TGWTG Tony Goldmark / "Some Jerk with A Camera" - Some Jerk with a Trust Fund

Robot Holocaust said:
M4X96aG.png

pc0Vj1Z.png

He really does have no self-awareness.
Click to expand...

"We really need a name for..." hey, I gotta idear, let's call it "Tony Goldmark Syndrome". Or Autism. That works too.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Troonologist PhD, Kosher Salt, BlueSpark and 1 other person
Nietzsche was considered more depressing than him being an asshole. There's a story where it was either Walter Kaufman or another translator/philosopher who was either translating or working on Nietzsche's work and he met Einstein. Einstein asks him what he's working on and the guy said Nietzsche and Einstein said "That's too bad." And felt sorry for the guy.

His last work the Antichrist could be considered trolling because it was his final word on condemning Christianity. Too bad he never seemed to understand Islam besides only at a cursory level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Troonologist PhD
AnOminous said:
iF you have an ounce of normie blood in you, you'd probably consider Nietzsche a crazy son of a bitch if he were in your family.

It's only thanks to generations of philosophers, i.e. exceptional individuals, that he's considered so great today.

He was an asshole who said awful things! People liked them!

There was this guy named Socrates who also trolled the fuck out of his own society to the point he forced them to murder him and betray the democratic ideals that he himself was mocking.

They were like, freedom is awesome, everyone should be able to say anything.

And then Socrates was like hold my beer, lemme do this thing, watch me.
Click to expand...

If Chris had murdered Clyde Cash, would you say he was forced to?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Robot Holocaust and BrunoMattei
Pointless Pedant said:
If Chris had murdered Clyde Cash, would you say he was forced to?
Click to expand...

This is the modern "If a tree falls in the woods and no one's around. Does it make a sound?"

Also, to continue on a notable figure/philosopher/whatever whose' words are twisted around. I just remembered that it was discovered that one of the big publishers of Bukowski's work altered the material to make it less profane (yes, really).

https://mjpbooks.com/blog/the-sense...is-ghost-by-john-martins-black-sparrow-press/
 
Last edited:
Plus, that's the stupidest definition of stupidity ever. It's more like an impaired capacity to absorb knowledge in the first place.
 
Robot Holocaust said:
E2LCnjl.png
Click to expand...

Oh Tony, in any context of the word, no matter what way you spin it, despite all your pathetic mental gymnastics, you're still just a stupid Assburger. You've always been a stupid Assburger, you'll always be a stupid Assburger, and you're gonna die a stupid Assburger.

Replicant Sasquatch said:
These two fat slobs should just kiss each other already.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I mean, it's not like they're ever going to find women. Might as well take what they can get. At least they'll have a lot in common, and that's important for a healthy and successful relationship.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Troonologist PhD, Bridge to Nowhere, Kosher Salt and 1 other person
Robot Holocaust said:
QXrT1c0.png
XxFSBGc.png

I guess a broken clock is right twice a day...
Click to expand...

What's he right about? He's blaming pro-Trump protestors and saying they deserve it when a gang of black-masked thugs show up and start throwing bottles at them.

Also he thinks people exercising their First Amendment right to assembly isn't a free speech issue.

And he's claiming if people "want free speech" they should limit it to the internet and implies doing it anywhere else is cowardly. This obese shekel-grubber is still blatantly advocating for censorship and anti-Constitution ideology.
 
  • Agree
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Troonologist PhD, Irwin M. Felcher, El Porko Fako and 1 other person
Replicant Sasquatch said:
What's he right about? He's blaming pro-Trump protestors and saying they deserve it when a gang of black-masked thugs show up and start throwing bottles at them.

Also he thinks people exercising their First Amendment right to assembly isn't a free speech issue.

And he's claiming if people "want free speech" they should limit it to the internet and implies doing it anywhere else is cowardly. This obese shekel-grubber is still blatantly advocating for censorship and anti-Constitution ideology.
Click to expand...

