Designated Whiner Shitting Street - General non DSP-specific discussion and stupid questions goes here

[actually]

but with abortion somehow it only affects the woman even though the procedure is itself a termination of a second life. If you're unvaccinated but never leave your house, you only potentially harm yourself, but if you abort your healthy pregnancy (especially after the stage of viability) you always harm another, even if you're stuck on a desert island.

Depends on how you define "life", tbh. If you remove a fetus after 1 month of gestation, will it live outside the womb? By this logic, cancer could be considered a "life" (living cells that have the DNA of the mother).

Only a few states criminalize this in certain circumstances, but it's not uncommon in lieu of prison time to strip the mother of her parental rights.

This is a fair argument, but as you point out, it's typically not criminalized, and the state that do criminalize it tend to be ones framing it in the Christian "life at conception" way. Termination of parental rights is also not typically immediate--you generally have to demonstrate either such heinous behavior (like murdering a child's sibling) or be completely unwilling to take the requested actions (parenting classes, rehab, etc.) that the state says "fuck it" and asks a judge to terminate the rights.

Thinking about it a little more, there's also the bountiful evidence that smoking/drinking/drugs can cause direct developmental harm, but there's much less (if any, really) research on what kind of diet (again, if any) is actively harmful to development of the fetus. There's certainly research that suggests way to improve outcomes (hence recommended vitamin supplements and foods pregnant women are recommended to avoid for various reasons).

Personally I don't think the right to abortion was ever within the 14th amendment's text. It was a fanciful reading of that amendment and was a ticking timebomb just waiting to blow up in women's faces. I personally have no problem with abortion access, but short of congress writing a bill and codifying it into law (in some way that has no connection to the 14th amendment) it's probably going to remain a states' rights issue.

I agree to an extent, but part of the problem now is that there are a number of other case decisions that used the same (or very similar) reasoning. Griswold (contraception for married couples), Eisenstadt (contraception for individuals), Lawrence (anti-sodomy laws), Obergefell (gay marriage), Brown vs. Board (desegregation of schools, downfall of "separate but equal"), Gideon (right to legal counsel for criminal cases irrespective of ability to pay) and, despite Thomas conspicuously leaving it out in his concurrence, Loving (interracial marriage). It's also very unusual for the Supreme Court to overturn a longstanding decision that extended a right.

There's also the revelation that at least of the Justices may have been praying in the Court with a group that was part of the Dobbs cases, which is...bad. Not that the Justices (and, in particular, Thomas, Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch) have been pretending to be neutral for a while.

Shit's real fucked up.

 

[Gramh]

The problem with the Supreme Court is that they have jurisdiction to alter or deny any law as unconstitutional given enough consenting voices on the bench, which is an issue given that the position is a life appointment with no actual qualifications for the position except a majority push from the Senate which given the issues with the Senate having 2 seats per state can govern against the will of the people. Worse, they are trying to analyze less than a paragraph of text written more than 200 years ago with today's understanding of the language and intent which varies wildly based on interpretation. Worse still, putting anything new into that document requires an extreme amount of effort again because Senate issues.

 

[Iron Father]

Depends on how you define "life", tbh. If you remove a fetus after 1 month of gestation, will it live outside the womb? By this logic, cancer could be considered a "life" (living cells that have the DNA of the mother).

Well no, 1 month? That's very early first trimester, the fetus is like a grain of rice.

That said, I disagree that the logic here extends to cancer, because of the concept of potential for life. If left alone, cancer will remain cancer. If a healthy pregnancy is left alone, the 1 month old grain of rice fetus will not remain like that.

It's not the strongest argument against abortion but it is important in differentiating an early stage fetus from things like cancer growths etc. Also a fetus is "living cells" made up by the mother and father's DNA, which is also a not irrelevant differentiation from cancer.

Termination of parental rights is also not typically immediate--you generally have to demonstrate either such heinous behavior (like murdering a child's sibling) or be completely unwilling to take the requested actions (parenting classes, rehab, etc.) that the state says "fuck it" and asks a judge to terminate the rights.

