Pepsi cucks to BLM
-
You sound like a god damn child throwing around the word cuck. Holy shit. Who's really the cuck around here? It's you. You're the cuck. The absolutely unoriginal and cliche of a stereotype of a cuck, snagging your arguments and insults from the cuckiest of all cucks. "Don't wanna be called a cuck then stop being a cuck" Fuck you sound stupid and any possible credibility you could have had is just washed away down the cuck sewer. Just a poorly aggressive internet tough guy. And now my phone knows the word "cuck" and I'm so upset with you for that. Yeah
-
You sound like a god damn child throwing around the word cuck. Holy shit. Who's really the cuck around here? It's you. You're the cuck. The absolutely unoriginal and cliche of a stereotype of a cuck, snagging your arguments and insults from the cuckiest of all cucks. "Don't wanna be called a cuck then stop being a cuck" Fuck you sound stupid and any possible credibility you could have had is just washed away down the cuck sewer. Just a poorly aggressive internet tough guy. And now my phone knows the word "cuck" and I'm so upset with you for that. Yeah
:police: Posting just to do personal attacks is not allowed. :police:
That said, you showed you have absolutely nothing to rebut my arguments, so you resort to name calling. It's typical with SJWs.
-
The overwhelming majority of raphjd's opinions are wholly irrational based on wild generalizations. He uses the same exact examples to back up many different arguments, such as some situation where black students made white students walk through a creek or something and BLM protesters interrupting a Bernie Sanders rally. He uses very, very rare instances to generalize whole populations of people; hence, why I consider 95-98% of what he says to be wholly irrational. That's basically the best response you can give to him on here because once you try to bring rationality into the argument, he deflects. He's often deflected to arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic, which is why this thread (that he started by the way) was about the Pepsi ad and you're now arguing about domestic violence, feminism (he hates women with a passion), and gay bashing. I just use the typical 95-98% irrationality statement with him because it's basically the only response you can give to almost anything he says. Very rarely he'll make sense, but most of the time it's like trying to have a discussion with a real life Archie Bunker minus the occasional sympathy.
LOl, so says the person that screams RACISM any time a white person disagree with black people no matter the topic. You are just another anti-white racist who is guilty of the dictionary fallacy, so you can claim that you can't be a racist.
I pointed out 2 proven lies by a Congressman, so I am racist in your eyes. His being a liar has nothing to do with me or racism.
You are a liar and you know it. I hate feminism, not women and equality. I have pointed out a countless examples of ways feminists fight against equality. The only thing people like you have to refute my points is "you're irrational". People like you have your religion, but haven't actually read your bible so you are clueless to the facts.
As for the topic shift, go back and read the thread, without your usual white hating racist lenses, and see that it shifted by itself.
I get attacked similarly. Like you, I often point out actual examples to substantiate my comments. In return, I get accused of being irrational, delusional, etc… yet they offer nothing credible to dispute my assertions.
I feel compelled to add something to your comments regarding people of a certain race. When i was living on campus at a University, there was one fraternity comprised of people of one particular race. If they ever had a fraternity comprised of exclusively white members, there would be lawsuits and a riot! Anyway, this one fraternity was unlike any other in that they forced their pledges to undergo severe hazing and public humiliation. Everytime that fraternity had a party, you heard about it because someone was always getting raped or shot.
-
no.. but the domestic violence that occurs on a daily basis, where men are hurting women is ok?
That is what you said in response to my point, which had nothing to do with domestic violence. This brings up 2 lies, yours and RoyalCrown's.
You gendered domestic violence, not me. You didn't say "spouses". Keep your facts straight.
You brought domestic violence into this thread, not me. That's RC's lie.
Feminist "facts" aren't the same as real facts.
++++
Do you really believe that there are only 298 false flags by your side? Really?!
I do love how you played the "pouring piss on a woman reporter's head is nothing compared to gays being murdered in the streets daily" rubbish. A bunch of the major media cases have proven to be hoaxes.
The above is how you excused away the sins of your side. "Yeah, well, whatever" is all you can say.
I'm starting to think you are Don Lemon and Simone Sanders rolled into one, the way you brush off the points I made.
