No.139412
>>139410….that woman needs to go to an ICU asap. How is that even legal?
No.139414
>>139411Damn, didn't know they were already filming for that new Blade movie!
No.139422
>>139421>vid 4Hates his job?
No.139427
>>139423I didn't mean it like he wants to get fired. I meant he hates it so much he wants to be knocked out.
No.139456
>>139436What's wrong with her teeth? They look fine
No.139506
>>139502>3That's a plant. You'd have to be an absolute retard not to know this.
No.139523
>>139502I look at these mudsharks like junkies, they're just pathetic.
No.139530
>>139528>2nd vidWas that a joke or did he get the shits?
No.139546
>>139544Why are webms so unwatchable now. There is too many annoying sounds and shit.
Kill yourself
No.139603
>>139600Eating in restaurants is nearly impossible these days. Inflation has forced all their hands to use some extremely cheap variant of the real thing. It's a death trap.
No.139857
>>139856Goddamn….I want to cum inside her so badly.
No.139900
>>139858>tatoodles>attractivefirst warning sign even before finding out there's a benis involved ready to benis me
No.140080
>>140079No wonder niggers love going to Foot Locker, if this is what they're hiring.
No.140219
>>140215How is she so thick but no cellulite?
No.140255
>>140252I liked the Asian lady with the tattoo on her butt.
No.140261
>>140252>It's perverted and disgusting to record the way i present myself in public.>It's perfectly OK for me to present myself in public like this.As much as I hate what these guys do, and think you should need someone's permission to record a stranger in public similar to the laws in japan, and would apply it to CCTV as well, I like this content because exposing how these rights are violations of privacy are probably the only way to convince the public.
IIRC there was a guy that used to just walk around recording people to make that point.
Those people would get angry too, but she's only mad because she knows shes practically naked.
But it's funny when these women show their bodies in public, then get mad if certain people look, and feel violated if someone records.
This isn't like they caught someone's private embarassing moment in public like a ripped piece of clothing. They just want to go to a public place and dictate what others are allowed to look at.
Can't tell me to not look at your cheeks any more than you can tell me to not look at the waves or the sunset.
No.140262
>>140261Is she really being a whore for collecting some sun on a beach where people are all respecting each other's relative privacy by spreading out reasonable distances?
It's not like she's dancing or making a scene to attract attention.
Sun bathing is a perfectly healthy activity.
Perhaps you should try getting some yourself for once instead of sucking some random guy's cock because he has a camera.
No.140263
>>140262I sun bathe when i go camping, when im in my back yard, etc.
I don't go in public with thong underwear where there are children within 15ft of where i'm laying.
Try reading what i said instead of being a retard.
No.140266
>>140265Are you gay or jewish?
Why are you trying to get us to hate women?
Women go to wherever they go to, expecting to be safe. Why is this a surprise that they get upset when someone invades their space, attacks them for an ideal, or tries to capture their image to masturbate to them later?
No.140267
>>140266No. Not gay or jewish.
If what i said makes you hate women, that's on you.
They have every right to be upset.
Who wants a stranger recording them at any time? regardless of what you're wearing?
I said in my first sentence recording people without their permission should be illegal.
Reread what i said you illiterate nigger brain.
No.140268
>>140267haha
>If my choreographed posting which is meant to make dumb people side with MGTOW or other stupid divide and conquer ops, convinces you to do that, that's your fault.
>I said in my first sentence recording people without their permission should be illegal.Followed up with horseshit.
>Those people would get angry too, but she's only mad because she knows shes practically naked.She's mad like everybody else except in this case when she's not except she is but she's not.
Make up your mind.
>But it's funny when these women show their bodies in public, then get mad if certain people look, and feel violated if someone records.Why is it so funny, bro?
>This isn't like they caught someone's private embarassing moment in public like a ripped piece of clothing. They just want to go to a public place and dictate what others are allowed to look at.
>Women are dictators, bro.Kys. They go there to get sun, to be on the beach, be healthy, and feel safe. Is it a risk? Yes, it is.
>Can't tell me to not look at your cheeks any more than you can tell me to not look at the waves or the sunset.Really? So you can have sex with waves and a sunset huh? You can rape waves and a sunset? A girl shouldn't react like a human because she's an object like a wave?
No.140269
>>140268This really isn't that complicated. All addressed explicitly in my first post.
You just have shitty reading comprehension.
>Make up your mind.My opinion hasn't changed.
She didn't get angry like everybody else, given her verbal arguments.
>Why is it so funny, bro?Answered in the following 2 sentences. Because "This isn't like they caught someone's private embarassing moment in public like a ripped piece of clothing. They just want to go to a public place and dictate what others are allowed to look at.
Can't tell me to not look at your cheeks any more than you can tell me to not look at the waves or the sunset."
I never said women are dictators.
I cannot have sex with waves and a sunset. I cannot rape waves or the sunset. Again, she has every right to be upset, as I stated.
What is so hard for your little tiny nigger brain to understand?
No.140271
>>140269>My opinion hasn't changed.You said she's mad like everybody else except she's not because she's naked.
You're contradicting yourself.
I'm sure your mind is made up, but it is holding two conflicting thoughts at once. She's either mad like everybody else when they get targeted non-stop by a camera in their face, or she's not mad at that, she's entirely mad at something else, some pseudo psychologist's interpretation of female behavior aligning with MGTOW and other stupid kike bullshit meant to convince males to hate women.
So you think she deliberately went to the beach because she wants to be a fascist dictator?
Sounds like an unhealthy perception of women to me.
>I never said women are dictators.>They just want to go to a public place and dictate what others are allowed to look at.Two conflicting ideas at the same time.
No.140272
>>140271She is mad. But mad for a different reason that is appropriate to the context of her situation, which involves the way she chose to dressed. While the others were mad simply because they were being recorded without their permission.
This isnt a contradiction.
I said again, she isn't a dictator. She's just upset they're recording her and her defense is exclusively that he's recording something inherently inappropriate and inherently sexual. Her defense is stupid.
>you cant say someone is dictating something without implying their entire gender is made up of dictators.wew.
If everyone who dictated anything at any time is your definition of a dictator, I guess those 2 women are dictators But who wouldn't be? And this still doesnt imply that "women are dictators" which i never said or implied.
Again, not 2 conflicting ideas. just your low IQ nigger brain struggling to comprehend a basic sentence.
No.140273
>>140271If you were in public wearing a g-string, and someone ran up and slapped your ass, would you be mad they slapped you? or mad BECAUSE you were slapped while wearing a g-string?
Because the woman in the videos is arguing the latter.
No.140274
>This isnt a contradiction.You're claiming that the two reactions can't exist at the same time, to pin the blame on the woman for her behavior, when anybody at any time would be irritated by a camera pointed at them especially after repeated requests for them to stop.
>>140273This is just revealing your low IQ. You can be mad in any scenario. If they were in normal swimwear considered more appropriate by you, and the perp did the invasive camera routine anyway, she would still be covering herself and just as angry. You've seen it before when people are fully dressed at a bus stop and irritated with a camera in their face. It doesn't matter if she's in a thong or not. Being in a thong doesn't magically change the situation unless you're a kike pushing retarded MGTOW bullshit.
People go to nude beaches all the time in Europe and even in USA. That doesn't magically grant the right to some camera guy to produce content for you.
>Again, not 2 conflicting ideas. just your low IQ nigger brain struggling to comprehend a basic sentence.This is blatant projection.
Why would I suggest "dictator" in the form of a head of state? It was a figure of speech representing the stance that perceives women as girl boss figures. She didn't deliberately go to the beach to attract this kind of attention.
No.140275
>>140273You're also comparing men and women as equals, as if women should follow your behavior and only sun bathe in the isolated wilderness. You're a fucking idiot.
No.140276
>Sis, just go camping alone in the forest if you want to get naked and lie down on a towel for an hour with your eyes closed.
No.140277
>>140274I never made that claim.
I just said her defense is stupid and funny.
Yes, they are mad and have every right to be. I said this in the first sentence.
you said "She's mad like everybody else" And i argued she is not made LIKE everybody else, she is mad like she is, and they are mad like they are. "Like" is a word used to compare and contrast 2 different ideas. Did you graduate preschool?
>dictator is only a head of state.no, im not arguing semantics here. I accept the word dictator in this context as someone who dictates excessively or all the time. nothing I said indicated I even accused those women of being like that that, let alone women in general. I just said those women dictated something. youre grasping at straws.
>>140275>avoiding the question.I asked you a question. I don't know if you're male or female but it doesn't matter for this hypothetical because regardless it illustrates the point I made in my very first post that you're not an advanced enough reader to understand. I
ll rephrase the question since you're too stupid.
if I slap a woman in public wearing a G string, should she be mad because i slapped her? or mad that i slapped her while wearing a g-string? The woman argued the latter.
No.140278
>>140277>Yes, they are mad and have every right to be. I said this in the first sentence.I don't think anybody here would pretend that your first sentence doesn't exist.
I'm simply stating that based on your stupidity or planned statement, that you're LARPing in your initial statements.
>I just said those women dictated something. youre grasping at straws.Are they dictating or not? How is she dictating as a woman when anybody has shown to have negative reaction to constant in-your-face camera recording whether in a swimsuit or not?
>The woman argued the latter.You don't understand women. They will say things in hopes of men "getting it," so they don't have to behave like men that would otherwise be deliberate in their statements. In fact it's not even really a choice; it's their nature. It wasn't the basis of her legal debate. It was simply a means to get the aggressive male to realize what he was doing.
A woman should be mad in most any case from a slap on the ass from a random guy in public. If she's at a venue where that's appropriate, she might pretend to enjoy it or actually enjoy it. I'm talking about strip clubs or mardi gras or some such festival where that sort of behavior is tolerated or expected.
Beaches have unwritten rules just like any other social setting. There is etiquette that is learned and passed down by elders.
No.140280
>>140278>planned statementYes, i chose my words before typing them.
>LARPingAs?
Are they dictating or not?
Yes, they are dictating. they dictated that he stop recording them and delete the pictures/video due to the nature of their outfits and the suspected motivation of why he took the video.
But i don't think she's a dictator. nor did i imply all women are dictators, which is what you accused me of saying because of your poor reading skills.
>You don't understand women.She's poor at arguing and latched on to that as the reason for why he shouldn't be recording, rather than the obvious reason that it's wrong to record people without their permission. What's hard to understand about this?
How she's dressed has nothing to do with it, but because she knows her ass is hanging out and that pictures of her equate to pornography to many, and she knows this, she couldn't get passed it and felt particularly violated, and made a stupid argument in a poor effort to defend herself in response. Which is what made me LOL at her.
>A woman should be mad in most any case from a slap on the ass from a random guy in publicYes, but you're still avoiding the question.
The question wasn't about if she should be mad or not. It's about the reason she's mad.
A. Should she be mad because she got hit? as hitting people is inappropriate?
or
B. Should she be mad that she got hit while wearing a g-string, as hitting people wearing g-strings is inappropriate.
A or B.
No.140282
>>140280>which is what you accused me of saying because of your poor reading skills.You need to stop saying this. You just sound like a fucking idiot. You have consistently held conflicting ideas simultaneously, and I've been trying to detangle them for you, but you are too stupid to comprehend, or you're hell bent on being right despite being wrong.
>A or B.You are a stupid fuck. They are not mutually exclusive just because one variable exists.
>She's poor at arguingSo what? Women are not good at forming logical arguments. Why should they be? You're laughing because of your poor conceptions of women.
>But i don't think she's a dictator. nor did i imply all women are dictatorsYou did. You're forming your argument about her behavior on the generalization that women wear outfits like hers because they wish to dictate how people react to them.
No.140286
>>140282You've consistently been proven to have failed to comprehend my first post. I put it in retard words for you and you're still having trouble. I even tried to give you a hypothetical to get you to understand the difference between an action and an action's motive. And you're somehow still failing.