It can be immediate if we're talking about reckless consumption of drugs/alcohol resulting in delivering a severely unhealthy baby, or a baby at risk of dying in the coming days from withdrawals. In fact there are cases where babies are taken from the mother's custody while they're both still in hospital, or the state will enforce committal of the mother to a rehab before she can have her baby back. Link.

Thinking about it a little more, there's also the bountiful evidence that smoking/drinking/drugs can cause direct developmental harm, but there's much less (if any, really) research on what kind of diet (again, if any) is actively harmful to development of the fetus. There's certainly research that suggests way to improve outcomes (hence recommended vitamin supplements and foods pregnant women are recommended to avoid for various reasons).

I don't think the state has any business controlling a pregnant woman's diet, but I think if you're going to extrapolate certain hypotheticals from what we consider a life (if a 1 month old fetus is a life, doesn't that also mean a cancer growth is a life? etc) we can just as easily extrapolate the state's interest in what drugs a pregnant woman does into dietary concerns. I bring this up to invalidate the "but cancer" point. Just because X doesn't mean Y etc. A fetus in its earliest stages is an eventual life, a cancer never is.

I agree to an extent, but part of the problem now is that there are a number of other case decisions that used the same (or very similar) reasoning. Griswold (contraception for married couples), Eisenstadt (contraception for individuals), Lawrence (anti-sodomy laws), Obergefell (gay marriage), Brown vs. Board (desegregation of schools, downfall of "separate but equal"), Gideon (right to legal counsel for criminal cases irrespective of ability to pay) and, despite Thomas conspicuously leaving it out in his concurrence, Loving (interracial marriage). It's also very unusual for the Supreme Court to overturn a longstanding decision that extended a right.

Haven't they all already broke ranks with Clarence Thomas on these concerns?

"Near the end of Friday's decision, Alito sought to allay fears about the wide-ranging nature of his opinion. "To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."
(source: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade-decision-overturn)

Personally I don't see any of those others going anywhere because of this. Clarence Thomas isn't the norm, he's about as radically conservative as it gets, and again the Roe v Wade decision was always a very flimsy decision, really only made strong by the concept of precedence. Abortion activists have been predicting its overturning for decades.

IMHO people with abortion concerns living in red states need to start voting out local politicians. Remind the Republican Party of its more libertarian values. One of the biggest issues in the country is that everybody obsesses over national politics and neglects local politics.

 

[Gramh]

One of the biggest issues in the country is that everybody obsesses over national politics and neglects local politics.

This is one of the long term issues the US has faced is that it wasn't built to be as big as it is now and why the forefathers were really shortsighted in making it such an instrumental part of the framework. Originally it was an attempt to make sure different rich dudes still wanted to support independence from England and form up a loose collaboration of land to one unified purpose now and again. Now there is a lot of homogeny between the states and the people, with not a lot of need for the different borders,. we'd benefit greatly if states lost their law making autonomy because we would have clear rules and procedures across the entirety of the US and it would be more a reflection of the will of the people instead of having to worry that some pocket of the US is upholding some weird oppressive laws and it could really simplify our legal system.

 

[actually]

If a healthy pregnancy is left alone, the 1 month old grain of rice fetus will not remain like that.

Unless there's a miscarriage, or fetal development issues, or the fetus strangles itself on its umbilical cord, or the grain of rice fetus embedded in the fallopian tubes, or...

This argument also ignores the immense physical, emotional, financial, and psychological impact on the person carrying the fetus. It also ignores the ever-present discrimination that happens when someone becomes pregnant, even with laws against it. It's confusing to me that the life of the fetus takes precedence over the life of the mother. Neither I nor the government can force you to donate an organ to me, even after you die and even if it would guarantee my living happily ever after. But the government can force a woman (or, as in the recent Ohio case, a 10 year old rape victim) to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

We have well more than 400,000 kids in foster care. When pro-life chuds adopt those kids and give them truly loving homes (i.e., not proselytizing to LGBT kids and returning them), then I'll believe they give a shit.

