>>18787

You seem knowledgeable.

>>18786

I was walking round there yesterday and I obviously walked by the cottaging hot spot as I got some quite awkward looks from the random groups of men who were just hanging around the woodland in the twilight.

>>18789
You're lucky they didn't pin you down and fill you up with beefy hot poz loads.

>>18789
The gays have the Heath well sorted - men on the West Heath and women in their bathing ponds on the other side; all very organised.

>>18790

Some people call that a day well spent.

>>18780

>If you're ever down under, never order Foster's

I'd advise not ordering a Fosters even here.

Frankly I'm insulted you're assuming I'd want to order Fosters.

>>18782
I've never understood why you think every single post is personally aimed at you.

>>18783
No I think it's aimed at me actually. Crying.

>>18779

Crap beer, brilliantly homoerotic adverts.

>>18749
If you say so.

>>18742
That's nice, and all, but why are you posting it in this thread?

>>18749
The whole reason Mukbang is popular is so people can replicate the feeling of eating together as a part of a social group. You can have a conversation with people and pretend that the Pot Noodle, you're devouring in your pants is the ramen that the streamer is eating.

>>18752
Why is a post that referenced previous posts talking about camwhores talking about camwhores?

>>18754
Yes, in a thread that had hitherto contained no previous posts about camwhores.

Fuck me - auto-embed from an unmolested link. When did that happen?

>>18728
About a year ago, but the way .gs distorts time means it could have been more like two.

>>18729
>the way .gs distorts time

Half Past Yer Mam.

Do you meant you don't need to use the yt tags anymore?

>>18736
Haven't for a while, they're there as a legacy feature.

>>18596
Spreading your arse is a fantastic type of art, that guy's an idiot.

>>18654
Spot on.

>>18588
> 'That is not a crop top, it's a BRA!'
And bugger with it, it's not like she has massive titties under it.

>>18702
I must have missed that episode of the X-Files.

>>15057
I'm going to leave it there, just for you. Can post it again, if you like?

>>15062
Post it again! Post it again!

>>15057

Well? Aren't there rules about not taking money off the vulnerable?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMjDAzUFxX0

If you haven't watched Behind The Curve on Netflix then I recommend it; here's one of the flat earther experiments proving the curvature of the planet.

>>14150
Why that white bastard has flown so far away from the Earth?

>>18501
I got that information directly from a Corporal in the Royal Irish Regiment who is in the same Masonic Lodge as me, so sadly no.

>>18506
You can just say "who I know personally", ponce.

>>18507

I'm quite convinced that the big Masonic secret is that they have to pretend there's loads of secrets to look more interesting, and also mention the lodge as often as possible despise the supposed secrecy.

>>18508
I'm just going to say they touch kids, the secret is I don't actually think that, but when the Facebook groups spill onto the streets and launch the Wakefield infitada against Masonlad's lodge, it won't matter.

>>18507
I don’t really know him personally, though. He’s an aquiantance I sat beside once at a function and he told me his life story.

>>18418

The intersectionalists know the rhetoric well enough of the left yet they choose to ignore the greatest defining factor of power, wealth. The answer is simple; This is not empowerment for the masses but for the elite, the most telling factor is the obsession with CEOs a group so niche and powerful anyway that the idea I should weep for the female CEO that she isn't paid as much as the male should be laughably insulting, and yet this is the obsession. I dont know how everyone became brainwashed to take up their mantle, yet here we are.

>>18419

A female CEO who earns £10 million a year while a man in a similar position gets £15m is hardly below the poverty line. It's all a mater of perspective, as I think we are agreeing upon here.

Also, we have to ask ourselves whether it is really such a fundamental mark of equality of society that there exists such a thing as gender parity in boardrooms. What is true enough is that women should have the same opportunities as men. A woman who wants to assume a leadership role within a company should get to do so if she is qualified and puts in enough hard work to get there. Just as any man. But in the end, when you look at surveys, being at the top of a company or corporation just isn't a career goal that is as widespread among women as it is among men. A lot of women say they will be just as happy with a career that either doesn't demand quite as much of them, or where they have more time to spend with their family and all that kind of thing. So in essence the problem then isn't that there are too few women in top executive positions, but that it just isn't what as many women want for themselves as men tend to do.

The Norwegians were among the first countries to mandate gender parity in top executive positions, but the problem is that there just aren't enough qualified and ambitious women to fill all those positions, at least not up to actual parity. So the Norwegians have now coined the term "golden skirts", which means that women get to go to the top simply because otherwise there just wouldn't be enough women to fill the required quota.

But that's a problem you see on a lot of social political issues. The idea of equal opportunity gets confused with the idea of equal results. And having gender parity in boardrooms is not the same as equal opportunity. You've got equal results, but that doesn't mean everything's peachy. And if I remember correctly, the actual economic performance as a company or corporation has proved to not really be significantly better just because there are more women at the helm. At least there is no strong correlation indicating that companies with boardroom gender parity are doing better than others.

