What are /r/SRSsucks' favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

In the US, fisherman actually have a higher on the job death rate than police officers and firefighters do. Actually, all of the most dangerous jobs in the US are male dominated.

"Herstory" is also a bastardization of the English language.

The English word "history" derives from the Greek "historia", meaning "a learning or knowing by inquiry; an account of one's inquiries, history, record, narrative"

YOU FAIL IT (it was understanding etymology)

I came to /r/SRSsucks to see if this was posted here and, sure enough, it was posted 1 minute ago.

Edit: They posted a mirror.

Edit 2: It's funny how they find these comments so offensive, yet they're perfectly happy to copy and paste them and make a video showcasing the so-called worst of them.

Irony overload - they're supporters of The Onion now:

>There is an article by The Onion about this bullshit "hate on feminism" that expresses my thoughts better than I could ever do... 103 upboats

Background: Ha Ha: Hillary Clinton’s Top Financial Supporter Now Controls “The Onion”

lol I knew it was /u/lifestyled. I wonder when he's going to have another long rant about how miserable their life is and then delete them few hours later.

https://archive.is/Uh2ro

https://archive.is/ASy5f

>(everything said in that post)

No I'm pretty sure everyone against NSA surveillance agreed that the Fappening was a huge violation of personal privacy.

Reddit is one of the most popular websites in the world. People from all walks of life, countries, backgrounds, upbringings, religions and ideologies come here. Reddit is not one homogenous group in the slightest. You're a fool to think otherwise.

Sarah Nyberg was born on December 26th 1985 in Madison, Wisconsin

This screenshot was taken october 26th 2005, when srhbutts was 2 months from being 20 years old.

https://ghostbin.com/paste/2jfp3

an adult engaging in pedophilia, how are you and SRS ok with that?

Or, we use the far more accurate Merriam Webster

>Fascism Noun

>a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

In which Fascism can be construed as Right-Wing or Liberal, depending on the situation

Here
Couldn't find it on Youtube, it was apparently taken down, which means most of the links from Google didn't work since the same video was just rehosted on different sites. Hulu pulled through.

>Nobody created a word that was originally meant to be a joke about "Pick a Honkey" to go get beaten/hanged...but they did create "Picnic" for "Pick a Nigger". These things are real things that happened in the past 60-70 years that STILL affect people.

LOL

Their bot that archives the thread when it is linked also submits the thread to a charting service so they can prove that they aren't poop touching. They had the bright idea to start tracking when SRD linked, for reasons unknown to me. This time it told on them.

http://74.207.230.31/srscharts/#cghsdgw

Yeah. So what? I mean is that it? That's all you have? Members of the Red Pill subreddit discussed women not having the right to vote so that means:

1. Red pill ideology is a bullshit cult and red pillers hate women. They literally "hate" women.

2. PUAs also because... I don't know, you're unable to differentiate between members of the Red Pill subreddit and PUAs?

Let's take your bogus dumbass logic and apply it to feminism:

The SCUM manifesto was written by Valorie Solaris, a first wave feminist. Its premise is that men have ruined society and that feminism's goal should be to eliminate men.

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto

It has been influential in the feminist movement, just read through that wiki. Have a blast.

So, based on your logic, because some feminists talked about killing men, I'm going to declare that feminists hate men and they all advocate for the genocide of men. Oh! And also liberals, they hate men too because I can't tell the difference between liberals and feminists.

Do you see how fucking stupid that logic is?

Do you even know anything about what these two groups are about? That was retorical by the way, because, as I've been saying, it's blatanly obvious that you don't know shit about either group aside from some firey tidbits you picked up from Jezebel.

Dumb. Really dumb.

I don't know, you tell me. Google Scholar seems to make her out to still be quite influential.

optimized gfy(html5 video) version of the gif

• Original Gif Size 1738K
• Compressed Gfy Size 104K
• Find out more about gfycat/about

>Then, today, when I went on Alexa, I came across this shocking piece of statistic[2] which showed that the % of people visiting this site that had no or incomplete college education is actually very much above the average for internet sites.

While Alexia has it's uses it's not exactly great when it comes to judging a whole community, for example it's not like 4chan has an overwhelming majority of female users.

>> If the DNC didn't nominate a candidate that's the wife of the person who signed a lot of the deals people lost their jobs for and actually did something to address their issues instead of labeling them racists , maybe we would have a democrat president.

This is people being irrational and not caring about facts.

Here are a few graphs, tell me what you see.

https://www.audiotech.com/trends-magazine/images/articles/2015/12/p36-1.png

https://plot.ly/~victortchen/417/manufacturing-employment-as-a-percentage-of-nonfarm-employment.png

The sad truth is people are just not smart. Trump had the perfect cocktail of populist economic illiteracy and nationalist bullshit.

Sometimes I just don't understand this place. Are we pretending that there aren't those guys who actually do this? Here is the original text. I don't think this blames all men, but guys who think pressuring someone into sex is fine.

If your beef with this campaign is that there aren't any examples of female on male rape, then I guess I can understand some sort of frustration... but that doesn't mean the entire message is wrong.

No, women are just 'ballsy' or 'feisty' when they're the hero/protagonist. That's not mannish at all.

Oh, except for 'ballsy'. I assumed that gendered non-slurs are still just as unacceptable.

'Feisty' is okay though, isn't it? Let's have a look ...

Oh, it used to mean 'small dog' or 'stinking cur'. Since we're talking about women, I guess that makes them bitc...

I should stop there, I think. Trying to use words without offending anyone is hard. :(

And Tor!

Oh wait, Tor lets people communicate securely and privately, it's a platform that enables free speech as a matter of its functional operation. I forget that SRS hates "freeze peach" and encourages prosecution of thoughtcrime.

>Unfortunately the reason behind this is that men are more likely to be violent while women are more likely to use emotional and verbal abuse.

We know this to be true because almost all people arrested are men and men never report their victimization.

Let's see if you can ponder out that one.

>I agree that male victims are treated terribly

In large part due to feminism.

>but that doesn't change the fact that female victims of domestic violence are at risk of retaliation that sometimes leads to murder when they try to leave or defend themselves.

Men are murdered too. I'm not sure how any of this justifies the feminist approach of arresting men for reporting their abuse.

>But you are correct, society needs to start taking domestic violence more seriously no matter the gender of the victim. But the information you provides does not point to misandry.

You guys literally advocate arresting men who are abused. Because they're men. That's misandry.

> >Edit: https://www.npr.org/2017/07/15/537381161/more-domestic-violence-shelters-for-men-opening the small number of shelters is starting to be remedied. I had no idea it was such a high number, domestic violence REALLY needs to be addressed in our country!

Let's hope feminists don't work to shut these shelters down the way they have in the past.

Men sure are privileged under the patriarchy!

Was anybody able to look at the original aricle which is the source of this piece?

The link provided “"Why Do You Make Me Hate Myself?’: Re-teaching Whiteness, Abuse, and Love in Urban Teaching Education,” isn't working for me.

Just to clarify- I didn't mean to suggest that you supported /r/holocaust or the holocaust-deniers that run it.

On the other hand - as bad as I think SRS might be, I don't believe they're the worst people on reddit.

If either group was seriously breaking laws I doubt the admins would allow them to stay for long, but just because they're not breaking laws doesn't mean we have to sit here and quietly tolerate all their bullshit.

> Nobody is forcing you to read anything posted there. If you find it offensive, don't go there.

They've been a couple of threads recently discussing how Neo-Nazis have been planning on making incursions onto the general areas of reddit so it's not really a matter of keeping in their own little corner now.

Take it from their own mouths.

Of course you realize that any defense of these sorts of people only legitimizes SRS in the eyes of many - so if not for any other reason that alone is one reason to oppose them.

It's exploitation regardless of the races involved per definition: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/exploitation

The problem here is that you're simply a closed minded, and ignorant racist nigger who warps language, and logic for your own political ends.

