convinced they or someone they care about had been raped what would they do? How would they react?

Not that her attitude doesn't stink. The problem is she's leaning on that incident to be NEET and be a jerk to everyone around her.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure she believes it deep down. Like you said, she's just using the incident to avoid responsibility for her life so she has to constantly bring it up and moan about it because she's trying to convince herself and everyone else it happened and it destroyed her. If she stopped bleating about it all the time, she might (gasp) gain some perspective, accept reality, and lose her trump card. I think trying to keep up the lie is making her crazier. Not that she wasn't nuts to begin with.
 
queserasera said:
I'm not so sure she believes it deep down. Like you said, she's just using the incident to avoid responsibility for her life so she has to constantly bring it up and moan about it because she's trying to convince herself and everyone else it happened and it destroyed her. If she stopped bleating about it all the time, she might (gasp) gain some perspective, accept reality, and lose her trump card. I think trying to keep up the lie is making her crazier. Not that she wasn't nuts to begin with.
Click to expand...
I agree. Deep down maybe there's a part of her that knows better than this, but like you said about her getting crazier, she's pushing this part of her deeper as she tries to convince herself and others of what happened. She's digging herself deeper and that rabbit hole can't lead to anywhere good. I'm concerned what's at the end of said rabbit hole; she's not fully convinced herself but she's on the way to and what happens then?
 
Like. She just needs a joint and a vibrator and to relax. What happened to her wouldn't have been enough to upset literal children, let alone someone who's in supposed to be in college. I can't even comprehend how crazy you have to be to just flat out destroy your life, your schooling, and your chance at a rewarding career and adulthood over a boob bump. I know it wasn't literally the action of the bump that decided it was time to napalm as much shit as possible, that's just the trigger she's focused on and obsessed with. But I wonder how well Warped functioned before she went on jihad. It's kind of sad to think she used to have friends and hadn't forced her family into baby sitting her while she rages. I don't know how her parents can handle it, though. The sheer hatred over nothing...
 
rabbit bone said:
Like. She just needs a joint and a vibrator and to relax. What happened to her wouldn't have been enough to upset literal children, let alone someone who's in supposed to be in college. I can't even comprehend how crazy you have to be to just flat out destroy your life, your schooling, and your chance at a rewarding career and adulthood over a boob bump. I know it wasn't literally the action of the bump that decided it was time to napalm as much shit as possible, that's just the trigger she's focused on and obsessed with. But I wonder how well Warped functioned before she went on jihad. It's kind of sad to think she used to have friends and hadn't forced her family into baby sitting her while she rages. I don't know how her parents can handle it, though. The sheer hatred over nothing...
Click to expand...

There have been people trying to eke out compensation for broken nails and other small slights for some time. Maybe it doesn't happen all the time, but you have it sometimes popping up in the news. Can't imagine even these people making as big a kerfuffle as warped though. But like them, she tends to focus on the money .....which is ridiculous. $300, 000 for which I've guessed so far to move out on her own. It would be a unit at best, and it wouldn't include costs such as council rates, electricity, water, food, tax, medication, and so forth.

But then, she already wanted the $300, 000 from the get go after the incident, so either she had some awareness back then she had to move out eventually, or her family and her weren't getting along even then. Also, right then she decided she would never be able to work for ever. How would she know that? Had she even tried to move on like other people who have legit problems? Had she considered that one day in the future, she might wake up and feel "hey, today isn't so bad, I'm at home safe, maybe I can relax for once and try doing stuff." No, she decided then to never even try, and refused to ever since.

But like I said, it's bad but it's the lesser evil. If she really truly believed it was serious it could have gotten serious, but for her it's about the money. Then again she hits her Mum so is she getting worse?

In any case, she needs to let it go.

