Social WR Lounge 288 Thrown off a cliff edition

[Ruprecht]

What's your type of music?

Well I thought I liked examples from most broad styles, although I tend more towards bands than doof doof, but there's a good chance I don't like American redneck gangsta rap at all, if that's what that is.
Actually rap in general and country music probably have few examples of songs/tracks I like, although still slightly ahead of metal that involves ridiculous screaming/growling.

Right at the moment I'm listening to early '90s surf rock (mostly instrumentals).

 

[sickness2.0]

Well I thought I liked examples from most broad styles, although I tend more towards bands than doof doof, but there's a good chance I don't like American redneck gangsta rap at all, if that's what that is.
Actually rap in general and country music probably have few examples of songs/tracks I like, although still slightly ahead of metal that involves ridiculous screaming/growling.

Right at the moment I'm listening to early '90s surf rock (mostly instrumentals).

Not bad Rup. About to get some zzzz

 

[Sketch]

Ban whoever you want, I spit on the rules. Plastic on the grip, and the shells are automatic.

Run this like a legit organization.

Ranks and Everything

 

[Sketch]

Deliver me the news I'm dubbs?

Ok thanks for the info.

 

[Sketch]

Wait up, let me place my order for takeout on the 43rd floor, ill scan my VIP pass

 

[Sketch]

Yeah, that's right. The mods will serve me. I want my steak done medium rare.

 

[Sketch]

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 9, Guests: 20)

 

[Sketch]

 

[Sketch]

That 2006

 

[StoneColdSteveAustin]

The thirst is real

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Anybody sit through this turd? Jesus. So slow. Shitty ending. Waste of time.

 

[Deorum]

It’s probably natural to believe people who have been nothing but nice to you rather than those who are constantly cruel to you, at least when there is no evidence either way. but I don’t really care and think I would have not liked fawlty.

I'll keep it 100 with you. @Fawlty is the father of the Lounge and I'm almost certain that you would've liked him quite a bit for his politics alone, with the hope he wouldn't make his desire to have sex with you overtly apparent and uncomfortable. He came of age in the 1990s though, so you'd at least occasionally find some of his comments borderline "ist" and "phobic" with less malicious intent than the norm.

I wound up reading some old posts while brainstorming a WR thread idea on the founding fathers that I'm not going to start and the dude could be fucking wicked with it. I had never considered him @Gandhi or @Prokofievian level of intelligent, but his wit was absolutely top notch. He also took avowed "It's impossible to rape your wife" White Supremacist @Thurisaz's head off one time when he came at me really personally with a bunch of homophobic shit and I don't forget things like that.

Dude had a great sense of humor but could flip a 180 and get really catty, really quickly. He is disliked by the Global Authority staff and has tons and tons of enemies on this forum. However, his absence has really made it no less cliquey, doxxy, gossipy, sensitive and strange. It's getting to be way too much of that, i.e. "gay" in straight bro speak, while everything below this line spirals into a right-wing wasteland.

I'm a hung aryan immigrant and hardcore secularist atheist.

You gotta love this kind of stuff from the wig wearing, pasty white cis-hetero ghouls of the 18th century. It's quite astounding how they could be, in at least a handful of ways, more progressive than people who came centuries after them even including up to those living in the present day.

E pluribus unum —Latin for "Out of many, one"—is a 13-letter traditional motto of the United States, appearing on the Great Seal along with Annuit cœptis and Novus ordo seclorum (Latin for "New Order of the Ages"), and adopted by an Act of Congress in 1782. E pluribus unum was considered the de facto motto of the United States. It wasn't until 1956 that the United States Congress passed an act (H. J. Resolution 396) adopting "In God We Trust".[1][2][3][4]

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Well I thought I liked examples from most broad styles, although I tend more towards bands than doof doof, but there's a good chance I don't like American redneck gangsta rap at all, if that's what that is.
Actually rap in general and country music probably have few examples of songs/tracks I like, although still slightly ahead of metal that involves ridiculous screaming/growling.

Right at the moment I'm listening to early '90s surf rock (mostly instrumentals).

I was a huge fan of Man or Astro Man back in the day. Still am. Have some of their vinyl which I think it supposed to be relatively valuable.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

 

[tonni]

That made me laugh, that's a perfect fucking gif.

I'll keep it 100 with you. @Fawlty is the father of the Lounge and I'm almost certain that you would've liked him quite a bit for his politics alone, with the hope he wouldn't make his desire to have sex with you overtly apparent and uncomfortable. He came of age in the 1990s though, so you'd at least occasionally find some of his comments borderline "ist" and "phobic" with less malicious intent than the norm.

I wound up reading some old posts while brainstorming a WR thread idea on the founding fathers that I'm not going to start and the dude could be fucking wicked with it. I had never considered him @Gandhi or @Prokofievian level of intelligent, but his wit was absolutely top notch. He also took avowed "It's impossible to rape your wife" White Supremacist @Thurisaz's head off one time when he came at me really personally with a bunch of homophobic shit and I don't forget things like that.

Dude had a great sense of humor but could flip a 180 and get really catty, really quickly. He is disliked by the Global Authority staff and has tons and tons of enemies on this forum. However, his absence has really made it no less cliquey, doxxy, gossipy, sensitive and strange. It's getting to be way too much of that, i.e. "gay" in straight bro speak, while everything below this line spirals into a right-wing wasteland.

Brave post. Thuriazs or whatever was a convinced European style neo-nazi. There's a couple like that here.

