- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 19,655
- Reaction score
- 10,169
Oh jeeze, I was just playin' around. I have nothing against either of the posters. Actually, I really like them both.
-
Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here
Social WR Lounge v261: Opium-Free Heroin, for those trying to quit but still wanna shoot up!
- Thread starter Deorum
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 37,165
- Reaction score
- 25,337
I would never mix tobacco and weed. Tobacco makes me nauseous and has an annoying, nervous making effect. It also tastes like shit.
I always think it’s funny that some people smoke cigarettes to calm down and they’re always the most nervous people around. It’s obviously not helping.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 26,061
- Reaction score
- 9,794
Oh it's a whole ass PC. My shitty laptop officially died I needed something. I couldn't find a PC with an actual graphics card for less than $500 anywhere.
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,875
It's a complicated thing. Nicotine is a stimulant, but the quenching of the addiction is what is calming.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 37,165
- Reaction score
- 25,337
Definitely doesn’t calm these people down. I never smoked a cigarette in my life but someone laced my joint with tobacco once. I felt really sick, I feel like I have to vomit just thinking about it. Shit’s filthy.
My grandmother also died of throat and lung cancer and she smoked daily. I’m probably biased.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 37,165
- Reaction score
- 25,337
I smoke in a pipe but I’m going to buy a herb vaper.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2009
- Messages
- 19,362
- Reaction score
- 13,124
Do it
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 37,165
- Reaction score
- 25,337
I bought one for my ex. Thinking about asking it back but the odds are high that I’ll hiss at her like a cat as soon as she tries talking to me.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2009
- Messages
- 19,362
- Reaction score
- 13,124
Use a middleman
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 5,584
- Reaction score
- 4,385
Lol, the first time I did edibles, I was at the very beginning of my tramping days, and it was my first time in Denver. I'd never tried edibles, so I bought a pack of 10 10mg gummies. I ate two of them, then after 20 minutes when I didn't feel shit I ate another two and went for a walk. I ran into a bunch of street kids and smoked a bowl with them, and suddenly EVERYTHING kicked in all at once. The last thing I remember was my dog taking a shit in the middle of the 4th street mall and me having a massive panic attack. I woke up on a bench at least a dozen blocks away with my dog attacking random bugs on the sidewalk. I had a lot more respect for edibles after that.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 37,165
- Reaction score
- 25,337
Nah man I placed a curse on that piece of shit, she can have it.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 12,952
- Reaction score
- 2,795
I almost bought one that @Falsedawn recommended a while back, but I keep getting tripped up with all the cool designs and just not ordering it.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 25,203
- Reaction score
- 22,100
Claw that bitches eyes out and throw her in a river !
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2009
- Messages
- 19,362
- Reaction score
- 13,124
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Messages
- 25,203
- Reaction score
- 22,100
Straight flower vapes are the best in my opinion. I used to have a paxx that I really liked and I was thinking I'd get a much newer one for my bday
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2010
- Messages
- 20,615
- Reaction score
- 7,419
As you should. I have always found them hard to dose, especially when you try to make them yourself. Either you end up disappointed that it's not kicking in, or you risk way overdoing it.
Also, while I personally have never experienced it, I have seen people have rather unpleasant highs in a way I never saw it when smoking.
Overall, my weed days are many years removed, partially because I like my driver's license too much (got pulled over once the day after) and because I have somewhat grown out of it and also do not have good connections here any more (still criminalized). I also have to say a lot of people I used to smoke with in my late teens / early twens achieved really nothing in their lives, and the fact that they centered their lives largely around the green certainly was a key contributor.
But man. With all this Covid shit, now really having delivered on my career beyond the point I would have thought possible 10 years ago, settled down in a nice house in an area with vineyards and scenic views... I really would love to do it every now and then.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,506
- Reaction score
- 40,423
Err @Sara? And how do you not know @fingercuffs? Smh. When you were temp banned during the WR Awards thread in December - we were dethroned as co-POTY by @tonni - there was talk of @IngaVovchanchyn being transgender.
Mr. Man What An Ass, I Ride My Bike Fast wanted confirmation that wasn't the case before he penned his Sherotica classic.I admittedly laughed (out loud). I'm sorry.
Where are they buried?
It's more like a couple dozen or something like that but there was no "before"; dudes came first and they were concurrent to the flings with women. I'm going on six years being vayjay-free though.
I've actually grown to find it kind of flattering that we summon acts of supernatural reckoning and trigger the collapse of entire civilizations. You know like, fuck your couch; fuck "your culture" (
It's a cute idea and all, but "gay marriage" really isn't something I believe in (I support it for others) and there would be almost no family present on either side considering I'm largely estranged at this point and he was just outright cutoff and practically kicked to the curb as a teenager.
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,875
Err @Sara? And how do you not know @fingercuffs? Smh. When you were temp banned during the WR Awards thread in December - we were dethroned as co-POTY by @tonni - there was talk of @IngaVovchanchyn being transgender.
I admittedly laughed (out loud). I'm sorry.
Where are they buried?
It's more like a couple dozen or something like that but there was no "before"; dudes came first and they were concurrent to the flings with women. I'm going on six years being vayjay-free though.
I've actually grown to find it kind of flattering that we summon acts of supernatural reckoning and trigger the collapse of entire civilizations. You know like, fuck your couch; fuck "your culture" (?!?); fuck your civilization.
It's a cute idea and all, but "gay marriage" really isn't something I believe in (I support it for others) and there would be almost no family present on either side considering I'm largely estranged at this point and he was just outright cutoff and practically kicked to the curb as a teenager.
Forgot about Sara.
There is no poster I'd rather cede my POTY throne to than tonni. Shocking that you and I ever got the award given my curtness and your penchant for treating threads like the walls of a high school bathroom stall.
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,875
THEORY AND THEORISTS
GEORGE ORWELL TROLLS JEAN-PAUL SARTRE IN 1948
AUGUST 21, 2014 EUGENE WOLTERS 1 COMMENT
George Orwell never dabbled much in philosophy “proper,” despite the highly political underpinnings of his work. But when philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre wrote “The Portrait of the Antisemite” in 1945, Orwell was offered an opportunity to give his thoughts on the famous French existentialist.
“I have just had Sartre’s book on antisemitism, which you published, to review. I think Sartre is a bag of wind and I am going to give him a good boot.”
That letter, to his publisher, was actually about his final attempts at completing his famous book “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” It’s only in the final paragraph that Orwell decides to warn his publisher that he intends to give Sartre a “good boot,” before wishing to give everyone his love.
Orwell would indeed go on to give Sartre a “good boot.” As Open Culture notes, Orwell published his review of Sartre’s book the next month, in November of 1948.
Antisemitism is obviously a subject that needs serious study, but it seems unlikely that it will get it in the near future. The trouble is that so long as antisemitism is regarded simply as a disgraceful aberration, almost a crime, anyone literate enough to have heard the word will naturally claim to be immune from it; with the result that books on antisemitism tend to be mere exercises in casting motes out of other people’s eyes. M. Sartre’s book is no exception, and it is probably no better for having been written in 1944, in the uneasy, self-justifying, quisling-hunting period that followed on the Liberation.
At the beginning, M. Sartre informs us that antisemitism has no rational basis: at the end, that it will not exist in a classless society, and that in the meantime it can perhaps be combated to some extent by education and propaganda. These conclusions would hardly be worth stating for their own sake, and in between them there is, in spite of much cerebration, little real discussion of the subject, and no factual evidence worth mentioning.
We are solemnly informed that antisemitism is almost unknown among the working class. It is a malady of the bourgeoisie, and, above all, of that goat upon whom all our sins are laid, the “petty bourgeois.” Within the bourgeoisie it is seldom found among scientists and engineers. It is a peculiarity of people who think of nationality in terms of inherited culture and property in terms of land.
Why these people should pick on Jews rather than some other victim M. Sartre does not discuss, except, in one place, by putting forward the ancient and very dubious theory that the Jews are hated because they are supposed to have been responsible for the Crucifixion. He makes no attempt to relate antisemitism to such obviously allied phenomena as for instance, colour prejudice.
Part of what is wrong with M. Sartre’s approach is indicated by his title. “The” anti-Semite, he seems to imply all through the book, is always the same kind of person, recognizable at a glance and, so to speak, in action the whole time. Actually one has only to use a little observation to see that antisemitism is extremely widespread, is not confined to any one class, and, above all, in any but the worst cases, is intermittent.
But these facts would not square with M. Sartre’s atomised vision of society. There is, he comes near to saying, no such thing as a human being, there are only different categories of men, such as “the” worker and “the” bourgeois, all classifiable in much the same way as insects. Another of these insect-like creatures is “the” Jew, who, it seems, can usually be distinguished by his physical appearance. It is true that there are two kinds of Jew, the “Authentic Jew,” who wants to remain Jewish, and the “Inauthentic Jew,” who would like to be assimilated; but a Jew, of whichever variety, is not just another human being. He is wrong, at this stage of history, if he tries to assimilate himself, and we are wrong if we try to ignore his racial origin. He should be accepted into the national community, not as an ordinary Englishman, Frenchman, or whatever it may be, but as a Jew.
It will be seen that this position is itself dangerously close to anti-semitism. Race prejudice of any kind is a neurosis, and it is doubtful whether argument can either increase or diminish it, but the net effect of books of this kind, if they have an effect, is probably to make antisemitism slightly more prevalent than it was before. The first step towards serious study of antisemitism is to stop regarding it as a crime. Meanwhile, the less talk there is about “the” Jew or “the” antisemite, as a species of animal different from ourselves, the better.
Martin Tyrrell mused that it was likely Orwell had no appetite for the “gratuitous cleverness” of philosophers.
In Orwell’s writings, fiction or non-fiction, there are few good intellectuals. Where they appear, then it is usually only to spin words without meaning. At best, they are inadvertently confusing; at worst, deliberately so: Marxists, for example, or nationalists or Anglo or Roman Catholics. Or Jean-Paul Sartre.
http://www.critical-theory.com/george-orwell-trolls-jean-paul-sartre-in-1948/
GEORGE ORWELL TROLLS JEAN-PAUL SARTRE IN 1948
AUGUST 21, 2014 EUGENE WOLTERS 1 COMMENT
George Orwell never dabbled much in philosophy “proper,” despite the highly political underpinnings of his work. But when philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre wrote “The Portrait of the Antisemite” in 1945, Orwell was offered an opportunity to give his thoughts on the famous French existentialist.
“I have just had Sartre’s book on antisemitism, which you published, to review. I think Sartre is a bag of wind and I am going to give him a good boot.”
That letter, to his publisher, was actually about his final attempts at completing his famous book “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” It’s only in the final paragraph that Orwell decides to warn his publisher that he intends to give Sartre a “good boot,” before wishing to give everyone his love.
Orwell would indeed go on to give Sartre a “good boot.” As Open Culture notes, Orwell published his review of Sartre’s book the next month, in November of 1948.
Antisemitism is obviously a subject that needs serious study, but it seems unlikely that it will get it in the near future. The trouble is that so long as antisemitism is regarded simply as a disgraceful aberration, almost a crime, anyone literate enough to have heard the word will naturally claim to be immune from it; with the result that books on antisemitism tend to be mere exercises in casting motes out of other people’s eyes. M. Sartre’s book is no exception, and it is probably no better for having been written in 1944, in the uneasy, self-justifying, quisling-hunting period that followed on the Liberation.
At the beginning, M. Sartre informs us that antisemitism has no rational basis: at the end, that it will not exist in a classless society, and that in the meantime it can perhaps be combated to some extent by education and propaganda. These conclusions would hardly be worth stating for their own sake, and in between them there is, in spite of much cerebration, little real discussion of the subject, and no factual evidence worth mentioning.
We are solemnly informed that antisemitism is almost unknown among the working class. It is a malady of the bourgeoisie, and, above all, of that goat upon whom all our sins are laid, the “petty bourgeois.” Within the bourgeoisie it is seldom found among scientists and engineers. It is a peculiarity of people who think of nationality in terms of inherited culture and property in terms of land.
Why these people should pick on Jews rather than some other victim M. Sartre does not discuss, except, in one place, by putting forward the ancient and very dubious theory that the Jews are hated because they are supposed to have been responsible for the Crucifixion. He makes no attempt to relate antisemitism to such obviously allied phenomena as for instance, colour prejudice.
Part of what is wrong with M. Sartre’s approach is indicated by his title. “The” anti-Semite, he seems to imply all through the book, is always the same kind of person, recognizable at a glance and, so to speak, in action the whole time. Actually one has only to use a little observation to see that antisemitism is extremely widespread, is not confined to any one class, and, above all, in any but the worst cases, is intermittent.
But these facts would not square with M. Sartre’s atomised vision of society. There is, he comes near to saying, no such thing as a human being, there are only different categories of men, such as “the” worker and “the” bourgeois, all classifiable in much the same way as insects. Another of these insect-like creatures is “the” Jew, who, it seems, can usually be distinguished by his physical appearance. It is true that there are two kinds of Jew, the “Authentic Jew,” who wants to remain Jewish, and the “Inauthentic Jew,” who would like to be assimilated; but a Jew, of whichever variety, is not just another human being. He is wrong, at this stage of history, if he tries to assimilate himself, and we are wrong if we try to ignore his racial origin. He should be accepted into the national community, not as an ordinary Englishman, Frenchman, or whatever it may be, but as a Jew.
It will be seen that this position is itself dangerously close to anti-semitism. Race prejudice of any kind is a neurosis, and it is doubtful whether argument can either increase or diminish it, but the net effect of books of this kind, if they have an effect, is probably to make antisemitism slightly more prevalent than it was before. The first step towards serious study of antisemitism is to stop regarding it as a crime. Meanwhile, the less talk there is about “the” Jew or “the” antisemite, as a species of animal different from ourselves, the better.
Martin Tyrrell mused that it was likely Orwell had no appetite for the “gratuitous cleverness” of philosophers.
In Orwell’s writings, fiction or non-fiction, there are few good intellectuals. Where they appear, then it is usually only to spin words without meaning. At best, they are inadvertently confusing; at worst, deliberately so: Marxists, for example, or nationalists or Anglo or Roman Catholics. Or Jean-Paul Sartre.
http://www.critical-theory.com/george-orwell-trolls-jean-paul-sartre-in-1948/
- Status