It was sarcasm over the stupidity of his tweets.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: The Dude
Replicant Sasquatch said:
What's he right about? He's blaming pro-Trump protestors and saying they deserve it when a gang of black-masked thugs show up and start throwing bottles at them.

Also he thinks people exercising their First Amendment right to assembly isn't a free speech issue.

And he's claiming if people "want free speech" they should limit it to the internet and implies doing it anywhere else is cowardly. This obese shekel-grubber is still blatantly advocating for censorship and anti-Constitution ideology.
Click to expand...


It's funny how Tony thinks free speech should only be allowed on the internet when he probably thinks the Second Amendment only protects the right to own muskets since those were the only types of firearms that were around when the Framers drafted the Bill of Rights.

But, sorry Tony, you're wrong again. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with someone's political opinions, they still have the right to exercise their free speech and right to assemble. The Anti-Fa scum are completely in the wrong here. They were the first to start using violence. They've been the ones using violent rhetoric. They have been the ones disrupting communities. They have been the ones doing all they can to infringe on other peoples' right to express their free speech and right to peacefully assemble. It doesn't matter if they're assembling at a notoriously far-Left college, because that college collects federal funding to operate and has a duty to allow anyone and everyone to assemble peacefully and exercise their right to free speech.

You can't just cherry pick from the Constitution or apply it only to the things or people you agree with. The Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is an all or nothing deal. This is something both sides of the political spectrum seem to struggle with, but the Left seems to have real difficulty understanding it and will outright try to rewrite history to make the Constitution and the meaning of the Framers to try to support their political ideology.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Troonologist PhD, Bridge to Nowhere, Kosher Salt and 8 others
The Dude said:
It's funny how Tony thinks free speech should only be allowed on the internet when he probably thinks the Second Amendment only protects the right to own muskets since those were the only types of firearms that were around when the Framers drafted the Bill of Rights.

But, sorry Tony, you're wrong again. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with someone's political opinions, they still have the right to exercise their free speech and right to assemble. The Anti-Fa scum are completely in the wrong here. They were the first to start using violence. They've been the ones using violent rhetoric. They have been the ones disrupting communities. They have been the ones doing all they can to infringe on other peoples' right to express their free speech and right to peacefully assemble. It doesn't matter if they're assembling at a notoriously far-Left college, because that college collects federal funding to operate and has a duty to allow anyone and everyone to assemble peacefully and exercise their right to free speech.

You can't just cherry pick from the Constitution or apply it only to the things or people you agree with. The Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is an all or nothing deal. This is something both sides of the political spectrum seem to struggle with, but the Left seems to have real difficulty understanding it and will outright try to rewrite history to make the Constitution and the meaning of the Framers to try to support their political ideology.
Click to expand...

Their rational for curbing free speech or forcing a "no-platform" position is complete dogshit too. They say it's no longer free speech when you're "inciting violence". This is bogus for two reasons:
1) The anti-fa faggots are the ones being violent
2) Who gets to decide when someone is or isn't inciting violence with their words?

Their justification for denying these people free expression and assembly is completely, undeniable, irrevocably, 100 per-fucking-cent the exact same logic Southern governments used to prosecute and jail anti-slavery activists.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Troonologist PhD, Bridge to Nowhere, Kosher Salt and 5 others
Replicant Sasquatch said:
Their rational for curbing free speech or forcing a "no-platform" position is complete dogshit too. They say it's no longer free speech when you're "inciting violence". This is bogus for two reasons:
1) The anti-fa faggots are the ones being violent
2) Who gets to decide when someone is or isn't inciting violence with their words?

Their rational for denying these people free expression and assembly is completely, undeniable, irrevocably, 100 per-fucking-cent the exact same logic Southern governments used to prosecute and jail anti-slavery activists.
Click to expand...
Hey, you are what you hate.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Y2K Baby
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back