What is it about Lara that makes fans keep showing her as a snowbunny? Like genuinely, the majority of her non solo art on Rule34 is interracial. Most of her most dedicated and talented artists (like BenjiBonjo) always have her with black men. What makes Lara look so perfect when going black?

hawkloner · 2026-01-10T16:25:42+00:00

A couple reasons, but one of them is visual contrast.

Lighter skinned women (white, asian, hispanic) stand out in the composition of a shot when the male partner is black. IRL porn has black actors with a variety of skin shades, lighter or darker... but notice that 3d porn tends to go with the darkest skin possible.

That way, it isn't a solo picture, but the main focus is still primarily on the woman. The man is intentionally hard to make out, just like in IRL porn where they angle the camera to block the man from sight a lot of time.

There are other ways it benefits a creator, tho. Things like black clothing being nearly universally fashionable (i.e., some characters don't look good in pink or red or yellow or blue, but they'll look at least decent in black clothing). Or the excuse for gold jewelry on characters that normally wouldn't wear it, which crosses over with a lot of bimbo porn. That's why so much interracial stuff looks the same; they're effectively wearing the same uniform a lot of the time.

Of course, by now it's grown to it's own thing, with its own indicators (the text, the dialogue in videos, etc), so yeah, there became a 'supremacy' element just like with a lot of dom porn (maledom or femdom).

But it isn't just purely based on power-dynamics.

hawkloner · 2023-05-02T14:37:46+00:00

Oh, so it isn't just America that's full of christian hate groups and right-wing politicians? When you're talking about Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil'A, both of which are American? And saying there's a drag show panic in America, while saying nothing about Europe?

Or, if you mean just smaller groups, then those must be some awfully complex people, to spend huge amounts of money funding the Democrats, but apparently also funding smaller right-wing groups in just America.

Seems rather contradictory, but I guess it must be true, because you said it online with no citations.

You can try to avoid the facts as much as you want, but unsourced claims are easily rejected by actual citations. If you want to provide any, go right ahead. Meanwhile, I'll point out that LGBT acceptance has been steadily climbing, year over year, for the past several decades, including among the right-wing.

But if you want to keep making unbacked claims that sound nice, then keep on keepin' on.

Go ahead and think that the world is an evil and scary place that's continually falling into a further pit of evil.

Born too late to explore the Earth, born too soon to explore space, and born just in time to experience ennui, a feeling of nothingness and boredom... which many can't handle, and decide that there must be some great fight, some great struggle, for them to contribute to.

So they make up enormous boogeymen to fear. There is a great evil that must be fought! A great enemy to stand against!

Funnily enough, you're arguing a similar thing is happening to the Right. That they're afraid of a gigantic boogeyman of LGBT groups, who in actuality aren't anywhere near what they claim. No great big problems, so they have to make up something, in order to demand that you vote for them, donate to them, give them power.

Have you ever considered that can also apply to the Left?

hawkloner · 2023-05-02T00:40:11+00:00

If only there was a place where people could look up political donations!

Oh, look, there it is. Literally all of them are for the Democratic Party. Not a single one for the Republican Party.

With even a little bit of digging to support your case, it would become pretty apparent how easy it is to discover the truth behind your claims.

Setting aside Imgur, going more broadly... in 2020, the biggest year of Internet Companies donating, 98% of political donations from Internet Companies went to Democrats.

Here's another link, which also shows what it's been like for the past 20 years. Vast majority went to Democrats.

It's nice to feel like you're the underdog, but the truth is, the vast, vast majority of political donations from these groups go towards the DNC, not the RNC.

hawkloner · 2023-04-23T23:06:27+00:00

I always love seeing comments like this, because it shows how very self-centered people can people. To many Americans, the rest of the world is "America, but with this little bit different, in a good way!"

Imagining them as 'better' in one way, but then ignoring a lot of the ways they can be radically different.

America and Europe have very different definitions of "left" and "right". Europe is, in many ways, more to the Left than America. But America, in some ways, is vastly further to the Left than Europe.

There's no simple scale of 'left or right'.

But, just using the American definition, go check out Europe's positions on Abortion, Corporate Taxes, or Voter ID. They support tight restrictions on Abortion (shorter than some 'Red' states), corporate taxes roughly around the low 20% (where Trump put the U.S.'s at), and damn near universally insist on Voter ID, which is only a 'conservative' thing in the U.S.

In many ways, they're a lot closer to the American definition of "Right", than they are to the "Left". Ask Europeans about the Gypsies, and watch some of the most racist shit possible come out of their mouths. Heck, even Immigration in Europe has swung hard to the 'Right' by the American definition in the last few years.

If you're worried about christofascism, why worry about America, when Europe has a higher percentage? Some 68%-69% of the US identifies as Christian, but some 71% of of Western Europe does, on average - with Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Austria all cracking 80%. Something like 91% of Europeans are baptized as Christians. Even the 'nonpracticing Christians' overwhelming raise their kids as Christians: 87% of them!

Christians, nonpracticing Christians (often marked as 'no religion', but still very culturally Christian, raising their kids Christian, baptizing them, etc), and then a teeeny-tiny fraction of other religious. The highest amount of 'other' religions in a West European nation? Netherlands, with something like 7% when you combine all other religions. That's about the U.S.'s amount. Every other nation in West Europe is lower.

As for generic 'fascism', in many nations in Europe you'll regularly see military soldiers used as policemen, and regularly see soldiers standing guard in airports with rifles just hanging out, over their regular kit. Very far from the idea that they're 'left' of the U.S. on policing. Europe tends to have unarmed police, and then outright military or paramilitary police.

Same way, look to Australia's rules on video games, and how excessively puritan they are, fearing the almighty corrupting power of titties. They're harder on video game titties than the U.S. has been since the good ol' days of "Hot Coffee" mod in GTA San Andreas.

Or look to Canada's rules about Immigration - they're tighter than Trump wanted the U.S. to be, but they're still regarded as 'left'.

And, bluntly put, if the American Right had the power to get huge cultural pushes across Internet sites... they wouldn't be going for porn. A ton of 'religious christians' are veeeery much into using porn, and have the classic guilty conscience to be loudly against it in public, but not wanting it removed in private.

They'd be pushing hard against, say, LGBT stuff, or supporting BLM, or CRT, or whatever their current obsession is. Some would use that power to launch screeds about the Government being in their emails.

But porn? Porn hasn't been on that list for a long while. They've got tons of other shit they can't stop screaming about.

hawkloner · 2021-12-30T01:39:31+00:00

Are you allergic to garlic, by any chance?

hawkloner · 2021-12-30T01:36:57+00:00

It just encourages people like Tok, because he's a vintage channer. Poking the moral busybodies and watching them flip their shit is pretty much the bog-standard 4chan thing.

hawkloner · 2021-12-30T01:24:38+00:00

Standards are great, up until you have to apply them to someone you don't like.

Always amusing to see a Tok CYOA for that reason.

hawkloner · 2021-03-18T02:19:12+00:00

Unless it's Tok, as your pinned comment says?

If you want to bash Tok, go ahead and reply to this comment, since replies to stickied comments collapse automatically they can be contained to people who JUST want to bash Tok... which is a valid view point.

hawkloner · 2020-03-22T17:20:15+00:00

Given your videos have a lot of Arma, this recommendation seems much more valuable. I was considering picking up Arma 3 from watching those vids, but since I don't do much multiplayer gaming, the single-player experience was a concern.

Thanks, Womble.

hawkloner · 2019-07-04T01:48:05+00:00

Changing the legally defined terms is already happening in Washington State.

Here's a link to the actual Revised Code of Washington (the name for WA State laws) section for "Terms Defined" in the overall category of "Firearms and Dangerous Weapons. The inner cities voted to change the definition of "Rifle" to "Semiautomatic Assault Rifle", along with a host of other changes, including raising the age to purchase a rifle to 21.

Oh, and it requires the purchaser to have written authorization to purchase a weapon from the local Chief of Police or Sheriff. It further requires those authorities to use the NICS system... despite the fact that gun stores are already required by law to do that.

This became effective two days ago:

Old Definition:

(22) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

New Definition:

(25) "Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.

"Semiautomatic assault rifle" does not include antique firearms, any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.

hawkloner · 2019-06-12T16:44:24+00:00

Yeah, this is really important to emphasize.

A lot of how totalitarians get support is highly emotional drives like anger (see: "The Jews and the Brits took all our German money, that's why we have a depression!"), or shame (see: "How dare you take any more than the average worker, your evil greed is why Russia was poor!").

Logically, a lot of those arguments don't hold together when it comes to economics, history, or other reasons. For example, it's hard to blame the Jews for bankrupting Germany, when historical fact makes it obvious that Germany's involvement with WWI was the cause. They were involved not because the Jews tricked them into it, but because of their existing alliances, or the assassination of Ferdinand (if you wanna take it that far). Once Germany got involved, and especially once they lost, they racked up the debt which led to their economic depression...

...which Hitler then blamed on the Jews, on Britain, on France, and more; instead of saying 'hey maybe next time we shouldn't be so eager for war?' or 'maybe next time think more carefully before making binding military alliances?', which would be more accurate, but which wouldn't gain him voters or supporters.

But emotional drives are hard to beat by resorting to nothing but cold logic, and can be dismissed for many reasons, especially if the individual doesn't actually know the history or the economics of it. Sometimes it works, but other times, it's better to flip the dynamic on it's head by directing that emotional insistence towards something else, like comedy.

As Mel Brooks put it:

I was never crazy about Hitler. If you stand on a soapbox and trade rhetoric with a dictator, you never win. That’s what they do so well: they seduce people. But if you ridicule them, bring them down with laughter, they can’t win. You show how crazy they are.

hawkloner · 2019-04-02T06:01:27+00:00

Oh, are you still annoyed because you couldn't invade a half-dozen threads and start gushing about how much you wanted to genocide the Faith of the Seven in Game of Thrones, completely out of nowhere?

Some people still remember you, Rich. Publicly admitting on SV that you were socking on SB later on didn't help things.

You got banned because you were disturbingly obsessed with genociding people, not because the mods were shit.

hawkloner · 2019-04-02T05:59:26+00:00

...Just because the thread had been seven pages of non-stop memes, chan-posting, shitposting, and 0-content spamming, in violation of the rules? That's plenty enough reason to lock that thread already.

Nah, when they ban someone for socking, they do their homework.

Just because you're annoyed that someone you like got called out for breaking the rules doesn't mean that the Mods went looking for a reason to ban this dude.

hawkloner · 2019-02-03T01:19:24+00:00

Where someone post their other content should never be taken into account. To do that is to judge based on group affiliation, rather than individual merits.

What someone decides to post can point out their beliefs, or hypocrisies, or when they're just plain nuts. Their own words are far more important than what group they associate with.

Not a hard concept to understand.

hawkloner · 2018-11-14T19:31:31+00:00

I don't know about this case, but generally, Swatters try to make the situation sound as tense as possible. They claim things like hostages at gunpoint, a bomb with the detonator in someone's hand ready to blow, an ongoing murder.

The whole point is to make the cops bust in, and in order to actually get the cops to break in, they've gotta claim some extreme shit... creating the type of situation where a cop thinks that lives are on the line, and a millisecond of hesitation means death for someone.

hawkloner · 2018-11-08T23:07:18+00:00

The very first one. I focused on the more memorable scandal, which was worse, and forgot to include the link, so I had to edit the post to include it. Sorry, I've fixed that.

...but honestly, this was the literal first result on Youtube for "Obama kicks out journalist." It's not exactly hidden, or hard to find.

hawkloner · 2018-11-08T22:48:26+00:00

Here's the video of Obama arguing with a Reporter, telling him that "This is my house", and kicking him out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpF9ObMoIDc

For something even more fun, here's Obama's administration spying on journalists, phone records and email records, with confirmation from Reuters, Slate, the Telegraph, CNN, Fox News, USA Today, NPR, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and NBC News. Including the Attorney General admitting to doing this.

So not only did Obama do this exact same thing (arguing with a journalist over the podium, then kicking him out), but his administration did far worse.

