Cursed Political Content

  • Thread starter TexRex
  • 6,648 comments
  • 324,188 views
When she said "D.C. Gulag", she meant to say "D.C. Goulash".
I really hope someone hung this at her office door.
Dog I Have No Idea What Im Doing GIF
 
When she said "D.C. Gulag", she meant to say "D.C. Goulash".


Edit:

When republicans like the law it's "Police"/"Jail"
When republicans don't like the law it's "Gazpacho"/"Goulash"
Those Dems are just a bunch of consommeunists.
 
I really shouldn't post poop girl's unhinged tweets but really couldn't pass this one up.

FLSkXYSX0AEq96D.jpeg
 
Last edited:
What a world these people live in.

FLRuShdVgAAn-QT
Mind... blown...

So much to unpack.
  • How did the guy's wife figure out it's Moderna? So specific. We can tell a Pfizer blow dart hit from a Moderna blow dart from a J&J?
  • And on that point, what's the tell that it's a vaccine at all? or what kind of vaccine? Can we tell a covid vaccine blow dart from a smallpox vaccine blow dart?
  • Where was the dart? Presumably when you get hit by a blow dart, you can tell it's not a wasp sting because of the DART sticking out of your body!
  • Now you might say it's some kinnd of sophisticated tiny military dart, but it still has to work on air pressure, it needs some kind of structure.
  • Moderna has strict temperature control and dosage volume requirements. It's not a salve that you can smear onto a dart. It won't work that way. There's literally no point.
  • How do the blow dart ninjas figure out who is vaccinated and who is not? Do they just blow dart everyone?
  • Were people really complaining about being stung by wasps and bees and also simultaneously complaining about not being able to see any? That's super specific.
  • Some dude went to great lengths to explain to his wife how he got vaccinated without ticking her off. "Yea, honey, it was just... like a blow dart... that's how I got vaccinated".
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Is this person off the mark here? Perhaps just a widdle...


Might as well do a point by point:

  • Urine is made of water, waste products and other things after filtration and reabsorption processes in the kidneys. The "filtered blood plasma" would be the blood found in the efferent arteriole in the kidneys containing the stuff we want circulating in our bodies after going through the filtering "device", the glomerulus renal corpuscle.
  • Antibodies (also called immunoglobulins) are a vital part of your immune system in conjuction with other more recognisable components such as white blood cells. They are proteins and as such could be filtered into the filtrate that becomes urine but proteins generally are too big to pass through a normally functioning glomerulus renal corpuscle and so don't make up a substantial amount of the urine. The exception to this is in kidney disease. This is why health professionals sometimes measure something called an urinary albumin-creatinine ratio as it shows how much protein (albumin) is leaking into the urine.
  • I have no idea about the link between antivenom and urine
  • We "pee it out" because we need to get rid of toxic things, especially urea, and maintain a healthy electrolyte and acid/base balance.
  • Interestingly urea can be useful when applied topically (such as on the skin). Looking into antiseptic properties it seems that urine can exhibit some antibacterial properties - however we have much better antiseptic preparations that are readily available.
  • There....is no vaccine for the common cold. There is no evidence to suggest that we developed evolutionarily to drink our urine for health benefits. Antibodies are found in blood, tissue fluid and other areas and it would make no sense to excrete them, ingest and redistribute them to somehow "activate" them.

Edited to change glomerulus to renal corpuscle before any nephrologists kill me
 
Last edited:
Owning black people is addictive, right? No wonder Twitter and YouTube canned this guy's arse.

View attachment 1114905
Lol seriously slavery has been part of human civilisation since the beginning. Only thing I see right now especially among the right wing and far right is to deflect their ancestors role by blaming Africans, Arabs or even the Turks.

By the way even slavery was present in Australia we used the Australian Natives as cheap labour placed in reservations which was basically slavery itself then you have the issue of blackbirding.

Nobody denies that the Africans, Arabs and the Turks engaged in slavery. Only thing I see among right wingers is using other civilisations or empires slave trade to deflect the British, French, Dutch, Americans, Spanish and the Portuguese role in the Atlantic slave trade. Afterall it is a global enterprise not just driven for profit but for racial reasons. But the Atlantic slave trade holds an important role in history for being a slave trade that was not just for profit but also for racial reasons.

I know the Turks engaged in slavery from capturing prisoners of war even paying mercernary companies to go capture slaves in Eastern Europe and in Africa while at the same time use of Devshirme system and the Jannisary corps means we dont have a good track record either but I find it dishonest with some people using these as arguments to deflect the Atlantic slave trade. Even in the Ottoman Empire you had various ethnic groups who also engaged in slavery and its trade. Its not a black and white issue.

Oh look there were white slaves. Even mentioning white slaves get most white supremacists triggered because you know they believe they are the master race that the white race has never been enslaved. While at the same time they praise the Vikings the same Vikings who sold white slaves to the Arabs.

Deflection arguments made by Stefan molyenux is really common. Lets look at other peoples dirt so we can cover our own tracks.
 
Last edited:
Owning black people is addictive, right? No wonder Twitter and YouTube canned this guy's arse.

View attachment 1114905
That's incredibly dense.

If we're going with this analogy, and it's not a good analogy, and Molyneux is a crackpot anyway, then clearly the slaves are the drugs - in which case slave traders were the dealers.
 
That's incredibly dense.

If we're going with this analogy, and it's not a good analogy, and Molyneux is a crackpot anyway, then clearly the slaves are the drugs - in which case slave traders were the dealers.
He means the "original" slave traders were the Africans who sold slaves to Europeans and got them hooked.

But yes to everything else above. I guess this analogy turns Europeans into crazed junkies who returned to repeatedly raid the dealers' crack dens and meth labs over and over again. Or something.

A more honest analogy would be knowingly accepting stolen godds from a fence, as European slave owners weren't victims.
 
Last edited:
He means the "original" slave traders were the Africans who sold slaves to Europeans and got them hooked.

But yes to everything else above. I guess this analogy turns Europeans into crazed junkies who returned to repeatedly raid the dealers' crack dens and meth labs over and over again. Or something.

A more honest analogy would be knowingly accepting stolen godds from a fence, as European slave owners weren't victims.
Somehow I'm thinking that the capture of slaves comes before the anticipated demand for slaves from others. Africans capturing Africans to sell to Europeans seems like a response to a demand rather than the origin of the demand.

Regardless, every slave trader ever is still the drug dealer in this case.
 
Last edited:
Somehow I'm thinking that the capture of slaves comes before the anticipated demand for slaves from others. Africans capturing Africans to sell to Europeans seems like a response to a demand rather than the origin of the demand.

Regardless, every slave trader ever is still the drug dealer in this case.
Yep, as @SestoScudo says, splitting it up along racial lines shows up Molyneux's motivations for what they really are. The closer I look at the analogy, the further I feel I'm wading into an intellectual cesspit.
 
Last edited:
Somehow I'm thinking that the capture of slaves comes before the anticipated demand for slaves from others. Africans capturing Africans to sell to Europeans seems like a response to a demand rather than the origin of the demand.

Regardless, every slave trader ever is still the drug dealer in this case.
Crazy thing is Moleyneux forgets that the European colonial empires came to West Africa not just for the gold or to trade but also for the slaves.
 

Latest Posts

Back