Margaret Pless / idlediletante / Stan - Official Kiwi Farms Advertiser and Enthusiast Who Has Proudly Eaten Ass. Now Posting Her Tits to Own the Troons!

[Otterly]

unlike the Mary Sues in Austen's works, who are always clever, sweet, and talented.

Austen’s characters have flaws - the entire Bennet clan are a mess. The mother is a neurotic loud mess. Lizzie and Jane are the nicest of the bunch but Lizzie is prejudiced, and is brought to heel. Jane is too sweet and passive and almost bottles it.
Mary is awful, kitty is an idiot and Lydia is a slag. It’s a very good book, and Mr. Bennet is one of my favourite literary characters. I can see why he retreats to his library

 

[Stan]

Competition is good, but only if it benefits people of my own phenotype and cultural extraction.

FTFY

The country is always supposed to be defined by a majority ethnic group. It's not purely biological. For example I'm like half German/Hungarian, but that's irrelevant as I don't speak their languages well at all and strongly identify with Romanian history and its struggles to shake off imperial powers like Austria-Hungary.

Honestly, this just makes things more confusing for me. It's all well and good to define Japan as an ethnostate: they're on an island and were very isolated for much of their history, so that Japanese are pretty much all of the same lineage. But your neat little theory breaks down when you apply it to larger continental systems.

For example: I got my DNA tested by 23andme as a graduation present, and it returned a result that I was "71% northern European", which is a genotype that broadly covers England, France, Ireland, Scotland, and Germany. So even though these countries are culturally distinct, they're genetically quite homogenous. You yourself come from two countries but because of culture, consider yourself a citizen of a different nation.

So which is it, man? Are you a German, or a Hungarian because your family was?
Or are you Romanian because you (heh) identify as one?

Most of the time I think you are just trying to intellectualize racism, because I doubt you're actually that concerned about white Europeans moving around within the EU; but you care a whole lot when non-whites immigrate to Europa.

I know you're baiting and shitposting, but I am not surprised to see a WASP progressive eventually finding out their pulyoselfbythebootstraps capitalist side.

I'm actually quoting Das Kapital. Every Marx has his Engels.

"Capital accrues capital" is just a statement of fact, like Newtonian laws of acceleration. Banks don't want to loan to poor people; they want to loan to rich people who can reliably repay them, banks will loan money at lower interest rates to rich people than to poor ones to account for the risk of defaulting. So not only can rich people borrow more, it costs them less to do it.

Industrialists reinvest in their factory, the factory produces more Thneeds per hour, and in turn the industrialist accrues more capital as a result of investment. It can even happen passively: you don't have to be particularly well read in finance to know that if you put your money in a savings account, it accrues interest.

I don't like it, but it is what it is, and fwiw capitalism has done more for everyone's standard of living across the world than feudalism could. and communism-style command economies to date can't compete with the swiftness of price signalling in capitalist ones.

TIL not wanting to have shitty OpSec means your opinions are somehow null and void. This is the most boomer fucking take in the history of the Internet.

If you only share your opinions anonymously, do you even have any? I'm serious.

It's perfectly fine to put your name beside HR approved opinions.

There's a quote attributed to Cardinal Richelieu; "Give me six lines written by the most honest man in France and I shall find in them enough to have him hanged".

Austen’s characters have flaws - the entire Bennet clan are a mess. The mother is a neurotic loud mess. Lizzie and Jane are the nicest of the bunch but Lizzie is prejudiced, and is brought to heel. Jane is too sweet and passive and almost bottles it.
Mary is awful, kitty is an idiot and Lydia is a slag. It’s a very good book, and Mr. Bennet is one of my favourite literary characters. I can see why he retreats to his library

Mr. Bennett is under a lot of stress all those bickering females...

You have no one to blame but yourself.

That's not right. I can absolutely blame Lemmingwiser, because he spilled the beans.

More than one person claiming to be Jewish (persuasively so) says you don't know jack shit about Judaism. I take there word for it. See an admission whereby you admit that you longed to be Jewish but realized you could not.

Of course the two arrogant Jews here say that. They are salty that I know what I know.

HA! HA!

Cruel and stupid of you tbh.
I tried to convert and I couldn't, and it was a really sad situation all around. But eh, better to have loved and lost than be you.

