Harvey Weinstein = Hollywood dumpster fire.

degenerate423 said:
They are outspoken when it’s “convenient.”
Click to expand...

Well she’s a hypocrite for working with barnes and lampley. As far as her being a racist, people will believe what they want about her. What she said about rapist winston, I agree with all of it.
 
hand2handking said:
terry crews kept it 1 million

said he's seen black men get provoked into violence or responding to violence get arrested or killed
Click to expand...

Maximus Meridius said:
I respect what Terry Crew is doing. A lot of people wanna say "he shoulda beat the hell outta that guy" and yeah that weirdo deserved to get his *** beat but Terry Crews would probably still be locked up if he did that. I can also understand this way of handling it.
Click to expand...

Just hope these snakes don't blacklist Terry Crews from any future TV or film once his current gigs are up.
 
vood99 said:
Just hope these snakes don't blacklist Terry Crews from any future TV or film once his current gigs are up.
Click to expand...
I was a little surprised to see him out still promoting shows and movies.

Russell Simmons need to explain why he was emailing Terry on some "give the guy a pass" stuff. That's real disrespectful.
 
Maximus Meridius said:
I was a little surprised to see him out still promoting shows and movies.

Russell Simmons need to explain why he was emailing Terry on some "give the guy a pass" stuff. That's real disrespectful.
Click to expand...
russell simmons is a piece of **** that needs to get his *** whooped.

laughing at dumb *** 50 cent mocking crews. both them ****** prolly was sexually assaulting young african americans in the business for years too.

give him a pass smh
 
The Woman Who Thinks Reducing the Male Population by 90 Percent Will Solve Everything
is-reducing-the-male-population-by-90-percent-the-solution-to-all-our-problems-1480460303.jpg

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...y-90-percent-the-solution-to-all-our-problems

The Femitheist is a 22-year-old criminology student with a three-year-old. One angry day in 2012 she took to the Internet to outline the brutal concept of International Castration Day. After posting it on YouTube she stepped out for a coffee. Returning home a few hours later, she found that all gnashing male hell had broken loose.

Her argument was that only through the reduction of the male population to between 1 and 10 percent of their current number we can approach "true equality".

While she now derides International Castration day as silly, the internet had met The Femitheist. Two years later she is an emergent cult leader, a ball-stepping villainess, or clear-thinking realist—depending who you ask. Today she continues to support the reduction of the male population and generally courts outrage and devotion through her website and YouTube channel. She's also 200 pages into what she's hoping will be her 700 page manifesto outlining the philosophy of Femitheism. It's tentatively titled The Ratio.

VICE: I assume The Ratio refers to your belief the male population should be reduced to between by 90 percent.
The Femitheist: I believe that conventional equality, with a 50/50 female-to-male ratio, is an inferior system. Essentially my ideas lead to men being made a special class—a far more valued class—having choice of a myriad of women due to the difference in sex ratio. That is my intention. Men would be made more valuable, and their quality of life would be dramatically improved. They would have a subsidised existence if you will, akin to going on an all-expenses paid vacation that lasts from birth to death.

Assuming people are down for that, how could you reduce the male population by that much? Are you talking culling or selective breeding over years?
Obviously men comprise a substantial portion of the victims of violent crime and participate heavily in war, so there will always be deaths there—but certainly not culling. I don't advocate selective slaughter or brutal processes.

Advertisement
So how would you achieve it?
Further research into designer babies will be necessary: manipulating gender or sex, prenatal sex discernment, sex-selective abortions, development of dual-female progeny (babies created from two mothers), and numerous other mechanisms will be utilised in order to achieve these aspirations. They won't be enforced or mandated to achieve the goal in the short-term, but merely heavily encouraged in the early stages. Unless one opposes abortion, there's little ethical reason to find that too outrageous a proposition. The maths has already been done on all of the genetic and population-sustainment-related issues: population bottleneck, inbreeding, mutations, et cetera. Everything works out in favour of my ideas. I've been meticulous and cautious. I've had the work reviewed by people who are experts—or at least extremely knowledgeable—in biology and genetics, and I've received confirmation that it all works out.

