Y'know that scene in Chernobyl where the miners pat their coal-blackened hands against the director's sky-blue suit as they walk by him? That same thing needs to happen here, only they punch her in the cunt instead.

Do You Folks Like Coffee?
Real Coffee,
From the Hills Of Colombia?

The Duncan Hills awake you
From A Thousand Deaths.
A Cup Of blackened Blood.
(Die, Die)
You're Dying For A Cup.

Guatemala Blend,
Ethiopian,
French Vanilla Roast.
(Die, Die)
You're Dying For A Cup.

Prepare For Ultimate Flavor!
You're Gonna Get Some... now
And Scream... For Your Cream

[Solo]

Duncan Hills,
Duncan Hills,
Duncan Hills Coffee.

Considering I have been accused of having a blackened shrivelled ball of cynicism where my heart should be, I am actually optimistic about this too.

We'll eventually do wondrous things, but they just won't look anything like traditional scifi. We just have to learn to change our way of thinking.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you just forgot to check the sarcasm box.

First of all, it's not discrimination because it's open to both genders. The video states that 60% of participants are female, which means the other 40% are male.

I assume you're referring to the fact that no boys were ever shown in the video, which instead focused on 'girl power.' The point isn't to discriminate against boys, but instead to show the ascent of girls out of the horrible gender based discrimination that has plagued Afghanistan ever since the Taliban took over. Most homes were forced to blacken their windows so that women and girls could not be seen from someone walking by on the street. Schools for girls still have their water wells poisoned for providing girls education. Little girls have acid thrown in their face just for going to school.

But under the Taliban, boys never lost any freedom. They can wear what they want, go where they want, do what they want. They always could and still can. Most importantly, they never lost educational rights. Rape wasn't even considered that bad for a boy to commit if a girl was "asking for it" by what she wore.

So I don't think this video is meant to demean or discriminate against boys. The institution (or whatever it is) caters to both boys and girls. But the point of this video is to show that a place like this exists which is helping to undo discrimination. Boys aren't the focus because they don't need to be. Boys aren't being put down, girls are being brought up.

Gotta hand it to Charlie Brooker to chop straight to the blackened heart of the issue with his rusty bonesaw of sarcasm. Pterodactyl, negligée, amazeballs.

Helluva story. Here's the whole thing from Wiki:

The Christie Pits riot occurred on 16 August 1933 at the Christie Pits (Willowvale Park) playground in Toronto, Canada. The riot can only be understood in the context of the anti-semitism, Swastika clubs and parades and resentment of "foreigners" in Toronto, and the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in Germany in 1933.[1]

The riot, which lasted six hours, broke out after a quarter-final baseball game at Christie Pits Park between two local clubs, Harbord Playground, predominantly Jewish, and St. Peter's, a baseball team sponsored by a church at Bathurst and Bloor.[2]

The riot occurred soon after Adolf Hitler took power in Germany and in the midst of the Great Depression. The Toronto papers, including the Telegram and the Toronto Star, as well as the Yiddish journal, Der Yiddisher Zhurnal, reported on how Jews were being dismissed as lawyers, professors, teachers, etc. in Germany, as well as incidents of violence against them. Thus to Jews the swastika represented degradation and physical violence against Jews, and was inflammatory.[3]

At that time, the Jewish community in Toronto was predominantly poor and working class. They were also the subject of discrimination and were excluded from summer resorts outside of the city. Jewish families and youths in particular would therefore cool off during the hot summer months by staying in town and going to the predominantly Anglo Beaches area in order to swim. This resulted in complaints and resentment from some local residents. Some of the locals formed "Swastika Clubs", which openly displayed the Nazi symbol to express their displeasure and make Jews feel unwanted.[4] The leaders of the Swastika Club initially insisted that the swastika had nothing to do with Hitler. They said they merely wanted to keep the Beach clean. After a meeting with Jewish leaders backed by City officials, the Swastika club agreed to drop its symbol and its name. At that point, several of the members joined the Swastika Association of Canada that was much more open about its links to Hitler.[5]

The night of the riot was the second game between Harbord and St. Peter's. Two nights earlier, at the first game of the series, a swastika had been displayed. Police were warned that there could be trouble at the second game, but those warnings were ignored. After the final out of the second game, Pit Gang members displayed a blanket with a large swastika painted on it. A number of Jewish boys and young men who had heard about the previous Swastika incident rushed the Swastika sign to destroy it, supporters of both sides (including Italians who supported the Jews) from the surrounding area joined in, and a fight started.[6]

The Toronto Daily Star described the event the next day:
“ While groups of Jewish and Gentile youths wielded fists and clubs in a series of violent scraps for possession of a white flag bearing a swastika symbol at Willowvale Park last night, a crowd of more than 10,000 citizens, excited by cries of ‘Heil Hitler’ became suddenly a disorderly mob and surged wildly about the park and surrounding streets, trying to gain a view of the actual combatants, which soon developed in violence and intensity of racial feeling into one of the worst free-for-alls ever seen in the city.

Scores were injured, many requiring medical and hospital attention... Heads were opened, eyes blackened and bodies thumped and battered as literally dozens of persons, young or old, many of them non-combatant spectators, were injured more or less seriously by a variety of ugly weapons in the hands of wild-eyed and irresponsible young hoodlums, both Jewish and Gentile".[7]
”

No one was killed in the riots. There was criticism of the police for not being ready to intervene, as they had been during previous potential problems in the Beach area.[8] After the riot, Mayor Stewart warned against displaying the swastika and there were no further riots.[9]

The riot revealed the xenophobic attitudes toward Jews and other non-Anglo immigrants among Anglo Canadians. Jews represented the largest minority in Toronto in 1933 and were thus a target of xenophobic residents.

