“Man up” is not something we ought to encourage one to do. We’ll set aside the question of whether masculinity is a sort of mental disorder and focus on the fact that saying “man up” is both sexist and homophobic. First, it gestures towards some ideal masculinity that has some great value that all (males at least) should strive to achieve through perfect emulation thereof. Second, it implies that the challenge’s target lacks most if not all of this masculinity and is thus a faggot.
Now, I would think that Kerry would possess more discrimination over the use of such sexuality-themed insults since he was and continues to be himself a common target of the label from his enemies, “milquetoast”, which, we have already determined, also means “faggot”. Or perhaps he is merely expressing that derangement common to the mental disorder called “masculinity”, that is the tendency to defend one’s own masculinity from the appearance of weakness by attacking another’s masculinity.
So, we get it, Kerry. Snowden is not a man. He needs to man up. He’s a chicken, a pussy. Snowden is a big scared pussy. Snowden is a faggot.
I don’t understand how this response can be triggered by a loss in a basketball game. I didn’t even know basketball was that popular in Spain or Israel. Anyway, the score was 98-86, and the Israelis were “crowned kings of Europe in Milan”, according to the Times of Israel.
I think anyone that dresses up in such a horribly offensive ‘disguise’ is not attempting to avoid notice.
A brief rundown for anyone not familiar with this story:
The CIA staged vaccine programs to collect DNA from Osama bin Laden’s relatives so they could then identify where he was hiding. Consequently, a large number of people no longer trust the motives of the people performing immunizations. This means a number of diseases that should be on the brink of eradication are now making a resurgence in some developing nations. When the options are A. risk contracting a disease or B. risk a midnight home invasion by a SEAL team, or a drone strike anywhere, anytime, people choose option A.
That is how terrified people are of the United States. They would rather risk polio than trust their doctor to not collaborate with an intelligence agency that will order their murder-by-drone based on metadata.
Modern civilization is maintained by the uniform distribution of a handful of concepts amongst the population. These include: “the leader of a democratic nation works in the best interests of the people in general”, “the rule of law applies equally to all members of a society”, “your educators know that what they teach you to be facts are, in fact, facts”, “you can trust your medical doctor with sensitive information and to make the best health decisions for you”. It takes generations to build up those concepts, and, when they are broken, it takes generations to repair them.
Whenever you break a concept, there will be drastic, unforeseen consequences.
They look pretty cute to me!
Just suppose that Obama does state that he intends to rein in the NSA or create “new standards of conduct” or whatever. There’s no reason to ever trust that America will stay true to its word or that American technology companies won’t continue to play ball behind the scenes with American intelligence agencies. I would trust a five year old that promises to never again steal a cookie out of the jar before dinner before I would trust anything America says about intelligence reforms.
If there are available alternatives to American tech, then foreign companies should purchase those products instead of Cisco’s (and they should make sure those products are never shipped through American-controlled post). Sure, there’s a chance that Germany or Brazil or whoever might just end up spying on you instead of America, but only the American intelligence apparatus has a global system of attack drones attached to it. Even if you aren’t worried about taking a hellfire to the face as a consequence of whatever activities you engage in, you should worry about the NSA sharing your sensitive financial data with select Wall Street firms as recompense for playing ball.
I wouldn’t click on the above link, as the NY Times is too vile an organization to deserve any attention whatsoever. I will give you a brief summary. In his op-ed, Timothy Egan assures us that the real torture is not that which Condoleezza Rice condoned, but rather is having to listen to a milquetoast/faggot like Justice Kennedy give a speech.
In fact, if we take ‘milquetoast’ to mean ‘a weak person who is easily intimidated or dominated’, then Condoleezza Rice fits that definition. Rutgers’ protestors intimidated her, and she chickened out. And it really takes a true milquetoast to abandon an entire nation’s moral principles in response to a terrorist threat.
What a faggot she is.
There are many Christians whose belief set does not include hating gays. There are many Christians that are gay. Presenting this issue as an assault on Christian beliefs is an insult to Christianity. This isn’t the first time this defense has been used and it won’t be the last. But every time it pops up it is more and more disgusting.
Smith College commencement 2014: International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde withdraws as speaker following student and faculty protests
This follows the cancellation barely a week ago of Condoleezza Rice’s speech at Rutgers.
An empire is a state of affairs wherein a controlling nation’s commodities are produced by some other nation or group of people designated as a colony. A colony is usually maintained by some military presence or threat of military action through projection of power. We call it direct imperialism when a controlling nation invades some colony nation to establish military bases to threaten members of the colony to agree to sub-optimal trade agreements.
The IMF is a tool for indirect imperialism. It establishes, with support from various military institutions that supply arms, military training, or targeted strikes on the opposition, a framework for voluntary colonization. It says to some party in some nation, “We will supply you with whatever you need to establish power now, and in return, you sell to us your nation’s soul forever.”
Why would a college invite someone like Rice or Lagarde to speak to its students on one of the most celebratory days of their lives? Who specifically is responsible for making such arrangements? What channels did they go through to make their requests?