Would be a shame if or when they catch wind of this thread you stupidly keep bumping to the top.

That's real cute of you. It's the sort of expression that makes it pretty easy on my conscience to say "Kiwi Farmers like to harass their cows by emailing their employers."

 

[The Ugly One]

Jane is too sweet and passive and almost bottles it.

Jane is the Mary Sue, and her problems stem from being too perfect for all the second-rate men around her. Fortunately, ultra-zillionaire Mr Darcy was good enough for her, and finally realized it (and made her fabulously wealthy).

 

[Otterly]

Jane is the Mary Sue, and her problems stem from being too perfect for all the second-rate men around her. Fortunately, ultra-zillionaire Mr Darcy was good enough for her, and finally realized it (and made her fabulously wealthy).

Jane marries Mr. Bingley. Jane is a foil for Lizzie, Jane’s sweetness is needed because it’s that which Lizzie’s hasty judgements damage. If Jane was as independent as Lizzie she’d have bagged Bingley herself, but she can’t because her flaw is her being too timid.
Austen was a keen observer of humans, and there’s a great line from Mr. Bennet which reminds me of the farms, ‘For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn?”
Anyway, I’m off topic

 

[Marble Jack]

Dear Stan,

I have shared my opinions with you in this thread. Quite respectfully, I might add. Please feel free to search my post history to read them. The reason I do not post my name and address isn't out of fear of simple reprisal; it's just good common sense. The less of an internet footprint you have, the less of a profile can be created about you by anyone; benevolent or nefarious.

My consistent takes in regarding to most specifically DEI in gaming isn't that it's not totally unwarranted as I do believe representation matters if it makes sense. Forced inserts of cookie-cutter and mostly left-leaning ideological personas into any genre are jarring at best and world-breaking at worst. The reason for this is because almost all of these characters do not possess the necessary capability of self-awareness or self-reflection needed, not just to bypass an obstacle, but to overcome their own personal hurdles. Injecting a Mary or Marty Sue Infallible to shame other characters purely for existing is ham-fisted writing and a terrible way to get any message across.

If a character has no arc other than to "just be themselves", are they worth playing?

Cordially,

Marble Jack

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

Good one! I laughed fr. In the nice way.

Today you became a woman.

Ok, so you concede the points.

Lol, never have. Can't imagine. (On the contrary, I have lost more money covering men than most people earn in multiple years. As I've said, I acknowledge my poor discernment and decisionmaking on that front.)

Good for you.

I was actually talking about work as well.

And why did you bring up the 19th? Which is solely political and has no bases on employment and in what areas. Regardless, if current outcomes are any indication, exclusion was never an injustice.

A little history? The short answer is that even actually fighting on the front lines is not and has never been a United States requirement for voting status, much less merely being hypothetically conscripted.

It is actually. Failure to register for selective service (the draft) is a felony crime and can result in disenfranchisement if convicted.

So blame young white men without property if you hate broad voting rights!

Why? They were already expected to fight for their government, why shouldn't they have a say in that government? Which is completely different than women's equality (without actual equality) reasons for equal voting.

Property/tax requirements (and other barriers) slowly and raggedly fell off, and then we realized that adults other than white men were also due the fundamental rights on which the country and government were premised

Problem here is that those requirements were removed because of the understanding white men regardless of economic circumstances where already obligated to fight for the government.

If you want to move away from associations (limiting voting to mere draft eligibility [yikes what about people with heel spurs?!]) that have never been part of the United States of America, we could go back to property ownership being the primary criterion. I'm covered.

Lmao, you do realize they would take men with bone spurs if they desperately needed men, right? That wouldn't be a bases on which to deny men voting rights. Trump would be fine.

But we've already established that property ownership as the criterion does not mesh with the Constitution or the spirit of the country. So that's out.

No you haven't actually done that. You said people argued for it. Not that it violates the constitution, which it doesn't or didn't at the time, otherwise it would not have been a state by state matter. The states got to set the requirements for voting and could qualify or disqualify as they saw fit.