Anyways, this post seems a bit more positive in it's own way, I guess:

warped said:
Someone made a sex tape of Hulk Hogan cheating on his wife (he didn’t know it was made) and sold it to Gawker, who published it. In all the coverage of the trial, not one has called it a sex crime against him. It’s no different than the Erin Andrews case, or the stolen tapes and nude photos of other people.
Click to expand...
http://warpedellipsis.tumblr.com/

She's not exactly been quiet, mostly preoccupied with the election. But here's a burp from her:

warped said:
you know what would get rid of a lot of crap in flying? all the tsa bullshit? get us super fast trains, and a decent train network. no more ten hour days just to get across the friggin continent. three hours, boom, and my dog doesn’t even need a potty break, so people can travel with their pets without worry. and you can have animal free cars (excepting service animals)! imagine. no more bullshit sexual “pat downs” just to travel. imagine how many people would be able to get around without deathly paralyzing anxiety and humiliations.
Click to expand...
Can someone from the US enlighten me... when I travelled interstate I didn't need "pat downs", do they do that over there?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
redcent said:
Can someone from the US enlighten me... when I travelled interstate I didn't need "pat downs", do they do that over there?
Click to expand...

Only if something comes up on the scanner. I fly frequently and it rarely happens to me. She's just full of drama as usual, and the person who pats you down is of the same sex anyways.

I doubt she realizes it would take billions and billions of dollars to built a high-speed rail infrastructure. We're just not in to trains here, we fly everywhere.

EDIT: spelling
 
Occasionally, she has a good point. Like when she said that if we're going call the female celebrities who got their nudes hacked and leaked victims of sex crimes, then Hulk Hogan is also a victim. High speed rail would be useful, but it would require a massive initial investment. I don't see it happening anytime soon.
 
Sometimes they randomly pull people out for "extra screenings," not to mention it's incredibly easy to have left something in your bag or on your person that will arouse their suspicion. And on top of that there have been a few documented cases of TSA agents manufacturing excuses to grope people they find attractive.

Of course, if the US actually had a functioning high-speed rail system it would probably be made subject to the exact same asinine security theatre, and the idea of a 3 hour cross country trip is laughable anyhow, so this is a moot point.
 
Rick Springfield said:
Sometimes they randomly pull people out for "extra screenings," not to mention it's incredibly easy to have left something in your bag or on your person that will arouse their suspicion. And on top of that there have been a few documented cases of TSA agents manufacturing excuses to grope people they find attractive.

Of course, if the US actually had a functioning high-speed rail system it would probably be made subject to the exact same asinine security theatre, and the idea of a 3 hour cross country trip is laughable anyhow, so this is a moot point.
Click to expand...
You mentioned groping without a trigger warning or censoring the text, you shitlord! Now Nicole is even more disabled than usual, which means she needs to log off of Tumblr and go shriek at her family.
 
She can be right sometimes. But other times....

For example, her latest gripe:
warped said:
some twit on the news thinks that bullying would stop if these poor wittle babies just had “self confidence”. ah yes, that’s how you get other people to stop spitting on you, stop stealing your lunch money, stop being inappropriately sexual at you, to stop ostracizing you and stop telling reporting to authorities that you’ve done this or that utterly blatant lie and get you suspended. have confidence that you have no friends, everyone hates you, and you’re being expelled! :DDDD your problems will magically disappear, there’s nothing the school or police or HR need to do, it’s all your fault, you deserve to be treated like this.

“self confidence” lol
Click to expand...

I kind of feel that it would have been a good point that it wasn't that simple and wouldn't fix all cases, but the way she comes across sounds all whiny and self-defeating

There was an instance in my school life when I was getting sexually harassed. In retaliation I punched the guy in the face. Guy didn't bother me again. Problem solved.

Not exactly good idea for warped, who punches people anyway. But if she just settled for punching the dude who groped her and moved on, her life would be much different....
 
Whiners like her are the reason that people say "these problems would go away if people just stood up to the bullies." Her taking getting groped by someone she allowed to share a bed with her into a life-ruining event is at least part of the reason that real sexual assault isn't taken as seriously as it should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom