Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

beardarama

Rank #2213 on Content
beardarama Avatar Level 246 Comments: Doinitrite
Online
Send mail to beardarama Block beardarama Invite beardarama to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:5/20/2012
Last Login:12/22/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#2213
Comment Ranking:#10077
Highest Content Rank:#1522
Highest Comment Rank:#1615
Content Thumbs: 3785 total,  4201 ,  416
Comment Thumbs: 4634 total,  4964 ,  330
Content Level Progress: 19% (19/100)
Level 135 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 136 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 7% (7/100)
Level 246 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 247 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:0
Content Views:211582
Times Content Favorited:182 times
Total Comments Made:589
FJ Points:8178
Favorite Tags: is (5) | hendricks (3) | Breasts (2) | christina (2) | dont (2) | game (2) | Mad (2) | Men (2) | of (2) | the (2) | third (2) | thrones (2) | wheel (2)

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

youtube videos

  • Views: 624
    Thumbs Up 2 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +1
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 10/22/14
    Shia LaBeouf Shia LaBeouf
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny gifs

1 2 > [ 9 Funny Gifs Total ]

latest user's comments

#1 - I actually think that 1989 i a genuinely great album and i thi…  [+] (2 new replies) 5 hours ago on Seriously, Ben -3
#7 - anonymous (4 hours ago) [-]
User avatar #2 - slenderwolf (5 hours ago) [-]
Blank Space is good, but I didn't care for "Shake It Off", I liked her more when she had some country twang in her music.
#26 - aah yes my favourite actor Bendover Cumonmypants, he truly is … 11 hours ago on Bendthatdick Cuminsnatch 0
#24 - I think it's more that people are pre-occupied with trivial th… 18 hours ago on Artist: Pawel Kuczynski +1
#65 - I wouldn't be that cynical about it, clearly they thought you …  [+] (1 new reply) 12/18/2014 on can i have your order, please? 0
User avatar #67 - madcoww (12/18/2014) [-]
To have any chance at being employed in the field, I would need to be extraordinarily talented and extraordinarily devoted, neither of which I was. I didn't what I wanted to do with my life in high school, but I felt pressured into figuring it out before entering the "real world." I studied low brass, which basically means professional symphony (which are themselves going backwards and a performer can hold the job well into their later years and a single opening attracts auditioners from all over the world) or military band or freelance music with a small ensemble (rare odd job employment at weddings, which are already dominated by string quartets).

I minored in mathematics.
I was led to believe my degree would be more applicable than it really was. At least the professors I auditioned with for my masters were honest: they all dissuaded me. They told me they were only accepting a handful of applicants, and those they accepted would have to be extremely devoted in order to stand a chance in the real world. They understood that their degree was their reputation as a school.
#39 - at least you did something you loved, and i think that's prett…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/18/2014 on can i have your order, please? 0
User avatar #64 - madcoww (12/18/2014) [-]
I didn't love it, I just thought I was good at since all my music teachers praised me. None of them actually cared about my real world survival. They just wanted to look good by having capable students.
User avatar #65 - beardarama (12/18/2014) [-]
I wouldn't be that cynical about it, clearly they thought you were talented. Plus i think you have a pretty good chance at being employed at any sort of record company I think.
Did you actually want to study anything else though?
User avatar #67 - madcoww (12/18/2014) [-]
To have any chance at being employed in the field, I would need to be extraordinarily talented and extraordinarily devoted, neither of which I was. I didn't what I wanted to do with my life in high school, but I felt pressured into figuring it out before entering the "real world." I studied low brass, which basically means professional symphony (which are themselves going backwards and a performer can hold the job well into their later years and a single opening attracts auditioners from all over the world) or military band or freelance music with a small ensemble (rare odd job employment at weddings, which are already dominated by string quartets).

I minored in mathematics.
I was led to believe my degree would be more applicable than it really was. At least the professors I auditioned with for my masters were honest: they all dissuaded me. They told me they were only accepting a handful of applicants, and those they accepted would have to be extremely devoted in order to stand a chance in the real world. They understood that their degree was their reputation as a school.
#24 - Reminded me of this 12/16/2014 on Oh you!! +2
#39 - just because that one girl rejected you doesn't mean you have …  [+] (1 new reply) 12/14/2014 on Porn news -1
#40 - ugoboom (12/14/2014) [-]
<--- Code Purple
Try again m8
#34 - bro you do realise that you are no better than the feminazis y…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/14/2014 on Porn news -1
User avatar #37 - ugoboom (12/14/2014) [-]
Dude, you're just using shaming tactics. Find a word of actual hate I have spoken.

I said I'm a reactionary, which is the polar opposite of a radical; I'm an extremist conservative. Unpopular opinions are inbound when you talk to extremists. I only serve to help open people's eyes and introduce them into a totally new line of thought.
User avatar #39 - beardarama (12/14/2014) [-]
just because that one girl rejected you doesn't mean you have to hate all women m8
#40 - ugoboom (12/14/2014) [-]
<--- Code Purple
Try again m8
#163 - have you ever considered that that's because they, in many cas… 12/14/2014 on The ugly side of society +10
#6 - let's be honest feminists have a very good point with claiming…  [+] (22 new replies) 12/13/2014 on Porn news +49
#11 - anonymous (12/14/2014) [-]
That's ACTUAL feminism right there.
#22 - ugoboom (12/14/2014) [-]
don't be fooled my friend, that's ACTUAL gender egalitarianism. feminism stands for female superiority, not equality. egalitarians stand for equality.
User avatar #24 - severepwner (12/14/2014) [-]
No. Feminism IS gender egalitarianism. Real Feminists want to raise all women to be equal to men. Feminazis stand for superiority. These tiny details are important.
User avatar #25 - ugoboom (12/14/2014) [-]
First and Second wave Feminism WAS gender egalitarianism. Third wave Feminism is what we have now, and they only push for bullshit social shit. You're blue pilled as fuck if you think any wave of feminism does fucking anything to help men, ever.

Even then, I don't agree with either of these movements. Men and women physically can never be equal, and to try wouldn't be equality, it would have to be equity, and we all know how bullshit that is.
User avatar #26 - severepwner (12/14/2014) [-]
You say it like giving women voting rights was a bad thing.

Separating Feminism in waves is silly in terms of differentiating Feminists and Feminazis. Feminists are quite real, but exist more outside of North America. That said, to pretend that they don't exist in North America as well would be direct disrespect to real Feminists. We must not lump them into the same category.

True Men and Women will never be perfectly equal, but we should get as close as possible for the sake of justice and fairness. No gender should ever lord over the other.
#27 - ugoboom (12/14/2014) [-]
>You say it like giving women voting rights was a bad thing.
Yeah, exactly. Women attaining suffrage marked the beginning to the decline, humanity failed the world's largest shit test on that day.
Women were not made to be men, and throughout human evolution, women were kept on the insides of society because of their value. Imagine this: a tribe of 100 people survives an attack, however all but one man lives. That one dude could repopulate the entire tribe himself and the tribe would live on. Now imagine if all but one women were killed: that woman would die after a few pregnancies and the whole tribe would kill over after a generation. This is why women were kept safely in their homes rather than doing jobs like men; it was for the safety of society and a crucial part of a stable family structure.
As soon as women started leaving the house and getting jobs, they started to become men themselves. That's why they pushed for voting rights, then all these other men features (all while retaining female benefits, ex. void from the draft). Of course, these women can't fucking match the effectiveness of men, so employers have to lower expectations for them. Why are there almost no women CEOs? Why aren't they all fucking rich as shit? It's cause they are just discount men, rather than women.
Anyways, yeah all feminism is is just a way to "even the playing feild" by getting more support so they look like they're meeting men in societal effectiveness, but it's all a sham. Feminazis and feminists are two shades of the same shit-stain. All movements have radicals and moderates, it's just that we call radical feminists "feminazis". Don't be fooled.
User avatar #28 - severepwner (12/14/2014) [-]
Dude don't be fucking ridiculous. For one your tribe example is void because society and civilization will never be in a state where that example is remotely relevant.

There is no reason to keep women from doing most of the things that men do, because women aren't biological paper weights. The only notable way men exceed them is physical, and even then that's heavily exaggerated. This is only relevant for professions that require adequate physical stature, such as the fire department or military. But even these can be remedied if this woman builds enough.

Women aren't becoming men, they're getting the same human rights as us, this isn't a bad thing. No matter how many rights women get, or what professions they end up taking, they always have core traits that keep them women.

Women deserve to have the same opportunities as all humans, and shouldn't have their entire futures taken away from them because of the gender they were born with.

There's a reason that mindset of "Women are either owned by the father or the husband, all they do is cook, clean, and bear children" mindset is completely obsolete and has been widely accepted as obsolete. Women are more capable than you think.
#29 - ugoboom (12/14/2014) [-]
Just try to keep telling yourself that, maybe it'll keep you happy, but that's what women are doing, and it's not making them any happier. Why else would 1 in 4 women 30+ years old be taking antidepressants?
User avatar #30 - severepwner (12/14/2014) [-]
Because being locked up in the kitchen to do only one profession if you were born on one side of the coin sounds like a fucking paradise for everyone.
#31 - ugoboom (12/14/2014) [-]
See what I mean? Like have you not fucking seen what life was like centuries ago? You honestly think that women just fucking cleaned shit and thats it, while the men could do any profession they wanted? Naw, the lower-class women did just that, while the lower-class men they were married to were basically locked up in the fields, doing that one profession their entire lives. It was a paradise for no one, but that's what being a peasant was like. It was only the 5% of society that the men and women had freedom in.

All this feminist propaganda tells us that women were oppressed and men had it great, but no, it was actually a class-based privilege, not a gender-based privilege. Your freedom was dictated by your wealth, not by your genitals. We've been smeckledorfed; progresivism has indoctrinated us all. The western world is doomed.
#36 - ugoboom has deleted their comment.
User avatar #32 - severepwner (12/14/2014) [-]
So what just because you were wealthy suddenly you had voting rights, the ability to have any profession, freedom from being owned by your father or husband, and being treated like a human being?

Yeah no. Sure you're correct that class was a big part of how men lived their lives, a LONG fucking time ago. But those same class restrictions aren't here anymore, so frankly it's irrelevant. If we had it your way, the women would be in the exact same spot they were 100 years ago, and only men would be open to more freedom in their lives. It's not right.
User avatar #33 - ugoboom (12/14/2014) [-]
>So what just because you were wealthy suddenly you had voting rights, the ability to have any profession, freedom from being owned by your father or husband, and being treated like a human being?
Yeah dude. Remember in American History class in high school? Right after we got our independence, only white men who owned land could vote. It fucking sucked back then if you weren't rich. Why was it that only men could vote? Well, society was family-based. The family as a unit voted once, rather than each parent voting. Since men were the ones that usually ventured out, they were given voting responsibility; it wasn't done to spite women.

Also, you've been listening to more progesivist propaganda. Yeah, women would in fact be in the same spot 100 years ago, but the same goes for men. Men haven't gotten any new rights either. I don't think our society needs to progress for us to be happy. I'm a neo-reacitonary, and progresivism is just in stark contrast to me. Like I said, progresivists have indoctrinated everyone into believing that if we aren't making something better at all times, then it's bad, but reality shows that stability and tradition form a more perfect society. Keeping social dynamics the same is actually beneficial for us, and we'd be much better off without so much "Change this, change that" all the time.
User avatar #35 - severepwner (12/14/2014) [-]
I don't understand how any of that is supposed to help your case. Everyone deserves to have equal rights, it's that simple. What happened before, is in the past and we should think about the present. Classes aren't as much a factor, at least not as much as they were back in the day. Even if the family voted as a unit, the husband/father had the final say and could pretty much ignore the counsel given from his entire family. And at the end of the day, women had significantly less options than men.

Sure I can agree that we shouldn't try to change things just for the sake of changing them, but there's always something that can be improved. Since some things are already pretty much in their prime, they no longer need improvement and we can move on to something else, there's always something.

With that I believe that our gender equality in this day and age is almost exactly where it needs to be. Note almost, because we have the exception of Feminazis breeding sexism towards men, and the general bias towards women in some areas, so while it needs some tweaking in the right direction, of course it shouldn't be overly improved to the point the scales are imbalanced again.

But once we finished there, we can move on to something else. There's always something that can be improved.
#38 - ugoboom (12/14/2014) [-]
I think that these SJWs are a symptom of a larger problem. They are what happens when a goal has been achieved, but they keep making new goals. They will not stop.
Progresivism can only stay a good ideology for a short amount of time. It's not the way we should be going.

Find me one thing that women still have a disadvantage in that isn't caused by biological limitation.
User avatar #41 - severepwner (12/14/2014) [-]
You're half right. The issue isn't a deck of cards to be stacked to a house, it's a set of scales that's needs to be balanced just right. The SJWs are a result of the scales being tipped too far in one direction.

This is however not evidence that the progress we achieved was a mistake. This is just another issue for us to correct.

Here's the main problem. SJWs use the history of women's oppression as their leverage to make sexism against men ok. And now you're using the current SJWs as leverage to make oppression against women ok. Do you see the problem here?

Don't make equality impossible. I want us to live in a world where we're all human beings. Not a world where we make a team deliberately lose based on how they were born.
User avatar #42 - ugoboom (12/14/2014) [-]
That's admirable, that you want the world to be gender-blind, and yeah, i really do too. I would fucking love a utopia where gender was actually a social construct, and biology has no effect. In fact, that's where I stood for a quite a good part of my life. That's the optimistic way to do things. Here's the problem: it's not based in reality. Once I saw the practicality of being pragmatic (basing your actions on how things are rather than how things should be), my life started propelling forward. Women fucking love men who are genuine men, rather than a genderless person. I wish I could be that genderless person and be accepted for it, but it just never happens. You can't get around natural human attraction.

That's why now I decide to be pragmatic, and there are tons of men and women doing the same thing: being the best men and women they can be. It fucking works, and it would work even better with traditional social dynamics. That's why I believe what I believe.

Jesus, we went on quite the comments adventure here.
User avatar #43 - severepwner (12/14/2014) [-]
You're missing the point. We don't need there to be gender blindness, that's ridiculous. What we need, is for gender not to affect the circumstances where it doesn't matter. Both men and women have valid opinions, thus they should both be heard. Both men and woman are capable of doing professions, thus they deserve equal opportunity to it.

However gender does matter in some places. Donating sperm to a sperm bank, sorry you're a woman incapable of producing sperm, you can't donate here. Of course everyone should be the best man or woman they can be, which is primarily a social topic, and not a productive one. Yeah women love men who are genuine men, as men love women who are genuine women. However this can be accomplished completely outside what we're talking about. Because now we're talking about attraction and social interaction.

In you're world, women can't be the best they can be. They can only be what society allows them to be. They can't achieve their dreams because of how they were born. They are undeservedly missing out. But if they were to achieve their dreams, they would still get a husband, have kids and do all this stuff, but they still have options.

If you think most women would be content being locked back to the shackles of oppression they once had a century ago, you're very mistaken. Women like genuine men, you know what else they like, respect as human beings. Your progress is no progress at all, it's a shackle for half the human race with evidence that these shackles should not exist.
User avatar #34 - beardarama (12/14/2014) [-]
bro you do realise that you are no better than the feminazis you hate on right? You are basically hating on the other gender and being a giant fucking twat while doing so.
User avatar #37 - ugoboom (12/14/2014) [-]
Dude, you're just using shaming tactics. Find a word of actual hate I have spoken.

I said I'm a reactionary, which is the polar opposite of a radical; I'm an extremist conservative. Unpopular opinions are inbound when you talk to extremists. I only serve to help open people's eyes and introduce them into a totally new line of thought.
User avatar #39 - beardarama (12/14/2014) [-]
just because that one girl rejected you doesn't mean you have to hate all women m8
#40 - ugoboom (12/14/2014) [-]
<--- Code Purple
Try again m8

user's channels

Join Subscribe clubpenguin-time
Join Subscribe gameofthrones
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1100

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)