That's in theory, what about in practice?
It'll require the re-teaching of everyone—female and male—in classrooms, homes, through literature, media, art, and networks. It is a process that would take decades, generations, and perhaps even a few centuries. Nevertheless, these are things that should be done to forge a new and vastly superior world. My mission is to devise and describe a framework for the carrying out and success of such objectives.


What kind of men would you choose for breeding? Dou you base selection on physical or mental characteristics?
The most suitable men would simply be those who are fit in both body and mind. This is also related to genetic modification.

Genetic engineering is already taking place by way of tests given to couples when they marry to prevent the passing of dangerous genetic material. There is no doubt such concepts will expand as we understand more about how the genome actually works. Healthy and fit men will always be ideal, but not "brutes," which has more to do with mental attributes than physical. Anyone can lift weights. Any criteria decided upon as the quintessential grade would have to be extensively defined and revised as time goes on, or as science advances and the human species and its needs evolve.

Would men be kept in isolation like stud horses?
I believe we must remove men from the community and place them in their own specific sections of society, akin to subsidised or state-funded reservations, so they can be redefined. We can make not only men safer, but women as well. By subsidising said reservations through the state we can provide men with activities, healthcare, entertainment, shelter, protection, and everything that one could ever require in life. This will remove conventional inequality from society. By reducing the number of men to 10 percent of the total population, their socio-biovalue will be raised. They will live out their lives happily and safely, and male disposability will be a thing of the past.


But don't men have value beyond breeding?
If technology has not advanced to a point where labour can be done without men, the few men that are necessary for said labour will be allowed to work on the outside of the reservations to complete whatever tasks necessary—if they wish.

Like slaves?
Not as slaves, simply as workers performing a duty, in the same way workers today do. Only without the need for monetary reimbursement as they would have no need for such a thing. This would be highly monitored and regulated.

What about the ambitions of the individual? Some men may aspire to more than luxury breeding pens.
Some would argue it would be a dystopian world because it wouldn't be free in the present conventional sense. However that is misguided. It will be utopian because it will be a world almost without conflict where people cooperate and are treated properly within a well-engineered and long-forged system. If everything is great for almost everyone the point is null. Survival and socio-organic wellbeing are the most important elements in life. Diversity of principles and standards is only necessary in a world of multiple nations, cultures, societies, and religions due to fear of oppression. So, how is this world any better? Because some people have potential opportunities to do certain things?

That's kind of depressing.
The purpose of living is merely to persist and perpetuate our species. If someone is willing to give you all you require to survive and live comfortably, simply because you exist, then you have already achieved all that truly matters.


Doesn't all this dismiss the notion of companionship and the family unit?
Heterosexual companionship and the nuclear family model, yes.

What do you propose as alternatives?
Children should be raised communally and by the state. The nuclear family model is a breeding ground of deceptions, mediocrities, treacheries, hypocrisy, and violence. It needs to be abolished. Bigotry, prejudice, and antiquated convictions are passed down through each generation. The conventional family unit indoctrinates our youth and drains them of their potential. My solution would be to assign children caretakers whose task would simply be to provide shelter, food, clothing, and protection for each child—all of which would be yielded by the state. Perfect girls will be conceived, developed, and engineered in state-owned breeding centers. They will be bound together in a communal venue under the instruction and control of female savants.

But realistically that's not what's best for the kids.
Children must be provided a proper education, a sex-separated education that will focus on developing real-world skills and capacities for concept building. They will be taught the reality of true equality, production, labour, and will be provided a better understanding of sexuality, science, culture and ethnicity. If children are made wards of the state with assigned caretakers, not only will it be easier to undo the constraints of bigotry and the other archaic beliefs that are passed down from parents to their children, but children can be used to monitor the older generations in regard to the propagation of bigoted and antediluvian values. It is about creating a unified perception.