Haven't they all already broke ranks with Clarence Thomas on these concerns?

"Near the end of Friday's decision, Alito sought to allay fears about the wide-ranging nature of his opinion. "To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh all said some variation of "Roe is settled law". I recall that Barrett hedged, but Kavanaugh and Gorsuch didn't. In short, I don't believe for a second they won't be going further in terms of enforcing their religiously-motivated ideology onto the country.

IMHO people with abortion concerns living in red states need to start voting out local politicians.

Easier said than done, and if the Supreme Court upholds the "Independent State Legislature Doctrine" case they just agreed to hear, it will be effectively impossible.

Remind the Republican Party of its more libertarian values.

What libertarian values?

 

[Iron Father]

Unless there's a miscarriage, or fetal development issues, or the fetus strangles itself on its umbilical cord, or the grain of rice fetus embedded in the fallopian tubes, or...

I specifically said "healthy pregnancy."

This argument also ignores the immense physical, emotional, financial, and psychological impact on the person carrying the fetus. It also ignores the ever-present discrimination that happens when someone becomes pregnant, even with laws against it. It's confusing to me that the life of the fetus takes precedence over the life of the mother.

I don't think anybody has said the life of a fetus takes precedence over the life of the mother. In my experience even the most hardline anti-abortionist makes exceptions for when the mother's life is at stake. Seems like a strawman.

To the first part; couldn't this argument be extended to late stage abortions? If a woman is 6 months pregnant, but due to the "immense physical, emotional, financial, and psychological impact" she decides she wants to terminate, even though there's a very good chance this fetus would thrive outside the womb, all good with you based on your logic?

Neither I nor the government can force you to donate an organ to me, even after you die and even if it would guarantee my living happily ever after. But the government can force a woman (or, as in the recent Ohio case, a 10 year old rape victim) to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

I view organ donation as disanalogous. Even if I disagree with the outlawing of abortion (which I do), forcing a pregnant woman to not terminate the life of her fetus isn't really comparable to forcing X party to relinquish one of their organs to Y party. There's no connection there that I can see.

Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh all said some variation of "Roe is settled law". I recall that Barrett hedged, but Kavanaugh and Gorsuch didn't. In short, I don't believe for a second they won't be going further in terms of enforcing their religiously-motivated ideology onto the country.

Time will tell, and I don't blame you for being cynical. I just think conservatives have been gunning for Roe v Wade for a long time, and they feel particularly strongly about abortion (they view it as murder after all) and it's an issue that energizes like Republican base like few other issues do. The others nowhere near to the same degree, and will probably have no steam behind any pushes to overturn them.

But I'm an optimist!

Easier said than done, and if the Supreme Court upholds the "Independent State Legislature Doctrine" case they just agreed to hear, it will be effectively impossible.

Thanks, this is news to me. I'll give it a look.

What libertarian values?

lol well... fair enough, but I do think there's a fundamental generalized sort of libertarian core to the Republican base. This is why the Tea Party movement kicked off for example. A lot of it might just be cope because they want to disassociate from warhawks without having to stop voting for the GOP ("Democrats spend too much, tax too high and want my guns so I vote Republican, but I'm not a neocon!!!") but I do think, in general, the whole Small Government thing is based in something real among the voters.

 

[actually]

I specifically said "healthy pregnancy."

Every pregnancy is healthy until it's not. There's a reason most OBGYNs will recommend pregnant women wait until at least the 1st trimester is completed before saying anything publicly. Miscarriages are surprisingly common to that point.

I don't think anybody has said the life of a fetus takes precedence over the life of the mother. In my experience even the most hardline anti-abortionist makes exceptions for when the mother's life is at stake. Seems like a strawman.

