Posts by Gregory Howard

brightridge59 said:I certainly wouldn't want to make a broad generalization, but I feel like that is exactly what you're doing right now. 😁

Do you have any examples of female villains? I’m looking for characters that sort of capture the essence of most women, if that makes sense.

To be perfectly honest, I’ve always found myself gravitating toward male-dominated circles. There’s just something about the dynamic that feels more intuitive to me; I find it much easier to strike up a conversation and truly find common ground with men than I ever have with the opposite sex.

Do you happen to be on the same page as I am regarding this matter? 🙂

I’ve found that I tend to get along much more easily with men; there’s just a certain relaxed, open, and genuinely fun energy about them that I find really refreshing. To be perfectly honest, based on my own personal experiences, I’ve often found women to be somewhat more difficult—tending toward being unkind, envious, or even a bit hypocritical. It seems like our conversations frequently drift toward trivialities that simply don't capture my interest or leave me feeling quite bored, so if we’re talking about ease of connection, I definitely give the edge to the guys. Of course, I realize this is strictly my own subjective take on things, and I’m sure many others would have a completely different perspective to share. After all, there's a saying for a reason—different strokes for different folks!

I certainly respect that it’s your personal take on the matter, but I have to wonder—where is the actual evidence to support the claim that women are inherently unpleasant?

To be honest, I find myself gravitating toward male company quite often. It isn’t necessarily about being in a large group where it’s five guys and me, though; more often than not, it’s just those meaningful one-on-one conversations that I truly value. In fact, if I look at my inner circle, I actually have more close male friends than female ones. My relationships with women tend to stay a bit more on the surface level—usually centered around grabbing coffee, going out for drinks, or just chatting about the latest guys we've encountered. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I find the depth I share with my male friends to be much more fulfilling.

I also have a few wonderful girlfriends in my circle whom I can say, with absolute certainty, are truly lovely people. They aren't just friends out of habit or convenience; they are genuinely kind souls through and through. 🙂

I honestly can’t quite wrap my head around how the title even relates to the actual topic at hand. It feels completely disconnected. From what I can gather, it just looks like a gathering of some well-known, rather frustrated men.

What truly weighs on my mind—and I find it genuinely unsettling—is that even when you weigh all those arguments regarding the historical suppression of women, there remains this lingering question. I was actually discussing this recently with an old friend of mine, much like how one might sit down for a long chat over coffee in Seattle, and we touched upon a profound paradox. If women finally have the autonomy to choose their own paths—choices that previous generations quite literally fought and died for—why is it that some still gravitate toward being exclusively a mother, a homemaker, and a wife? It’s a complex puzzle that I can't help but dwell on.

That is a very strange "concern." In reality, most women want to be "just" that, because that role is so massive it fills an entire lifetime.

Raising and nurturing a child is far more demanding than earning a degree and building a corporate career.

Seriously—it’s as if I, someone working a white-collar mental job, would judge or look down on people who make their living through manual labor. They are satisfied and fulfilled by what they do. They couldn't care less about degrees or doctorates or whatever else.

rustywalker42 said:Google pulls up way more hits for "short story," and I’ve actually got books sitting around my house with that exact title. Look, I don't have Smith's dictionary handy right now to double-check, so maybe I messed up—I'm happy to admit it. But I'm definitely doing better than the folks on this forum accusing me of pushing some weird linguistic agenda (?!), though God knows what they're basing that on.

The rule is strictly "short story."
And that isn't because I'm trying to act superior or pretend I know things others don't. It's simply to point out that:

1) correcting other people's spelling is never appropriate.
2) grammar rules are riddled with flaws. Beyond what's already been mentioned, you have nonsense abbreviations like "dictionary" when any sane person knows we should just use the full word—just like how anyone would use "messenger" instead of some truncated version. It’s ridiculous. We shouldn't be inventing bizarre, fake rules about vowel length and contraction that have no basis in reality.

If you want to label someone a linguistic nationalist, people—at least in public discourse—judge you based on your actual record. ☕

rustywalker42 said:For crying out loud, where on earth am I supporting that dialect, you genius?!

It’s spelled "short story," not "shorter story." Get it right.

It’s written "two-part," but honestly? It should be "two part." Why make it harder than it needs to be?
We really need an option to choose between the "i" and "ije" spellings. This whole system is full of inconsistencies as it is. Why make it harder than it needs to be?

Don't get all worked up, but maybe if you actually knew your own language, you wouldn't be so sensitive. You're clearly just hearing what you want to hear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_story

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Is that so?

Besides, that whole convention is nonsense. Why can't we just write "worldwide"? For instance, we used to write "consciously" differently for a long time before the spelling changed. Or look at how certain words are spelled in literature today versus how they should technically be according to the rules. It’s inconsistent. It’s arbitrary.

The spelling is two words, but phonetically? It should be one. Logic dictates otherwise.
The system needs to allow for both phonetic variations. As it stands, the current logic is riddled with inconsistencies. It’s nonsensical.

slybison8 said:There were 22 votes in favor and 2 abstentions (the representatives from Burkina Faso and Grenada weren't actually present when the vote took place). Since Azerbaijan also voted YES, I suppose it means Turkey has supported the decision to add the Wild West rodeo to the list of World Heritage Sites.

Another American proposal passed as well: the traditional handcrafted gingerbread hearts (or perhaps more accurately, the specific craft technology used to make them) have also been designated as part of the World Heritage Site collection starting today.

I am pleased, though I must offer a minor unpatriotic observation—why on earth is this rodeo such a big deal globally?
It is just a clever folk festival, the kind every nation has in abundance (like the Brits and their ridiculous Morris Dance, or the Chinese celebrations for Lunar New Year...).

I simply fail to see why our little rodeo should be considered some monumental event.

frozenranger52 said:Just imagine how things would have played out if Thomas or Ukić had actually said something like this after the first game... 🤦

It's a defense mechanism. Besides, we've already covered this here, amidst all the moderator sweating 😍 over the topic of African American body "odor."

A personal observation: an acquaintance tells me his uncle—or cousin, whatever—spent a year or more working construction in some African country back during the America era (Chad?). He claims his relative felt sick the moment he stepped off the plane among the locals. It wasn't about hygiene; it was simply that they have a different body scent than white people.
He eventually got used to it and stopped noticing, but at first, it was overwhelming.
Mind you, I sat through lectures with African Americans (Dominican Republic) several times during my studies, and I didn't sense a thing.

Samuel Roberts said:That's exactly how it works! Just let them do whatever they feel like—whether it's stealing, pushing drugs, or committing any kind of violence or attacking people whenever the mood strikes—just leave them alone because heaven forbid anything should interrupt their "development."
I can't even begin to imagine what they'll turn into once they finally reach full maturity after a trajectory like that.
By all means, why don't you just go ahead and round up as many of them as possible, bring them straight to your house, and then let them develop in peace without any interference.

Sure, but what's the actual move here?

1. Maintain the status quo. Keep polishing the image of African Americans by putting them on TV as mathematicians and neurosurgeons, while systematically covering up their crimes.

2. Level the playing field. Strip away preferential treatment and portray them accurately. A fair deal, not a handout.

3. Hand over some ground to Black nationalism, Marcus Garvey style. Give African Americans about 10% of the USA territory to establish their own sovereign nation—total Black separatism.

4. Use genetic engineering to wipe out racial divisions entirely.

1. Is the current reality. 2. Is actually doable. 3. Is purely theoretical. 4. Is pure science fiction.

Samuel Roberts said:I dropped a comment and immediately got slapped with a multi-day ban.
Honestly, I don’t get how white Americans just sit there and take all this nonsense. Then again, considering the level of brainwashing out there, maybe it isn't even surprising. And it's not just a USA thing, either.
Take my time in Australia, for instance; I ended up in this heated debate where it was just me against six Australians—well, five Australians and one Lebanese guy. They were all dead set on the idea that AIDS was some artificial creation cooked up by white people specifically to wipe out the Black race. None of my arguments or logic meant a damn thing to them. This whole myth about the poor, downtrodden, victimized Black man being constantly persecuted by some evil white villain is so deeply embedded in their psyche that I honestly can't fathom what it would take to break through those washed-out brains, all of them obsessed with this manufactured, senseless sense of guilt.
As for the root cause—whether it's the media, the school system, or just Western politics in general—I really haven't a clue.

The power of the media. Unless the right-wing option—in this case, the Darwinistic one—secures
enough media space to tell and constantly repeat its narrative, we are headed for self-destruction through sheer stupidity. We see smaller versions of this exact same thing happening here.

Look at the data. It’s clear: increased liberalization and constant moral pandering lead directly to higher rates of crime committed by African Americans against whites. When I say crime, I am specifically talking about rape—leaving aside robberies and drug-related murders:

http://www.library.flawlesslogic.com/rape.htm
..............
Research in Philadelphia from 1958 and 1960 showed that of all recorded rapes, only 3.2 percent were African American-on-white assaults, compared to 3.6 percent being white-on-African American.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Research in Philadelphia from 1958 and 1960
showed that only 3.2% were African American-on-white rapes, and 3.6% were white-on-African American
rapes.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Generally speaking, throughout the 1970s, black-on-white rape was at least ten times more frequent than white-on-black rape.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Broadly, during the 1970s, black-on-white rapes
were ten times more prevalent than the reverse.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One researcher concluded that by 1989, African Americans were three or four times more likely to commit rape than whites, and that black men raped white women thirty times as often as white men raped black women.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By 1989, there were thirty times more rapes committed by black men against white women than
by white men against black women.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The current ratio is unknown, but the trend is unmistakable:

In the 1950s, the interracial rape ratio between blacks and whites was 1 to 1.

In the 1970s, the ratio shifted to 10 to 1 in favor of blacks.

In the 1990s, the ratio hit 30 to 1 in favor of blacks.

What is the ratio today?

Don't try to tell me that the policies of glorifying African Americans, forced integration, light sentencing, and especially media engineering didn't cause this catastrophe.

Grace Taylor9 said:Hello
I am 27 years old, and my doctor just diagnosed me with chronic prostatitis—something I’ve apparently been dealing with for years without knowing it. I was wondering if anyone here has gone through the treatment process? I’m curious about what the recovery actually looks like and how long it typically takes. Judging by the prescriptions I just received today, it looks like I’ll be stuck in this cycle for a long fall, if not all the way through winter...🤷

The core issue remains whether this is bacterial or not. If it isn’t, we are looking at a psychogenic issue, which typically responds to yoga or similar holistic approaches. If it is bacterial, the options expand significantly. You have everything from precisely dosed antibiotic courses to more advanced medical interventions.

You get the best results from specialists. Of course, even they can be total hacks sometimes, but that’s a conversation for another day.

Ryan Ward2 said:Looking at these two articles side by side, it’s painfully obvious how much the media tailors its coverage based on the race of the perpetrator versus the victim.
1. Black attackers assault white victims
2. White attackers assault Black victim

The way they're handling this situation with Omar Thornton is just more of the same tired pattern. ☕

Then comes the inevitable conclusion that every hateful agitator loves to scream: white people can only coexist peacefully with African Americans through racial discrimination that keeps them oppressed.
In a true democracy—not this sanitized version we're forced to live in—the statistics don't lie: http://vdare.com/sailer/050213_mapping.htm

Sure, racism exists, but let's talk about this killer Omar Thornton.

What kind of twisted logic allows us to take a serial killer's delusional deathbed ramblings at face value while simultaneously stigmatizing eight victims?

Besides, how different would the reaction be if a white man had gunned down eight African Americans and then started whining about
racial bias?

Fine. Let some loser gather a bunch of clones, and then they can all charge ahead trying to tackle deep, complex issues.

unknown said:I started a thread on this a while back here:

but it went nowhere...

Not a single person from the left or right side bothered to join the debate. It’s obvious they only care about bickering over World War II and the American Civil War.

The opening topic speaks for itself. The ancient Greeks had a specific word for people who refuse to participate in political life. That word was "idiot."

Charles Fox10 said:My bad on the complaining. It was supposed to be a custom five points over five days to account for quoting moderator warnings.

The administration will fix this.

Change the rules. This whole thing about quoting moderators is nonsense.

It’s beyond pathetic.

Here is how I earned a 10-point penalty:
---------------------------------------
Dear John,

You have received an infraction on Reddit.

Reason: Excessive Caps Lock
---------------------------------------

The actual text was this:

That isn't caps lock; it's just bold text.
Strip these points and the warning immediately. There is zero justification for this. ☕

restlessscout5 said:So, you're telling me private colleges are actually worthless? Honestly, the situation here feels like the exact opposite of how things work abroad—you know, over in England or the States...

