Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists

[Anon136]

Beyond moronic...

Its easy to think this but i dont think its right. I think that they knew exactly what they were doing. And i think this is a perfect way for them to achieve their goals. You just have to understand that their "cause" has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with contriving scenarios situations that allow them to look down on everyone else with smug satisfaction.

Instead of real reality where they are a bunch of delusional narcissistic cunts they substitute in their own minds an imaginary reality where you are forwarding the cause of the death of all life and they are the thin line between this world and that outcome. In other words they are inventing an imaginary reality where they are not just a little bit better than you, but infinitely better than you. These are the same sorts of people who when ever you buy a new car they have to buy one thats exactly 1000 dollars more expensive, only they are the absolute most extreme on that spectrum. A better car is not good enough to satisfy their egos. Inorder to satisfy their egos they need for you to be a concentration camp gas chamber operator and they are jew smuggler. That's how much better than you they have to be in order to be satisfied. They cant achieve that in the real world so they make up a pretend reality. That's what this is all about.

A story like this fits perfectly into that narrative. Look at how far they are willing to go inorder to save you from yourself. They are so benevolent and good that they are willing to risk being arrested and even worse, desecrate a historic sight, something event they would admit is a terrible thing to do but permissible when the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Did you desocrate any historic sights lately inorder to save the world? No? That is how much better than you they are.

[1715361430]

1715361430

[1715361430]

1715361430

[Wilikon]

Beyond moronic...

Its easy to think this but i dont think its right. I think that they knew exactly what they were doing. And i think this is a perfect way for them to achieve their goals. You just have to understand that their "cause" has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with contriving scenarios situations that allow them to look down on everyone else with smug satisfaction.

Instead of real reality where they are a bunch of delusional narcissistic cunts they substitute in their own minds an imaginary reality where you are forwarding the cause of the death of all life and they are the thin line between this world and that outcome. In other words they are inventing an imaginary reality where they are not just a little bit better than you, but infinitely better than you. These are the same sorts of people who when ever you buy a new car they have to buy one thats exactly 1000 dollars more expensive, only they are the absolute most extreme on that spectrum. A better car is not good enough to satisfy their egos. Inorder to satisfy their egos they need for you to be a concentration camp gas chamber operator and they are jew smuggler. That's how much better than you they have to be in order to be satisfied. They cant achieve that in the real world so they make up a pretend reality. That's what this is all about.

A story like this fits perfectly into that narrative. Look at how far they are willing to go inorder to save you from yourself. They are so benevolent and good that they are willing to risk being arrested and even worse, desecrate a historic sight, something event they would admit is a terrible thing to do but permissible when the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Did you desocrate any historic sights lately inorder to save the world? No? That is how much better than you they are.

You are right. Not moronic. Greenpeace said the site was not damaged. They forgot all those nike and rebook print shoes they left behind but then there is this... A bad cover up always exposes you in the end, for what you really are...

[tvbcof]

  ---pic---
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/10/peru-legal-action-greenpeace-stunt-nazca-lines

-------------------------------------------------
Beyond moronic...

LOL!  Bonehead move.  Not the first and likely not the last.  Slight hats off to Greenpeace for issuing a no-bullshit apology at least, but only because such a thing is so rare.

I also give them something of a pass on the level of environmental damage they probably did...I'm sure the site will do OK as long as more bozo's don't follow their lead.  I'll not hold my breath for Greenpeace and etc to reciprocate by being rational about things when the shoe is on the other foot.  That is to say, I fully expect that they and the rest of the innumerate dip-shits of their ilk will scream bloody murder over the slightest change to any convenient environment that any of their adversaries might make.

[Spendulus]

 ---pic---
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/10/peru-legal-action-greenpeace-stunt-nazca-lines

-------------------------------------------------
Beyond moronic...

LOL!  Bonehead move.  Not the first and likely not the last.  Slight hats off to Greenpeace for issuing a no-bullshit apology at least, but only because such a thing is so rare.