Does this assume all women would automatically form lesbian relationships?
Relationships between females and males have been different throughout all of history. Associations between women and men differ with the time and popular socialisation. Today that is not common or normalised, but as time passes more women are interested in other women or are willing to indulge and experiment.

Then you think sexual orientation can be designed?
Absolutely. I believe sexual orientation, like most but not all things, comes from socialisation as well as genetics—with a heavier influence from genetics. Anyone who contends that sexual orientation is purely genetic is either disingenuous or foolish. Eventually, we will be able to engineer people to a greater preference for their own sex. It seems to me that a lot of women are far more open to homosexuality than men, or at least are more willing to experiment, and why is that?

I'm not sure, you think it's genetic?
Perhaps it's partially genetic, but it's also due to an ingrained fear that men have of appearing homosexual because that isn't what a "man" is supposed to be. With the combined forces of social and genetic engineering, we can easily reshape and mold human sexuality into whatever we desire.
Click to expand...
 
Master Zik said:
Honestly what Terry is doing is beyond bravery in this society.

Talking about a dude holding his genitals in his hands and how ppl told him it wasnt abuse just horseplay :sick:
Click to expand...

Lots of dudes do like to play around doing stuff like that though. I never been the one and cut it short quick.
 
sooperhooper said:
Lots of dudes do like to play around doing stuff like that though. I never been the one and cut it short quick.
Click to expand...
I've never been in to that but I saw some of it in college with a certain clique of dudes and saw most of it comedies with certain type of funny ppl.

I call them gay jokes but there's a limit.

I dont know about the dudes that playfully grabbed a hold of their friend's penis through their pants.

What comes to mind is thst whole nut punching Bam and Johnny Knoxville did.

Like what happened is literally the homosexual version of grab her by the {[÷]}. That **** not normal.
 
Report: Netflix Bans Employees from Looking at Each Other for More Than Five Seconds


(Mike Blake/Reuters)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/fin...s-in-flirting-crackdown/ar-AAyzHgJ?li=AAggbRN

This is completely ridiculous and could end up hurting more than it helps.

Netflix has reportedly banned workers from looking at each other for more than five seconds as part of its new anti-harassment rules.

The new policy also bans the company’s film crews from asking their colleagues for their phone numbers, according to an article in the Sun.

“Senior staff went to a harassment meeting to learn what is and isn’t appropriate,” an on-set runner told the Sun. “Looking at anyone longer than five seconds is considered creepy.”

“You mustn’t ask for someone’s number unless they have given permission for it to be distributed,” the source continued. “And if you see any unwanted behaviour, report it immediately.”

Other new rules include: “Don’t give lingering hugs or touch anyone for a lengthy period of time,” “Don’t ask out a colleague more than once if they have said no,” “Steer clear of a colleague once they have said they are not interested in you,” and “Don’t flirt.” The rules also encourage employees to “Shout ‘Stop, don’t do that again!’ if a colleague has been inappropriate.”

The on-set runner told the Sun that employees are already poking fun at the new rules: “It has sparked jokes, with people looking at each other, counting to five, then diverting their eyes.”

Netflix hasn’t confirmed or denied the new rules, but did release a statement to the Independent, saying: “We’re proud of the anti-harassment training we offer to our productions. We want every Netflix production to be a safe and respectful working environment. We believe the resources we offer empower people on our sets to speak up, and shouldn’t be trivialized.”

Now, don’t get me wrong — I’m all for “a safe and respectful working environment.” Everyone should feel comfortable in the workplace, and harassment of any kind has absolutely no place there. This, however, is completely ridiculous and could end up hurting more than it helps.

