punks at tfwno.gf
Thu Oct 15 12:40:00 PDT 2020
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 18:35:38 +1000
jamesd at echeque.com wrote:
> Here is a simple shill test. If you are not a shill, should be easy to
> pass it.
You already subjected me to one such test. You should check the archives...
> Your inability to acknowledge the existence of the red pill answer, A,
> will reveal that your shilling work is supervised,
Looks like you haven't been paying attention? My 'hatred' of feminazism, usually misspelled as 'feminism' is way way bigger than your love for trump. Feminazis are a form of 'recycled' anti-sex puritan nutcase, which is why feminazis are so popular in 'the christian west', especially in the US.
> They cannot give an answer that would implicitly acknowledge the existence of the red pill answers:
you think my statement above isn't 'red pill' enough?
> If you disagree with the RedPill answer, answer A, *copy* *paste* *that
> *answer* and fisk it.
porn should be completely 'unregulated', 'age of consent' 'laws' are fascist nonsense, and sex with animals is a pretty good topic for porn. As to your 'red pill' answer...
>we should ban gay, tranny, and cuck porn.
When you say "ban gay porn", you're saying you want to ban, among other things, lesbian porn, including lesbian rape porn. It of course turns out that lesbian porn is a pretty good genre appreciated by males. In other words, you sound like you are a kind of gay male yourself...
now, to state the obvious, the libertarian position is free speech, so banning anything is outright nonsense. If you don't like gay porn, dog porn, or whatever, don't watch it. I do agree that 'romance novels' are garbage, but still not to be 'banned'.
your [b] reply is legitimate too, but just one more reason that doesn't exclude others.
> we should ban romance novels, i.e. porn for women. But heterosexual
> porn, especially if it depicts violent rape, will be allowed, and
> documentation of little prepubescent girls fucking their dogs will be
> required material for anyone who wants to be a member of the priesthood,
> not because it is nice to watch, but because it is incredibly red pilling.
> [B] No, because pornography allows us to learn about various fetishes
> and alternative sexual practices, and that is valuable knowledge.
> > and by the way, what am I shilling, exactly?
> I would guess you are an NSA shill who is here to disrupt the
> development of non NSA approved cryptography
So that's why I, unlike you, have been endlessly ranting against tor for years? Yeah, your guess is just absurd. And don't you use nsa approved cryptography like rijndael anyway?
I'm certainly here to disrupt the development of the pentagon-NSA's tor, a piece of malware in which 'cypherpunks' like, say, ian goldberg have played a not small part. Maybe you should take a more careful look at the possible candidates for NSA shills...
I have noted as well that most of your US 'cypherpunk' 'activists' and 'coders', like say the asshole responsible for 'signal' works for facebook and got 10s of millions in bribes from the pentagon through the 'open technology fund'. So who are the NSA shills again?
> The test I just gave you works on FBI, Soros, and Harvard shills. I have
> not tried it on an NSA shill yet, but I figure if other people who shill
> for the government fail it, you will not be able to pass it either.
I kinda expected you to say I was a north korea, or cuba, or iran, or 'ISIS' etc, shill, given my 'rabid anti-americanism', but maybe you knew better than that? =)
More information about the cypherpunks