I also give them something of a pass on the level of environmental damage they probably did...I'm sure the site will do OK as long as more bozo's don't follow their lead.  I'll not hold my breath for Greenpeace and etc to reciprocate by being rational about things when the shoe is on the other foot.  That is to say, I fully expect that they and the rest of the innumerate dip-shits of their ilk will scream bloody murder over the slightest change to any convenient environment that any of their adversaries might make.

I have had a change of heart.  I now fully support environmentalists, having been shown irrefutable proof of global warming.  I support Greenpeace, and understand why they went to the South American rain forests.  The kindness and sincerity of true environmentalists is an inspiration to all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfWzp7rYR4

[Wilikon]

 ---pic---
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/10/peru-legal-action-greenpeace-stunt-nazca-lines

-------------------------------------------------
Beyond moronic...

LOL!  Bonehead move.  Not the first and likely not the last.  Slight hats off to Greenpeace for issuing a no-bullshit apology at least, but only because such a thing is so rare.

I also give them something of a pass on the level of environmental damage they probably did...I'm sure the site will do OK as long as more bozo's don't follow their lead.  I'll not hold my breath for Greenpeace and etc to reciprocate by being rational about things when the shoe is on the other foot.  That is to say, I fully expect that they and the rest of the innumerate dip-shits of their ilk will scream bloody murder over the slightest change to any convenient environment that any of their adversaries might make.

I have had a change of heart.  I now fully support environmentalists, having been shown irrefutable proof of global warming.  I support Greenpeace, and understand why they went to the South American rain forests.  The kindness and sincerity of true environmentalists is an inspiration to all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfWzp7rYR4

Hmmm... Did you say... Change of heart?

[Spendulus]

 ---pic---
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/10/peru-legal-action-greenpeace-stunt-nazca-lines

-------------------------------------------------
Beyond moronic...

LOL!  Bonehead move.  Not the first and likely not the last.  Slight hats off to Greenpeace for issuing a no-bullshit apology at least, but only because such a thing is so rare.

I also give them something of a pass on the level of environmental damage they probably did...I'm sure the site will do OK as long as more bozo's don't follow their lead.  I'll not hold my breath for Greenpeace and etc to reciprocate by being rational about things when the shoe is on the other foot.  That is to say, I fully expect that they and the rest of the innumerate dip-shits of their ilk will scream bloody murder over the slightest change to any convenient environment that any of their adversaries might make.

I have had a change of heart.  I now fully support environmentalists, having been shown irrefutable proof of global warming.  I support Greenpeace, and understand why they went to the South American rain forests.  The kindness and sincerity of true environmentalists is an inspiration to all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfWzp7rYR4

Hmmm... Did you say... Change of heart?

Indeed, when I saw the penguins flying south to the rainforests, to the very areas that Greenpeace in their prescient wisdom were gathering at, I knew that the world was warming.  The birds and the animals know before we do, when changes are coming, and we may take this as a vital signal of the pulse of the Gaia (peace be unto her).

[NewLiberty]

Indeed, when I saw the penguins flying south to the rainforests, to the very areas that Greenpeace in their prescient wisdom were gathering at, I knew that the world was warming.  The birds and the animals know before we do, when changes are coming, and we may take this as a vital signal of the pulse of the Gaia (peace be unto her).

Are you feeling any numbness in face, legs or arm... especially if it is on one side?
Dizziness, or trouble speaking?
I care for your safety.

[Wilikon]

Indeed, when I saw the penguins flying south to the rainforests, to the very areas that Greenpeace in their prescient wisdom were gathering at, I knew that the world was warming.  The birds and the animals know before we do, when changes are coming, and we may take this as a vital signal of the pulse of the Gaia (peace be unto her).

Are you feeling any numbness in face, legs or arm... especially if it is on one side?
Dizziness, or trouble speaking?
I care for your safety.

Why do people need visual helps like those all the time, even for a video that was an obvious joke from the BBC is beyond me 

[freedomno1]

Greenpeace activists to be charged with damaging 2000-yr-old art formations in Peru

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/10/peru-legal-action-greenpeace-stunt-nazca-lines


-------------------------------------------------
Beyond moronic...

That really is beyond mornic
Damn environmentalists your destroying a landmark just by walking there to place your environmental sign ....

[BitMos]

This is an example of destructive, or at least high risk, trolling. To the point, it asked if they do it against environmentalism, threatening the life of persons in high seas and other "hot" spots, and here hiding what they did, realizing themselves how stupid they have been... Will they be forced to clean? And who will pay, and please don't tell me it will again be my taxes? Anyway one step closer to eco-terrorism... What will they do next? Spam the Statue of Liberty   

[Voidlord]

The true problem is: Our economic model. Growth is not sustainable, but stupidity of modern humanity is, the cow-boy/carpe diem thinking (choose according  to your political sensibility) always reply us we dont care, we will change it later .

To make it short, thinking about improving growth is... killing our children (or their children).

Just some data:
Iraki war costs 2000 billions US$. final costs is about 6000 billions US$ in order to have access to... more pollutant energy.

With 6000 billions dollars we could power 5,87% of all our needs with... wind power for a 11 billions inhabitans earth (Total cost of ownership).
And twice to third this percentage if we just take care (reduce our waste, turn off the light when not needed, building passive houses...).
This without considering the huge progress in productivity and the stable jobs opportunities created. made by such industrial change.  (it is preferable to create a stable one, i.e:electrician than a short and injured one i.e: soldier in action)

Environmentalists are upset because they are sensible to these facts. Obviously each orthodoxy/extremism is not a good way to change the world. But please dont think Environmentalists are extrem, the moderates are the overwhelming majority.

[BitMos]

The true problem is: Our economic model. Growth is not sustainable, but stupidity of modern humanity is, the cow-boy/carpe diem thinking (choose according  to your political sensibility) always reply us we dont care, we will change it later .

To make it short, thinking about improving growth is... killing our children (or their children).

...

Environmentalists are upset because they are sensible to these facts. Obviously each orthodoxy/extremism is not a good way to change the world. But please dont think Environmentalists are extrem, the moderates are the overwhelming majority.

I think you don't understand market economies at the individual scale, what ever the frs does, you are still free to buy or not to buy, or sale, or share, or save or invest or not or what ever. You are responsible for your own actions. Furthermore improving growth isn't killing your children, what's the problem going from a polluting energy source to a cleaner one? it's called improving.

Fake Environmentalists are upsets because they want to rule the life of others. they believe to be smarter, more informed, and righteous as the market participants... when in fact they aren't. They don't believe that my rights are given by my Creator and not some kind of laws, or papers.

There is nothing to change in the world, just restore the sanity that the people that want to change it have destroyed. I don't want to have to bear the cost of people unable to handle their population growth. If you breed like animals... you die like animals. So I don't like how fake environmentalists always have a "sustainable" number of people in mind...

Futherevermore the USMIIC is here to "defend" against those that would like to change the world against the Will of the People. And as long as there are people that will want to change the world and not themselves, there will be standing armies from the People.

The percentage of the domestic and foreign enemies is irrelevant per se, the "movement" could be full of extremism or only one, it would still be flagged, and taken care of.

[Voidlord]

"going from a polluting energy source to a cleaner one" is improving.
But it is not "improving Growth".
Because when you begin to change your energy source to a cleaner one, you loose growth (the first move from oil/nuclear to wind/sun will costs a lot: lack of energy, costs of imported energy during the transition, costs of "disarming" and "cleaning" nuclear plants).

I repeat, our economic model is the true problem.

We cant stand for long time this run in order to see richest get richer.
Our modern Growth is:
1: very unequal.
2: very pollutant.

We must redefine the Growth dogma: i.e: Economic growth (which is the increase in the market value of the goods and services).
A sort of "Quality growth": maybe the increase of services, DURABLE goods, quality of living (passive housing, air quality...)


                                                  
                
                                                  

[Anon136]

"going from a polluting energy source to a cleaner one" is improving.
But it is not "improving Growth".
Because when you begin to change your energy source to a cleaner one, you loose growth (the first move from oil/nuclear to wind/sun will costs a lot: lack of energy, costs of imported energy during the transition, costs of "disarming" and "cleaning" nuclear plants).

I repeat, our economic model is the true problem.

We cant stand for long time this run in order to see richest get richer.
Our modern Growth is:
1: very unequal.
2: very pollutant.

We must redefine the Growth dogma: i.e: Economic growth (which is the increase in the market value of the goods and services).
A sort of "Quality growth": maybe the increase of services, DURABLE goods, quality of living (passive housing, air quality...)


                                                  
                
                                                  

There is no "our economic model". There are only individuals acting individually in the pursuit of the ends that are meaningful to them. There is no "guy" sitting onto of some big chair instructing everyone in how to structure production in such a way as to ensure that goods are not durable, means of production are wasted in the production process, and ever more resources are consumed in the production of goods over time.

Anyway i dont know where this something for nothing mentality comes from. Sure firms could produce products that last longer, but only at a cost. They cant just make them last longer and charge the same price. And a higher price is a reflection of the resources that went into developing the product. So it lasts longer but only at the cost of consuming more resources. Its a wash from an environmental standpoint. If they could charge double the price but make it last 4 times as long, than they would, because consumers would benefit from the ability to resell the product. So every product on the market exists along a relatively predicable line of cost to reliability. Sure you can choose to buy flat packed furniture that will wear out in a couple of years, but its made out of saw dust and glue. So the resources that went into it are significantly less valuable than treated hard wood. This is what you see everywhere. Sure you could point to something like electronics as a counter example except that the technology in electronics becomes antiquated every 2-4 years, so it makes a lot less sense to design it to last longer than that. You may argue yea but you can still use an old cell phone, it still works. But actually that would be a loss to efficiency since newer electronics increase productivity. Even if someone wanted to save the environment, that was their goal, it wouldnt make sense to use an old cell phone because the new one saves you so much time that you have more time to work on inventing new wind mills or w/e you environmentalists do.

[Wilikon]

Feminists Demand Unilever Remove Its “Flirty Shades of Surf” Detergent From Store Shelves For “Glorifying Abuse of Woman”…

https://www.change.org/p/unilever-surf-remove-your-flirty-shades-surf-product-from-sale-boycottsurf?recruiter=178432199&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive


------------------------------------------------------------------

Not glorifying abuse of women when a woman makes $$$$ with a book called 50 shades of grey...

[alani123]

I'd like to see what the countercampaign for this is going to be.

[coinits]

I'd like to see what the countercampaign for this is going to be.

YouPorn

[Ingatqhvq]

Yes, I don't like them.

[Wilikon]

#WomenAgainstFeminism Creator Removed From Twitter For Quoting Radical Feminists



Janet Bloomfield is the founder and woman behind the Twitter account @JudgyBitch1

She has approximately 15,000 followers and her weekly Twitter reach is just under 50,000, according to SumAll.

Her account was just suspended for tweeting out the actual words of a far left Guardian journalist.
Today she wrote in about her ordeal.


I have twice been suspended from Twitter after harassment campaigns from other Twitter users who are angry with me for being the main driver behind the #WomenAgainstFeminism hashtag. My account has never tweeted abuse nor have I ever threatened anyone, although I frequently get death threats myself.



My most recent suspension is the result of me tweeting the actual words of Guardian journalist Jessica Valenti back to her. Prompted by @davidfutrelle, a harassment campaign to report me for spam/abuse was undertaken by users who appear to be under the impression that I made up the Valenti quotes and falsely attributed them to her. This is not true. Valenti did indeed write that wrapping Christmas presents oppresses women, and that “jingle bell time aside, it’s [Christmas] a goddam clusterfuck.”. I did not make these words up. They are her own.

The other quotes are also taken from articles Valenti wrote at the Guardian and for Atlantic magazine.

This is the third time that I have been wrongly targeted, and I have requested that Twitter restore and verify my account to avoid further issues. To date, Twitter has not responded. Is Twitter allowing their harassment tools to be used to silence dissenting voices? Since when is tweeting a journalist’s words back at her harassment?

Janet Bloomfield


From the comment section:

Janet Bloomfield • 2 hours ago
A small correction, but my weekly tweet reach is just under 50 MILLION - that is why they are so terrified. An awful lot of people support #WomenAgainstFeminism and it scares the heck out of them.


You can visit my blog at www.judgybitch.com - I have almost 20K followers there and so far no one has been able to bring my blog down. This article made a lot of feminists furious!

http://judgybitch.com/2014/12/12/reposting-this-because-i-love-it-how-to-pick-a-wife/



http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/12/womenagainstfeminism-creator-removed-from-twitter-for-quoting-radical-feminists/

[Wilikon]

Lena Dunham’s Republican rapist turns out to be none of those things

[...]
It is, however, something else altogether for Dunham to apparently determine that, for the sake of a racier narrative, she would accidently libel an innocent individual and smear an entire political ideology. That may be exactly what she did.

Conservative columnists have performed exhaustive investigations into the figure Dunham called “Barry” in her book; a rather crude Republican whom the reader is led to believe took violent sexual advantage of the author in college. National Review’s Kevin Williamson and Breitbart’s John Nolte did some traditional shoe-leather reporting on the subject earlier this year and determined that the easily discovered Oberlin alumnus “Barry” was a real person who was genuinely harmed by Dunham’s casual libel.

But Gawker’s J.K. Trotter, who seemed to have set out to discredit the conservative fact checkers that took an interest in learning the truth of the narratives in Dunham’s book, discovered a few inconvenient facts himself when digging into the inconsistencies between Dunham’s book and the proposal she submitted to her publisher.

Trotter observed that Dunham’s proposal characterized the encounter between her and “Barry” an “ill-fated evening of love-making” and not rape, though she did call her partner the college’s “resident conservative.” Dunham also said that the conservative, an aspiring radio personality, was also the son of a former host of NPR’s All Things Considered.

Following up on a lead originally investigated by Breitbart’s Nolte, Trotter determined that “Barry” wasn’t “Barry” at all. He is most likely a young man named Phillip (his full name and biography are reproduced in the Gawker piece, but will not be printed here). What’s more, it turns out that this individual never registered as a member of any political party until 2012, when he filed paperwork to register as a Democrat. Trotter noted that Philip had no records indicating any affiliation with conservatism whatsoever, but conceded that he might have been a secret conservative before he registered Democratic.

So what explains the significant evolution of the alleged rapist’s description between the proposal and the published text? Random House and Dunham, through her attorney, both declined to comment. It seems possible that the publisher asked her to remove the more identifying details to close off the possibility of a libel lawsuit—only to blunder into another potential suit thanks to the “surreal coincidence” of giving the rapist character the same name as a real Oberlin alumnus.

It’s possible, also, that [Philip] is not the person who raped Dunham—that, for reasons unknown, she used certain details of [Philip’s] life in her description of her sexual assault, and decided to remove them upon publication of the memoir.

[Philip] did not acknowledge multiple and detailed requests for comment via email; his current whereabouts are unknown. His Facebook account, before he deleted it, listed his current city as Washington D.C., but his last known address there belongs to a house his parents sold in 2011, according to public records.


Or, maybe, Dunham just did not want to lie about someone with whom she had a consensual night of sex, a person who she regarded as a friend and with whom she shared similar political views, and thought that it would make a better story to turn him both a violent criminal and a Romney voter. That would, after all, be the simplest explanation. While it is morally repugnant, for someone who makes a living as a creative writer, it is a course of action that is not especially not difficult to envision.

Of course, the joke is now, “Sure, Dunham’s Republican rapist turned out to be nothing of the sort, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the Larger Truths about rape and Republicans exposed by her confession.” That larger truth is, as ever, the faith-based claim that American culture is also “rape culture,” and that sexual violence and repression are both embraced and advanced by conservatives. As with the collapse of the fabulist tale that has robbed Rolling Stone of much of its waning credibility, however, the implosion of this narrative, too, has dealt those who are married to ideological preconceptions about their own victimhood quite the blow.

The genuine victims of sexual violence should be horrified by their supposed allies who would profit from their abuse by falsely claiming to have shared in it.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/31/lena-dunhams-republican-rapist-turns-out-to-be-none-of-those-things/