Tagged: sexism

Law 23: On Commercial Speech and the Advertised Mind

“The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected a public school district’s decision to ban pink wristbands featuring the phrase ‘I ♥ Boobies!’ as part of a breast cancer awareness month fund raiser and educational project. The public school district’s rationale was that the speech was indecent and, under Morse [Morse v. Frederick, US 2007] and Fraser [Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, US 1986], indecent speech is presumptively disruptive regardless of its actual effects on the school’s operations. The 9-5 en banc Third Circuit did not disagree with the school’s district legal claim that indecent speech is inherently disruptive, but rejected the school district’s characterization of the bracelets as indecent. Had the judges found the speech to be indecent, the school district would have prevailed over the students.

“One should also keep in mind that five members of the en banc court disagreed with this characterization – finding the message to be indecent and therefore proscribable. As much as one would like to dismiss the dissenting judges’ views on this point as complete and utter nonsense, the Fraser/Morse framework makes the characterization of the speech as ‘lewd’ outcome determinative. The problem with this analysis is that a student wearing a breast cancer awareness wristband featuring this phrase simply does not present a serious risk of disruption to a middle school’s core pedagogical mission.”

Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr. (University of Alabama School of Law), The Disappearing First Amendment, Cambridge University Press, 2019, p.115.

I ♥ Boobies! bracelets on sale on Amazon

The decision here discussed is BH ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area School District, 3rd Cir. 2013. The US Supreme Court declined to take the case. – I will explain why the “complete and utter nonsense” of the five dissenting judges is actually the correct point of view in this case.

The reader has understood at this stage that the point on which I will dwell is not the main issue discussed by Prof. Krotoszynski. The point he makes is that lewdness in the context of students wearing wristbands on their campus should not be “outcome determinative” in deciding a free speech issue, because the regulatory powers of school authorities aim at preventing disruption inside the educational context and such behavior is not disruptive whether one construes the message on the wristbands as lewd or not.

Therefore, when Prof. Krotoszynski calls the dissenting judges’ view “complete and utter nonsense,” it is only a side comment. That is, to begin with, a singular rhetorical figure to reserve one’s most pungent and bellicose remarks to alleged side aspects of a problem. Compare the sharply dismissive “complete and utter nonsense” with the rest of the passage and you’ll find the phrase is isolated in the argument. It is as if Prof. K. were willing to go out of his mind for a problem he alleges not even to be discussing. Far for being a rhetorical figure, it betrays Prof. K.’s true mind: He is incensed that some judges, even in the minority, could have found the speech obscene. Of course, having asserted that the point is only incidental, he does not tell his readers why it is “complete and utter nonsense.” It just goes without saying, seemingly.

Precisely this point will I discuss, leaving aside the question whether that particular speech should be deemed disruptive or not, but at the same time agreeing with Fraser that lewd speech is subject to the regulatory power of school authorities. That this agreement of mine is the consequence of my views on obscenity will become, I think, crystal clear from the reasoning.

i

“Affirming, the Court held that, under the First Amendment, the students’ bracelets could not be categorically banned by the school district. The bracelets were part of a nationally recognized breast-cancer-awareness campaign and were not plainly lewd and because (sic) they commented on a social issue. The Court also held that the school district failed to show that the bracelets threatened to substantially disrupt the school.” (LexisNexis website on BH ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area School District)

Contrary to Prof. K., LexisNexis presents the court’s decision as based on two seemingly separate issues: on the one hand, the court found that the bracelets were not “plainly lewd” and on the other hand there was no evidence that the bracelets were disruptive. However, Prof. K. is certainly correct to state that the wristbands would have been disruptive ipso facto if found lewd, because this is the substance of the Fraser precedent. Therefore, the school authorities had intended their claim according to which the wristbands are obscene as proof that the wristbands are disruptive; the issues are not separate (although there may be several possible sources of disruption besides obscenity). The last sentence in LexisNexis’s quote should be, therefore: “The Court also held that the school district failed to show that the bracelets threatened to substantially disrupt the school IN OTHER WAYS,” in order to be quite consistent with Fraser.

Again, it isn’t the articulation between obscenity and disruption in the legal treatment of such free speech cases that I want to discuss primarily, but mainly the claim itself that the bracelets are not obscene.

The bracelets read “I ♥ Boobies!” I love boobies. Where in the world is such an utterance as this not a serious breach of etiquette, is the simple question one must ask from the outset. And the answer is, in sum: Nowhere.

If one male student at that school had told a female student he vaguely knew: “I love your boobies,” that would have been a horrible outrage. This was so before feminism existed, will still be so if feminism ceases to exist, and such as feminist sensitivity now exists it is indeed a horrible outrage. It is more than a gaffe, it is the reprobate endorsement of the womanly body’s sexual objectification. One must simply never utter such words except, perhaps, in the intimacy of one’s sexual life. The normal reaction to such words in a social setting is a slap in the face, and if the woman has a brother the latter may have a few words to say too: “Did you say ‘I love your boobies’ to my sister?” and after the slap comes a punch. Even assuming that such reactions could be somewhat extreme, everybody feels the truth of what I’m saying, and if we don’t hear of such slaps and punches more often it is probably because most people know they must not say such words and avoid saying them. (Among groups of teenage boys and girls, this kind of speech may be more frequent, as boys want to test girls, want to know how much girls can take, with an escalation to be expected for those girls who, in order to remain part of a group, accept to be talked like that; for these, unwanted pregnancies are perhaps the least of various foreseeable evils.)

Even if not addressed to one or some women in particular, the words ‘I love boobies,’ when not merely reported for some purpose, will be found a serious breach of etiquette in about all social settings. The only exceptions I can think of are conversations either (a) between people who are on the most intimate footing or (b) in groups where members agree beforehand they will be talking of those things, namely the members’ sexual tastes. In both cases, the general rules of etiquette are suspended and new ones apply on which all participants in the interaction agree as a result of long acquaintance or accepted intimacy, in a, or of stipulated rules (“we’ll be talking of our sexual tastes”), in b. In other situations, where an idiosyncratic micro-etiquette is not agreed upon tacitly or expressly, the general etiquette of society at large obtains, and let me tell Prof. K. that according to that etiquette neither sexual objectification nor hinting at the underlying impulses toward it as natural therefore normal, is accepted. It is not accepted because it is obscene. In a nutshell no one wants to hear ‘I love boobies’ without prior agreement which cannot be presumed.

One will pass me the use of the word etiquette, which perhaps has an elitist or snobbish flavor about it, even as I deal with customs that I describe as enjoying full recognition in the society at large. The notion that I merely would be talking of upper-class standards that are nothing to the rest of the people, if not a target of endless jokes, is what I will be dealing with now. This notion is entertained by what I shall call ‘advertised minds’ (Du Plessis) and rests on a distorted perception of the real world.

(From Erik Du Plessis’s book, The Advertised Mind: Groundbreaking insights into how our brains respond to advertising [Millward Brown, 2008], an insider’s account of the neuroscience of advertising, I am only borrowing the phrase ‘advertised mind’ –advertised in the sense I figure of shaped by advertisement– as the book has little to say on legal and sociological implications of advertising outside the market researcher’s perspective.)

ii

What I have been describing in i is a taboo. We may, in the western world, fancy ourselves  free from taboos and there is in our midst a whole sector of speech agency that has set a rule of making people believe there is no such thing as taboos, a speech agency named commercial speech. It has made this attitude a rule because, short of making us believe this way, it could not use taboos to its own ends. The utterance ‘I love boobies’ is taboo and commercial speech vindicates a right to use taboos as sales pitch. Obviously the power of such a pitch must be great, it cannot fail to attract people’s attention.

Furthermore, commercial speech cannot do this without a convention that when it, and it alone, makes use of taboos, read obscenity, it is not taboos and obscenity but something quite different. When commercial speech is obscene, by convention it is not obscene. Admittedly, the convention does not extend (yet) over the whole field of possible obscene speech; there are limits.

Whereas common sense has it that taboos are arbitrary conventions, in truth it is the exception for which we make room by waiving to treat obscene commercial speech as taboo like any other public speech, that is the most obvious convention of the two, because it lacks the thinnest link with our essence whereas the reason why we do not want to be reminded daily of our biological processes is self-evident as we see ourselves as free agents only partially determined by natural impulses.

To take an example, the s- and f-words are vulgar precisely because they remind us of our biology. It is only an apparent paradox that they are used all the time – as cursing words. We often curse, true enough, and at the same time these are the words no one wants to hear, vulgar words. Their use has become so widespread in informal speech, anyway, that we have become blind to the actual biological processes they depict when we hear the words, most of the time.

Yet I deny commercial speech the right to use obscene language with people not minding.

I love boobies, therefore I fight breast cancer: What is indecent in this? – It is twice indecent, compounded indecency. (1) Appropriation of obscenity for some social or commercial goal does not cancel the obscenity. Disrespect for a woman’s character is not mitigated by the fact that it comes in a double entendre; on the contrary, it is aggravated by underhandedness. (2) When, therefore, underhandedness is given out as a valid defence, the aggravating factor parading as its opposite is all the more outrageous.

iii

Admitting that ‘I love boobies’ is not proper talk among people, that is to say, will elicit among listeners at best embarrassment and more often than not displeasure and anger (save in the circumstances I described), then considering the usual effect as obviated when and because it comes from commercial speech is to load an illegitimate burden on people at the receiving end. As a matter of fact, this is making people inferiors in an unequal relationship with commercial speech. In an unequal relationship, the inferiors have no choice but to repress their natural reactions when the superiors disregard the inferiors’ feelings. Yet I see no reason why people should be treated as inferior to the agencies entitled to making commercial speech.

Failing to perceive the situation in this way is a sign of being an ‘advertised mind,’ a mind whose general notions are shaped in large part or entirely by pervasive commercial speech.

That it is a nonprofit, such as a “breast-cancer-awareness” organization perhaps, which uses marketing techniques borrowed from private business advertising makes no difference. That would very odd if the law allowed “nationally recognized campaigns” to use methods it considers inappropriate for private pursuits. In fact, as commercial speech is not as fully protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution as, say, political speech, campaigns, no matter how nationally recognized, relevant and important, that make use of commercial speech methods, are equally limited by the Constitution in the attention-calling, neuroscience techniques they may use. The question, in BH ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area School District, really boils down to this: Is “I ♥ Boobies!” indecent? Justifying indecency by the goals aimed at (the end justifies the means), namely breast cancer awareness, is a clandestine extension of commercial speech’s constitutional rights.

Same as LexisNexis has, perhaps correctly as to the 3rd cir. court’s reasoning, described Hawk as having two separate issues, (1) lewdness and (2) disruptiveness of speech, whereas Fraser coalesces the two in one lewd-disruptive characterization, it also make separate issues of (1) the national campaign (“The bracelets were part of a nationally recognized breast-cancer-awareness campaign”) and (2) lewdness (“AND were not plainly lewd”), whereas it seems obvious the majority has excused the lewdness on the national campaign: It cannot be obscene because we are talking of breast cancer – not breast grabbing.

When commercial speech makes use of obscenity, by convention we are supposed to take it as a form of irony (au second degré). A nonprofit organization or business has no natural, biological motive to say it loves boobies, therefore it is humor, a humorous, cheeky wink. Well, no. If a business exhibited penises on posters to sell goods, we would find it obscene regardless of whether someone in the advertising agency is a pathological exhibitionist or not. The trick is to attract attention through the intrusive, obstreperous display of what no one wants to see or hear. Find a taboo, usually in the field of the obscene, plaster all walls with it under a conventional label of irony and the jig is up. The deed will be positively valued, as defiance against the constraints of etiquette, usually by the frustrated who believe their natural impulses are held in fetters by inimical, unnatural social forces, and by the young who still have no sex life. For those, commercial speech dons the guise of liberators.

This is how I read the phrase “plainly lewd.” When something is “not plainly lewd,” that means it is lewd (but not plainly so here by virtue of the irony). However, the Fraser precedent does not ask that speech be “plainly lewd” for authorities to step in. I believe the majority in Hawk has found the lewd speech excusable in the context of commercial speech for breast cancer awareness. Yet judges should know that, with obscenity, context is often immaterial, for sometimes courts exclude the public from hearings when the case is too risqué; that is, even sheer reporting, even reporting with the express intention to condemn and contemn what must be condemned and contempted, is deemed potentially offensive.

Another problem with such finding is that speech tends to be arbitrarily defined according to the speaker. When it is our good friend Mr Commercial Speech, best known for his delightful epigram “I love boobies, therefore I fight breast cancer,” it is not obscene, whereas a rap singer who loves boobies is at risk of prosecution (well, maybe not all of them).

In sum, conventions declaring indecency innocuous in the context of commercial speech cannot be valid, they are unacceptable, as is every mental process based on such unwritten conventions. Therefore, the five dissenting justices in BH ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area School Dist. were in the right.

According to a note in Krotoszynski’s book, one dissenting judge argued the bracelets were lewd because “‘I ♥ Boobies!’ can reasonably be interpreted as inappropriate sexual double entendre.” This, to be sure, borders on “complete and utter nonsense,” however not, as K. would have it, because the message cannot reasonably be interpreted as inappropriate sexual double entendre but because it cannot be interpreted otherwise except by the blind, unreasoned following of a convention. It is true the message can reasonably be interpreted as sexual but this is not the relevant aspect of it, which is, in fact, that it cannot reasonably be interpreted otherwise.

The national breast awareness campaign used the techniques of commercial speech and most certainly contracted with an ad agency that came off with the ‘I love boobies’ pitch. A change of judicial state of mind regarding commercial speech is long overdue. When a double entendre dawns upon one in commercial speech, I suggest not to treat it as a blunder or mistake but as intentional save proof to the contrary, because advertisers are professionals whose task is to design messages and the rational expectation is therefore that the content they produce is intentional; but again this goes against the irrational convention that prevails among us regarding commercial speech, where lewd (or other taboo-ridden content) is not lewd.

Besides, it should be of concern that vindication of student free speech revolves around commercial speech. The media Slate called BH ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area School Dist. the case that “could decide student free speech” (Aug 9, 2013); that is, student free speech could be decided by a case where students’ speech consists in passively adopting some commercial pitch made by others.

iv

Another group psychology phenomenon might be at play with the wristbands. As they are worn by women, and females are the natural object of lewd remarks on breasts by males, there would be some sexism awareness campaign too about the bracelets. When a group of people is the habitual object of some pejorative image and associated words, members of the group may adopt figures of the stereotype among themselves as a defence mechanism. I think the typical example is the use of the n-word among blacks. More recently we have seen followers of candidate and then president Donald Trump call themselves ‘deplorables’ after Hillary Clinton had used the word in a dismissive comment. Other examples may be found. – Understood in this way the bracelets would be integral speech. However, such message, admitting it were there (which I am willing to grant), is adulterated by its commercial speech origin, and even if it deflected its intrinsic lewdness by being a message from victims, actual or in solidarity, of lewd unwanted remarks about breasts –deflected it as far as the victims themselves are concerned–, it cannot cancel the inherent obscenity of the message save by virtue of an irrational convention forced upon the society by commercial speech.

Furthermore, if male students wore the bracelets, it would be hard to determine if they embraced the same feminist cause or rather intended a reversal to the primary meaning, this time as a reaction to a feminist campaign. The disruptive potential of the wristbands understood in this way is far from negligible, considering the accessory could throw students into a renewed embittered battle of the sexes on campus. Complaints would arise such as: “He flashed his bracelet at me!”, bracelet flashing would become a rampant form of sexist bullying. Even seen in this light, the school authorities were right to step in.

(The dissenting judge quoted in iii may have had such thoughts in mind when he wrote that the message can reasonably be interpreted as sexual double entendre, for instance if the bracelets were worn by male students in reaction to a feminist campaign, in which case I owe the judge an apology.)

Tweet Anthology 2

After first Tweet Anthology (here), this is a selection of my tweets from Dec 2016 up to now. When I reply to another tweet, the person’s tweet is in italics.

***

I ran in California and I won easily because I was an outsider at that time and they looked for an outsider. (Arnold Schwarzenegger)

Europe is looking for an outsider, let’s make Arnold President of the United States of Europe (see here).

arnoldpresident4

The #MEGA Schwarzenegger will Make Europe Great Again.

Lisa Bickels approves.

lisabickels

*

In How the Other Half Lives (1890), an early sociology of New York City, J. Riis (Danish-American: see here) said Jewtown and Little Italy were dirty but black neighborhoods were clean.

*

Supposed outpouring of online hatred against Jo Cox, a murdered MP, was exaggerated. (The Economist)

The deliberate exaggeration could not even prevent Brexit.

*

Sweden public broadcaster aired as “science” claims women shorter than men because parents subconsciously feed girls less. (Kevin MacDonald) – Not even Swedes could be this stupid, could they?

Many Swedes are paid by their government to be stupid.

It takes a lot of work to get there. But they’ve made a success of it.

A typical Swedish success story.

But immigrants will help Sweden be a more balanced country.

janadriyah

*

Most gays are bisexual (cf Dr Robin Baker). They get sex training with guys, then apply their training with girls. They learn with their male companions good techniques with which a straight guy’s cannot compare. Gays learn with men to overcome shyness with women in every circumstance. It is easier to learn with men because men are sex-crazed. Gays get a crash course while you take the long way, but time is money.

*

Why a liberal arts degree holds value in the second machine age. – Skills that make all workers valuable –even those in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) careers– are boosted, not diminished, by a liberal arts education. (Michigan Future Inc.)

Companies have been praising liberal arts degrees for 50 years. Just talking.

Think in terms of motivation. Why would these students want to work for a company? They’re taking liberal arts degrees because they hate the idea of working for business.

*

Kevin MacDonald: Ethnocentrism is normal and rational.

In fact, women are xenophiles since chimp females have been mating outside their group. [So that makes men acceptive of female foreigners too.]

And high-status men do not care about immigration because it does not affect their fitness. [Actually, business benefits from low-wage immigration.]

Ethnocentrism is normal for low-status men.

*

If I see myself as a Conservative, then I see my public as unbookish. You don’t sell books to people who don’t read.

*

A Nation of Suckers: Everybody with Deepthroat to regenerate American public life!

Woodward should have taken the opportunity [a recent interview] to apologize for the pseudo ‘Deepthroat.’ It’s not too late. [Deepthroat was Mark Felt, but who gave him that name, and if Mark Felt gave it to himself why did the journos have to take it?]

*

Morocco bans production and sale of burqas. (Saudi Gazette)

Moroccans have no class.

*

Each time I’m looking for a Conservative girl, she’s got tranny friends…

Each time I’m looking for a Conservative girl, she’s posing with black men…

I know a Conservative white girl who’s so concerned she may be labelled a racist that she’s only dating black boys. There’s nothing a black boy can’t obtain from a Conservative white girl who’s concerned about being labelled a racist.

*

Remember Rachel Corrie.

Even the Chinese had stopped their tanks on Tian An Men.

*

Saudi Arabia has an economic interest in allowing women to drive. (Brookings Institute)

Saudi Arabia has an economic interest in allowing hardcore pornography. So what?