To the first part; couldn't this argument be extended to late stage abortions? If a woman is 6 months pregnant, but due to the "immense physical, emotional, financial, and psychological impact" she decides she wants to terminate, even though there's a very good chance this fetus would thrive outside the womb, all good with you based on your logic?

Requiring a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is absolutely putting the life of the fetus over the life of the mother. Already, there are cases where doctors are having to consult with lawyers to determine when the mother is "dying enough" for them to abort ectopic pregnancies and other incompatible-with-life pregnancies to try and make sure they're in compliance with the abortion laws. There are also at least a few anti-abortion laws that explicitly state that a mother threatening to commit suicide is NOT considered to be "the mother's life at stake" (Ohio being one example). Then you have cases that have already come up like the 10 year old who was raped and made pregnant in Ohio. She could not legally obtain an abortion in Ohio, even with a "medical emergency" exemption, so the hospital there had to find a place in Indiana to get it done. Ohio's law also bans any abortion after 24 weeks.

As for late stage abortions, yes. Emphatically so. If a woman is in such a state that she is willing to terminate a pregnancy after 6 months, she should be able to. Guttmacher Institute collects data related to abortion, and their data found that less than 1% of abortions happen after 21 weeks (generally considered the minimum time for viability outside the womb). People getting abortions at that point are not getting them just because. They're getting them because there's a fetal anomaly that's incompatible with life, the mother's health is at risk, or there was some kind of delay in being able to access the abortion.

I view organ donation as disanalogous. Even if I disagree with the outlawing of abortion (which I do), forcing a pregnant woman to not terminate the life of her fetus isn't really comparable to forcing X party to relinquish one of their organs to Y party. There's no connection there that I can see.

It's forcing one person to give up bodily autonomy for another, potentially at the risk of their own health. Anti-abortion laws force women to undergo the physical, mental, and psychological stresses of pregnancy, but I can't force a dead person to let me use their organs, even though they will literally go to waste otherwise.

but I do think, in general, the whole Small Government thing is based in something real among the voters.

In theory, sure, but you can't look at the Republican party and genuinely tell me they've been "Small Government" in decades, if they ever really were.

 

[Prince Lotor]

I'm not sure it works like that. I dont think police departments keep a list of names/addresses that have called ahead to let them know to ignore any potential emergency calls regarding their house for the indefinite future.

Phil just said he called ahead or whatever to try to make himself look smarter than the trolls but it really makes no sense if you think about it- if there really was an emergency and someone took Phil hostage in his own house, would he expect the police to not respond appropriately?

Also it would be easy cover if you really were going to commit a crime if you could just call the police department ahead of time and tell them to ignore emergency calls at the location you're going to. Dsp is just a retard.

I know this was like 5 or 6 days ago, but like most things this has been documented and is easy to find in a few seconds by doing a forum search. I typed in '911 call' and this post is on the first page. It has the incident report and the entire transcripts of the 911 call and officers communications to dispatch. You don't have to speculate or guess.

It says in the report that Phil had called them in the previous days to report he thought a Swatting attempt was being planned. The retards who planned it probably told lots of people beforehand and it got back to Phil.
If I remember it was suspected to be Boon and that pedo crew, like Ross and that dude who's in jail now that has a thread in this sub. The guys who were mad that they weren't allowed to join the SoK.

It's not outrageous that the responding officers may have thanked Phil for reporting it as you can read in the transcripts they were able to quickly cancel Fire & Rescue when their suspicions were confirmed by finding Phil's report which would save them money on an already fraudulent 911 call.

If a real crime had been being committed officers still responded to Phil's house within like 2 minutes and cleared the house in 4 minutes. They took it seriously even though the call was suspicious, they had a corroborating report that it was likely a Swatting attempt, and both residents told them it was a Swatting attempt upon arrival.

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/darksydephil-theycallmedsp-phil-burnell.975/page-5243#post-6131636

 

[M0L0K]

can confirm. korn and limp bizkit are gay as fuck and i always hated them

Pretty much agree, but the weird thing is, Korn pretty much single-handedly popularized low tunings and 7 string guitars in metal.