Robert Greene has good commentary for why you, and your kin are shit:

> I don’t mind if people do things that are bad or wrong, or evil, I do them myself. That is part of the nature of the human animal. But what I cannot stand are people who play righteous and moral, and use that as a kind of power. They are not honest about themselves. They cloak their manipulations with a cover of morality or selflessness. They make others feel guilty. They use passive aggression. That is what makes me angry. And I like feeding off that anger like a fire.

>I don't actually know what I'm talking about on this particular subject, and I'm going to prove it to you by giving an example of physical goods in a centralized containment.

Alright, good, I'm glad we got that settled.

>You're trying to conflate "links" with "distribution"

It's the same end result in the US, no content necessary, a link leading people to a site claiming illegal material is enough to result in an arrest. Sharing that link follows to be distribution.

http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-posts-fake-hyperlinks-to-snare-child-porn-suspects/

This is what you are rebutting:

"The theory that "The Patriarchy is a system of sexism that causes oppressive gender roles" is wrong."

If you have defined "media" as "the patriarchy", you need to say why it is so. But I don't think it is, and I think this is completely irrelevant.

Further, you linked me to this. Gender bias in the media is not a system. This completely misses the point.

> > The Hillary links you gave me, also, do not represent all of society or even all of media, even if they are profitable; you've said they are representative, but that's unsubstantiated.

> "All media outlets which are profitable represent a population or society" would be an assailable argument, but in the context of quotes from larger outlets

Speakers on larger media outlets can represent niche views. Nancy Grace is on a large outlet, but she represents a niche of society. Further, large media outlets do not represent all of society. They do not even represent an average of society. They are very, very far from being a system of sexism that exists across society.

> no one is contending that patriarchy is the sole explanation, it is not exclusive of other frameworks.

If that is the case, then most of the feminist blogs linked in SRS, and many of the feminist blogs linked to on /r/TumblrInAction, and many popular feminist bloggers associated with Rebecca Watson and co., do not use "The Patriarchy" as "the way you've read it." Their usage is closer to "if The Patriarchy is true, then these gender roles exist because of it." They assume The Patriarchy is true, and reason from there.

>"Media" is not "the patriarchy."

whose argument or what statement are you addressing with this phrase? >gender bias may exist in media, but that is not a system that reinforces gender roles.

i'm afraid your claim is not supported by the evidence >I cited Alternet as an example of a profitable media outlet that does not even come close to representing all of society, so profitability alone is not enough.

i will once again repeat my argument from above, i feel you've glossed over it: said alone, "All media outlets which are profitable represent a population or society" would be an assailable argument, but in the context of quotes from larger outlets arguments to the effect of "small, niche ones exist" cease to be relevant. >Right wording of the premise would be "the existence of other possible factors completely negates one factor as the sole explanation

yes, and as i've stated before and above, no one is contending that patriarchy is the sole explanation, it is not exclusive of other frameworks. if this is, in fact, your argument, it is not an argument against patriarchy in any form that i've read it.

Fairly certain that archive links still work, for the lazy.

> Was that the claim? "Inherently?"

Take out that word and I'll still stand by my statement. Just seems like many people think those who contribute to and enjoy the genre are incapable of demonstrating mastery of the English language.

> find some pattern out of the chaos

Lil Wayne's "Lollipop" structure = AAAABBBB. "Drop the World" = AABBAAAACCDD. How do we determine which is more advanced? One seems simplistic but predetermined, the other more complex, but likely arose naturally (without planning to fit within a particular structure).

Either way, there are songs made as remixes and responses to other songs that use their structures, however chaotic/complex they are: Wiz's "Black and Yellow" compared to Wayne's response "Green and Yellow" (structure reference: AAAABBCCDDEE, and Wayne uses the same rhymes as well).

> because voat's subscriber base has been blowing up

I checked this yesterday and it was in the 400,000's IIRC. Quite a jump for one day.

Edit: Jumped another 100k in the last 24 hours.

No. I have saved versions of archived threads - copies of copies. And if I did upload them, there's no proof I didn't fabricate them myself. Isn't the plausible deniability aspect of posting on 4chan great?

Anyway, here's the spammed thread, and a preceding thread discussing the IRC. I can't figure out how to upload them without breaking the page style. The actual child porn posts were omitted from the archives, for obvious reasons.

http://www.filedropper.com/pol-racistnerdsthread19916852

http://www.filedropper.com/pol-racistnerdsthread19931791

Even if you believe these are fake (and I don't blame you, I am a terrorist killer with blood on my hands), read them. I know you guys love your "mythos", there are a few juicy posts in there that would be worthy of submitting to SRSMythos by themselves. And while you're at it, talk to some of the SRS users in those logs about what really happened.

If anyone knows of any existing 4chan archive sites that have /pol/ archives from September 2013, they would help to corroborate these claims. Sadly the foolzashit and 4chandata archives are gone.

Anyway, I'm glad I could bring you guys some enjoyment in any case.

Thank you based Anon.

I remember that guy. He's built up quite an infamous reputation on SRSsucks. You are not the first person to enter long conversations with him in which he looks crazy and his opponent looks sane.

Arguing with him isn't a waste of time, if you're familiar with <em>A Manual For Creating Atheists</em>. You don't argue with the street preacher and question his claims because you are likely to change his views--he's not going to quit being a preacher. You question his claims for the sake of the bystanders he hopes to evangelize. You argue with fundies to expose it to outside observers.

They need to read "The Elements of Style" or Stephen King's "On Writing."

Edit: actually reading the article now.

>She was scrolling through hashtags and retweets pertaining to the one issue upon which her notoriety and personal brand hinged to:

>The facts of the matter are that Zoe Quinn then unleashed a twitter assault, an early, aggressive move against a company in which she really knew nothing about.

This is just really rough writing. Needs a good edit.

Edit edit: whoa, I'm glad I read this. Beautiful. Also, the writing really picks up once it gets going; yeah, I'm even more sure now that she wrote this fast and posted it without an edit. That rough beginning is where she was settling into writing mode.

Lol. I don't known of anyone who has read The Art of War and thought it was anything but good. Sure some of it is common sense, but a lot of it is good stuff. "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained, you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither yourself nor the enemy, you will succumb in every battle."

The false dichotomy presented by Marxist v Capitalist is the issue. A society is always Capitalist regardless of whatever economic system it tries to legislate for itself. Whatever limitations or controls the state attempts to place upon economic activity, are nothing but additional material constraints, which Capitalism itself is only the organic means by which such constraints are always mitigated. The idea of Capitalism is similar to that of Natural Selection. What Marx calls Capitalism is not what The Wealth of Nations is about because Capitalism is a natural process and not a system of government or particular way of constituting a society.

I don't agree with that necessarily. You're at least oversimplifying what The Wealth of Nations describes, a nation of small shopkeepers, with the massive concentrations of wealth and power we have today. They are the same in name only.

Furthermore, humans are fundamentally, biologically social in at least some aspects. Therefore, to just say we're all born capitalists ignores that we have basic social impulses as well.

To the extent capitalism is similar to natural selection—the classic social Darwinist idea—then survival is possible through collaboration as well. Humans aren't the biggest animals—but we can talk to each other and coordinate.

Capitalism being natural is as much of a myth as socialism evolving as part of the dialectic of history.

>> Not really.

That's TV ads, not discussion of policy.

Clinton literally released a book with detailed policy points and how she wanted to put them in place.

https://www.amazon.com/Stronger-Together-Blueprint-Americas-Future/dp/1501161733

>> Even if we take Trumps stance on illegal immigration and terrorism as an attack on people. Which we shouldn't for so many reasons. Trump didn't attack the voter base, Clinton did. Which is why I say Democrats won the election for Trump.

Yeah, Breitbart spamming about the "coastal elites" and trying to make it seem as if urban voters were less valuable than rural voters clearly isn't an attack on voters.

>> Source? Also attacks on voters is not the same as attacks on other candidates. At least when it comes to winning elections.

So for example, when Trump tweeted fake black crime stats, that wasn't insulting black people?

When he tried to claim a Mexican judge couldn't rule on his case, that wasn't insulting to Mexicans?

The constant attacks on cities, often lying about them wasn't attacking voters?

>> I didn't, I just explained to you why people say "Literally the reason Trump is President."

No, you listed the bullshit reasons delusionals run around the internet spamming. Any look at any of the reasons that motivated a Trump voter in 2016 would paint a very different picture.

It is not about what I believe or not, I always try to find good source before I form my opinion.

That on Polish universities % of Jewish students was higher than % of Jewish nationales in Polish society is not a theory, it's a fact. That Jews who immigrated into Poland because Russian Civil War were much different than the Jews who were already in Poland at that time is also a fact.

Still, it was not good excuse for antisemitism.

The other theory, on the other hand, the idea of Judeopolonia had to come from somewhere. It might have been few Jews, it might be not from Jews at all! It also might not be from Poles.

http://w.kki.com.pl/piojar/polemiki/land/land3.html

As I said, it had to come from somewhere. Source of this data is this book: https://www.amazon.com/Jews-Poland-Documentary-Iwo-Pogonowski/dp/0781806046

And that book seems like a monster to read, 402 pages and guy doesn't seem like an antisemite and it is whole in english.

Make your own opinion if questioning this term is form of antisemitism or not. It can (and was) used as a tool of antisemitism, yes, but I think it is from lack of the knowledge (because every time you are questioning this someone calls you an antisemite). If what is written there then it looks that it was, clearly, a German plan.

I had to dig really deep to find something more than these two things: "it was a Jewish conspiracy" or "it was theory made by antisemites as an excuse".

> a) many Jews felt polish and were quite proud to contribute. I don't know why but I believe many liked it there in Poland, more than other eastern european countries, maybe has to do with the fact Poland is one of the few that didn't have a time where it expelled them.

Well, Poland wasn't a paradise but as you said, antisemitism in Poland wasn't as bad as in the rest of the Europe. If you were a Jew at that time where would you want to live? In the least antisemitic country I bet. I think that in the context of how world looked at that time Poland was a rather nice place for Jews (but for sure not as good as it is today).

Also joining a university is a natural way for an educated person that values knowledge so for Jews joining university was, well, a natural thing to do. Seriously, removing Jews from unis seems so silly like nowdays removing/blocking men so there would be more place for women.

About b) you would have to tell me more, because I don't follow what you want to tell.

You might be interested in that book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendel_Gda%C5%84ski

Can't find english translation though... it might be here: https://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Our-Midst-Images-Literature/dp/080148104X

but I have no acces to the part I would like to check.

>Slavery was absolutely justified using racism.

That's precisely the point though. When you begin from the premise that all men are equal in the eyes of the law, slavery starts on inherently shaky ground. How does one reconcile the ideals expressed by the Declaration with the economic reality and necessity of slavery? Simple. You lie to yourself. You convince yourself that these slaves aren't really human, that the ideals that apply to you don't also apply to them. When it's culture that is the difference, you have the Irish. When it's skin color that's the difference, then you have the African slaves.

But regarding your point about the Arabs, they considered them barbarians, or savages I suppose would be a better word. The Arabs needed slaves, and as they are strictly forbidden from enslaving other Muslims, they enslaved Africans instead.

But yeah the Arabs would castrate their slaves to use as harem workers, which is why there are so few blacks in the middle east today.

You should read Black Rednecks and White Liberals; it's literally a collection of essays on different topics - the title of the book is simply the title of the most provocative essay. And Sowell is an amazing writer.

I'm guessing you're Jewish? He dedicates an entire chapter to the unique hatred that the Jews have historically received, and comes to the conclusion that it stems from nothing more than simply human envy. The culture of the Jews leads to such unusual financial success, and, well, haters gonna hate.

There's also great stuff about Celtic culture, he references this book a ton of times: Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South. Genealogically speaking, I'm one quarter German and three quarters redneck, and the stuff he says is dead on.