Self-driving cars are already there, waiting to be used. Saudi women will be driving cars when there are no more cars to drive, only self-driving cars.

[Nobody ever thought of Saudi women’s right to drive cars before self-driving cars made that right utterly pointless.]

saudibrookings

*

Saudi Arabia’s strict religious rules cost its economy tens of billions every year. (Voxdotcom)

They can afford it, don’t you worry.

On the other hand Christians would not sacrifice a cent for their religion’s sake.

[God is obviously with those who can afford gratuitous acts, not with those who must devote the whole of their activity to being kept afloat.]

*

The difference between a Conservative and his Muslim foes is that Muslims are Conservatives.

*

#Inauguration2017

Bernie Sanders is eating Maine lobster and gulf shrimp with saffron just now, sipping 2013 arroyo vista chardonnay.

Now Bernie Sanders is enjoying seven hills angus beef with chocolate and juniper jus and gratin, with a glass of black stallion 2012 limited release cabernet sauvignon. (All these things Bernie’s supporters have no idea of…)

Keep tuned to know the exact time Bernie Sanders will be enjoying chocolate soufflé with Korbel special cuvée champagne.

*

There is no such thing as #subliminal #advertising #suckers

jacket2-2(Courtesy of Eric McLuhan)

*

The reason women in Israel have less problems with rape than women living in Angela Merkel’s destroyed Germany [tweeted as caption to a picture showing Israeli women in military uniform and with guns].

The lack of sexiness of their accoutrement would repel the most accomplished rapist.

a/Jeynie J: So what you’re saying is, discerning rapists only target fashionably dressed women? Do tell us more.

You don’t have to be fashionable to be sexy.

I thought you were going to tell us more about how rapists choose their victims. I’m waiting to be educated.

First thing, they choose them so as to be able to perform or commit the act physiologically.

Up-thread you snarked that the ugly uniforms of the Israeli women would deter a rapist. Are you implying that a rape victim bears responsibility for her (or his) plight? The classic “she asked for it”??

Do you see another explanation?

What would you think if you learnt most rape victims wore miniskirts when they were raped by a stranger?

I’d think I’d need to see your statistics and the source from which they came.

You’d learn rape from a familiar person (family rape or date rape) is the most frequent by far.

But yes, I do see another explanation: the rapist. No victim ever bears responsibility, regardless of dress.

Of course the rapist goes to jail when caught. I may even agree he should be executed.

What does a rapist’s sentence have to do with his motivation?

Stepfathers are the greatest rapists. For them it doesn’t matter what you wear.

[I give myself the last word in this interesting conversation, as the last words of my female contender were words of abuse and I do not wish to displease my reader with these.

I apologize for having no experience in rape and forced sex and for talking from books and conjecture. I admit that I fail to see, now that I think of it, how I could have an erection trying to rape a stranger as sexual predators do but I also acknowledge that there surely are techniques to get aroused in such circumstances or to perform full-penetration rape without full erection –which makes my argument about an alleged required sexiness of the victim specious. However, albeit I don’t rely on police or judicial records, the fact that generally speaking victims of rape are scantily clothed when they are raped must be true, for according to studies 1/rape is conducive to pregnancy more often than consensual sex and 2/ovulating women wear scantier clothing than on average. In my mind it makes no doubt that 2 is the cause of 1 and that sexual predators choose scantily clothed victims, whether it be because they are aroused by them or not.]

b/ Mr W.: Not real good with strong women, pajama boy?

Your girlfriend carries the guns, all right, so what are you doing? Patching your petticoat, petticoat?

c/ Dan G.: Are these beauties good enough for ya? [adding another picture of Israeli female soldiers. I take the opportunity to stress here that women in the Israeli army, although they receive some military training, are not due to fighting on the battlefield.]

They were all raped by Israeli starred officers and some by Israeli politicians into the bargain. [The reason for this reply will be apparent from the next discussion, below.]

I’m guessing you don’t like women very much, eh?

Not when they’re damaged goods.

d/ Julie F.: It take a rapist to know a rapist. How many women have you raped?

If you know what I am, you must be like me, then. How many have you?

It takes a rapist to know “it take a rapist to know a rapist.” You’re a darn rapist and I’ll let your neighbors know.

*

The reason women in Israel have less problems with rape than women living in Angela Merkel’s destroyed Germany [This is another discussion starting from the same thought which, by the way, was tweeted by Hollywood actor and staunch Trump supporter James Woods.]

I’m told women in Saudi Arabia don’t have too much problem with rape either.

Not true.

Indeed there’s a lot of raping in Israel.

[Here I’m compelled to rely on my memory as my contender eventually blocked me, making it impossible for me to retrieve his tweets any more. After I had said a lot of rapes occurred in Israel, he came with the rather unexpected estimate, found on the internet, of one out of three women being raped. Then, as he felt he had given me ammunition in the argument, he claimed these rapes were all (literally) made by black immigrants and that Israel had the same problem as Germany and other European countries with an alleged rape wave caused by immigrants (in spite of Israeli women’s carrying big guns, by the way). To which I made the following answer.]

4M women [Israel’s population is 8M]=>about 1.3M women raped. 85,000 Africans, let’s say 50,000 males. That makes 26 Israeli women for each African. If half of them are rapists, it’s ~50 women raped by each rapist. If one fifth of African males are rapists, each rapists rapes ~130 women. If one tenth of the African Israeli male population are rapists, each rapist rapes more than 250 women.

*

Senate Democrats to Stage All-Night Talkathon against Betsy DeVos.

These fellows have no consideration for the Senate’s staff.

*

‘People Who Read Breitbart’ Targeted in £60 Million Government Propaganda War on ‘Far Right’ by Saatchi & Saatchi. (Kevin MacDonald)

Look for embedded subliminal penises, fellatios, pedophilia and bestiality in the campaign billboards. You’ll find.

*

World leaders come in one of two flavors: Zionist Sycophant or Absolute COWARD. They both taste horrible.

May I add a third: those who are Zionist sycophants because they’re absolute cowards.

*

Fans of Elizabeth Warren Play the Sexist Card One More Time.

When you’ve got only one card to play, you’ve got to play it.

*

My advice to Conservatives, stop saying to the Libs “you’re the real racists,” just say “racists.” Victory is achieved by those who call their opponents racist more than their opponents call them racist. The time it takes you to tell your opponents “you’re the real racists,” they can call you a racist twice.

*

I used to come out as a gay so the men would lower their guard and I was very successful with their girlfriends. Try it.

If you think you’re safe because your mate’s friends are gays you’re badly mistaken. Your gay friend won’t take your mate away, correct.

*

90% of gays are bi. Being gay is the way you impregnate women at no (or minimal) cost.

*

Valentine, the one saint known by Protestant America. They only take those who help sell.

[In reply to users who objected to Valentine Day being banned in some Muslim countries like Pakistan] Why should Muslims, but even Protestants, partake in the worship of this saint? Protestantism is based on the rejection of the worship of saints. Valentine Day shows how deep marketing brainwashing goes.

*

Can you be my Valentine for one day?

I guess it’s asking too much, even for just one day…

*

I don’t like the way she’s wearing her veil, it’s like she’s wearing no veil at all.

*

“Christians are oppressed and persecuted in USA”. Makes sense: after all, they are an endangered minority of only 83%. (Richard Dawkins) [According to another user, the actual figure is more like 70%.]

The truth of the statement does not depend on that figure alone but also on the relative status of the majority. If your status is higher than a Christian and you abuse him for his faith, then you are an oppressor.

*

Israel interferes in our politics all the time, and it’s never a scandal. (Kevin MacDonald)

You mean that people are afraid to speak out? Some people speak out and these may be more acceptive of Muslim, anti-Zionist immigration. Immigration as bulletproof jacket.

