Groundbreaking stuff with important implications for all of us.

>>17480
I was really hoping his name would be Buck. Kind of crazy, really. Do films like Kill Bill reflect society, i.e. does this happen enough for it to be something every women in a coma is threatened with, or would this guy have even thought to do this if Quentin Tarantino hadn't plumbed the depths of human depravity?

Food for thought.

Seems familiar.

I can imagine the workers in the orphanage telling the son: ok, your father is a nurse that raped a ‘tard. This is why you are half retarded and you have no parents. Ah, by the way, he was a ******. Have a nice life!

>>17484
Generally speaking, people who become quadriplegic after almost drowning can't pass that on to their children you fucking berk.

The Kid will most likely be raised by a relative of the Mother or in a long term foster home and never hear his Father's name. Orphanages don't really exist anymore.

>>17485
>Orphanages don't really exist anymore.

Tracy Beaker was a lie?

>>17486
Tracey Beaker wasn't about an orphanage. You can tell because most of the children weren't orphans.

>>17485
They have to exist in some form, surely? Where do all those kids go that haven't found foster homes yet? Amazon workhouses?

I'll just get it out of the way. The palsy girl was fit and I'd slip her one.

>>17490
At this point I have to assume this is just one OtherLad who says this about literally every woman you see in the news, from MPs to murder victims to comotose hospital patients. I imagine Dianna Athill would get it too, yeah? I mean, are you all right? Are these posts a cry for help? I can't be sure, but remember, /emo/'s there for you if you need it.

>>17491
If it's a cry for help, he's been crying for 10 years and instead of helping him we joined in.

I know our "memes" are more subtle than other chans, difficult to integrate with, but that doesn't mean they aren't intended to be taken in jest and posted for satirical comedy purposes.

"Shag anything with a pulse" posting is probably our most prolific recurring style of post but, so what if he did want to shag her? Who are yo to judge him, you puritan saddo? Wind your neck in.

>>17491

She's an actress off of Tracey Beaker, you flid.

>>17492
I too, was joking. "I imagine Dianna Athill would get it too" was supposed to be a sizeable hint.

>>17493
She was ten the last time I saw her, you daft sod.

>>17494

>>17481

>>17484

Ho there, adventurers.

When did casual racism become acceptable on .gs?

>>17496
When the casual sexism was explicitly defended they took a chance and stepped it up a gear. The reason the sexism is always first is because it is (sadly) the most palatable of the mainstream bigotries to "normal blokes".

>>17497

We're equal opportunity perverts. If you wouldn't visit the palsy girl from Tracy Beaker's dumping ground IYKWIM then it's probably because you're ablist scum.

>>17497
I kind of miss the early days of this place, we would have called you a cunt and trolled you to tears.
Now we are supposed to be refined and just have a quite chuckle of contempt to ourselves and your pathetic attempts at thought policing us and hope you eventually get it. Part of me longs for those shitshows, was easier, and kinder just calling a thicky spaz a thicky spaz is you ask me.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>17500
We would have done that but maybe some of us have grown up somewhat since 2008.

>>17496
What is racist about >>17481?

>>17500
Even when Simon was unironically appreciated as one of /pol/'s characters this was never the kind of place that frothingly ranted about "thought police" etc.

>>17502

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/buck

>5. (US, dated, derogatory) A black or Native American man.

>2009, Carol C. Morgan, Wind in the Cotton Fields, page 460:

>Her curly red hair loose from its combs hangin' down her back and her freckled skin bare, and a big ole nigger buck was doin' things to her! He'd always known that Hootch Carter raped and killed Becky Nell, never had reason to doubt it.

I die a little inside whenever I see a post reported and then it sits unchallenged. I'm not your Mum, ladm8s. You think someone is an uncouth interloper? Guard the west gate yourselves, an ethering by the userbase is oftentimes far more impactful than a ban on here, evidenced by at least 2 of you being so traumatised by oldfa.gs you're scared to make new threads incase you sound thick and get roasted and the fact Paedolad only goes away for a good while before posting again when he gets made fun of before we ban him.

Yet here we are, whinging about discussing other people whinging. Jesus fucking wept... Sageru.

>>17504

Buck is the name of a character in Kill Bill that shags a coma patient.

>>17505

A thousand times this. Why can we have a cunt off every four days about whether the cream or the jam goes on the scone first, but we've lost the ability to bully the unintelligent?

>>17504
This is the most stupendous reach I've ever seen, iridescent in its ignorance. It's CLEARLY a reference to a fucking white film character called Buck who does this exact same thing to Uma Thurman!

I can only assume you've never seen Kill Bill, you glorious hand-wringing tit, because it failed the Bechdel test. I cannot stop laughing.

Since when was it acceptable to insidiously creep racism into threads around here?

I revoke my membership.

>>17495
No, no, I was definitely kidding about.

>>17509

No I haven't seen Kill Bill, as I have a very particular dislike against his movies.

The only one of his films I found bearable was From Dusk Till Dawn, and even that only because Juliette Lewis was in her prime as a young shagable woman at the time (and had not yet joined Scientology).

Other than that, the film was quite pretentiously dull, as nearly all of his works seem to be to some extent.

>>17512
Kill Bill is a love letter to black and white Samurai films, like Shogun Assassin. Pretentiousness can only be qualified by being disingenuous in some way, so what exactly is it you think is dishonest about his work? As an example, in the post you claimed is racist, I raise the question of whether or not life was imitating art or not. Was Quentin raising awareness in the scene where Beatrice avoids rape and remembers the subsequent incidents or was Quentin being pornographic in his eagerness to plumb the depths of human depravity and caused a man to contemplate something thought otherwise abhorrent?

Watch it, Part 2 as well. I look forward to your 50,000 word thesis on the work of Mr Tarintino.

>>17514
>was Quentin being pornographic in his eagerness to plumb the depths of human depravity and caused a man to contemplate something thought otherwise abhorrent?

Considering he personally spat on Uma Thurman's face and choked her during the Gogo Yubari scenes I'd say it's because he's a massive wrong 'un.

>>17514

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.

>>17516
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.

>>17503

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?

>>17518
A legitimate grievance about an unfriendly atmosphere towards people who aren't straight (and preferably white) men?

>>17519

Nonsense. We're very welcoming of gay white men too.

>>17519

> 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.

>>17519

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.

>>17524

>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?

>>17523
>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.

>>17524
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.

>>17523
>lol stupid sheboon
>Hey maybe don't say that
>STOP BLAMING ME FOR ALL OF THE WORLD'S EVILS

And people thought talking about shagging members of the cast from Tracy Beaker was shitting up the board.

>>17526

>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.

>>17529
>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.

>>17529
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.

>>17529
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.

>>17526

>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.

>>17529
>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?)

>>17535

>(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?

>>17535

>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.

>>17537
Could this post be any more superfluous?

>>17537

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.

>>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

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.

>>17537
>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.

>>17543
Hopefully the penny drops for the lad.

>>17539

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.

>>17543

But people in Britain lose their jobs for saying things on twitter.

>>17547
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.

>>17548
>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.

>>17546

>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.

>>17569
>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.)

>>17569

Jesus my blatant facetiousness went miles over your head didn't it.

>>17548
>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.

>>17577
Sorry mate but generally, representing your company was a thing long before Twitter.

>>17577
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.

>>17579

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.

>>17579
>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.

>>17580
>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.

>>17581
No wonder you've been on the dole since 2005.

>>17583
n8 m1

>>17581
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.

>>17582

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.

>>17581

>treated it non-binding every time

Not sure that's how contracts work m8

>>17586
>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.

>>17587

What was the clause?

>>17581
> they seem to back down

Back down how - actually remove it from the contract that you signed?

>>17587
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.

>>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.