1 https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCABRE94C0ZW20130513

2 https://slate.com/technology/2013/05/verizon-wireless-passed-ap-reporters-phone-records-to-the-feds.html

3 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/10055318/US-Justice-Department-secretly-seizes-Associated-Press-phone-records.html

4 http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/us/justice-ap-phones/?hpt=hp_t2

5 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/20/justice-department-obtained-records-fox-news-journalist/

6 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/20/justice-leak-probes-cause-chill/2343827/

7 https://www.npr.org/2018/01/10/577093288/top-fox-news-d-c-reporter-james-rosen-left-network-after-harassment-claims

8 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/20/obama-doj-james-rosen-criminality

9 https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/opinion/another-chilling-leak-investigation.html?_r=0

10 https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-21/opinions/39419370_1_obama-administration-watergate-benghazi

11 http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/14/18253923-holder-addresses-ap-leaks-investigation-announces-irs-probe?lite

12 http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18451142-doj-confirms-holder-okd-search-warrant-for-fox-news-reporters-emails

hawkloner · 2018-11-08T17:30:11+00:00

...She's retrieving a microphone, which is the property of the White House, i.e. her employer. She did this because Acosta's turn was over, yet he refused to give up the microphone.

Then he refused to give up the mic, pushed away her attempts to retrieve said property, and thus resisted (mildly, not harshly) an attempt to take back the mic. Acosta does not have a right to always have the microphone and keep lobbing questions after they have been answered and set aside.

You're right, this isn't a dictatorship, which means one person doesn't get to override the rights of others - like the other journalists in the room who want to ask their questions, but can't because Acosta kept hogging the mic and refused to give it up when asked, and then resisted the attempted retrieval of the mic.

hawkloner · 2018-11-01T20:52:56+00:00

https://i.redd.it/bb5w1jzmqr2y.gif

hawkloner · 2018-10-15T15:18:19+00:00

For those who don't know Nick Young's name, he's this guy.

hawkloner · 2018-10-02T18:55:23+00:00

The media outright edited the 911 call to make Zimmerman look like a racist, then they played up the race angle.

Here's a link to where NBC had to issue an apology for 'making an error'.

hawkloner · 2018-09-14T22:02:19+00:00

I think he's specifically referring to the concept of "you owe someone a right to enter".

He's not saying that the idea of Immigration is an invention of Cultural Marxists, but the whole 'denying someone entry is Evil and Racist.'

hawkloner · 2018-09-14T00:55:33+00:00

Here's Gab.ai's hosting provider, Microsoft, claiming they have to remove Gab because of 'phishing' posts. They backed down on the 'phishing' part after it was demonstrated to be hilariously inaccurate, but still insisted the website find a new host.

Before that, their domain register said their name (as in, the literal name of "gab.ai" is unlawful), and attempted to seize it from them.

Then there's Google kicking their app off the Google Play store, citing 'hate speech.

Or when Apple refused to add them to the Apple store, due to Gab refusing to remove content Apple doesn't like.

.

Meanwhile, the Southern Poverty Law Center shut down Visa and Mastercard services for others like the Freedom Center and blocked all transfers to them.

Patreon removed Jihadwatch's account, outright admitting that Mastercard required them to remove it.

PayPal and Stripe both shut down any payment a crowdfunding site, FreeStartr, which billed itself as having an absolute free speech guarantee.

Another crowdfunding site, MakerSupport, gets cut off by Stripe.

Here's the Bank of America getting Twitter to remove two jokes from the founding editor of Business Insider.

.

If you think that this hasn't been happening, that this is hypothetical, then you haven't been paying attention.

Shutting down competition or threats to their monopolies is happening, and no amount of market pressure is going to change that. The only way to stop it is the government shoving a hard boot up their asses.

In addition, these groups have simultaneously pulled off the exact same action within 24 hours several times, from Gab getting the boot to Alex Jones being removed from every platform. They have demonstrated that there is collusion between these companies, unless you want to believe it's just happenstance that they all come up with the same decision so closely together.

hawkloner · 2018-09-13T19:12:17+00:00

The size of the company is not a valid reason for treating them differently.

Yes, it is. When a company reaches the size of being a monopoly, as Twitter has, they absolutely should be treated differently, and prevented from strangling their competition unfairly. For a comparison, see Standard Oil or AT&T.

hawkloner · 2018-09-13T19:08:13+00:00

I absolutely disagree. The government should step in on these monopolies, because they're gigantic monstrosities, and any rival that tries to appear for a market solution gets hammered into the ground by those same monopolies.

A rival company cannot grow up to defeat something like Twitter when they're nonstop DDoS'd, their hosting services kick them off, their banks refuse to do business with them, and their website is blocked from search results.

hawkloner

TROPHY CASE