I need people to stop banning my lolis. That's all I need! Just let me be with my drawings. Let me enjoy cute happy anime lolis that are so full of love and affection. That let me forget about this horrible world and the shitty people in it. Is that so hard to ask for? Why are people so fucking hell bent on banning lolis? What do they or society gain? I don't like scary slasher movies about people murdering people(illegal BTW). But I don't call for them to be banned nor insult those that enjoy them. One of the few things in life that makes me happy. Little glimmers of joy in my shit life and they fucking ban it because they want to make an extra buck fron ad investors.
Maybe there's a reason why people want these pure, perfect maidens? Could it be that the real world is filled with darwinistic people? Filled with murder, drugs, deasise, genocide, virtue signalling, inequality, false politicians, false ronance, bullies, ect. Where everyone is out to push eachother down to get on top? Yea, no wonder people are so eager to want something better.
Is it really difficult for people to mind their own business? If you don't harm anyone, why ban it?
You know. What about GTA that glorifies crime and actually hurts people in the real world with predatory microtransactions? What about rape fantasies? What about guro? What about furry porn? What if she's canonlly legal age? What about girls that look mature but are underage(Ikkitousen, HSoTD)? What about all that incest porn on pornhub? That's illegal IRL but no one is harping to ban that. What about r/trees? A sub dedicated to glorifying marijuana but one problem...weed has been and still is illegal and classified as a class1 drug in the US. Or the sub that literally shows real kids being killed. Or all those propaganda and ad shilling? But no one bans that!
BUT BAN THE LOLIS!!!!!
IF. PEOPLE. JUST. STOPPED. BANNING. LOLIS. I'LL. BE. HAPPY
The best part of waking up is seeing that things have accelerated while you were sleeping.
I swear to God, if that secret cabal from the Time article keeps fiery but mostly peaceful riots from happening after the Chauvin trial I am going to be so angry.
We have definitely hit new lows when it comes to this sort of thing. NYT just put out an op-ed explaining that critical thinking is now a bad thing, and information that comes from those associated with wrong think shouldn't be investigated but ignored.
I dont think left can come up with the idea that Tom Hank is a baby eating pedophile, at least yet.
Closest I have seen is denying that Stalin didnt commit genocide instead it was mostly it due to natural while ignoring the failed agricultural policies of USSR.
Failed policies yeah, but it wasn't an attempt to crush Ukrainian nationalism as many right wingers claim, as it didn't really exist at the time. Just old fashioned incompetence sadly.
Unarmed wypipo are actually shot disproportionately more by pigs as a percentage of their violent crime arrests than black 👏🏾 bodies 👏🏾, so the fact that BIPOCycles are disproportionately shot based on their overall population is less due to wacism and more due to the fact that they commit more violent crime on average.
Even statisticians don't have a full grasp of statistics. Not even exaggerating: beyond basic bitch T-tests, p-values, and R2, PhDs often re-Google dozens of things while deciphering each others' papers.
Read https://fantasticanachronism.com/2021/01/11/are-experts-real/ and despair. Your bar is waaay higher than reality. Pfft squared, my ass, scientists keep using the "n=59" criterion because there was a paper that had shown that n=59 was kosher for their purposes.
I've even heard n=30 from a grad school teacher at Harvard. The formula for finding an appropriate sample size is so simple, there's no reason not to use it.
38 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2021-02-19
I need people to stop banning my lolis. That's all I need! Just let me be with my drawings. Let me enjoy cute happy anime lolis that are so full of love and affection. That let me forget about this horrible world and the shitty people in it. Is that so hard to ask for? Why are people so fucking hell bent on banning lolis? What do they or society gain? I don't like scary slasher movies about people murdering people(illegal BTW). But I don't call for them to be banned nor insult those that enjoy them. One of the few things in life that makes me happy. Little glimmers of joy in my shit life and they fucking ban it because they want to make an extra buck fron ad investors.
Maybe there's a reason why people want these pure, perfect maidens? Could it be that the real world is filled with darwinistic people? Filled with murder, drugs, deasise, genocide, virtue signalling, inequality, false politicians, false ronance, bullies, ect. Where everyone is out to push eachother down to get on top? Yea, no wonder people are so eager to want something better.
Is it really difficult for people to mind their own business? If you don't harm anyone, why ban it?
You know. What about GTA that glorifies crime and actually hurts people in the real world with predatory microtransactions? What about rape fantasies? What about guro? What about furry porn? What if she's canonlly legal age? What about girls that look mature but are underage(Ikkitousen, HSoTD)? What about all that incest porn on pornhub? That's illegal IRL but no one is harping to ban that. What about r/trees? A sub dedicated to glorifying marijuana but one problem...weed has been and still is illegal and classified as a class1 drug in the US. Or the sub that literally shows real kids being killed. Or all those propaganda and ad shilling? But no one bans that!
BUT BAN THE LOLIS!!!!!
IF. PEOPLE. JUST. STOPPED. BANNING. LOLIS. I'LL. BE. HAPPY
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 Galatians_416 2021-02-19
More like michael beary 🐻
Please clap
1 RedPillDessert 2021-02-19
Archive: https://archive.is/gymgc
1 Leylinus 2021-02-19
Anyone know where this is being discussed? I did some searching and it seems to have gone unnoticed so far.
1 JanetYellensFuckboy 2021-02-19
So he was actually dunking on racists. How are Twitter jannies this r-slurred?
2 mechakingghidorah 2021-02-19
He means whites are the real victim of police violence you mong.
1 RedPillDessert 2021-02-19
Looks like I'm r slurred. How is it dunking on racists?
What I don't like is the ambiguity. For example, "police ki##ings" could refer to the police being the victim or police being the perpetrator.
2 JanetYellensFuckboy 2021-02-19
He's saying that stats taken at face value can be used to push an agenda and uses race realists as an example.
1 justcool393 2021-02-19
He just tends to delete his stuff really quickly. It's his schtick.
1 Leylinus 2021-02-19
The best part of waking up is seeing that things have accelerated while you were sleeping.
I swear to God, if that secret cabal from the Time article keeps fiery but mostly peaceful riots from happening after the Chauvin trial I am going to be so angry.
1 ChapoDestroyer 2021-02-19
nooooooo you can’t just post statistics what about the socioeconomic factorinos
1 Zozbot 2021-02-19
zoz
1 Zozbot 2021-02-19
zle
1 Zozbot 2021-02-19
zozzle
1 Leylinus 2021-02-19
We have definitely hit new lows when it comes to this sort of thing. NYT just put out an op-ed explaining that critical thinking is now a bad thing, and information that comes from those associated with wrong think shouldn't be investigated but ignored.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/opinion/fake-news-media-attention.html
1 Pepperglue 2021-02-19
WTF that is critical thinking
1 tiptopkitkat 2021-02-19
I think he means Gateway pundit is not better coverage.
1 The_Dramanomicon 2021-02-19
They're the right wing equivalent of Occupy Democrats. If you mindlessly believe anything from either source, you're rslurred
3 MoreSpikes 2021-02-19
skepticalcels win again
1 600_lbs_of_sin 2021-02-19
jokes on you i only ever mindlessly believe things
2 tiptopkitkat 2021-02-19
I dont think left can come up with the idea that Tom Hank is a baby eating pedophile, at least yet.
Closest I have seen is denying that Stalin didnt commit genocide instead it was mostly it due to natural while ignoring the failed agricultural policies of USSR.
1 The_Dramanomicon 2021-02-19
They called Bobby Jindal an anchor baby one time and that was pretty funny but no Tom Hanks baby eating that I know of.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2021-02-19
Failed policies yeah, but it wasn't an attempt to crush Ukrainian nationalism as many right wingers claim, as it didn't really exist at the time. Just old fashioned incompetence sadly.
1 tiptopkitkat 2021-02-19
I think tankies would rather agree to this
than admit that USSR's agricultural policies were disastrous.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2021-02-19
Probably but I'm not a tankie. I actually spent a load of time studying the issue it was a massive display of the failure of the soviet system.
1 Leylinus 2021-02-19
That's not critical thinking at all. That's always making sure to do what the good sources saying.
Critical thinking would be evaluating the information, which would also partially involve verifying the information.
What the fuck man?
1 zbeezle 2021-02-19
Adolf Hitler ran an antismoking campaign. Therefore NYT thinks smoking is good for you. Got it.
1 WarSanchez 2021-02-19
Hitler did Meth so idk, I'd stick with smoking.
1 Leylinus 2021-02-19
How did you get your homework done in undergrad?
1 ironicshitpostr 2021-02-19
Paid my “tutors” for “advice”
You didn’t do yours the peasant way, did you?
1 Leylinus 2021-02-19
I was a tutor.
1 Pepperglue 2021-02-19
What was he trying to proof? I failed to see the point he was trying to convey here.
3 ason 2021-02-19
Unarmed wypipo are actually shot disproportionately more by pigs as a percentage of their violent crime arrests than black 👏🏾 bodies 👏🏾, so the fact that BIPOCycles are disproportionately shot based on their overall population is less due to wacism and more due to the fact that they commit more violent crime on average.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2021-02-19
That people don't understand statistics.
1 JanetYellensFuckboy 2021-02-19
Even statisticians don't have a full grasp of statistics. Not even exaggerating: beyond basic bitch T-tests, p-values, and R2, PhDs often re-Google dozens of things while deciphering each others' papers.
2 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-02-19
Read https://fantasticanachronism.com/2021/01/11/are-experts-real/ and despair. Your bar is waaay higher than reality. Pfft squared, my ass, scientists keep using the "n=59" criterion because there was a paper that had shown that n=59 was kosher for their purposes.
2 JanetYellensFuckboy 2021-02-19
I've even heard n=30 from a grad school teacher at Harvard. The formula for finding an appropriate sample size is so simple, there's no reason not to use it.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-02-19
No, no, read that post, it's like, "here's an example demonstrating how n=59 provides sufficient pee value" and here's https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0%2C5&cites=8563214002358604992&scipsc=1&q=59&btnG= is scientists literally using n=59 and citing that paper as justification.