First of all, that ridiculous five-second rule. Of course, staring is kind of rude, but it’s also something that just happens sometimes. It’s certainly not always a form of harassment. I don’t know about everybody else, but there have definitely been times where I’ve spaced out and found myself happening to stare in the same direction where there happens to be another person. When this has happened, I’ve just said, “Whoops, sorry — I’m spacing out!” and both of us have gotten on with our days. With a policy like this, I could potentially be subject to some sort of disciplinary action over something that no one thinks is a big deal. Of course, there’s no word on what kind of action Netflix is actually planning to take against violators of the five-second staring rule, but the fact that it even exists is absurd enough.

The no-asking-for-phone-numbers rule is equally bizarre. I don’t think this should be news to anyone, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons to have a person’s phone number that have absolutely nothing to do with dating or sex. Not to brag, but I have tons of phone contacts — yes, including co-workers — with whom I communicate on a completely platonic basis. In fact, I’m pretty sure that everyone does. Personally, I actually prefer that my co-workers be able contact me with work information via text, because that means I have to worry less about checking my email. A co-worker wanting my number wouldn’t for a second strike me as flirting; it would strike me as someone initiating a convenient method of communication. Asking for the phone numbers of those with whom you need to communicate regularly is a normal, practical part of life, and Netflix is wrong to sexualize it.

Calling an innocent six-second glance ‘harassment’ trivializes the very real struggles of those who are actually harassed.

Harassment in the workplace is a serious and pervasive problem, and I am very glad that the #MeToo movement has done so much to bring this issue to the surface so that we can work on combating it. Ridiculous policies like these, however, do nothing to solve these problems — and can actually create new ones. Calling an innocent six-second glance “harassment” trivializes the very real struggles of those who are actually harassed, and a no-phone-numbers rule is going to make it more difficult for employees to communicate. If Netflix really wants to make the workplace as comfortable a place as it can be for its employees, then it should really consider reversing these rules.
Click to expand...
 
The over correction is hilarious.
Not asking for numbers makes sense even though it can be done professionally, but the five second rule is wildin.
 
Master Zik said:
Honestly what Terry is doing is beyond bravery in this society.

Talking about a dude holding his genitals in his hands and how ppl told him it wasnt abuse just horseplay :sick:
Click to expand...

For some reason, I feel like gay dudes feel they are immune to the #MeToo movement.

Maybe they feel being gay somehow absolves them from all ridicule.

Might be the reason why Spacey felt coming out as a gay man was going to lessen the blow from him doing his dirt.
 
dcallamerican said:
For some reason, I feel like gay dudes feel they are immune to the #MeToo movement.

Maybe they feel being gay somehow absolves them from all ridicule.

Might be the reason why Spacey felt coming out as a gay man was going to lessen the blow from him doing his dirt.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I recall a few women saying this on Twitter when the movement started but they were talking about some gay men/friends would get a little too comfortable, reckless, and disrespectful with them.

But as far as gay dudes trying to do this to other dudes some of them similarly have the mindset that if a straight man can be a predator they can too.

I assume its not as frequent but maybe Terry and dude who exposed Spacey may have started something on that front.
 
My circle of friends are Asian and Hispanic and they’ll do the whole hitting each other in the balls thing. When our female friend tried to join in, she thought she was immune but I slapped the hell out of her taint and vagina. She quit real quick. :lol:
 
shogun said:
My circle of friends are Asian and Hispanic and they’ll do the whole hitting each other in the balls thing. When our female friend tried to join in, she thought she was immune but I slapped the hell out of her taint and vagina. She quit real quick. :lol:
Click to expand...

How big are her taints?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

you go boy
Not having tattoos
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
beh235
beh235
feeninlikejodeci
Tactics to scare Landlord?
Replies
12
Views
1K
feeninlikejodeci
feeninlikejodeci
Brownstone
Buzzer Beaters Only Thread
Replies
8
Views
633
Public Enemy
Public Enemy
feeninlikejodeci
Have You Ever Seen A Dermatologist?
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
cs02132
cs02132
Dave East
Feeling Nostalgic, F IT. NFL Week 3 In Review ! ! ! ! !
Replies
9
Views
474
spacedoodoo
spacedoodoo

Latest News

View All News

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom