/siberia/ - Off-topic

>>775400
dog what

>>775392
Why does sinfest make stalin and lenin so umbelievable based

>>775401
More like not so subtle rape fetish.

>>775392
based lenin

>>775440
he's giving him le evil hunched pose

>>775461
whoa bro that's not ok. who hurt you?

second attempt

>>775438

i have my own theory about traditionalism not as a sacred value but as a doctrine that has to be exercised and improved through dialectics over time as some sort of meta-game in the modern world.

i picked stuff about tradition because of that and i guess it took it from there without thinking much more about that

I do guess that also while i'm an anarchist i still see the state as a weapon that has to be used until it's no longer useful.

Why am I gae?

Am I based?

>>775374
There are ways to fraud that too. There are t-shirts in Worst Korea that have shoulder pads built in.

>>775383
Same reason why women don't feel like jackasses caking on a ton of makeup. It has an equalizing effect when it comes to looks, if done right that is.

>>775395
makeup is completely different from this. makeup is like wearing fancy new clothes while this is just pretending to have a different body

>>775397
Makeup can literally make your facial structure look different.

>>775395
>There are t-shirts in Worst Korea that have shoulder pads built in.
No I mean you are going to look visibly different with or without tshirt on. For height it doesnt matter, unless you severely overdo it with lifts, women arent going to notice 5 cm difference, and her shoes come off too, so it evens out.

Haven't you read the Odyssey? Witches don't usually give you a choice. It's not like in Sabrina.

I can't believe she actually said that!

>>771245
literally who

I like peaches. Especially yellow peaches. White peaches are alright but yellows have more flavor and are juicier although messy because the juice gets all over you. They're good with Tajin chili powder.

i also have a peach tree, but i think its diseased.

>>775262
Thanks for reminding me about that song, how nostalgic.

But are there any communist parties in Alabama that i can donate to though

no

>>775083
Gigachad.

>>775293
Protestant, not orthodox.

Today's been the best day for my loop relapse. I'm not checking her socials every 10 minutes to see what they're feeling or thinking.
I'm not cured but I am healing, and I need to let myself accept it.

I hate spring, I got a semi just from looking in the eyes of a coworker for slightly longer than usual. Like wtf, I'm not even gay.

I was raped.

Now, onto the matter of the drug use. A while back, I made a post where I basically renounced my previous support of Polanski because of info given to me by a youth liberationist friend of mine from off the board who is supportive of mutually consensual relationships between adults and minors, and this info pointed out that Geimer's consent to Polanski's advances was in question because of the quaalude he gave her. Some people on the board agreed with my renouncement of support for Polanski for this reason and posted links to the court records where Geimer made statements that suggested she didn't really want the contact with Polanski. Others vehemently defended Polanski, so the board was a bit divided over this. However, I must concede that my source did not know about the fact that Geimer was apparently already familiar with quaaludes going back a few years, and hence she may have been willing to take the pill that Polanski gave her while knowing full well what effect it would have on her. This, along with the fact that Geimer insists in retrospect that she wasn't a "victim" of Polanski in any way, forces me to question my renouncement of my initial defense of him. It should be noted that Polanski has never been accused of displaying violent behavior of any kind, was never arrested for any crime not related to this one since it occurred (at least not that I know of), and there is effectively zero evidence that he ever threatened Geimer a few decades after the fact into stating that she thinks he should not be charged. There are definite shades of gray in this situation, and this should be considered. Though I do not agree with Polanski giving Geimer the drug, there is good evidence that she was no rookie at drug use and thus may have known how it would affect her.

Lyons:
> "The child also apparently had the Stage Mother from Hell, a film industry tradition. In short, there may have been excellent reasons why both sides wanted to avoid a highly publicized Hollywood trial, and no reason to treat the grand jury testimony of a 14-year-old girl pressed by her mother and the prosecutor as holy writ. She may have interpreted Polanski's pleading guilty to a reduced charge as a kindness."

Of course, Lyons insists that we should ascribe ulterior motives on the part of Geimer and her mother for not pushing for charges against Polanski because the idea that she may not have considered her life "irretrievably ruinePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Clark-Foley: "The truth, though, is that early on a significant share of 'the pack' was howling about Polanski's victimhood just like Levy [emphasis in original] – but sanity finally prevailed. Unfortunately, despite popular opinion turning against the world- renowned director, his letter sadly suggests that Levy is still far from alone."
Yup, it's a horrible shame that not everyone has turned on Polanski like Clark-Foley and the rest of "the pack" had hoped, though since enough have bowed down to media pressure to do so she sees that as a case of "sanity" prevailing. Let's all note the fact that Clark-Foley, like Lyons before her, didn't bother to put a shred of critical evaluation into any aspect of Polanski's situation, which is supposed to be the job of a progressive blogger to do. All they did was go along with the herd (or, as Levy calls them, "the pack") and express outrage that Polanski was treated by some in any way remotely to the contrary of what our conventional wisdom insists upon. And I must ask, is it really the matter that Polanski is given special treatment for breaking the law because of the value several people feel he has towards the world of cinematography, or can it possibly be the fact that when a renowned celebrity gets in trouble for breaking laws of dubious wisdom people are more likely to question the nature of the law and its supposed infallible absolutist wisdom than they are if Joe Schmoe gets arrested for the same type of crime? Progressives can accept shades of gray in almost anything, such as war, love, and most forms of crimes– except for the idea of sex between adults and those we today label 'minors.' When it comes to that, moral absolutism reigns.

Now we move onto the article by Kate Harding.

Harding: "The good news: California's 2nd District Court of Appeal rejected Roman Polanski's most recent request for dismissal of all that unpleasant business about his raping a kid and fleeing sentencing."
Yup, no gray area whatsoever when it comes to sex between adults and minors…it's always "rape." And let's all continue to ignore what Samantha Geimer has to say about this, okay? Nice to hear this from a progressive, but I won't belabor that point again since I already got into it up above. I will say here that it can be construed, as is likely the case by several of Polanski's supporters, that his fleeing the U.S. when faced with his conviction can be the equivalent of someone seekinPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The URL to the page on Salon.com where all of the Polanski articles can be seen is here:

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/roman_polanski

Here is the URL to my October 2nd, 2009 post on GirlChat entitled, "My Thoughts On the Polanski Situation Reconsidered," an opinion I repudiated in the above essay/analysis due to my further study of Samantha Geimer's grand jury testimony. This further study took into consideration all the evidence regarding its possible validity, including the fact that Geimer's subsequent actions, including her refusal to help indict Polanski in more recent years and her request that the charges be dropped even when she could have easily swayed public sentiment to her side if she did so–as well as statements she made on other occasions years after the incident–just didn't match up with that of someone who was actually forced to engage in sex without her consent. As a possible explanation as to why she made that testimony at the grand jury hearing if it wasn't actually true, one must consider the well acknowledged tendency of law enforcement officers and social workers to attempt to coax alleged victims of sexual abuse who had actually consented to the activity into fabricating details to make a better case against the accused, a tendency that became crystal clear to the public with the notorious McMartin pre-school incident. The URL to that post is here:

I like his movies

>>775347
>statutory rape isn't rape!
no, not technically, but a 13 year old girl is hardly in a position to decide for herself what she wants out of life, she's simply too young, and honestly the "magic age" of 18 isn't an indication of maturity, either. that is not to say that it should be considered a crime to be attracted to a young adolescent who is biologically sexually mature, but generally speaking, older males will have considerable ability to coerce any youth into doing their bidding, sexual or otherwise. the power dynamics are usually skewed in favor of the man, who will have more life experience and resources (capital as well as social status, to say nothing of raw physical strength) with which he can coerce younger parties into doing what he wants.
>she was already sexually experienced and familiar with mind-altering substances!
this is just slander. even if those things are true, it doesn't mean that the possibility of being manipulated by an older person with nefarious motives is out of the question, and polanski's supporters are suggesting that society ought to accept the notion that a drugged party is ever capable of granting consent.
>she says that she's actually fine so we should just believe her! there's no possible way that she's being advised and influenced on what to say by any given interested party!
okay, but you're just disregarding the possibility that she's being pressured into sweeping this whole debacle under the rug, and in fact she is not okay. the most damning evidence is her testimony, in which she says that:
>Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, 'No,' then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm
that is pretty damning evidence and you'd really have to be beholden to some apologia for 'hebephiles' to try and contort it into anything less than a smoking gun.
>s-she was just being compelled to give this testimony!!! why Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

So what's the deal with 42chan.net right now?

>>775375
Coming soon when this gets fixed >>775192 the delay should be small.

>>775387
u guys working with the leftypol staff or u doing this on your own?

>>775419
We're on our own, leftypol are not involved with us

Moved to >>>/420/4.

Moved to >>>/420/518.

We was lemurs and such not too long ago in the planet's history. Not to be evopsych about it but I think it'd be weird if there wasn't a bit of furry-ism ingrained into people's instincts.

The real question is: why didn't God make anthropomorphic animals that want to have sex with us?

>>775405
Because God hates us

>>775405
He didnt even make human females who want to have sex with you.