Viciousness and ignorance: New York Times columnists on the rampage

I wish he would

If only

My first thought.

Unlike you, they have taste in women.

I swear, what is it with image board posters and Japanese women?

You're just mad because it tempts you into spilling your seed. Which you should.

The weeaboo phenomenon have a long common history with imageboards.
The term even originate from imageboards.

It was actually a good article. My only quibble with it is that it almost sounds like they’re defending Weinstein even though he hired ex-Mossad to intimidate his accusers. I suppose even he deserves a fair trial and not just a trial in the court of public opinion.

t. Not a Trot

Imageboards have always been weeb central. Embrace it.

It's a relatively new phenomenon and I'm not sure where it originates

Newfag retards think they have to be weeaboos in order to fit into something that was just created by some jap as if it meant anything really and as if imageboards hadn't evolved into something else completely throughout the years.

Lmao

That, and especially after what we've seen happen in subsequent weeks. The things that these people have been accused of doing are serious and deserve to be seriously investigated, but you have outlets like NYT presenting them and taking for granted that they're true.

Not only that, but while assuming that these allegations are true, a lot of the commentary I've been reading seems to assume as well that it's the people that are the problem and not the social system that made them and put them into power over others. Just remove Weinstein, Spacey et al and the problem's solved. Better yet, remove then and replace them with women and then everything's fine.

That's what galls me. These moral crusaders don't actually care about ending or preventing these acts, they just have an axe to grind or like the article says a material/professional interest in seeing these people gone and being very loud about it.

...

Pfft fuck you. Dogville is too good for trots.

Am I the only one who sees Dogville as an extremely straightforward allegory, with different characters representing 'peitit-bourgeois intellectuals', 'the petit-bourgeoisie', 'the proletariat', and so on and so on?

And then the gangsters who show up and wreck the place at the end are historical necessity catching up with the proletariat which was trying to shirk its revolutionary duty, but divine violence always gets there in the end

Nah, bro. Zizek's made a career out of it.

but yeah it and it's sequel are pretty obviously about liberal hypocrisy

Not gonna lie, didn't come to this thread for what ever the hell op was talking about

Maybe they are heterosexual