He was probably in Krakow for a stag.
Printable View
He was probably in Krakow for a stag.
A stag weekend involving a trip to a concentration camp? Bit of a tonal shift.
Yeah it'd be an odd one to put on the itinerary for a stag.
"C'mon, fellas. Where else are we gonna go?"
It sort of is.
Of all the names to get away from, lads.Quote:
Beamish, previously named 'Pit Hill', is a village in County Durham, England, situated to the north east of Stanley. The village is contained within Hell Hole Wood
Lads! At least Pity Me stuck with it.Quote:
To the south is the village of No Place
There's plenty of stag dos in Krakow, some of them must go to Auschwitz.
I reckon (having been to Dachau) it would make your lust for life in the evening still the greater.
My brother in law went to Auschwitz on a stag and i thought it was fucking peculiar behaviour. I mean I guess if you're there for the first time and plan to be again there's an element of, "Well, since we're here" but still.
I can’t view this thread at work cos of pornography warnings. :cab:
Also here’s me in auschwitz:
Toggle Spoiler
You look like you've just finished off a group.
I can't look at that ditch any other way.
It is a horrid place though, especially the museum part where they've the shoes and glasses and all. How the fuck some cunt thought it was an idea to scrape his name in a wall is beyond me.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/08/40000...value-8018715/
As inevitable as this was, it's still my favourite thing that's ever happened. Could not be happier with that.
Hilarious. What sort of moron thinks that's going to work?
The kind of moron who paid 40k for a Banksy piece in the first place.
Worked for the first moron who thought it would work.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45810709
I've read this a couple of times now and I still don't fully understand what's going on. But:
I mean, fucking hell. :facepalm:Quote:
Like women, womxn refers to females, but it is an attempt to get away from patriarchal language.
Dr Clara Bradbury-Rance, fellow at King's College London, said the spelling "stems from a longstanding objection to the word woman as it comes from man, and the linguistic routes of the word mean that it really does come from the word man".
The word is also supposed to be inclusive of trans women, and some non-binary people.
But how is it pronounced? "I've heard womxn pronounced in lots of different ways. I've heard some pronounce it 'wo-minx'," Dr Bradbury-Rance says.
Imagine sitting around and thinking/worrying/being annoyed by something like this? Imagine that being your field of expertise. I mean, "wo-minx"? Fuck off
I'm not sure if I'm getting old and/or out of touch, because I've always considered myself to be quite a progressive, liberal person, but all this is honestly starting to make my head hurt a bit.
Just when you think it all can't get any more surreal they go and surprise you.
There's been 'Latinx' as a non-gender specific alternative to Latina/Latino for a while now, so it was a matter of time before someone else got in on the act.
All this shit got tiresome a while back, but it's getting truly silly now. The generally accepted names for our species are human and mankind, I wonder when those will need changed.
Does she not realise 'man' goes much, much further back into our species? We're called humans.
At times I hate having got on to twitter to be exposed to constant that sort of lunacy. The BBC even entertaining articles like that is nauseating.
The BBC News homepage is horrendous now, a worrying proportion of it is made up of nonsense like this.
I genuinely think the media is overblowing this, often for people like you guys who get riled up about it. I live in the biggest liberal bubble on Earth and I know of no one who is even remotely interested in `womxn` or such banalities. The most annoying it gets is when (cis) people write their preferred pronouns on nametags, but that seems like a minuscule price to pay
99% of people don't care about this rubbish. If you aren't a dickhead then it really doesn't matter what terminology you happen to use.
It's fuelled by what people click on. People see this stuff, get angry about it, click on the link to read more and link it to somewhere else to show other people who will be similarly annoyed. Just as you did, so they'll put more of it in peoples view and the cycle repeats. The whole mantra of 'they wouldn't print nonsense if it didn't sell' was bullshit spin in the Newspaper days. However, when you've got hard numbers on how many people read this article vs that article to the point you know how long it took them to read it or if they even got to the end of it before stopping.
They even phrased the article as a question to get more people to click through and Betteridges Law still applies.
"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
On the actual subject, this is all relatively harmless (you are not going to get hounded in the streets for saying women, ever.) and innocent but people who don't agree with it make such a big deal about it that it looks like the worlds caving in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Marr
It's the whole UNIVERSITY CAMPUS PC BRIGADE cycle again and again and again.
Harold was frothing at the mouth over this shit a decade ago if you want a good sign you're being knobs about it.
No, he was throthing because he was dying.
It's snowballing. Heads need to be cracked now.
The internet enables it to surface and organise a lot more.
It is the media over-blowing it, but it's also the government/institutions caving into the most vocal minority of twats every single time. Universities are the obvious example. Most students probably aren't censorious freaks, but the two per cent of them that make the most noise seem to have the administrators constantly on the run. This is why that judge bollocks in America is interesting. It's the first time (or at least the biggest time) that the screeching fannies have been told to go and fuck themselves.
I'd rather the screeching fannies hype themselves up over a judicial nomination than let another "I am a strict constructionist" hack onto the Supreme Court.
The left has gone to far! Look how [NYT best seller] Jordan Peterson is being SILENCED!
Isn't he bilking in about a hundred grand a month off a crowdfunder? Legend.
Yup. He has made millions of dollars in donations. People are weird.
Screeching virtue-signalling twats are bad but I also dislike hate crimes so I try to forget all about it so I don't get sad.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-45816893
First of all, imagine going to the media because this happens.
Secondly, it's the law you cretin.
Thirdly, your screaming brat will no doubt ruin the enjoyment of the film for others, so either get a babysitter or stay at home.
I know it's not funny but this did raise a smile re: the trans debate.
:DQuote:
Prosecutor Christopher Dunn told the court: "She is allegedly a transgender female.
"The prosecution say allegedly because there's smatterings of evidence in this case that the defendant's approach to transitioning has been less than committed.
https://amp.theguardian.com/football...s-antisemitism
:lol:
I would fucking love to have been in the room when that idea came up.
Nothing can possibly go wrong with that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45809169
No. No it isn’t. It’s straight forward advice to help you avoid the type of sick cunts that unfortunately walk among us. Is ‘don’t keep your wallet in your back pocket’ Victim blaming? Fucking hell.
It can't be long until they come for the little green man that tells you it's safe to cross the road.
#NotAllMen tell womxn when to cross the road.