1. (Source: keithziliu, via kidonacloud)

     


  2. All Extremism should be treated the same #news

    We should be treating the word “extreme” in its noun form, not its adjective. All extremism is of the same nature: it’s an undying will to promote an ideology, with perhaps egregious and unethical precepts, in order to eliminate the opposing parties. Its main approaches are through indoctrination (a constant teaching of a single mind-set so the learned becomes rigid to diversity) and physicality (Mugabe’s Zanu PF party, for example).

    With the recent killing of the poor lad, Drummer Lee Rigby, Islam has been at the centre of the news due to, allegedly, “Allahu Akbar” being stated during the hacking and Michael Adebolajo, afterwards, ”[swearing] by almighty Allah”. It doesn’t take a genius to identify that this was an extremist act. And, we now know that murderer was tried in Kenya in 2010 for wanting to join Al-Shabaab in Somalia: an Islamic Militia.

    There are people - I think we know who I am insinuating - who fail to see the extremism because of a teaching they’ve received and, thus, generalise: “This is Islam, so it implies Islam”. It’s like pointing the finger at me for the horrific torture of the Kenyans in 1950 by the British under the conservative government just because I have voted conservative in the past.

    This country should only be for central parties (or close to the centre) so let our arguments and differences be over the NHS, HS2 and Scottish Independence.

    Let’s only generalise extremists because, left or right, extremism is extremism.

    Stephen

     


  3. A dictionary’s for looking up words

    Maybe if we focused more on the denotation of words rather than their semantics, connotations and how the media use them, we can make our own educated interpretation on matters and not go looking for bandwagons when we hear/read of incidences concerning racism, terrorism and matters with the suffix -phobia.

     


  4. #Woolwich incident. What classes it as terrorism?

    I was under the assumption that today’s egregious attack was part of a gang warfare that commonly occurs in the inner city, but what has transpired is that this incident was much more than a bunch of clashing insecurities amongst kids.

    It’s now clear a serving soldier has been murdered in cold blood by two people who were allegedly shouting Allahu Akbar. After the murder, one of the attackers spoke into a camera and reportedly said, “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you”.

    But their belief/religion has nothing to do with whether this is a terrorist attack or not (as Twitter has already promulgated). One of the attackers had declared,

    "…women had to witness this today. But in our land, our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don’t care about you…".

    It’s political motivation inspired by foreign influence that classes this as a terrorist attack; and in this statement, we see this to be the case.

    The problem with so many people is that they look for the cause and forget the crime; people are desperate to know the truth and point the finger of blame; they forget the fact a gentleman was serving to stop the very thing he was murdered by in his own country - terrorists.

    My thoughts aren’t with who did it, but with the lad who died.

    So now the police have them, let them find out more and stop assuming.

    Stephen

     


  5. You’re a #virgin

    Mike Godwin observed that if an argument lasts long enough there will be a comparison involving the Nazis from one of the involved parties. He called this, eponymously, ”Godwin’s Law”.

    There is another approach (another Law) that crops up in arguments, I’ve noticed. It’s an attack that normally comes from stupid people of the male variety who know they have lost a debate - and that’s attacking the opposing party for the amount of pussy they have either smelt, licked, fingered or fucked.

    This could have well been highlighted by someone else because I think it’s a common attack. I have been on the receiving end of this personal attack on a number of occasions with my resultant thought, “What the fuck has that got to do with the argument?” Despite the opposition having no clue to the “amount of pussy” I’ve had (although let’s just say my social confidence hasn’t exactly been sky-high since moving back to Liverpool), they seem to think this attack is a way of winning the present argument - perhaps proving the amount of girls he has had is congruent, in some way, with the intellectual disagreement we are conversing in…or, psychology, he is proving his male dominance in the argument and my inferiority at the lack of vagina I’ve had, which is such a caveman mentality and, surely, has nothing to do with an argument, right?

    Maybe I should argue with people who can actually keep to the topic in disagreement as their is much erudition in learning something you thought to be right (but was wrong) or you didn’t know. It’s much more scholarly than comparing the thickness of little black books.

    Mind you, I do need to get out in the field. Has been far too long.

    Stephen

     

     

  6. yukithepookie:

    this makes my heart ache

    i have this on my wall

    (via andrewneilblog)

     


  7. #Wrestlemania predictions #wwe Undertaker will lose his streak

    My first Wrestlemania was 2000 when Edge & Christian won that epic ladder match, Kurt Angle lost both his belts in one match and which wrestling fanatic could forget that fata four-way.

    I’ve never missed a Wrestlemania despite losing interest back in 2004. (I had sporadic interests throughout the years since then.)

    ———-

    This year I would loved to have seen Triple H and The Rock, since they’re both participating this year, take each other on as those two used to put on brilliant performances. But I suspect that the WWE will induct The Rock in the Wrestling Hall of Fame next year thus squeezing another appearance from The Rock at Wrestlemania 30.

    Anyway, this years predictions:

    Cena def. Rock:

    This is obvious as The Rock was only here to plug GI Joe. This is not a criticism - he has every right to have the title for this short period of time because he has given more to the WWE than anyone to date. So toodle-pip for another year, Rock.

    CM Punk def. Undertaker:

    The Undertaker has reached a milestone: 20 and 0. Rumour is that Undertaker would like to job to a rookie (or up-and-coming star) as opposed to a veteran (like HHH or Shawn Michaels). This would give who ever defeats Undertaker a huge push in the business and there’s no better to give it to than CM Punk.

    However, it would have to take something dramatic to defeat the Undertaker as everything from Pedigrees, Camcorders and being locked in the Dressing Room (remember A-Train and Big Show?) to take him out. So, therefore here are two ideas to how Undertaker could lose:

    -Something to do with the non-fictional demise of Paul Bearer and the Urn weakening his powers.

    -Brock Lesnar comes down and attacks Undertaker. This would be a good move because a) Lesnar is managed and Paul Heyman, who also manages Punk b) there is already a publicly-known feud between Undertaker and Lesnar behind the thesps. WWE would probably have told the to put personal differences aside and instead channel it into a storyline that could go on for a few months.

    Alberto Del Rio def. Swagger:

    If one match consists of a World Championship changing hands then the other must remain with the defender…and Del Rio will retain. Besides, Swagger has badly injured Del Rio’s manager so there needs to be some justice in the story line.

    Shield def.Orton, Sheamus and Show

    A little tricky to predict this one but surely, with this being The Shield’s first major match, the faction needs a push otherwise there’s no other way to go for them but to walk through the crowd and attack wrestlers like they’ve been doing since they formed.

    I predict Randy Orton will turn on Sheamus and Show because the latter two have been squabbling too much and Randy has acted the arbiter, which is too innocent for his whole image. RKO Sheamus, let The Shield pin and then team with The Shield like another legacy??

    Miz def. Barrett

    I can see the belt changing hands

    Ryback def. Henry

    Battle of brawn: could be good match. Can’t see Henry winning this somehow. I like Ryback, too. He looks mean.

    Hell No def. Dolph

    Belts retained. Would be a great match if it was just Bryan vs Dolph.

    Jericho def. Fandango

    This was the trickiest match to predict. I can’t see someone with Jericho’s talent and status jobbing to a gimmicky twirler. Although the Fandango needs a win against an established name for a push - not as established as Jericho, though.

    Triple H def Brock Lesnar:

    If I am right about The Undertaker scenario then Undertaker will attack Lesnar.

    Everyone knows Lesnar’s sheer brillance in the form of his agility and frightening power. His technique as wrestler is great so he wouldn’t mind losing this. Likewise, Triple H is brilliant but probably not up to scratch as he used to be. Triple H, too, has lost the last two Wrestlemanias and doesn’t have a brilliant history winning at Wrestlemania. He’ll win this.

    Funk team def. Rhodes scholars and Bella twins:

    I really don’t give a fuck about this match. Stupid rubbishy gimmicks and the only one I feel sorry for in the whole match is Rhodes as he can wrestle. (Is this the dark match? I hope so.)

    Looking forward to it.

    Stephen

     

     

     


  8. Animal Cruelty;

    There is too much mockery and torment inflicted on animals for the sake of taking a picture and posting it to get likes on Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr etc. It’s unethical marketing.

    How about I string a poodle up by the balls and hang it off the ceiling for the sake of its “cute” yapping?

    Painting your dog and saying “like this if you think it’s adorable”, is neglect.

    Think, idiots.

    Stephen

     


  9. It’s Virtually Virtual Greed

    I saw a video on Youtube of an artist playing guitar (a very famous guitarist but for the sake of what I’m talking about I’ll refrain from appellations) and commented on the video. My comment proved to be a hit on the video after giving a mini panegyric on why he was one of the greatest.

    I got comments from other fellow viewers about how right I was, with the odd one disagreeing which is perfectly acceptable given that this Western democratic citizens in discussion.

    In turns out, now, that the video has been taken down because of infringement. Why is this pathetic?

    -The guitarist in question is a multi-millionaire with a brand that could exponentially boost his piggy bank if he explores other avenues of marketing and business other than gigging all the time.

    -The video was shot almost two years ago meaning the DVD has easily passed its saturation stage in sales. If anything the 10 minutes of the 2 hour video (I mean it was only 10 minutes for God’s sake) would probably give it a boost in sales.

    It’s seems sickening that some people who have a love for an artist are repaid by being stopped from promoting or even showing their love for him/her for the sake of money/infringement.

    Just remember who significantly contributed to your dreams, ************.

    So I can’t finger wag the greedy fat cunt because of the Royal Charter bollocks in case I might be wrong or misleading. Wait a minute, it doesn’t count for mini blogs…or blogs people don’t read, does it?

    Fuck off, Slash.

    Stephen 

     

  10.