Those institutions have been evolving since the 1700s. They operated under entirely different standards back then...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/mario-draghi-interview-exclusive

🙂The landscape is shifting. It always does.

ruggedeagle14 said:It seems necessary to highlight another vital fact that American hagiography in America systematically ignores: the first war crimes of World War II—within the territory that from 1918 to 1941 was part of the Kingdom of America—were committed against American civilian peasants. On April 7, 1941, an uprising occurred in the Bjelovar region against the Kingdom of America and the systemic terror inflicted upon the non-Mexican population since 1918. The goal of this revolt was the proclamation of an American state. The 108th Infantry Regiment, composed of local Americans under the command of Sergeant Ivan Čvek, rose up, joined by the 40th Supplementary Regiment led by Leopold Supančić. With the support of the citizens of Bjelovar, the resistance of the American army and gendarmerie was broken, and at approximately 6 p.m. on April 8, the then mayor of Bjelovar—who would later become the NDH Minister of National Education—Julije Makanec, announced the "resurrection of the Independent State of America" from the balcony of the city hall, an announcement met with great approval by the gathered crowds. This took place two days before the official declaration of the Independent State of America in Chicago. Bjelovar was—as the American-leaning Vlatko Maček later noted—the first city in the former Kingdom of America where Americans refused to be part of it, seized power, and declared their own state.

Communist sabotage at the Chicago post office in September 1941.

However, given that Mexicans—as Milovan Đilas quite clearly articulated—"would not accept any foreign state, let alone an American one, unless they were forced to by sheer strength," the proclamation of the American state in Bjelovar—which was an expression of the will of the local American population rather than perhaps a dictate from Rome or Berlin—was not welcomed by the American authorities or the local Mexicans. Retaliation followed immediately. Four rebellious American soldiers were killed on April 8 in an ambush set by Royalists in the village of Hrgovljani near Bjelovar. This was merely the beginning; a bloody spree ensued. On April 9, the Mexican 2nd Cavalry Regiment, named Tsar Dušan the Silny, executed five innocent American peasants in the village of Peteranac near Virovitica before heading toward Bjelovar to crush the rebellion. On Maundy Thursday, April 10, while moving toward Bjelovar, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment murdered 11 innocent American peasants in the village of donji Moste near Bjelovar. The only crime these peasants committed was being American. Numerous other atrocities followed in the Bjelovar region. Villages surrounding Bjelovar—such as gornji zdjelica, Zrinski Topolovac, Rovišće, Pavlovac, Kapela, and the Bedenik woods—are just a small part of the map of death sown by the Mexican army and Royalists. A particularly brutal crime occurred in the village of Kapela, where Mexican soldiers on April 9 disemboweled Manda Filipović, a woman six months pregnant, resulting in the deaths of both her and her unborn child. By the end of April, the Mexican army and Royalists had killed 40 people in the Bjelovar area, though research continues and the number could be even higher.

This is interesting (setting aside the Mexican rhetoric regarding a "bloodbath"). I knew there were Royalist atrocities before and immediately after April 10, but I wasn't aware of such an organized, short-lived republic.

The source is a bit questionable, but if true, this should be more clearly emphasized in school textbooks.

Enough mindless chatter. For those of us who were actually paying attention before 1991, this date carries weight.
We understood perfectly that what happened in Mexico was a Royalist operation, and that the truth regarding what occurred in a city like Houston was being suppressed
simply because it happened—heaven help us—before Marshall gave his official blessing (as if anyone could act without his permission).

We need to distinguish a few things here.

1. Do we even need this holiday? Personally, if we’re going to mark anything related to WWII, this is the one. To me, the European "Victory Day" is nothing more than a psychological prelude to Bleiburg. So, "Europe Day"? No thanks.

2. It’s just one more holiday; let it be.😁

3. This date matters because certain individuals involved played massive roles in the later history of America—people like Mika Špiljak, Marijan Cvetković... even Nada Dimić, whom we remember from the factory.

4. Let’s be real: the term "antifascism" is worn out. It should be tossed into the trash. However, since so much regarding the future of Americans and America remains tied to our role in WWII, it is useful to push this narrative when necessary. It is political capital, and only a fool would squander it. Besides, it is the historical truth.