- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1502 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
31 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 17479
A male nurse who allegedly got a severely disabled patient pregnant may have abused her countless times, police said.
Nathan Sutherland, 36, who was employed at the Hacienda HealthCare centre in Phoenix, Arizona, was arrested today after his DNA "matched the baby".
The 29-year-old mother was a patient at the 60-bed care facility and has been in a vegetative state for 14 years after nearly drowning.
A massive investigation was launched following the birth on December 29, with police gathering DNA samples from male employees at the facility as they tried to determine who had assaulted the patient.
Sutherland, a licensed practical nurse, has worked at the site since 2011 and was charged with sexual assault and vulnerable adult abuse.
|>>|| No. 17516
It's not just Kill Bill, which I naturally can't say much about as I've never seen it apart from a few scenes out of context. But I have seen films like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction or Inglorious Basterds, and I just dislike his brand of gratuitous violence, thrown together with absurd storylines that are neither here nor there. I've tried watching a few of his other films as well, but I usually change the channel a few minutes in because I just get bored watching them.
I don't care how many of his ardent fans are now going to tell me that I've got no clue about good cinema. I think his films are generally complete and utter trite nonsense, with redeeming qualities, if any, few and far between. There, I've said it.
|>>|| No. 17517
They're all homages to older stuff that he watched growing up, it's all deliberately those things you criticised it for being. Far from mindless. But if you're not into it then that's perfectly reasonable.
|>>|| No. 17518
Its a good think no one did frothing at the mouth rant about that then isn't it. How would you describe Mary Whitehouse over here's >>17497 behaviour then?
|>>|| No. 17519
A legitimate grievance about an unfriendly atmosphere towards people who aren't straight (and preferably white) men?
|>>|| No. 17523
> unfriendly atmosphere towards people who aren't straight (and preferably white) men?
Fuckssakes, here we go again.
And I don't even have a beef with the general idea. But with the fact that it is the most fucking overused of all most fucking overused concepts of our time.
I am a straight white man and I am unapologetic about it. I don't wish any kind of discrimination on anybody who isn't a straight white man, but I resent the way we, as a section of the population, are being blamed, and falsely held responsible for all of today's evils in the world.
If some of the non-straight white male social justice warriors would suffer even half the verbal abuse that we get nowadays, then they would probably start crying profusely and go home and kick up an angry Twitter shitstorm of the highest magnitude. But it's fine to dump bucketloads of abuse on us, because hey, we're only straight white men, we don't count.
|>>|| No. 17524
You're just wrong, though. Over the last 48 hours everyone who's been banned here has been banned for either spreading women-hating incellite bullshit, or asking why calling a black woman a 'sheboon' is a bad thing. We're constantly working to rid this place of unpleasantness whether you choose to see it or not.
You probably see the inevitable heated response to your claims as further evidence of the angry and dismissive white blokes here, but I assure you it's just frustration in your continued ignorance and misrepresentation of the character of the site.
|>>|| No. 17525
>or asking why calling a black woman a 'sheboon' is a bad thing
ok that is indeed a new low on here. What thread was this in, I'm sure it's been deleted?
|>>|| No. 17526
>Fuckssakes, here we go again.
I am happy to have this discussion with you. I don't think you're a bad guy or anything.
>And I don't even have a beef with the general idea. But with the fact that it is the most fucking overused of all most fucking overused concepts of our time.
I wouldn't be here at all if I couldn't take a joke. There is a big difference between "lol he's probably going to KFC" and "lol he's probably a rapist".
>I am a straight white man and I am unapologetic about it. I don't wish any kind of discrimination on anybody who isn't a straight white man, but I resent the way we, as a section of the population, are being blamed, and falsely held responsible for all of today's evils in the world.
I won't pretend white people are never asked to apologise for the colour of their skin. What I will say is that when they are I am out defending them and calling that out for the racist bollocks that it is.