We’ll get all the Muslims it takes to restore free speech, I will see to it.

*

Here To Love They Neighbor. [A comment on the so-called ‘’Muslim Ban’’]

They’ve got to love their “neighbor”: she’s their cleaning lady.

All Muslims are not terrorists, they’re also cleaning ladies and dustmen.

*

God made Obama president, yes. Even God makes mistakes. Pfff…

Attila was the Scourge of God. Obama is the Mistake of God.

*

Let me know how I can do more for the basic income movement.

You can share your income with me.

As long as you’re not at basic-level income, you don’t know what basic income is. Share.

If you share, you’ll get a share. In this world I can’t promise, but in the next, brother!

*

Could we imagine a world where the machine work for us while we just enjoy life?

Many people can’t. They see their wife at home and: thank god there’s work, to be out!

*

What did you promise the Russians in exchange for their hacking the election? (Laura P., ‘’Democratic political consultant,’’ to Donald Trump. I quote from memory as she blocked me after the following reply)

He promised you would help Russia with your lights.

*

It is important to remember, when engaging in paleontology, that there’s a risk it make you dry as a bone.

*

The FAKE NEWS media is the enemy of the American people (President Trump). – That’s great, Donald, but the last time a U.S. president told me who my enemy was, 600,000 Iraqis died for no reason.

It won’t take troops against these, a good spanking will suffice.

*

Freedom of the press: the press is not free from private interests.

The privately owned press, that is, some private interests, call themselves the pillar of democracy. Sheep agree.

The press is controlled by undemocratic, private interests that are far more powerful than states. People know what I’m saying is true, but they dare not articulate it, for labelling power’s not theirs. The people repress the obvious about the nature of media. They dream a life of two hundred years ago. They obscurely feel that escaping the dream is dangerous, and it is, as it goes across powerful vested interests and would in any case estrange them from the herd.

*

I believe there were no porn videos in Osama Bin Laden’s house and that they said so in order to make him look like an a**hole.

*

Bill Gates: Job-stealing robots should pay income taxes.

Disagree. If robots can do these jobs, they are inhuman jobs and robots are our liberators. To think that there are still people who’re doing robots’ jobs gives me the shivers.

*

Why has the Iranian regime become so fond of tourism in Albania? + link (Iran Freedom)

That someone got fond of tourism in Albania was long overdue.

*

Robots are going to replace most jobs. How are people going to get money to live on?

Shoplifting has long ceased to be a heinous crime.

*

When does a robot have personality? When he hates humans.

*

…find the leakers within the FBI itself. Classified information is being given to media that could have a devastating effect on U.S. FIND NOW. (Donald Trump)

For a long time U.S. services have set up a whole system of leaks from U.S. to Israel. Read They Dare To Speak Out by Paul Findley. American spies have spied on their own land for decades on Israel’s behalf. Leaking stuff is what they’re best at, after all these years spying on their own land for Israel.

*

(To a Dr somebody making policical comments) One day doctors will find out they were speaking in the name of science like children.

*

In response to Trump’s dissing of Mexico, Mexicans are boycotting Starbucks and other U.S. chains.

So funny knowing Starbucks’s CEO did the best he could to appear as anti Trump.

*

Calling the press scoundrels, which they are, is not restricting the press.

As far as I know freedom of speech extends to the president as well. Journalists want to shut him up. Grant the president free speech for a change. The press can’t handle criticism.

*

(In reply to the outrage raised by Trump’s announcement that he would not attend the White House Correspondents’ Association this year)

The president has no mandate to attend and waste his time with bores.

*

Try giving your opinion diplomatically instead of attacking and attempting to take down an American business. (A tweet to President Trump about the New York Times)

The president has no mandate to spare the susceptibility of scoundrels.

*

Treason – google it, Donald Trump (Rosie)

When I start typing “treason” on Google, Google completes with “treacle on my p*ssy, lick it.” Why?

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer