Designated Whiner Shitting Street - General non DSP-specific discussion and stupid questions goes here

[Wurstbrot]

Better off how? More fulfilled how? I am all for the scientific process. Prove it and I'm with you.

Don't bother. Phil's complicated social, financial and psychological structures which can't be analyzed and pinned down to absolutes, except by The Liar King Phil Burnell, don't make him immune to any reaction on the internet. Example, @Disheveled Human writes utter trollish dung, so people treat his posts like he wrote dung, disregarding of any worldly fulfillment. It's so obviously irrelevant to anything, only trolls and mouth drooling idiots would come up with that.

 

[Fapcop]

Don't bother. Phil's complicated social, financial and psychological structures which can't be analyzed and pinned down to absolutes, except by The Liar King Phil Burnell, don't make him immune to any reaction on the internet. Example, @Disheveled Human writes utter trollish dung, so people treat his posts like he wrote dung, disregarding of any worldly fulfillment. It's so obviously irrelevant to anything, only trolls and mouth drooling idiots would come up with that.

Hm! Well what do you know! Keep a threat going long enough, and eventually a faggot bigger than Phil will show up!

 

[Disheveled Human]

This thread is full of Karens that cant respect the fact DSP has a better life then they got lmao.

 

[Draventren]

Guys, I too hate that rugged rouge, Philip P. Burnell, sole proprietor of Burnell Productions LLC. I hate how he has such a consistent schedule, okay? How he streams twice a day , 6 days a week, from 10am-4pm, and 7pm-9pm PST ever day but Tuesday. I hate him so much and his extremely attractive wife, okay? The bottom line is, he's a contemptible, dashing, easy to hate, persistent, underdog who I despise.

Sound good?

 

[Dizzyuntildeath]

This thread is full of Karens that cant respect the fact DSP has a better life then they got lmao.

I like you. You remind me of that crazy preacher that touches my genitals.

 

[DarkScrubPhil]

he thinks "defunding the police" means removing the police

this is what happens when ppl get their hot takes from twitter

To be fair, listening to some of the protests, "defunding the police" does mean get rid of the police.

 

[Autism Spectroscopy]

To be fair, listening to some of the protests, "defunding the police" does mean get rid of the police.

They should just do a emergency shtream and debunk all of the black detractors. Also, they need the tips, they really do, to pay their bills.

 

[tzgnilki]

To be fair, listening to some of the protests, "defunding the police" does mean get rid of the police.

nah, it just means taking some of their allocated budget and pissing it away somewhere else, it's a tiny percentage of millions/billions of dollars, it won't effect anything

I don't blame ppl for not knowing what it means or how it will happen, but phil getting on his soap box spewing some twitter conspiracy theory, that's kinda dangerous

using NY as an example, they proposed to defund their budget by $1billion, you might think that's alot, but their yearly budget is nearly $89billion, and the original proposal was $1billion over 4 years

0.2%

 

[Gramh]

To be fair, listening to some of the protests, "defunding the police" does mean get rid of the police.

To be even more fair, so many good ideas get tainted because of this kind of baby and the bathwater logic. Kiwi Farms is probably the largest impacted by that kind of logic, rather than being a collective of people who use a casual amount of freetime and/or some expertise in investigative work to make fun of internet oddities everyone has decided that because there might have been an incel or a nazi here spouting off that the entire lot is a bunch of deranged women murdering jew killing terrorists who should be banned from the internet.

 

[Tmacdunk]

nah, it just means taking some of their allocated budget and pissing it away somewhere else, it's a tiny percentage of millions/billions of dollars, it won't effect anything

I don't blame ppl for not knowing what it means or how it will happen, but phil getting on his soap box spewing some twitter conspiracy theory, that's kinda dangerous

using NY as an example, they proposed to defund their budget by $1billion, you might think that's alot, but their yearly budget is nearly $89billion, and the original proposal was $1billion over 4 years

That's great and all but the smooth brains protesting do not want police. Hence why they are smooth brains

 

[gh0stzero]

Can you guys stop and think before you post EVERYTHING in the megathread

We have other threads for discussing his weird fans, his bald head and his overall gross body it makes finding stuff easier.

 

[Shirō Ishii]

I have a retarded question: What does LIMB stand for/mean? For example, "Phil can't LIMB this comment". I have a general idea of what it's supposed to mean but I can't find anything on it online (I only looked on the first page of google)

 

[gh0stzero]

I have a retarded question: What does LIMB stand for/mean? For example, "Phil can't LIMB this comment". I have a general idea of what it's supposed to mean but I can't find anything on it online (I only looked on the first page of google)

lean in manual ban

 

[Wurstbrot]

So we don't create new threads when Phil happily points to the next hill he wants to die on?

Okay then.

 

[gh0stzero]

So we don't create new threads when Phil happily points to the next hill he wants to die on?

Okay then.

Posts to the main thread help the most when it comes to reaching the 6000 page post goal. We increase those pages almost immediately

 

[Wurstbrot]

Posts to the main thread help the most when it comes to reaching the 6000 page post goal. We increase those pages almost immediately

And all the tasty swine-juice gets wasted in a 6000 page thread. I won't read all of that. Sad emote.

I'm basically almost all the time just on mobile, creating informative threads with screenshots and all would be unecessary effortful and I don't know how it'll look on desktop, so I whine for a reason. And another sad emote.

 

[gh0stzero]

And all the tasty swine-juice gets wasted in a 6000 page thread. I won't read all of that. Sad emote.

I'm basically almost all the time just on mobile, creating informative threads with screenshots and all would be unecessary effortful and I don't know how it'll look on desktop, so I whine for a reason. And another sad emote.

Put stuff behind a spoiler tag and never upload full res images thats all it takes friend.

You too can shitpost on the shitter on your phone.

 

[Sparkletor 2.0]

We'd have those 6000 pages if those dang dirty mods didn't move the escort saga to it's own thread.

 

[Iron Father]

So you would be cool with a scene for scene accurate portrayal of the novel Lolita? XD

Honestly ? Yes, so long as it's not going to be featuring pedophilic porn.

Again, portrayal VS emphasis. I've seen a movie (The one by Kubrick, guessing there are several) but not read the book, so no idea how far it really goes, but there are plenty of ways to imply or even show a sex scene without actually showing a child getting f#cked on camera - let alone having one participate in the shooting of the scene, just use an adult movie double since you're obviously not going to show details. Do it only with silhouettes, close-ups that don't actually really show anything tangible, or simply show the "after".

That would effectively retell the story of Lolita, including the implied sex between an adult and said Lolita, without actually being pedophilic porn (And thus not giving pedophiles anything tangible). You're acting like series and movies haven't gotten away with implying sex for decades while remaining neatly PG-13, just between adults. And yes, it'd be controversial to do it with some prepubescent girl - and it would definitely warrant not being PG-13 - but controversy doesn't mean it should be impossible to do.

I don't know if you know this, but you just okay'd child porn. Gratz.

If what I described is porn, every single movie or series episode with two people being (portrayed as) naked under covers in the same bed or starting to make out is porn too. Funny thought, I'll give it to you, but absurd and nothing more than a lame and grossly fallacious gotcha.

Fallacious? What is fallacious about saying that you find it'd be ok for an adult male to in any way engage in sexual behavior on film with a minor? Get out of here pedo.

So let me get this straight, you think a film that hires of age actors to portray under age characters is the same as having literal adults fuck literal children on camera? I mean, that seems a little strange to me. It's like saying a film about murder is a snuff film.

Nixxit even said in his first reply that besides implying sex had taken place (so showing no sex), you could use adult body doubles. That's literally not child porn.

That said, a film that uses adults to play the role of under aged characters that have sex with adults could easily satiate the sick fantasies of actual pedophiles. I bet a shitload of pedos rented those Lolita films as part of their escalation of degeneracy.

 

[Gramh]

So let me get this straight, you think a film that hires of age actors to portray under age characters is the same as having literal adults fuck literal children on camera? I mean, that seems a little strange to me. It's like saying a film about murder is a snuff film.

Nixxit even said in his first reply that besides implying sex had taken place (so showing no sex), you could use adult body doubles. That's literally not child porn.

That said, a film that uses adults to play the role of under aged characters that have sex with adults could easily satiate the sick fantasies of actual pedophiles. I bet a shitload of pedos rented those Lolita films as part of their escalation of degeneracy.

And yes, it'd be controversial to do it with some prepubescent girl - and it would definitely warrant not being PG-13 - but controversy doesn't mean it should be impossible to do.

That's the part I take issue with, and yes I would have a problem with any interaction on screen between an adult and a minor in any capacity that implied romantic interest. Just like you don't use minors to portray sexualization of minors even if your intent is to demonize the practice.