>If some of the non-straight white male social justice warriors would suffer even half the verbal abuse that we get nowadays, then they would probably start crying profusely and go home and kick up an angry Twitter shitstorm of the highest magnitude. But it's fine to dump bucketloads of abuse on us, because hey, we're only straight white men, we don't count.
I can't agree with this bit. White men do not get a harder time or even a hard time at all, compared to other groups. If someone asked you where you going and why as you walked into your own house with your own keys you would be more pissed off than if someone had a go at you on Twitter. Ditto if someone pinched your arse. Ditto if someone asked you why you had to rub your straightness in their face by mentioning that you were attracted to women.
There are an awful lot of assumptions here about what I think and believe (and even who I am and what I look like?) and very little about what I said. Yes, the worst of the misogynists do get banned here. I didn't claim otherwise.
|>>|| No. 17527
>lol stupid sheboon
>Hey maybe don't say that
>STOP BLAMING ME FOR ALL OF THE WORLD'S EVILS
|>>|| No. 17528
And people thought talking about shagging members of the cast from Tracy Beaker was shitting up the board.
|>>|| No. 17529
>I can't agree with this bit. White men do not get a harder time or even a hard time at all, compared to other groups. If someone asked you where you going and why as you walked into your own house with your own keys you would be more pissed off than if someone had a go at you on Twitter. Ditto if someone pinched your arse. Ditto if someone asked you why you had to rub your straightness in their face by mentioning that you were attracted to women.
Delve into some SJW online forums or Twitter rants on straight white men, I dare you. Nobody deserves to be racially profiled by police or have their arse pinched (unless they want to) or their sexuality made fun of (unless they are paedos). That's a given, and I would resent it just the same as a black person, a woman or a gay person very rightly would.
But you kind of seem to be blind to the way that a certain part of the online mob can in a verbal way be nearly as hurtful as that. Sometimes seemingly without any kind of consideration for the fact that we, too, are human beings who deserve respect. And I have yet to see somebody get disciplined for calling all men rapists or calling all of us oppressors of women, while nowadays you could very possibly be fined, but will at least be ostracised from any social media platform or group of online friends for even a hint of homophobia. Again, I believe nobody deserves to be discriminated against for anything, but you can't deny that there is a double standard here. Why should these angry online mobs be given leeway against straight white men, when they never tire of pointing out one of their alleged core tenets of being anti-discrimination.
|>>|| No. 17530
>Why should these angry online mobs be given leeway against straight white men, when they never tire of pointing out one of their alleged core tenets of being anti-discrimination.
If someone disparages straight white men, why would you care? There's no threat behind the words, because straight white men aren't under threat.
This is why people say straight white men are such sensitive flowers. Because they don't have to put up with anywhere near all the shit that women, LGBT people, people of colour etc. have to put up with on a daily basis, and are still offended at someone making a joke at their expense.
This isn't to say that straight white men can't be oppressed in other ways (e.g. working class, mental illness), or that their feelings don't matter at all. But it's such a fucking waste of time catering for offended white men when people of the aforementioned oppressed groups are, y'know, being killed because of their identities.
|>>|| No. 17531
What has any of that got to do with this site? It's a safe harbour where we can pretend it's still 2005 and Usenet is still in vogue, where we ban overt mysogyny, sectarianism and racism, but still say phwoar when we see a fit bird (or bloke, for that matter; few actual britfags here) and make off colour jokes about man's Mum innit.
In the nicest possible way, you need to fuck right off mate. Anyone who replies to you defending the white race can fuck off as well. It's the definition of the word tedium.
|>>|| No. 17532
People being mean on Twitter's not the same as... oh, I can't be arsed. If I see you I'm going to mug you for your shoes so please stay out of my IRL way.
|>>|| No. 17533
>There are an awful lot of assumptions here about what I think and believe
Not really, I was just going off your post.