 

[Bald1]

I'll keep it 100 with you. @Fawlty is the father of the Lounge and I'm almost certain that you would've liked him quite a bit for his politics alone, with the hope he wouldn't make his desire to have sex with you overtly apparent and uncomfortable. He came of age in the 1990s though, so you'd at least occasionally find some of his comments borderline "ist" and "phobic" with less malicious intent than the norm.

I wound up reading some old posts while brainstorming a WR thread idea on the founding fathers that I'm not going to start and the dude could be fucking wicked with it. I had never considered him @Gandhi or @Prokofievian level of intelligent, but his wit was absolutely top notch. He also took avowed "It's impossible to rape your wife" White Supremacist @Thurisaz's head off one time when he came at me really personally with a bunch of homophobic shit and I don't forget things like that.

Dude had a great sense of humor but could flip a 180 and get really catty, really quickly. He is disliked by the Global Authority staff and has tons and tons of enemies on this forum. However, his absence has really made it no less cliquey, doxxy, gossipy, sensitive and strange. It's getting to be way too much of that, i.e. "gay" in straight bro speak, while everything below this line spirals into a right-wing wasteland.



You gotta love this kind of stuff from the wig wearing, pasty white cis-hetero ghouls of the 18th century. It's quite astounding how they could be, in at least a handful of ways, more progressive than people who came centuries after them even including up to those living in the present day.

E pluribus unum —Latin for "Out of many, one"—is a 13-letter traditional motto of the United States, appearing on the Great Seal along with Annuit cœptis and Novus ordo seclorum (Latin for "New Order of the Ages"), and adopted by an Act of Congress in 1782. E pluribus unum was considered the de facto motto of the United States. It wasn't until 1956 that the United States Congress passed an act (H. J. Resolution 396) adopting "In God We Trust".[1][2][3][4]

You gotta love someone who might be considered a "primitive" by today's standards who got plurality so right. To understand that one's belief system shouldn't dictate others behavior or be legislated in a society that's not a homogeneous one, and, to guarantee such opportunity for diversity of thought takes someone with conviction and security of ones beliefs.

Tolerance, albeit not without limits, must be a keystone of a free society lest we devolve into tribalism. The limits of that tolerance is what should be up for debate. No matter the limits, those confines shouldn't be dictated by unquestionable dogma. Label it "god wills it", "think of the children", or whatever some would put as a warning sign or as a designation of imminent danger, those wanting to question the orthodoxy should have a an opportunity to question the parameters of acceptable discourse. That is liberalism at it's core. Question, asses, deliberate, then figure out the best course. And the reason I typically nag about those who seem to tolerate the abandonment of those values more than those who never held them in the first place.

And that's the sort of verbose shite you get when I've been drinking and do stream of thought posing. You're welcome! Lol

 

[Gregolian]

 

[Deorum]

Brave post.

I don't have much time left anyway.

You gotta love someone who might be considered a "primitive" by today's standards who got plurality so right. To understand that one's belief system shouldn't dictate others behavior or be legislated in a society that's not a homogeneous one, and, to guarantee such opportunity for diversity of thought takes someone with conviction and security of ones beliefs.

Tolerance, albeit not without limits, must be a keystone of a free society lest we devolve into tribalism. The limits of that tolerance is what should be up for debate. No matter the limits, those confines shouldn't be dictated by unquestionable dogma. Label it "god wills it", "think of the children", or whatever some would put as a warning sign or as a designation of imminent danger, those wanting to question the orthodoxy should have a an opportunity to question the parameters of acceptable discourse. That is liberalism at it's core. Question, asses, deliberate, then figure out the best course. And the reason I typically nag about those who seem to tolerate the abandonment of those values more than those who never held them in the first place.

And that's the sort of verbose shite you get when I've been drinking and do stream of thought posing. You're welcome! Lol

I've always found this fucking awesome, @Khabib Khanate.

https://aeon.co/amp/essays/why-did-the-secular-ambitions-of-the-early-united-states-fail

Both Jefferson and Madison were deeply opposed to a state church, or to any state recognition of religion. They also knew that their views against religion were unpopular and had no chance of prevailing on principle. Instead, Madison set out to terrify Virginia’s Presbyterians, Baptists and other rival sects into fearing that the state church would be an oppressive Anglican one.

To this end, he wrote a broadside: the Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785). The Memorial succeeded, since most Virginia Christians wanted their own church to be the state church, and if not theirs then nobody else’s.

"The mutual hatred of these sects has been much inflamed," Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1785, "and I am far from being sorry for it." Virginia’s disestablishment, or separation of church and state, came to be the model for national separation. But it was made possible only by a combination of parliamentary legerdemain and elite manipulation of sectarian hatred.

 

[tonni]

I don't have much time left anyway.

Fedor23

NO

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You gotta love someone who might be considered a "primitive" by today's standards who got plurality so right. To understand that one's belief system shouldn't dictate others behavior or be legislated in a society that's not a homogeneous one, and, to guarantee such opportunity for diversity of thought takes someone with conviction and security of ones beliefs.

Tolerance, albeit not without limits, must be a keystone of a free society lest we devolve into tribalism. The limits of that tolerance is what should be up for debate. No matter the limits, those confines shouldn't be dictated by unquestionable dogma. Label it "god wills it", "think of the children", or whatever some would put as a warning sign or as a designation of imminent danger, those wanting to question the orthodoxy should have a an opportunity to question the parameters of acceptable discourse. That is liberalism at it's core. Question, asses, deliberate, then figure out the best course. And the reason I typically nag about those who seem to tolerate the abandonment of those values more than those who never held them in the first place.

And that's the sort of verbose shite you get when I've been drinking and do stream of thought posing. You're welcome! Lol

Get off your high horse, bub.