How butthurt will /pol/ be when Bernie wins?
>>69969102
Not at all, because he won't.
Not at all, because he's the only actual candidate.
>>69969102
Not one bit, Sanders is only in it for the money, and to round up votes for Hilldawg.
Is this image accurate?
"malakoi," "μαλαkοὶ" = supporter of sex equality
"arsenokoitais", "ἀρσενοkοίταις" = helpers of women
wrong
sage
>>69969345
What is the correction translation?
What do these words, "μαλαkοὶ" and "ἀρσενοkοίταις," mean in modern Greek?
>>69968914
White knighting is unnatural anyways. Men were never meant to submit to women the way they do in modern western society.
"Life is not a bowl of cherries."
>>69968877
You spit it out
How slovenly
>>69968877
If you're Chad it is.
>White People Have No Place In Black Liberation.
>By Kevin Rigby Jr. and Hari Ziyad
>We want whiteness banished to history—to an other-space of that which is unknown and impossible. There is no way in which whiteness can move that is freeing or liberating for Black people, so there is no way for white people to free or liberate.
>Whiteness is indivisible from white people. To identify as white is to claim the social structure of whiteness, is to always wade in the waters of anti-Blackness. Sociologist Anthony Giddens criticizes our general conceptualization of social structure for having “a tendency to view structure and symbols as somehow alien to the actors who produce, reproduce, and transform these structures and symbols” (The Structure of Sociological Theory, Turner 1991: 523). It is this tendency that so easily clouds our understanding of whiteness and motivates us to embrace white allyship. Black liberation would mean the destruction of whiteness, but whiteness is upheld by all white people. White people cannot escape upholding it.
>Constitutive of progressive white people and spaces has always been the question; “How can I, as a white person, work affirmatively in the struggle for Black liberation?” People have engaged this question as a genuine possibility throughout history; of there being a way, however not-yet-understood, for white people to do whiteness well, and, in doing so, aid Black people in getting free. But on a very real level, Black liberation would radically necessitate the refusal of anyone knowing themselves as white. It would mean the actual end of white selves, including the well-meaning white selves seeking the answer to how they can address racism. Black liberation means that white people can only destroy their own whiteness or be destroyed with it. White people cannot exist as white and do anything to address racism, because whiteness in action is racism.
>>69968704
Forgot the link:
http://racebaitr.com/2016/03/31/white-people-no-place-black-liberation/
>But as much as this argument is a stance against whiteness, it is also a deep affirmation of the totality of Blackness; a declaration that Blackness is enough. More than considering the place or non-place of whiteness, we are concerned with the dream-work of Black folks, that reflexive work we do and have always done trying to better know how to love and be with and in community with ourselves and each other. That work has forever been Black, has never needed whiteness, has best succeeded when we refused whiteness.
>There is no answer to the question of what white people can do for Black liberation, but racism veils reality so easily and efficiently. It is anti-reality. It makes the impossible seem not only possible, but a worthwhile endeavor. It truly does keep you, as Toni Morrison said, “from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again.”
>The dilemma of what white people should do to address racism has the same exhausting function of racism, because this dilemma is racism. Because for white people “to do” anything means that whiteness must be centered in a way that would perpetuate its oppressive essentiality.
>There is nothing redeeming or redeemable about whiteness—by definition. Only the radical negation of it is helpful or freeing. And it is not enough for us as Black people to encourage or allow white people to try their hand at addressing racism. It is necessary instead to adopt a politic of exclusion. This is to build upon Malcolm X’s claim in The Autobiography of Malcolm X that “Where the really sincere white people have got to do their ‘proving’ of themselves is not among the black victims, but out on the battle lines of where America’s racism really is,” (X, Haley 1964: 383–384) with the vital understanding that Black victims exist everywhere whiteness does.
>>69968704
>of that which is unknown and impossible
stupid niggers, success isnt impossible
>>69968704
>Therefore, white people should move comfortably in neither Black spaces nor white spaces. Even those who are well-meaning should drive themselves into the ground trying to figure out how to occupy a positive whiteness—because it is impossible. Only in this frenzy, when the sense of order that is critical to whiteness turns to chaos in every place, can the motivation to destroy it overcome the compulsion to reform it.
>Contending that whiteness has no value or role in the struggle for Black liberation is an immense claim, but it is a necessary one if we are to be free. The sooner we take seriously that Black people are the best articulators, dreamers and fighters for the future in which we are liberated, the closer we are to the manifestation of freedom. Important to remember is what is made possible for Black people, is made possible for all people. There is no need to consider how whiteness can operate in this. It can’t. It shouldn’t. It won’t in any future in which we are free.
>The question of “doing whiteness well” is a question which centers a discussion about Black liberation on the actions of white people. We know that white people maintain hegemonic presences in all institutional forms of power. So, to have a conversation about white people working for Black liberation is to have a conversation predicated on the need for white people to wield institutional power and influence to help Black people. In this context, white people maintain systemic power, and Black people are the recipients of their benevolence. That white people might maintain power in shaping and dreaming up Black liberation is counterrevolutionary. Black liberation must always center on the assault against and defiance of these institutions. “We do not negotiate with terrorists.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/NatEnquirer/status/717026950636707842
CRUZ BTFO ON DAY OF PRIMARY!!!
They're all gonna look pretty stupid when they find out
>>69969187
Find out what?
>>69969257
Trump/Cruz 2016 is what
It's coming
Hey, guys. I'm an atheist who's recently converted to Christianity. I have a few questions for you all so please bear with me:
1) What's the best church denomination?
2) Are the women in church less likely to be feminist cunts?
3) Where can I turn in my old fedora collection? Ha ha ha, just kidding.
4) Is it okay for Christians to be circumcised? What did Jesus say about circumcision?
Also, does anyone know the best translation for Hitler's Mein Kampf?
Although Jesus didn't speak on it directly, the bible mentions it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a circumcised man to go to heaven
>>69968403
>1) What's the best church denomination?
Lutheran probably. I was raised a catholic, so I am not biased on this
>>>69968403
>2) Are the women in church less likely to be feminist cunts?
As long as you stick with a protestant church, you wont have to deal with that meme.
>>69968558
This guy is misleading you, he was talking about the rich.
I got behind him on the day that he announced. And he just kept getting better and better. It was funny being one of the few that supported him and arguing with Randfags.
>>69968280
When i realized he's the only one that's gonna be good for israel
>>69968280
When he gave me a small loan of 6 million dollars.
>>69968280
Fucking hipster.
/pol/ im so fucking angry
REEEEEEEEEEEEE
So i live in the south and where i go to college the student body is mostly black.
>Fast foward to my history class.
>i do highly respect my afro-american history >professor
>i think hes a charming funny and smart guy >but he is a democratic liberal BLM nigga at >the same time and thus we clash alot.
>Also so is the rest of my classmates and >even the dean are BLM we wuz kings and >shit to the max
For the past week i've been debating him on whether the ancient egyptian civilization and ancient hebrew/canaanites were black.
>Him and the entire class have been calling >me an irrational buffoon for daring to think >that these ancient civs could have been >anything other than black.
Their main argument consists that they were all depicted as brown and had dreads and cornrows and somehow in the bible it describes the jews as black, and that all of contemporary history has been whitewashed.
Can you please give me some cold hard undeniable evidence that ancient egypt and ancient israelites were NOT BLACK NIGGERS? And i mean undeniable because he refuses to accept wikipedia or most sources i use and writes it off as invalid sourcing.
>TL;DR
give me cold hard evidence on why ancient egypt and israel civs WERENT niggers/blacks
>>69968191
>arguing with retards
>expecting to win
>broadcasting your power level
Just stop.
Why? They wont accept it anyways
We can't give you something that doesn't exist/we don't have.
They were black, get over it.
>Daddy, what was it like when New Mecca was known as Rome?
We had this guy running things
it was great
>>69968082
lol
Put on your full body burka before the shitskins literally rape you to death sweet-pea.
Jesus Christ these men are the ultimate cucks.
>>69968068
>saved
>>69968068
That kid in front is an American.
Him and his Family travel around try to impose their white guilt.
They've tried a few times in Britain but we never really had slaves, so nobody is really interested.
Who killed him, and why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhkjYJAHCjM
We did. He's a mick, he had it coming.
>>69967862
>spared reagan
>>69967862
eternal anglo strikes again
I told you she was at NoA to lobby pro pedophilia
https://twitter.com/alisonrapp/status/717107209105047552
YOU ARE WELCOME
/ANOTHER MARXIST EXPOSED
>>69967744
~good~ sex edu is good when you have sex with someone who hasn't have sex edu yet
>>69967962
She is talking about the teachers who go teach 10-11 year old kids how have 'safe' anal sex.
Not kidding.
>>69967744
>https://twitter.com/alisonrapp/status/717107209105047552
I really think her getting run over my a steam roller sounds like a great thing...
I have a question for you, /pol/.
I've been trying to figure out the fundamental argument behind stereotypically SJW topics (trigger warnings, microaggressions, etc.). I figured that the best place to figure this out would be from that crowd themselves, but I (predictably) was called racist and sexist when I asked, so I come to you instead.
Is it literally just MUH FEELINGS, or is there something else there? Is there a base assumption that they have that I'm not seeing?
Why, looking at it from the most rudimentary level possible, do they behave the way that they do?
Mental illness.
>>69967714
>Is it literally just MUH FEELINGS
Yes. This is just a way for them to infringe their minority beliefs on others while deflecting any counter argument by screaming DAYS RASIS/SEXIST/etc.
>>69967714
It's literally the lowest form of thought. Surround yourself with people who say you're right and don't allow anyone to disagree with you. If anyone disagrees with you they're automatically ___ist so you never have to worry about it. You're always right and they're always wrong and you never have to see an oposing argument.
It's literally for the weakest of mentalities to feel strong.
When did systematic brainwashing in America begin?
>>69967581
60s
80s when republicans Covince America that corporate greed is good
since Reconstruction desu senpai
but it didn't kick into full gear until the world wars (with political view propaganda) and then the 60's with total social manipulation / destruction
WHY BERNIE WHY DID YOU DO THIS, FUCK.
>For Bernie to view his wife Jane as his biggest supporter but then have video emerge of Sanders telling Jane not to stand next to him is controversial. While Bernie merely could have been telling her his preference to not have Jane block the camera shot or to not have Jane stand by his side, like some sort of wife standing by her man — akin to politicos who’ve gotten in trouble and feature a repentant man with a wife glued to his side to prove forgiveness — Bernie’s true intentions aren’t clear.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2932016/bernie-sanders-tells-wife-jane-not-to-stand-next-to-him-could-it-cost-bernie-the-presidency-video/
>>69967511
bump
>>69967511
It's out of concern for her safety.
the retarded shit that destroys campaigns nowadays
imagine what awaits next election