In August 2008, a Heritage Toronto plaque was presented to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the riot.

Gorillaman is an angsty douchebag. He always says off-color shit "I should have the right to call anyone a faggot, even if it means little gay kids will kill themselves."

Tho I think he's a softy at heart really.. his tiny blackened heart

In reply to this comment by Lowen:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Sooo angsty. Sooo ineffectual in your humanity.
It's okay. We'll all make a deal when you commit suicide too (hopefully). =

What the fuck

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
@marbles
How does this system protect your rights from those who would infringe on it, perhaps indirectly? Who arbitrates in disputes?
For example, I have a property with trees on it. Every fall I gather up the leaves in a big pile and burn them. Leaving aside wider environmental concerns, my neighbour tells me the smoke from my leaf pile is blackening his house. There is no benefit to me in not burning the leaves, so I tell him to get stuffed.
Your system is hypothetically great, but it falls down in the real world.

It's not a system, it's a philosophy. Hopefully whatever system you subscribe to adheres to the protection of liberty.

This is what they don't get. That it's NOT a system. Wasting your breath. I've been spinning my wheels with the same people on here for nearly 4 years.


Why the hostility? I asked a legitimate question.

As to your response, a system is essentially the application of a philosophy. My philosophy shapes my actions, and those actions when repeated for a given situation constitute a system. Thought without action is meaningless.

My system (such as it is) involves compromising the common good and individual liberty. It is a constant trade off between the good of the many and the rights of the few. Each case is weighed on it's merits and I make a decision based on that. In some cases, I favour individual liberty (e.g. I don't believe the "threat of terrorism" warrants onerous security measures) and in some cases I favour the common good (e.g. where I live you cannot have an open fire as a home heating source for clean air regs). Democracy allows me to have a say in how these lines are drawn. A lot of the time I don't agree with the decisions and there are cases where I believe that even a democratic majority does not constitute a moral mandate (slavery in the 1800's, gay marriage in the 21st century and so on).

So I will rephrase my question: given a situation where two parties acting within their rights infringe on the rights over others, how do you apply your philosophy here?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
@marbles
How does this system protect your rights from those who would infringe on it, perhaps indirectly? Who arbitrates in disputes?
For example, I have a property with trees on it. Every fall I gather up the leaves in a big pile and burn them. Leaving aside wider environmental concerns, my neighbour tells me the smoke from my leaf pile is blackening his house. There is no benefit to me in not burning the leaves, so I tell him to get stuffed.
Your system is hypothetically great, but it falls down in the real world.

It's not a system, it's a philosophy. Hopefully whatever system you subscribe to adheres to the protection of liberty.


This is what they don't get. That it's NOT a system. Wasting your breath. I've been spinning my wheels with the same people on here for nearly 4 years.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

@marbles
How does this system protect your rights from those who would infringe on it, perhaps indirectly? Who arbitrates in disputes?
For example, I have a property with trees on it. Every fall I gather up the leaves in a big pile and burn them. Leaving aside wider environmental concerns, my neighbour tells me the smoke from my leaf pile is blackening his house. There is no benefit to me in not burning the leaves, so I tell him to get stuffed.
Your system is hypothetically great, but it falls down in the real world.


It's not a system, it's a philosophy. Hopefully whatever system you subscribe to adheres to the protection of liberty.

@marbles

How does this system protect your rights from those who would infringe on it, perhaps indirectly? Who arbitrates in disputes?

For example, I have a property with trees on it. Every fall I gather up the leaves in a big pile and burn them. Leaving aside wider environmental concerns, my neighbour tells me the smoke from my leaf pile is blackening his house. There is no benefit to me in not burning the leaves, so I tell him to get stuffed.

Your system is hypothetically great, but it falls down in the real world.

[redacted]

>> ^Mcboinkens:

The most obvious question in my mind is what happens when you put an arm under it? I imagine it won't light up in flames, but it would probably induce a pretty serious burn, no?


I have a much smaller lens around here somewhere, about 6" diameter, that will also ignite anything you put under it pretty much instantly. It's a focusing lens from a spot-light that was salvaged out of an old theater.

My neighbor in high school, who was probably about as stupid as these kids are, told me he wanted me to focus it on his shoulder. He was certainly old enough to know what was going to happen, so I had no qualms in obliging him. The moment I brought it into focus, his shirt caught fire and he dropped to the ground screaming. There were no marks on his skin, just some redness.

Once he had recovered (and extinguished his shirt), he told me to do it again and said he wouldn't move this time. I was focusing on bare skin this time, so there was no shirt ignition. His skin did blacken within a few seconds, though, and a thin stream of smoke began to pour off of him, just as it does when you burn wood. He lasted maybe 4-5 seconds at most before he dove to the ground in agony again.

Did I mention he was pretty stupid?

Once the tide of public opinion starts rolling, no army can stop it. The Prohibition fascists don't realize they've already lost. Unjust laws should be disobeyed.

The whole world is watching this vote. If Prop 19 passes, once the other states see the "windfall" (which won't save CA btw) they'll also pass similar. It won't kill the Mexican drug cartels but it will blacken their eye for sure.