>You have consistently held conflicting ideas simultaneouslyAh yes, such contradictions as
>she dictated something, but she is not a dictator, nor are all women dictators.and how can i forget
>She is mad, but not mad like those people are, because those people are mad for a different reason.
>theyre not mutually exclusive.they're not, but which is the reason she should be mad?
>women are not good at forming logical argumentsSounds like you, LMAO.
>youre laughing because she made an illogical argumentyes, and exposed her guilt about the ways shes dressed simultaneously, which made me laugh. are you the laugh police?
I find women to be silly and do silly things. It's funny.
Please quote me where i said all women are dictators. You need to stop saying this. You just sound like a fucking idiot.
Look, you only argued in the first place because your little stupid nigger brain failed to comprehend written words. It seems you full on agree with me, but don't agree it's funny. scroll up and read them as i told you before. It says it all in the very first post and i never changed or even elaborated. I've just been repeating myself while you struggle to comprehend a basic concept and now you argue anyway even though you agree with me, but say "so what? ITS NOT FUNNY!" in response to my argument while accusing me of things i never said.
No.140287
>>140286You are now misrepresenting my argument. You're claiming my accusation about you holding conflicting beliefs is your (misunderstanding of) my accusation about you perceiving women as dictators.
My initial accusation about holding conflicting ideas simultaneously is when you said she's not offended by the guy with the camera because of his aggression like other people that aren't on the beach but are filmed in public, but by the fact that he's filming her aggressively while she's in a thong. You know people are offended when they are filmed aggressively as evidence by your reference of an activist, but you somehow disconnect this notion, even while mentioning it, because you think her being in a thong is a separate issue.
You're probably so starved for attention and content that you think that activist filming people in public was right in his stance solely because he produced content for you.
You're using a misrepresentation to mask the actual one without any actual logical retort.
If they aren't mutually exclusive, then they can't be separated. The fact that you think they can be is idiotic and representative of some sort of misplaced sense of activism.
>Sounds like you, LMAO.Projection.
You are simply trying to reiterate yourself as if I'm not understanding, and you're misrepresenting my arguments when you disagree with them. You failed to understand how I used the word "dictator," and you ran with your misunderstanding anyway.
>yes, and exposed her guilt about the ways shes dressed simultaneouslyYou're projecting your sense of guilt onto her. There's no reason she should feel guilty for wearing a swimsuit at the beach. Women will try to resolve situations to make the aggression stop. That doesn't mean you should take what she says as gospel.
>Please quote me where i said all women are dictators.You don't get to debunk my interpretation of your statements on the basis of there not being an actual quote of a literal statement. I was exercising deductive reasoning based on this quote:
>They just want to go to a public place and dictate what others are allowed to look at.This is a generalization, and you would be intellectually dishonest to say now that you weren't making this statement on the basis of blanket accusing women in general.
>Look, you only argued in the first place because your little stupid nigger brain failed to comprehend written wordsNo, it's precisely that I recognized your shill tier antics. If you want to claim you're a fucking retard and didn't know what you were actually saying, that might hold some water.
I don't full on agree with anything you're saying. You're repeating yourself because you don't have reading comprehension, nor do you have debate skills. That's why you're incapable of changing your mind because you can't communicate your ideas properly because they are conflicting ideas, and you can't understand what anybody is saying to you.
If you think that video is funny it's because you get joy out of seeing women uncomfortable. Somebody should have approached the guy to get him to fuck off. I'm sure you're fucked up enough to think that that's white knight behavior, but men would simply do it, so they don't have to hear a woman in an uncomfortable position. The act would be akin to changing the radio station because of a bad song playing.
No.140289
>>140287So you agree she made an illogical argument.
Thank you for agreeing with me. I LOLd.
I dont care if you find it funny.
You're still refusing to answer the question because it's yet another point you agree with and you don't want to concede 2 arguments in order to save face.
I pity you. you pathetic fucking white night with shit reading comprehension, a nigger brain, and a womanly argument tactic.
No.140290
>>140289>I pity you. you pathetic fucking white night with shit reading comprehension, a nigger brain, and a womanly argument tactic.I predicted your behavior. What does that say?
You're laughing at her illogical behavior because you think women are supposed to be logical. That's stupidity.
What question am I refusing to answer?
You didn't even read my post or you would have not said I was a white knight.
You're a fucking dumbass. hahaha
No.140291
>>140289>with shit reading comprehension, a nigger brain,Do you know who repeats themselves when they have no argument? Niggers.
Your whole insult train against me has been projection the whole time.
No.140293
>>140290>>140291Yes i've been calling you stupid this entire time and told you to re-read my first post.
Then i beat every argument you came up with by quoting my first post.
And now you agree with both arguments i made, but maintain "its not funny"
now THATS funny.
No.140295
>>140293That's not how debate works. You don't get to repeat yourself and be terrified of yielding any points and just call someone nigger brained for not understanding your first post.
>Reread it again.haha
No.140297
>>140295But i merely paraphrased parts of my first post to you over and over. and now you agree.
Im pretty sure if one debate team starts agreeing with their opponent, they lost lmao.
you lost.
No.140298
>>140297You really are dumb if you think I agree with you on anything.
No.140301
>Oh no, I'm confronted. I know. I'll call him a niggerbrain 10 times.
No.140304
>>140298>the disagreement is real in my mind.No, you agree with me when you said her argument was illogical.
I fully agree. I'm glad i could convince you.
The only things you don't agree with are things i never said, but you misunderstood because of your poor reading comprehension. (And yes, tiny little nigger brain)
No.140305
>>140301My argument was clear and consistent. i never deviated. i just paraphrased myself 10x until he agreed, and he did.
No.140306
>>140304>>140305I didn't enter the debate questioning whether she was logical or illogical. The fact that you're making my argument that now this late in the debate is telling that you know you lost on several points and continue to lose as you insult me.
No.140307
>>140306You didnt enter a debate.
I commented on a video and laughed at her illogical argument.
You then asked me questions and accused me of a bunch of things i never said.
I answered your questions and said i didn't say those things and to re-read what i said.
You then continued to make accusations as i paraphrased myself until you agreed with me.
Then you said you won the "debate"
No.140308
>>140307Oh now you are the authority on what entering a debate means.
Or are you saying you weren't open to being questioned?
You wrote a lengthy essay on why people should hate women because you're a kike or a faggot.
You tried to weasel out of being outed.
I have never once agreed with you. You only repeated yourself on certain things, and you changed your position as I picked each one apart.
You opened by saying women go to the beach in those outfits to dictate what men can look at, now I'm supposed to believe you weren't making sweeping generalizations and were just talking about this one individual woman.
>Then you said you won the "debate"Actually you said I lost.
All you can do is project your defeat.
No.140309
>>140308>gets convinced to agree with the other "side">corroborates their argumentWhat are you even arguing against at this point? What do you even disagree with?
No.140310
>>140309You're either playing stupid or you are stupid.
No.140311
If you're not playing stupid, I guess you know the answer.
No.140312
>>140310You agree she made an illogical argument.
I agree she made an illogical argument.
You agree with me, yet you keep saying you dont. Because of accusations you made that i dont agree with either, and you dont agree with them either.
So again, what exactly do you disagree with that i said? other than that it's funny?
No.140313
>>140310Lol i think youre just upset because you got mad and rageposted for hours at someone you didnt even disagree with but thought you did because you misread their post and implied a bunch of shit they never said, ultimately wasting your (and their) time.
And all this because of some bizarre need to whitenight for some random horse-faced hapa that he wasnt even attacking. And you ultimately agreed to his criticism of her after going turbo redditor
Embarrassing.
No.140314
>>140312Ok, so you weren't playing stupid.
Whether or not she made a logical argument was never contested.
What was contested was the fact that everything you initially stated was illogical.
When I attempted to point it out to you, you misunderstood most of my arguments, and you offered counter-arguments to misunderstood arguments.
>So again, what exactly do you disagree with that I said? Other than that it's funny?You want to just start over?
>I like this content because exposing how these rights are violations of privacy are probably the only way to convince the public.Surveillance is not the same thing as a person holding a camera in your face. Surveillance is a means to catch criminals and stop crime, and it's expected that the implementation of surveillance systems are used with responsible oversight. In any event, there is no public protest because people are complying with the cost of enforcing laws through surveillance. Normal people are also blissfully ignorant, and they won't become bothered by non-invasive systems unlike someone holding a camera pointing at their ass. If there needs to be a debate about surveillance, this sort of camera activism isn't actually representative of the counter-point because surveillance is non-invasive.
Your stance on public recording contradicts the fact that you like the content. Your enjoyment comes from laughing at a woman that you think is in the wrong for wearing a thong on a beach. It's socially acceptable to stare directly at a sunset or the waves, not a woman's ass as she sun bathes. She expects people to glance as they walk by or hang out in the vicinity because that's normal behavior regardless if there is a thong involved or not.
I also accused you of pushing some kike mgtow bullshit by accusing women of wanting to dictate what men can look at which you misunderstood to mean literal fucking head of state dictators because you're a fucking idiot.
The debate spiraled into several other points of interest as statements were made along the way.
>>140313>And all this because of some bizarre need to whitenightI already addressed this, but I suspect you did not read. If I were on the beach near them, and I had to hear this shit, I would be irritated simply because there's a faggot with a camera referencing the law. If I'm on the beach, I don't want to hear some faggot making a woman upset. I don't care who she is. If you bring technology to the beach, in most cases it's a phone, it's for emergencies, or to take pictures of the ocean, not people. It's simple etiquette. The roles could be reversed, and I'd be equally annoyed.
No.140316
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
If you think surveillance is bad, you worship BBC.
No.140318
>>140316Why would a nigger fear state of the art surveillance?
No.140322
>All this no sound trash
go back to cuckchan and stay there, muslimpedo.
No.140324
>>140314nobodys reading that shit, cuck. i tried following along and you lost when you tried to argue about raping the ocean and the sun.
go back to reddit.
No.140348
>>140324>>140325>you don't want to concede 2 arguments in order to save face.>What is so hard for your little tiny nigger brain to understand?Since it's clear you've been projecting this whole time, I want to ask you something. Why do you feel the need to save face on an anonymous message board?
hahahaha
I can't think of a more low IQ behavior. You're literally anonymous. There's no face to save.
No.140351
>>140348>Why do you feel the need to save face on an anonymous message board?That wasn't me. So maybe that question's better suited for you to answer, nigger brain.
You already conceded 2 points and agreed with me, what left that i said did you disagree with? want to name one?
No.140352
>>140351>That wasn't me.hahahahahahaha holy fuck you're still trying.
No.140356
>>140352>everyone on this board is one person.What do you disagree with, nigger brain?
No.140357
>>140356>I'm going to save face one way or another.>Now stop bullying me.Ok push your women hating psyop or be low IQ.
No.140358
>>140357>lose argument you started>concede every point you tried to make>respond immediately a day later>accuse everyone for samefagging>pretend to laughy-youre a woman hater!
wew lad.
No.140359
>>140358Why would you deny it when you do nothing but post violent videos of women
No.140360
>>140359>y-you're still a woman hater!You just described 90% of this entire thread. I also havn't posted any videos in this thread.
I've given you several chances to save face. All you have to do is say what I said that you disagree with.
No.140361
>>140360>I've given you several chances to save facehahahahaha
Last (You) for you.
No.140362
>>140361>no argumentYou ran away, not me.
No.140456
>>140439I feel like the context is missing. Who is the girl? The boy's sister? His cousin? His babysitter?
Did her breasts significantly grow since the time the boy saw her last?
Is she stuffing her bra, or wearing a wonderbra?
No.140468
>>140439my god i need this
No.140553
>>140552The ending was cut off. What happened?
No.140556
>>140553like and subscribe and ring that bell to find out the thrilling conclusion.
No.140557
>>140556My sentiment exactly.
>OMGBBQ LOOK HOW STUPID THESE ZOGBOTS AREAll his videos are the same.
No.140661
>>140660>no volumeCome on now, 4cuck
No.140678
>>140662It's always nice to see a jew judge get btfo.