That aside, and back to what the country's about: voting has never been dependent (minor example above notwithstanding) on draft eligibility, or even participation. In fact, the association is the opposite: the voting age was lowered to 18 during the Vietnam War because people who could join the military and potentially die for the country had no say at the polls. Instead of limiting voting by association with war, the United States considers voting so fundamental that it was determined that it needed to be expanded to people old enough to join the service (voluntarily or otherwise). It's a nuanced difference, maybe, but it is utterly key.

Imagine citing the 26th amendment and missing the point. The draft age at the start of the Vietnam war was 21, or the national voting age. As it was in Korea, world war two and world war one. In all those wars, the draft age was lowered to 18 to meet the needs of the military. And as has already been pointed out, failure to register now is a felony that can result in disfranchisement. Eligibility to vote as a man is dependent on your willingness to serve the nation in war. Something women haven't been required to do despite over 100 years of voting in federal elections.

As for women cheering men who were against (or in Congress voting against it/working against) the 19th Amendment/its purpose, I am not sure what you're wanting me to object to.

That the "The "war*" started with one sex arrogating to itself to decide what the other is capable of, and where they "belong."" wasn't in fact a decision made by one side but a mutual agreement reached by both parties as to their place in the grand scheme, and one a lot of supposedly "strong-independent" women still insist upon.

 

[Begemot]

@Stan if you poorshame me some more I’ll have to keep some old, rich woman company. You wouldn’t want my brand of annoyance towards another woman do you?

She wants a harem of aimless chuds to disdain, don't fall for her wiles!!!

 

[Stan]

She reminds me of lesser nobility in Jane Austen books/movies whining that they're too poor to afford enough servants to live the idle lives they feel entitled to. The servants, of course, were born to work their fingers to the bone. We're supposed to feel sorry for the rich lady who's struggling to find a sufficiently rich and handsome baron to marry.

I don't think I complain about not having a private jet or w/e, but it's nice that you recognize me as being of a higher social station than you. That said, I'm spoken for.

The reason I do not post my name and address isn't out of fear of simple reprisal; it's just good common sense. The less of an internet footprint you have, the less of a profile can be created about you by anyone; benevolent or nefarious.

Eh, fair enough, I don't fundamentally disagree.

My consistent takes in regarding to most specifically DEI in gaming isn't that it's not totally unwarranted as I do believe representation matters if it makes sense. Forced inserts of cookie-cutter and mostly left-leaning ideological personas into any genre are jarring at best and world-breaking at worst.

I agree with you there. I don't think anyone wants poorly written token characters shoved into their media. But that is bad DEI, just hamhanded liberal sloppiness. Good DEI should be seamless enough that you don't really notice it. (Like how the Khajeet in Skyrim or the Traveling Merchants in Elden Ring are coded Gypsies.)

And I disagree with the slippery-slope argument that if your video games (or shows, or whatever) pass the Bechdel Test, they will be full of obvious DEI inserts and no longer fun. Maybe a few of them turn out this way, but not every game or novel is a good one. You can separate the dross from the good stuff without disavowing the idea that it's can be nice, interesting, or useful to include non-white, non-male, or disabled characters in your story.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Honestly, this just makes things more confusing for me. It's all well and good to define Japan as an ethnostate: they're on an island and were very isolated for much of their history, so that Japanese are pretty much all of the same lineage. But your neat little theory breaks down when you apply it to larger continental systems.

Not really, you're intentionally muddying the waters.
Is Ireland an ethnostate? Should UK be allowed to forcefully remove the PoCs?
You'll say no, because you have two measures, one for whites, which you fear will coalesce as a right wing movement, and one for the non-whites, which are allowed to have their non-threatening ethnic states.
It's just us, Europeans, that are supposed to welcome diversity and be slaves to neoliberalism, so YOU can feel safe.

So which is it, man? Are you a German, or a Hungarian because your family was?
Or are you Romanian because you (heh) identify as one?

I am a Romanian first, at the same time we are a nation at the intersection of empires, so it's expected from me to be an impure Yuromutt, which I embraced long ago. I could've went to a German school; I could've migrated (I still can) to Austria or Germany, and I could've worked for 5 times the amount I make here. I choose to stay. I visited. Not impressed. Western parts of the EU are... less than ideal.
The genetics of Europe are largely mixed. There are genetic maps out there. I don't really see a problem with that, as some genetic diversity is desirable, and Europe is large enough to absorb some foreign blood. But we Europeans should determine how much, from where, and only if it benefits us.

Most of the time I think you are just trying to intellectualize racism, because I doubt you're actually that concerned about white Europeans moving around within the EU; but you care a whole lot when non-whites immigrate to Europa.

"You are racist".
Well, yes, but as I explained numerous times, not in the way you understand it. When I was a point guard half the team was black and back then they were exceptionally rare here, and we were friends. No I don't mind Europeans moving in the EU (too much). I am OK with receiving even millions of Ukrainians fleeing the war. But they do have to behave, and they are still guests, until they integrate and eventually renounce their Slavic heritage, if they wanna remain here.
The more foreign, the more alien the population, the more controls on its movement.
And at all times, there must be a clear us. My country's constitution is literally conceived for an ethnic state. It used to be even harsher in terms, but NATO and EU happened and infected it some with civic nationalism /spit.
Europe is for European whites first, and above all else. This is our land and we are indigenous here. We should make the rules at all times, and we should also band together as needed in face of a changing planet with large enemies like Russia. Ideally, the US would be also part of this pan-European alliance.

 

[Stan]

You'll say no, because you have two measures, one for whites, which you fear will coalesce as a right wing movement, and one for the non-whites, which are allowed to have their non-threatening ethnic states

Forgive me for being more concerned about neofascism in Amerika than I am about Japanese being strict about their citizenship. If your model of an ideal racially pure society only works with little bitty isolated island states, then it doesn’t work at all.

impure Yuromutt, which I embraced long ago. I could've went to a German school;

The genetics of Europe are largely mixed. There are genetic maps out there. I don't really see a problem with that, as some genetic diversity is desirable, and Europe is large enough to absorb some foreign blood. But we Europeans should determine how much, from where, and only if it benefits us.

Okay so if you Euromutts have genetics mixed like a meatball blend (pork, veal & beef ground together) why shouldn’t all of you just embrace one National identity?. If culture is the only thing that makes you distinct from a German, how are you supposed to build an ethnostate? Because anybody can learn culture if you sit them in it long enough. This is like troonery, you identify as a Romanian but you’re really a bit of everything, not to insult your admirable patriotism. But this “X for the Xaens” tautology seems like bit of a LARP in the Eurozone.

Europe is for European whites first, and above all else. This is our land and we are indigenous here. We should make the rules at all times, and we should also band together as needed in face of a changing planet with large enemies like Russia. Ideally, the US would be also part of this pan-European alliance.

“Europeans should make all the rules for Europe at all times. I want a Europe-only country.”
“I hope the Amerikans will join our European ethnostate and protect us from Russia”
syduck:

"You are racist".
Well, yes, but as I explained numerous times, not in the way you understand it. When I was a point guard half the team was black and back then they were exceptionally rare here, and we were friends.

“I like individual black people, but I collectively resent their presence in my country”
It’s a common conservative take but it’s a bit slimy of you.

 

[Shidoen]

I like being racist, I don’t have to talk to people I don’t like and I can talk to people I do like.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

[retarded harridanry]

Czechloslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. If they preferred to separate, what makes you think everyone else doesn't.

And why is it only a problem when whites want to be distinct from brownies, and not, say, for Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

Why don't you ask hubby if chinks want to integrate with pajeets or gooks.

 

[AgendaPoster]

If culture is the only thing that makes you distinct from a German, how are you supposed to build an ethnostate? Because anybody can learn culture if you sit them in it long enough. This is like troonery, you identify as a Romanian but you’re really a bit of everything, not to insult your admirable patriotism. But this “X for the Xaens” tautology seems like bit of a LARP in the Eurozone.

Simply, by excluding people that we desire to.
And stop this pointless deconstruction, it's so irrelevant.
99% identical Russians and Ukrainians die by the thousands because of an ethnic conflict.
When shit hits the fan, you will find out who you are.
I am not patriotic at all, BTW, I don't even like my country much lmao.
You are so brainwashed by your American ideology and idealization of the Jewish-designed melting pot (that's accurate, not conspiracy) that you see evil each time whites are trying to become exclusionary.
You're correct to fear fascism, but if you refuse to allow even dumb lolberts and cuckservatards to have their own patch of land without blacks, Jews and deviant sexual minorities, they will have to become fascist as a necessity.

“I like individual black people, but I collectively resent their presence in my country”

No, I am TOLERATING some of them, on MY TERMS, in MY country, but they are forever alien and foreign.
I tolerate because I understand that some cultural and genetic mixing is inevitable, but again, all should be strictly controlled and monitored.
I have no desire to go be accepted in Sudan either.
Also, when I visited one of my friends in Syria I acted in a manner that made it clear that I am a foreigner and that I will respect their local customs. I was not there to deconstruct, I was not there to enrich their culture. I was there to learn and adapt, and enjoy something exotic.
And it worked miracles. People open up so fast if you show them respect and consideration. You should try it sometimes, instead of trying to deconstruct them.

 

[stupid frog]

Maggie is incapable of having any kind of discussion in good faith. She will lie when she feels it benefits her. Then she whines that people don’t take her seriously.

I wonder why people believe she is Jewish.

 

[AgendaPoster]

You still have not responded to the easy question:
Are you OK with Ireland being run like Japan, and foreigners removed from it until only a tiny percentage remains, similar to Japan's?
Islands, yeah?

 

[Stan]

99% identical Russians and Ukrainians die by the thousands because of an ethnic conflict.

Ukrainians didn't have a strong national self-concept until Russia tried to decapitate them. As you may recall, on the eve of... February 2022 () there were a minority of Ukrainians who identified as Russians and were in favor of invasion. They fled into Belarus iirc?

correct me if I am wrong but I thought the postwar and post-USSR were decided upon pretty recently; you and I were both born before the Fall of the Soviet Union. So the borders and national identity of all of youse states is a little muddled and fucked after 69 years of increasingly centralized Soviet control, no?

Am I deconstructing, or are you fabricating a national identity for yourself?

Simply, by excluding people that we desire to.
And stop this pointless deconstruction, it's so irrelevant.

No, I am TOLERATING some of them, on MY TERMS, in MY country, but they are forever alien and foreign.

https://youtu.be/Qzh_z6-097g?t=789

You are the impostor!
You are the impostor!
Stop-- that, brown-skinned-toned body IMPOSTOR AND OUTSIDER who I only TOLERATE, on MY TERMS, in MY country, and deport him nownownow NOW!

And while that was a joke, there's another problem with your ethnic cleansing, mein Freund. What are you going to do with all the miscegenated? Where do they fit in this concept of the nations of the world as a bunch of neat little compartments in a bento box? The half-Turk, half-German, the African people born in Paris, the half-Polish-Scottish-American, half-Chinese baby who looks not quite like either. That seems like a substantial number of people, depending on how you want to phrase your Reinheitsgebot. Where do these misfits belong? And I haven't even gotten to the Jewish war heroes...

You still have not responded to the easy question:
Are you OK with Ireland being run like Japan, and foreigners removed from it until only a tiny percentage remains, similar to Japan's?
Islands, yeah?

:drunken Scottish brogue: I hope those Micks and Taigs mairie their cousins 'til thay keek lik' th' Hapsburg Dynasty an' are a bawhair from dyin' oot.

 

[Gay Baby Jailer]

but it's nice that you recognize me as being of a higher social station than you.

I don't know how you can post this when your house is paid for by another person.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Ukrainians didn't have a strong national self-concept until Russia tried to decapitate them. As you may recall, on the eve of... February 2022 () there were a minority of Ukrainians who identified as Russians and were in favor of invasion. They fled into Belarus iirc?

correct me if I am wrong but I thought the postwar and post-USSR were decided upon pretty recently; you and I were both born before the Fall of the Soviet Union. So the borders and national identity of all of youse states is a little muddled and fucked after 69 years of increasingly centralized Soviet control, no?

Am I deconstructing, or are you fabricating a national identity for yourself?

