ShimmeringKoi

Do you have rabies

I was the smashy kid in high school, and if I encountered this dystopian bullshit I would have smashed it with a glow in my heart

Apparently the origins of standardized testing are surprisingly dark even for what it is: in the leadup to WW1, they wanted a way to separate the brains in the bunkers from the bodies in the trench.

I gotta finish reading Palo Alto

Honestly, a mistake right off the bat to let him get away with slandering Marxist analysis by tying it to a word as poisoned in the popular imagination as 'economics'

Sure thing, is an inch-thick slice of tomato okay or did you want thicker?

I wonder if it's better to do an assassination horned up, or with post-nut clarity. Most would say the latter, but I think there's something to be said for being in a mental state of high body/breathing awareness and sensitivity if you're using anything scoped. Having just busted brings a less tender, more businesslike mindset, probably the better to get rough.

So for that reason I think post-nut clarity would be ideal for a brute force hand-to-hand confrontation, but gooning is better for the marksman

Goku inflation

SMH if only there had been someone out there to tell him about bluechew

Dealt with accordingly? You mean like assassinated? Just for their political beliefs about assassination? Sounds pretty terroristic, man

The most perturbing question for the liberal is the question of violence. The liberal’s initial reaction to violence is to try to convince the oppressed that violence is an incorrect tactic, that violence will not work, that violence never accomplishes anything. The Europeans took America through violence and through violence they established the most powerful country in the world. Through violence they maintain the most powerful country in the world. It is absolutely absurd for one to say that violence never accomplishes anything.

Today power is defined by the amount of violence one can bring against one’s enemy — that is how you decide how powerful a country is; power is defined not by the number of people living in a country, it is not based on the amount of resources to be found in that country, it is not based upon the good will of the leaders or the majority of that people. When one talks about a powerful country, one is talking precisely about the amount of violence that that country can heap upon its enemy. We must be clear in our minds about that. Russia is a powerful country, not because there are so many millions of Russians but because Russia has great atomic strength, great atomic power, which of course is violence. America can unleash an infinite amount of violence, and that is the only way one considers America powerful. No one considers Vietnam powerful, because Vietnam cannot unleash the same amount of violence. Yet if one wanted to define power as the ability to do, it seems to me that Vietnam is much more powerful than the United States. But because we have been conditioned by Western thoughts today to equate power with violence, we tend to do that at all times, except when the oppressed begin to equate power with violence — then it becomes an “incorrect” equation.

From "The Pitfalls of Liberalism" by Kwame Ture

If Isreal just wanted every Palestinian dead and nothing else, don't you think they would have dropped their own nukes on October 8? Zionists have no interest in irradiating the manifest destiny prize they're currently waging a doomed invasion to take.