 

[SomeoneLikeMYFATHER]

Pretty much agree, but the weird thing is, Korn pretty much single-handedly popularized low tunings and 7 string guitars in metal.

This is wrong as fuck. You’re not saying this in public are you?

 

[The One And Only SALTE]

People arguing metal here need to shut the fuck up and accept their new tiny Japanese women overlords.



This PC talk is fucking ridiculous. If Rich, a dude who knows tech and goes by ReviewTech, is offering a PC, who cares if it's 5 years old? The components in it are still good.

Now, if Philliam decides to read this shit, then what he needs is this:

1. Take Rich's PC.

2. Buy a 25 dollar ringlight to put on the table in front of you.

3. Buy a lightning cable and a phone stand for roughly the same because we know your fat ass owns an iPhone X or better.

Boom, you now have a professional setup done as easily and lazily as possible.

 

[Big Brown Schlub]

People arguing metal here need to shut the fuck up and accept their new tiny Japanese women overlords.

Not even metal. You could've at least posted something like Lovebites. Next.

 

[The One And Only SALTE]

My first instinct is Band-Maid but Babymetal is more recognizeable.

 

[TheDevilUK]

Well boys, I have decide to give up on phil. Retards are going to be retards and phil will always attract retards. Off to the next scammer.

 

[Poo Twister]

Just hand over $150 DAILY OIC. Stop playing. Buy him the fucking computer and CONTINUE to pay DSPs bills and groceries etc. Just do it already. It's all you're good for. To pay for a grown man on the internet thru life. You're addicted so quit playing and make sure Phil's needs are covered, pay for his funeral costs. ALL OF IT. We know you will and you know will so quit teasing us with behind the scenes Tips and just hand it over all at once, man.

If you care about tips or who tips Phil, then get another hobby. The more attention you give them, the more they will do it. These boys want more attention than white girls on TikTok, if you don't give them attention, they will move on.

 

[clothes in my closet]

Well boys, I have decide to give up on phil. Retards are going to be retards and phil will always attract retards. Off to the next scammer.

do a flip

 

[clothes in my closet]

If you care about tips or who tips Phil, then get another hobby. The more attention you give them, the more they will do it. These boys want more attention than white girls on TikTok, if you don't give them attention, they will move on.

I agree with the sentiment that no one should get upset about people giving phil money. We also shouldnt obsess over certain paypigs.

When i started posting here everyone accused me of being the caffeinated faggot and wouldnt accept otherwise, no matter how many times i offered to talk to people to prove i wasnt, and asked for suggestions as to how i could prove this. The couple posts just now about "OIC! OIC! OIC!" show that retards like that do still live rent free in people's heads.

With that said, I personally find the dancing puppet show that phil puts on about the timing and methods in which people tip to be interesting.

Just a quick search on KF showed me that this TeamIcoGamer person has a history of having his $50 and $100 dollar tips specifically not triggering popup messages. This, combined with phils word salad about behind the scenes tips intrigued me. The idea of "never talk about tips!" seems pretty gay to me. If people didnt pay attention to things like this, we would never have known that phil's entire life is being uphelp by roughly 5 people , and if you want to get into semantics, we wouldn't have known that, despite this fact, the largest dividend of the money he spends is on mobile games. These are defining characteristics of the cow we try to draw milk from everyday. If we didn't have the monthly roundups from @actually and the tips tracker from @Piece of Peace then phil's streams and this subforum would probably look pretty different than it does today.

 

[Wasabi Panda]

Congratulations, Phil.

View attachment 3507857

Gee, I wonder what this is all about?

View attachment 3507860

Edit: for those unaware, he's talking about OBS, not actually playing Stray on his PC. Still, very much a HINT, HINT.

Hey phil, my cat too looked at the screen, jumped up to look closer and was like "oh...anyway I'm going to go lick where my balls were" the game makes cat sounds, cats can hear. Amazing I know, I also didn't have to lock in him a room with me.

And ya know what, sure. The PS5 is maxing out your CPU and causing your "rig" (the word he just learned and tries to sound smart) to stutter. sure why not. Makes sense, you win. Yes thats exactly how that works.

Dude is like a 80 year old man trying to be hip with the kids talking all the tech.

That setup tho...

View attachment 3508006

holy shit, why are all his consoles sideways or backwards? The layers of dust, no wonder he snorting so much. And those wires....yes. Yes I want to see him build a computer, I want to see his cable management. I think DSP builds a PC would be up there with, what was it, the Verge? PC building video.

Can Phil go a single game with black people in it without being really racist, especially in David Cage games?
I'm sure the pearl-clutchers at Reddit and dexerto would get a field day out of this one.


View attachment 3508774

someone should clip it, i dont know how. phil made bizarre sexual/genital jokes when there was a child on screen. in the voice of the child.

shit is fucking weird. hes gotta be a low key pedo. like fucking hell, does he think its funny?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXZoZjdeLBs

someone in DDM comment marked the timestaps so thanks to them.

the first "joke" happened at 1:42:42
and the 2nd happened at 1:58:16

and the weirdest one about the 2nd "joke" was how derich said that he really liked phils commentary tonight. fucking sick cunt.

You know, the people who complain about DSP not being fucked with and being protected are handed so many silver platters to get him where he won't brush it off and will make him visibly upset...his online presence and revenue. Yet they do nothing but complain no one else fucks with him.

Spoiler: Not saying people should do this-tism

Like this, not saying to do this buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut if a group of "concerned consumers" wanted to let their favorite brand of what ever know how unhappy and shocked they are that they would let youtube use this racist and possible pedo (the fuck is that about) to promote thier product. Also how youtube does nothing yadda yadda yadda memba "nerds" vs gawker's advertisers yadda yadda.

At worst nothing comes of it but it's just more ammo for the next inevitable and worse screw up as they seem to be gin fueled and ramping up, again, that pedo shit...wtf. At very best you possibly start a new adpocolypse, yes collateral damage but look who started it....one of the most hated people on youtube. I don't think he would recover from that, too much toxic shit people would dig up.

Or just sit back for the slow burn as each one of these slip ups gets weirder or worse as time goes on, eventually he'll have a Michael Richards meltdown. Like seriously, he seems to be more shit faced every night stream and now more often during the day.

 

[Quantum Diabetes]

So is like Jenna going to come back and be a funny wiggerette again or what?

 

[Yung Dalph]

The couple posts just now about "OIC! OIC! OIC!" show that retards like that do still live rent free in people's heads.

I have no idea why that mothafucka OIC gets so much attention here. He's so fucking boring and obviously attention whoring constantly. Why would you give him what he wants?

Also yes, I agree with your take here, and I think that a lot

The idea of "never talk about tips!" seems pretty gay to me.

This is one of those things like "how to be a detractor properly" that nobody can enforce as a policy, and people preaching about it in Fred fashion are usually annoying as fuck. When I read a whiners post about being salty at some faggot for troll tipping Phil, it almost makes me wish more people would do it so the whiners can keep whining. It changes the focus from laughing at DSP to laughing at the dudes who are supposed to be laughing at DSP, but instead have become whiners by themselves. It's more or less the suprcrzy effect where you get so butthurt that you become the laughing stock instead. You can bundle those whiners along with the "Phil won" crowd who cry about every time he gets over $100 like it was out of their pocket.

It's super redundant to point this out, but regardless of how much money he gets, and no matter who he gets it from, DSP will never be satisfied, will never manage to save it, value it, and be smart with it. You should know this by default. And the bahttam line is that the joke is on losers like OIC and planet Jeff, who some day will realize they meant nothing to Phil and all that money was just enabling a fat faggot to waste away his life. And that's good. The later they find that out, the better. They all find out eventually.