>>18420

You've made three paragraphs trying to discredit an idea that really should be simpler to tackle to that. After all, when was the last time you heard of an executive, male or female, who wasn't a sleazy weasel bastard who back-stabbed and arse-licked their way to the top? These are the same people who drive companies bankrupt and run off with the pensions, it's hardly a laudable ideal in life.

Modern feminism isn't about equality at all. It's not even about feminism. It's just another tool of division and manufactured consent.

>>18421
Yes! And the solution to this problem is to continue discouraging women from corporate careers whilst doing nothing to tackle corporate dominance in society. That'll show em.

>>18422

>And the solution to this problem is to continue discouraging women from corporate careers whilst doing nothing to tackle corporate dominance in society.

Are you deliberately being thick?

>>18270

Fair point - a lot of IoT stuff is complete dogshit in terms of security and maintainability.

>>18271
It's like they say, the "S" in IoT stands for "security".

>>18271
>>18272
I swear this seems to be general knowledge now and yet everybody is still buying all this crap.

>>18283

Because it's still convenient. My mum doesn't give a shit if the government listens to her, she's an old woman and just wants to be able to ask Alexa to play her music for her so she doesn't have to learn how Spotify works. Also in her words - "well they say my phone does the same thing don't they? What's the difference?" and she does sort of have a point, doesn't she? ECHELON is still a thing and even us paranoid nerds won't go as far as refusing to carry a GPS linked microphone in our pockets everywhere we go.

>>18245
Didn't someone get burnt once for ordering pressure cookers and something else?
All online purchases and cc transactions are most assuredly monitored by dozens of third parties anyway, for various reasons.

>>18123
Naturally the nutters are out in force suggesting a (literal) false flag.
https://twitter.com/ShoebridgeC/status/1097115589846466560

>>18136
Miserable cunt doesn't know about Occams Razor.

Students on a Saturday night - probably a week in the planning.

>>17994
My mind is also boggling at >>17992

Everyone go home, bear trap lad has won.

>>17995

>bear trap lad has won

I would like to see how he manages to bum a dog over a bear trap before I go.

>>17995

Looks like everybody did go home.

Did all the anti-natalists suddenly go and off themselves?


I'm bored and looking for cheap Sunday afternoon entertainment, as you can easily tell

>>18002

The winner was declared, so the cuntoff is officially over. Haven't you read the by-laws?

>>18003

I'll get my coat.

>>17820
Every woman in that picture with black hair looks similar (or a combination made up of the other women there). They're effectively stereotyping themselves.

>>17821
Very important stuff. I'm glad you're focused on what really matters in this world.

>>17821

They're a literal fringe movement.

>>17822
>I'm glad you're focused on what really matters in this world.

It's a thread about people getting mad over Liam Neeson recounting something that happened 30/40 years ago. The bar was already low to begin with.

>The New York celebrity red carpet event on Tuesday for Liam Neeson’s new film Cold Pursuit has been cancelled in the wake of an interview in which the actor said he wanted to kill a black man in response to the rape of a friend who said her attacker was black.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/feb/05/liam-neeson-red-carpet-event-cancelled-following-remarks

>Men In Black: International fans have threatened to boycott the yet-to-be-released film unless Liam Neeson’s scenes are scrapped entirely.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/06/men-black-fans-threaten-boycott-film-unless-liam-neeson-scrapped-following-black-bd-comments-8459316/

>>17648

It does prove that 'literally someone' said it, though.

Sorry lads something seems to have gone awry here because we actually appear to be discussing what the OP wants us to.

Can a brother get a lock?

>>17652
>awry

How do you pronounce this? A-wry? Aw-rie?

>>17654
> Aw-rie?
Aye, nae bad, yersel?

>>17648

>really counts


That was the first link I found in a 30 second web search of the relevant terms, I remember more around the time, but I don't care enough to look for more as I don't think they would be true scotsmen either.

>>17589
I once participated in a protest against a number of companies. That group included one that was a substantial client of my then-employer. I wasn't particularly loud, and hadn't identified myself in any particular way, but did get caught in the background on some local news footage, which some busybody brought to the attention of management. A meeting with HR was scheduled to discuss the matter. I told them I'd accept the charge in return for 128 hours per week back pay, and a similar uplift going forward. The meeting was swiftly cancelled and the matter never spoken of again in the year before I left.

>>17591
Isn't this a scene from Mr Robot?

>>17591
>>17592
Jesus wept.

>>17591

Where did the CCJ come in?

>>17578
It isn't my company.
Thinking about it a bit, I might point out that employers implicitly commandeer people's online presence for their [employer's] benefit, implicitly or explicitly. Implicit grinds my gears more.
I'm done with pedantry for a while.