You are deconstructing, cause you cannot ever discuss ethnic nationalism seriously, as it's haram for you and the ideologies you embrace. It's the essence of evil.
Now.
You might want to google Kievan Rus. You might want to read more on Ukrainian ethnonationalism, and why it allied with the Nazis to fight off the USSR. Just like Romania. Wonder why.
You also want to watch Adam Curtis' (very liberal, so should be easy on you) movies about the USSR collapse and the rise of ethnic nationalism in all those republics.
You also want to read on Russification and how the gulags were used against right wingers. People like me, that wanted to shake off these monstrous multicultural empires. You may want to read on how the Soviets moved millions of people across their large country so they lose their blood&soil belonging.
Yes, the Russians, as an imperial people, like the US, fear ethnonationalism as much as you do. They are scared of it. Which is great. They should live in fear of the "nazis" until all lands they stole are relinquished.
Ukraine is a bit of a made up country, courtesy of these Soviet politics. Parts of Hungary, Romania etc. were given to it. Ukraine also fought with Russia against Romanian ethnonationalists in Moldova, hence Transnistria.
Yes, that is complicated for the average American. Not so much for us in the area.
Yet, we cannot allow annexations after we fought 2 WWs with so much bloodshed because of imperialism. I see this pragmatically. Why would I want back Bukovina? Why want revenge against Ukrainians for their collaboration with Russia? Best to understand the real threat, the empire nearby.

there's another problem with your ethnic cleansing, mein Freund. What are you going to do with all the miscegenated? Where do they fit in this concept of the nations of the world as a bunch of neat little compartments in a bento box? The half-Turk, half-German, the African people born in Paris, the half-Polish-Scottish-American, half-Chinese baby who looks not quite like either. That seems like a substantial number of people, depending on how you want to phrase your Reinheitsgebot. Where do these misfits belong? And I haven't even gotten to the Jewish war heroes...

People that want to stay in Europe must integrate.
Gone will be all deconstruction and dindu rebellion, hatred for natives will be punishable by immediate deportation.
A job will be required. All welfare will be cut for non-natives.
Foreign identities will be assumed to be temporary while integration and assimilation takes place.
Mind you, Marge - this was literally the progressive, liberal position in the 90s.
So I am lenient, very much so.
In time, reproduction will wash away all their peculiarities. Or death, if they can't reproduce.

:drunken Scottish brogue: I hope those Micks and Taigs mairie their cousins 'til thay keek lik' th' Hapsburg Dynasty an' are a bawhair from dyin' oot.

Of course.
Dismissal is the norm when you are cornered into an impossible position.
You could just say that Ireland is supposed to be colonized and its European natives slowly brownified.
Just say it. It's OK. Even if you don't, people will understand why you refuse to allow them their island in isolation.
BTW they're like 5M, and they can import other Europeans if needed. So they will not die out. And they have enough genetic health.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

Ukrainians didn't have a strong national self-concept until Russia tried to decapitate them.

Absolutely incorrect. Western Ukrainians speak their Ukrainian dialect made up of Polish, German, Ruthenian and Russian; others speak Russian/Russian country dialect. They had solid identities as Western Ukrainians in Galicia and former Polish states and Eastern Ukrainians of Russian ethnicity, in the former Russian lands of Crimea, the Donbass, Kharkov, Odessa, etc.

As you may recall, on the eve of... February 2022 () there were a minority of Ukrainians who identified as Russians and were in favor of invasion. They fled into Belarus iirc?

The conflict began in 2014 when the Russian ethnics in Donetsk and Lughansk declared independence in response to the US instigated Maidan coup that year. The Azov battalion was destroyed in the Battle of Debaltsevo in 2015, it's on its fourth or fifth iteration.

Russian ethnic Ukrainians are a majority in what were the eastern oblasts of Ukraine; Donetsk and Lughansk voted to join the Russian Federation in 2023.

So the borders and national identity of all of youse states is a little muddled and fucked after 69 years of increasingly centralized US interference and glownigger control, no?

ftfy

For a journo you are incredibly ignorant of world events.

the Russians, as an imperial people, like the US, fear ethnonationalism as much as you do. They are scared of it.

Nigger, Russia is a multi-ethnic nation, always has been. There are 190 ethnic groups in the Russian Federation. Russia dgaf.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Nigger, Russia is a multi-ethnic nation, always has been. There are 190 ethnic groups in the Russian Federation. Russia dgaf.

Absolutely horrifying.
But we have a thread for slapfights on this issue.
As long as I'm accurate in what I state, all should be fine. You're OK with some imperialism, I just hate all of it, the closer it is to me, the more dangerous, you know the mantra