That is your response ? How about when people write things you read EVERYTHING they wrote.. i said SPOUSES - I wrote the above in direct response to you making it like women are only at fault - it is called CONTEXT
You are misquoting me and lying AGAIN
not one ounce of "oh maybe i went too far" ? You have big balls but no self respect
-
The overwhelming majority of raphjd's opinions are wholly irrational based on wild generalizations. He uses the same exact examples to back up many different arguments, such as some situation where black students made white students walk through a creek or something and BLM protesters interrupting a Bernie Sanders rally. He uses very, very rare instances to generalize whole populations of people; hence, why I consider 95-98% of what he says to be wholly irrational. That's basically the best response you can give to him on here because once you try to bring rationality into the argument, he deflects. He's often deflected to arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic, which is why this thread (that he started by the way) was about the Pepsi ad and you're now arguing about domestic violence, feminism (he hates women with a passion), and gay bashing. I just use the typical 95-98% irrationality statement with him because it's basically the only response you can give to almost anything he says. Very rarely he'll make sense, but most of the time it's like trying to have a discussion with a real life Archie Bunker minus the occasional sympathy.
LOl, so says the person that screams RACISM any time a white person disagree with black people no matter the topic. You are just another anti-white racist who is guilty of the dictionary fallacy, so you can claim that you can't be a racist.
I pointed out 2 proven lies by a Congressman, so I am racist in your eyes. His being a liar has nothing to do with me or racism.
You are a liar and you know it. I hate feminism, not women and equality. I have pointed out a countless examples of ways feminists fight against equality. The only thing people like you have to refute my points is "you're irrational". People like you have your religion, but haven't actually read your bible so you are clueless to the facts.
As for the topic shift, go back and read the thread, without your usual white hating racist lenses, and see that it shifted by itself.
I get attacked similarly. Like you, I often point out actual examples to substantiate my comments. In return, I get accused of being irrational, delusional, etc… yet they offer nothing credible to dispute my assertions.
I feel compelled to add something to your comments regarding people of a certain race. When i was living on campus at a University, there was one fraternity comprised of people of one particular race. If they ever had a fraternity comprised of exclusively white members, there would be lawsuits and a riot! Anyway, this one fraternity was unlike any other in that they forced their pledges to undergo severe hazing and public humiliation. Everytime that fraternity had a party, you heard about it because someone was always getting raped or shot.
Excuse you, but I have offered rational arguments to counter raphjd and HE DEFLECTS OR GOES OFF INTO SOME IRRATIONAL TANGENT ABOUT HOW MUCH HE HATES WOMEN. Also, you simply cannot use one instance to generalize an entire population of people unless you are talking about situations involving genocide and other mass scale instances of brutality. Show me a situation where MILLIONS of white people were massacred or held against their will by black people in America and were forced to endure awful second-class treatment at the hands of black people for decades to the point that it still has disastrous effects on the population of white people to this very day and I will agree with you 100%. The fact is you have no situation that even closely mirrors it; therefore, you resort to using very small and very concentrated isolated incidents to generalize an entire population of people. IRRATIONAL. I'm not going to spend a large amount of time trying to bring rationality to irrational arguments, so instead I write you off as irrational and do not take you seriously. Do the same to me, I do not care. I'm done wasting time on people who refuse to (1) use reading comprehension on here and (2) stop deflecting and actually discuss the topic at hand.
-
You sound like a god damn child throwing around the word cuck. Holy shit. Who's really the cuck around here? It's you. You're the cuck. The absolutely unoriginal and cliche of a stereotype of a cuck, snagging your arguments and insults from the cuckiest of all cucks. "Don't wanna be called a cuck then stop being a cuck" Fuck you sound stupid and any possible credibility you could have had is just washed away down the cuck sewer. Just a poorly aggressive internet tough guy. And now my phone knows the word "cuck" and I'm so upset with you for that. Yeah
:police: Posting just to do personal attacks is not allowed. :police:
That said, you showed you have absolutely nothing to rebut my arguments, so you resort to name calling. It's typical with SJWs.
ROFLMAO
but personal attack in context IS ok?
You are one name calling other posters and using inflammatory language - but if others do it you put up the police emoji - if he was attacking others that disagreed with you you be clapping for them
fucking waste of time.. thanks for ruining the political section and turning it in to the "let's just bash anything remotely left " fan club
Fred and I may not agree on a LOT but at least he is not rude and personal… well 99% of the time LOL - he states his argument and moves on, you use stupid (with some vile swearing) words like cuck and feminazi and vaginalistic or whatever that was - as well as some really awful out of context quoting etc then get all high and mighty when people react - you want people to react because you then get power on them and can be all awesome etc
congrats you won - no prizes though, except some ill gotten pride
anyway - the thread was derailed so i will take my leave on the Pepsi ad conversation lol
-
Hurting the cuck's feelings. Poor lil cuck and his poor lil feelings. You throw words around like cuck and sjw using them as insults and then run to your cave when someone throws them back at you. Cliche. Stereotype. Boring.
Man, I really regret stumbling into the political forum in a gay porn torrent site.
Spam - personal attacks. -
Hurting the cuck's feelings. Poor lil cuck and his poor lil feelings. You throw words around like cuck and sjw using them as insults and then run to your cave when someone throws them back at you. Cliche. Stereotype. Boring.
Man, I really regret stumbling into the political forum in a gay porn torrent site.
I believe he's trying too hard to be right-wing. You can be gay and right-wing without completely losing your rationale. He has obviously lost his rationale and has gone off into a highly irrational tangent where you either hate yourself and agree 100% with him or you are a SJW. I actually empathized with him about one of his current situations because unlike him, I can show empathy towards someone even if I cannot relate to them politically, socially, economically, etc. I truly believe he does not know reality from fiction at this point.
-
:police: Jumping into a thread for the sole purpose of attacking a person is not allowed.
The above has alway been the rule. It adds no value to the thread. :police:
And again, SJWs have no actual response to my comments, so they have to attack me personally.
-
I used to laugh at people who were deemed "SJW" but quickly realized that the entire anti-SJW movement was co-opted by racists and alt-righters. They claim to be against modern feminism and BLM, but really they are just against women and black people. It has got to the point were anyone who uses the term "cuck" and "SJW" is likely a terrible human being.
The same can be said for your side.
Your side set a building on fire to prevent "wrong think". You guys gloated that it was set on fire with people in it.
Your side says it's ok to beat the shit out of people even after they are laying, unconscious and bleeding in the street.
It's your side that says "just believe" and to throw men in prison for rape solely on a woman's say so.
It's your side that did $15,000 worth of damage to a frat house based on a complete lie and non of you said sorry or helped pay for the damage.
It's your side that thinks it's ok to set a girl's hair on fire because she doesn't agree with you.
It's ok to pour a bottle of piss on a reporter's head because she asked questions you didn't have answers for.
It's ok for a man to hit a woman for disagreeing with feminism.
It's ok to false flag at every turn to create "hate crimes" that never happened.
Yeah, who's really the bad side?
"It's ok for a man to hit a woman for disagreeing with feminism. "
no.. but the domestic violence that occurs on a daily basis, where men are hurting women is ok? you ok with that? Because it sounds like to me you are pointing to 1 off or minority things, that are bad but are done by silly extremists.. i'm sorry but both sides have stories like this they could tell all day
e.g.
"It's ok to false flag at every turn to create "hate crimes" that never happened"
but what of the vast majority that DID happen? Are they ok? no, they are not. Who did those ? Who knows?
look at both sides - there are extreme 1 off things on both sides..
That is your full reply (post #47 in this thread).
Please be kind enough to show me where I misquoted you.
That post shows that you gendered domestic violence. You did not say "spouses".
-
I used to laugh at people who were deemed "SJW" but quickly realized that the entire anti-SJW movement was co-opted by racists and alt-righters. They claim to be against modern feminism and BLM, but really they are just against women and black people. It has got to the point were anyone who uses the term "cuck" and "SJW" is likely a terrible human being.
The same can be said for your side.
Your side set a building on fire to prevent "wrong think". You guys gloated that it was set on fire with people in it.
Your side says it's ok to beat the shit out of people even after they are laying, unconscious and bleeding in the street.
It's your side that says "just believe" and to throw men in prison for rape solely on a woman's say so.
It's your side that did $15,000 worth of damage to a frat house based on a complete lie and non of you said sorry or helped pay for the damage.
It's your side that thinks it's ok to set a girl's hair on fire because she doesn't agree with you.
It's ok to pour a bottle of piss on a reporter's head because she asked questions you didn't have answers for.
It's ok for a man to hit a woman for disagreeing with feminism.
It's ok to false flag at every turn to create "hate crimes" that never happened.
Yeah, who's really the bad side?
"It's ok for a man to hit a woman for disagreeing with feminism. "
no.. but the domestic violence that occurs on a daily basis, where men are hurting women is ok? you ok with that? Because it sounds like to me you are pointing to 1 off or minority things, that are bad but are done by silly extremists.. i'm sorry but both sides have stories like this they could tell all day
e.g.
"It's ok to false flag at every turn to create "hate crimes" that never happened"
but what of the vast majority that DID happen? Are they ok? no, they are not. Who did those ? Who knows?
look at both sides - there are extreme 1 off things on both sides..
That is your full reply (post #47 in this thread).
Please be kind enough to show me where I misquoted you.
That post shows that you gendered domestic violence. You did not say "spouses".
if i do will it matter ?
no.. because you twist things & have no intention of ever listening..
As I said it was in response to your comment re: violence - you said a few men get hit and i said so that discounts women?? THAT was my point - I have said to you 100x - it was IN CONTEXT
I stated many times that I said spouses to Fred's comment, not yours, which shows I understand it is a two way street - not sure what else to do except say - I proved my point and get over it
-
:police: Jumping into a thread for the sole purpose of attacking a person is not allowed.
The above has alway been the rule. It adds no value to the thread. :police:
And again, SJWs have no actual response to my comments, so they have to attack me personally.
***********response deleted prefer to stay unmuted lol
-
You seriously need to go back and re-read that exchange, because you have no idea what was said.
I talked about a male feminist punching a woman who disagreed with feminism (and other things). To which, you brought up domestic violence and men beating up women.
-
You seriously need to go back and re-read that exchange, because you have no idea what was said.
I talked about a male feminist punching a woman who disagreed with feminism (and other things). To which, you brought up domestic violence and men beating up women.
I was responding to you re : another point
anyway - I misinterpreted what you thought I was responding to or I would have cleared that up ages ago
point being is I am well aware that abuse happens to all not just women.. and that's all that matters
-
Hurting the cuck's feelings. Poor lil cuck and his poor lil feelings. You throw words around like cuck and sjw using them as insults and then run to your cave when someone throws them back at you. Cliche. Stereotype. Boring.
Man, I really regret stumbling into the political forum in a gay porn torrent site.
I believe he's trying too hard to be right-wing. You can be gay and right-wing without completely losing your rationale. He has obviously lost his rationale and has gone off into a highly irrational tangent where you either hate yourself and agree 100% with him or you are a SJW. I actually empathized with him about one of his current situations because unlike him, I can show empathy towards someone even if I cannot relate to them politically, socially, economically, etc. I truly believe he does not know reality from fiction at this point.
How is screaming "racist" at me because I brought up 2 proven lies by a Congressman, "rational"?! You could not see past race to rationally continue that discussion.
I'm not sure if you are a blatant liar or just completely delusional. Hating feminism has nothing to do with hating women and equality. I have shown countless reasons why I hate feminism, but instead of discussing those, you and your ilk scream "woman hater".
As an example, pointing out that feminists in the UK fought to prevent equalizing the state retirement age and making sex crime laws gender neutral, makes me a woman hater in your mind. I want equality in the state retirement age and sex crime laws.
So who is the real irrational one?
-
:police: Jumping into a thread for the sole purpose of attacking a person is not allowed.
The above has alway been the rule. It adds no value to the thread. :police:
And again, SJWs have no actual response to my comments, so they have to attack me personally.
***********response deleted prefer to stay unmuted lol
Since you reported me to me, I'll respond here.
Jumping into a thread just to flame is never allowed.
I have punished more people on "my side" than i have from "your side". You would know that if you paid attention.
RoyalCrown should have been punished for a very clear rule violation, but he admitted he was wrong in how he said it, not what he said. That's fine.
The 2 people from your side that have been punished were done so because they jumped into threads for the sole purpose to flame, not join in the discussions. The 1st one to get muted is already unmuted.
There was a 3rd person your side who was given a total site ban, but that was about a lot of other things. We got 50 to 100 complaints about him from users and staff per week.
-
had a strong feeling it was you it would go to - maybe they should change your title to moderator then? Because I assumed you were not a mod (not attacking just saying that your "role" is listed as an admin)
Anyway, point taken.. and thanks for clearing things up, i get how it goes now.
-
:fight: Daamn- gone for just a day or so and look what I missed! :afraid2:
Just to go back to the original topic- I guess having gotten a glimpse behind the scenes at the process of getting advertising approved- one of my friends writes for an ad agency- I think the Pepsi ad was a stunning example of nothing more than tone-deaf advertising which offered the ridiculous message that sharing a Pepsi with riot police will result in cheering crowds and everyone coming home as one big happy family.
The intent was well meaning- but the execution was absolutely terrible. And it has nothing to do with SJW or BLM or whatever cucking you want to call it- people rejected it because it was naive at best, and absolutely clueless at worst.
-
I guess nobody remember's the infamous Coke commercial against the Vietnam war. It was about peace, harmony and love.
If that commercial played today, the SJWs would have it removed as well.
-
I guess nobody remember's the infamous Coke commercial against the Vietnam war. It was about peace, harmony and love.
If that commercial played today, the SJWs would have it removed as well.
I was thinking about that commercial (apple trees, turtledoves, etc.)
One could argue that what defeated the American Indians was not guns, but booze. American Indians are extremely susceptible to the effects and addiction of alcohol. Once the Europeans began supplying them with booze, and showing them how to make it.. that spelled the doom for American Indians. Likewise in Vietnam.. the drug use was out of control. Readily available marijuana / hashish, opium / heroin, etc. not to mention a very high rate of suicides and fragging (killing off one's own officers to avoid conflicts). So much for peace and harmony!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login