I'm not sure where you got that I made assumptions about what you look like? I don't care if you're a white bloke or a black woman or a transimensional ball of energy, your attitude is still the same.
|>>|| No. 17535
>Delve into some SJW online forums or Twitter rants on straight white men, I dare you
The fact you have to voluntarily delve into it rather than just having it come to you is kind of the point. You can always just not do that.
Really it's fascinating how the internet warps and distorts perspective. Everyone remembers the bloke who lost his job for saying the bad thing, everyone forgets the thousands of twitter users saying the exact same thing who didn't. Everyone's free to assemble their own bizarre and scary realities at will.
(Personally, I'm afraid of the Australians. Can't see what they're up to down there. And how come they get to use that word?)
|>>|| No. 17536
>(Personally, I'm afraid of the Australians. Can't see what they're up to down there.
And just how do they manage not to slide off the face of the Earth down to the South Pole?
|>>|| No. 17537
>Everyone remembers the bloke who lost his job for saying the bad thing, everyone forgets the thousands of twitter users saying the exact same thing who didn't.
That's a terrible point, just because it doesn't happen to everyone, doesn't mean you can dismiss the fact it does happen. You'd still be daft to assume you'd get to keep your job in that situation when demonstrably you could lose it.
Nobody thinks about the kids in American schools who haven't been shot up.
|>>|| No. 17539
I think the tricky thing nowadays is that your personal life and your career life are so easy to trace back to each other online. In the old days, you would shout a racist obscenity at a rally or even write a controversial letter to your local newspaper that stated your full name at the bottom of it, and as morally wrong as your ideas were, nobody would have had any way of knowing who your employer was. But today, it's just a small step from an off the cuff Twitter comment that was in bad taste to finding out that you are the regional sales manager of Bellend and Sons.
Does a horrible tweet on your Twitter account really mean that you are unfit to have any kind of job at all and that you are completely unemployable? Because naturally, you would be found out whether you were a burger flipper at McDonald's or Bellend and Sons's acclaimed regional manager, and people would shitstorm your employer either way until you would lose your job. Surely the best way to keep somebody on the straight and narrow is to keep them in gainful employment, and not cause them to get on the dole, where they will probably spend their days sinking ever deeper into racist or otherwise very socially unacceptable ideas.
|>>|| No. 17540
>I think the tricky thing nowadays is that your personal life and your career life are so easy to trace back to each other online
Isn't it more a case of people reporting other people to their employer rather than the employer actively snooping on them? That said, every time I get a CV I Google their name to see if they're fit/look like a massive dickhead.
|>>|| No. 17543
>Nobody thinks about the kids in American schools who haven't been shot up.
Nor should any schoolchild in Britain lose any sleep over the prospect of it happening to them just because it's constantly in the news that it does happen somewhere.
|>>|| No. 17546
But we live under Hive-Network Neo-Puritanism, lad. Cease your blasphemy, are you sticking up for that lot?
It's okay, because nobody is actually censoring anything, but we are all utterly absolved of guilt if it's social pressure that leads to people censoring themselves. There is absolutely no way on this earth I can imagine social consensus will ever slide away from the current mostly agreeable lefty bias, so I'm safe, and if you are morally pure, so are you.
|>>|| No. 17548
They also have "Employed at [insert company]" attached to their public profiles, meaning they are representing the company so everything they say is under scrutiny.
Which is why you never put your real name online attached to anything you're going to use to IRL shitpost.
|>>|| No. 17549
>Which is why you never put your real name online attached to anything you're going to use to IRL shitpost.
This. Who the fuck are these mad lads out there making comments that obviously aren't going to be received well and will be seen by anyone around the world, all under their real name.
Seems like as long as you're not an idiot or a cunt, you're fine.
|>>|| No. 17569
>Cease your blasphemy, are you sticking up for that lot?
I am not siding with them, my intention was just to point out a real moral dilemma.
Fine, so you've got an angry mob who tracks down a person's place of employment online because that person spouted racial slurs or sexism on Twitter. So far, so within the realm of possibilities in today's world. But what are you really going to accomplish. Do you think the fact that an angry mob got him (or her) fired for saying racist things on Twitter is going to make that person become any less of a racist? What do you think the guy is going to do all day, sitting at home with beer and fags staring out the window?
The question isn't whether or not people should have, and express publicly racist, sexist or homophobe views. In an ideal world, obviously no they shouldn't get to do that. But to end racism or sexism, just shutting them up or making them lose their job over a bad tweet will accomplish next to nothing.
|>>|| No. 17570
>But to end racism or sexism, just shutting them up or making them lose their job over a bad tweet will accomplish next to nothing.
It makes people feel good, which is one half of the point of social media. It's a constant balancing act between dopamine release and misery primed in a way to maximise human attention. The same reason we're more afraid of losing our job to twitter mobs than we are of losing them to a recession, the government cocking up Brexit, or the fact it's an insecure shitey job that might just up and not exist in a month anyway. Or the same reason we're remotely interested in American culture war bollocks here in the UK. Angry people click more.
I'm not big on the implicit arrogance of social media. Whether your opinions are evil or innocent, why are you broadcasting them to the world? If you're funny or interesting, fair enough but 95% of people have the ego without the content to back it up. (I'm one of them, but I stick to imageboards where it's at least not as obvious.)
|>>|| No. 17577
>They also have "Employed at [insert company]" attached to their public profiles, meaning they are representing the company
Oh, just fuck off. This shitty mentality needs to die in a fire. Someone whose Twitter bio says "Working for Acme Inc." isn't representing the company any more than someone whose Twitter bio says "Vegan lesbian" is representing vegans and/or lesbians.
|>>|| No. 17578
Sorry mate but generally, representing your company was a thing long before Twitter.
|>>|| No. 17579
People need to read their employment contacts more closely. Nearly every company I know would fire you for saying or doing something in public, that brings them into disrepute, whether you had a disclaimer like that or not.
|>>|| No. 17580
I'd have been fired in my last job for even talking about potential positions at the company without going through HR, let alone waving my dick around at a nazi rally.
|>>|| No. 17581
>People need to read their employment contacts more closely.
I've read my employment contracts closely. I've found this provision in there every time, treated it non-binding every time, and informed management of this every time. I've made it clear that if they want me to act like I represent them outside of work, that's equivalent to being on-call with no notice, and therefore working time that needs to be paid. Funnily enough, whenever I point this out, they seem to back down.
|>>|| No. 17582
>I'd have been fired in my last job for even talking about potential positions at the company without going through HR
AFAIK, this is protected speech, just like discussing salary. It's not banned outright, but there are enough protections around it to make it really easy for the company to end up on shaky ground.
|>>|| No. 17585
Then you've got nothing to worry about then, surely? Your contract omits this clause, I presume?
Stopping engaging a mentalist to get them to fuck off isn't the same as backing down, so if it's still in there you're as liable as the rest of us if you publicly bring the company into disrepute via your association with them.
|>>|| No. 17586
I'm sure if I had done it conversationally I'd have been fine, not so sure about broadcasting it on the web or anything like that.
>treated it non-binding every time
Not sure that's how contracts work m8
|>>|| No. 17587
>Not sure that's how contracts work m8
No, that's exactly how it works. There's a whole legal framework that exists around it. Sticking something in a contract doesn't make it binding. I say this as someone who has obtained a CCJ against a company that you've definitely heard of for doing something explicitly authorised by the contract, and whose defence specifically called out that it was in the contract.
|>>|| No. 17589
> they seem to back down
Back down how - actually remove it from the contract that you signed?
|>>|| No. 17590
Well, this is a fun LARP and all, but be be specific. If it doesn't concern an ongoing case you're fine. Otherwise, naff off.
|>>|| No. 17591
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.
|>>|| No. 17595
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.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]