Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.

Minichan

Topic: Meta style post alert. I propose we rebrand impulsive repeat criminals 'Go-getters'

Anonymous A started this discussion 2 months ago #67,067

Obviously with accompanying legislation (The Go Get 'Em Act) to provide amnesty for these hard working American strivers.

If we struggle to get traction I am sure we can call whoever organized the recent media push of headlining stories about illegal Hispanic immigrants with the same 3 attractive white girls. Older barren women on Facebook eat that right up (i.e. Becky's recent shared stories).

Picture a crowd of black men in doo rags and 2XL tees.

One steps forward.

'I am not who you think I am.'

Black #1 pulls off rag, revealing a cap and gown from Harvard.

Another steps beside him.

'I am not who you think I am.'

Black #2 places fireman's helmet upon his head and grips an axe stoically.

Black #3 steps between the first two, slipping off his tee shirt to reveal a stethoscope.

'We aren't who you think we are. My repeated violations of federal law don't make me a criminal, they make me a go getter.'

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #821,797

Are you ok bro? The Nets game offer still stands btw.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 4 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #821,801

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
When Haifa goes barnstorming during the summer do they ever play the Nets? Watching Brooklyn vs. The de facto Jewish national team with you would tickle me.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 months ago, 58 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #821,803

@821,797 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Edgy ironicism aside I have a good eye for political advertisement thanks.

(Edited 27 seconds later.)

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #821,804

@821,801 (A)
Unfortunately no that hasn't happened yet and isn't likely to. The Nets do play in Mexico City twice though if you want to watch some basketball and then join a drug cartel.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 12 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #821,806

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That sounds fun too I like the federal district there's a very competitive human trafficking market.

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 18 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #821,810

> doo rags and 2XL tees

Yeah it's not the 90s any more

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #821,830

I've been to the Haifa airport..

just saying..

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,853

@821,810 (C)
Fashion runs on twenty year cycles it pretty much is ugh

Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 33 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,871

@previous (A)

Oh yeah I forgot the 90s were back in fashion

lol

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,894

@previous (C)
and I just thru out my do rags and jncos

Meta joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 3 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,935

Other ideas: give them military training and hire them out to third world countries as a mercenary force (like a temp agency but thugs with guns).

chili dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 15 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #821,940

@821,894 (E)
:'(

Anonymous E replied with this 2 months ago, 7 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #822,073

@previous (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
the post sounded like a joke but I was serious I just threw out my old dorags

chili dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 2 months ago, 3 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #822,103

@previous (E)
what about the jncos though
did you have any bondage pants or plaid

Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #822,116

Is Matt Milla a go getta?

chili dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #822,117

I agree
After all, America is built on genocide and theft

Anonymous D replied with this 2 months ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,255

@822,103 (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
uhh...several hundred million seem to like it more than Canada...thanks..

kook !!OPZbEQMT1 joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,276

@822,117 (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
As is nearly every first world country

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 39 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,284

@822,117 (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
Then how come the Rwanda genocide didn't make Rwanda richer? If genocide creates wealth shouldn't the Hutus be significantly wealthier now than in 1994?

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 months ago, 28 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,291

@previous (Meta)
what

Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 35 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,297

@822,284 (Meta)

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,301

@822,291 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)

> what

Triptych said America is built on genocide and theft. I'm asking why the Rwandan genocide failed to make the Hutu richer. Was it because they didn't do theft? I'm interested in how this genocide+theft=wealth formula works.

Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,304

@previous (Meta)

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 months ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,306

@822,301 (Meta)
When you take things that don't belong to your country as a result of genocide and theft, like say an entire continent, your wealth grows. When you murder hundreds of thousands of your own people during a civil war as a result of genocide and theft, the country doesn't become wealthier. Saying X is built on Y doesn't mean all Y builds X. That's ass backwards.

(Edited 39 seconds later.)

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,307

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
When the first Native Americans crossed the Bering Strait land bridge their wealth should have grown considerably, no? They came into two completely unihabited (at least by humans) continents.

Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,320

@previous (Meta)

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 months ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,322

@822,307 (Meta)
Are you implying it didn't or something? I don't get your point. If you want to do an analysis on the relative wealth of siberian native tribes vs American native tribes in the year 1491 be my guest. I don't think it would be crazy to say the Maya/Inca/Cherokee were better off than those natives who remained in Siberia. But again, I don't know and that point isn't relevant because they didn't acquire it through conquest anyway.

(Edited 57 seconds later.)

Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,326

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> but if you cannot prove it was true in this particular moment of pre-history then how do we know if your thesis is true?

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,329

@previous (J)
It's not even my thesis though! It would be like I said "cooking with garlic makes food taste good" and meta said "well putting five hundred cloves of garlic on one piece of chicken must mean that tastes good right?" and I said "no that doesn't follow at all" and he countered with "well what about people who cook with tumeric?". Like, it's not relevant at all as far as I can tell.

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 11 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,330

@822,322 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Let's say Trump decides to genocide Australia. Kill everyone. White, aborigine, Asian, whatever. Just de-populate Australia to zero. Then annex it to America. I don't think in 100 years there'd be any significant difference in wealth between Americans who settled in what used to be Australia vs. Americans who stayed in the old country.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,332

@previous (Meta)
Can you please in your next post specify the type and quantity of drugs you are on so I can reach your level of zen and communicate with you more effectively? Thank you.

Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,334

@822,329 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
damlol


@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
see photo

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,337

@822,332 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Looking at statistics, the Britons who stole and genocided Australia ended up at more or less the same level of wealth as Britons who stayed in Britain. Same for the Britons in Canada.

But maybe that's because they're still running off the boost they got from the Saxons stealing and genociding the British Isles?

(Edited 42 seconds later.)

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,339

@previous (Meta)
Are you seriously implying that the British colonization of 25% of the world's land did not increase the wealth of the British?

Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,345

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Yes.

Anonymous J double-posted this 2 months ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,350

@822,339 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Meta is channeling the fallacy of “white privilege isn’t real because poor white people exist”

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,352

@822,339 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Syntax often reminds us that the British Empire now consists of the Islas Malvinas and a handful of crappy little islands too small to see on a map. Losing this empire doesn't seem to have set the British back much. The colonies were actually a drain which is why Britain had to give them up after WWII. Like Iraq's oil, it probably would have just been cheaper to just buy the raw materials than to try to set up and run a bunch of mini-Englands all over the world. Lord knows Saddam would have sold us every barrel he had.

I've been oblique but where I'm going with this is I think laissez-faire capitalism is the reason America became so rich, and the reason the former British colonies (including those like Singapore and Hong Kong which have a negligible British colonist population) became rich. I think Triptych's (and why does she call herself "Chilidog" anyway? she's allergic to chili and dogs) argument that America became rich because of genocide and theft from Native Americans and African-Americans is wrong.

Look at Germany after WWII (and before 1990). Same ethnic group, same continent, but one half became a lot poorer than the other. You'd have to make some kind of argument that the benefits of colonialism and genocide somehow accrued only to West Germany but not to East Germany.

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 41 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,354

@previous (Meta)
> The colonies were actually a drain which is why Britain had to give them up after WWII. Like Iraq's oil, it probably would have just been cheaper to just buy the raw materials than to try to set up and run a bunch of mini-Englands all over the world. Lord knows Saddam would have sold us every barrel he had.

You are convinced you know a lot but your view of the world and how it works is so ahistorical as to be vulgar and a goddamned embarrassment to yourself.

Here’s a convenient example of how wrong you are: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company

I’m not going to explain it to you, so please be the noble, rational free thinker we know you are and take a read.

Anonymous J double-posted this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,355

@822,352 (Meta)
> You'd have to make some kind of argument that the benefits of colonialism and genocide somehow accrued only to West Germany but not to East Germany.

And that’s exactly what happened you fucking retard.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,371

@822,354 (J)
The Marshall Plan was $132,000,000,000 in today's dollars. West Germany had a population of 50,985,000 in 1950. That's $2590.37 per person, spread over 4 years so $647 per capita per year for 4 years (again, inflation adjusted).

I don't think that quite explains the 45 year East/West German economic disparity in 1990.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 32 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,382

@previous (Meta)
You’re converting the present dollar value of the initial investment value and not the possible time-value reflecting what a society today collectively has earned off that original value. A simple compound interest growth calculator would show you this has $464,624,495,443.95 of present day value if gaining at a meager 3% interest, compounded annually.

Divided amongst the 64,000,000 west German residents in 1990 and we get about $7260 as the mean value of gained money from the original plan.

I am disappointed you do not know how to calculate these economic principals and yet claim to understand how the economy works.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 months ago, 36 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,390

@822,352 (Meta)
There's so much wrong here I'm not gonna have the energy to fight it all. The British empire at its height had roughly 25% of the landmass in the world. It also had roughly 25% of the world's population and 25% of the world's GDP. The US today has roughly the same % of GDP. It was economically as powerful at its height as the US is today, while containing 1/4 of the world's potential military manpower and territory. It was MASSIVE.
I have no idea how you can sit here and wave your hands and be like "yeah but that didn't matter". It was mind bogglingly huge.

> I've been oblique but where I'm going with this is I think laissez-faire capitalism is the reason America became so rich, and the reason the former British colonies (including those like Singapore and Hong Kong which have a negligible British colonist population) became rich. I think Triptych's (and why does she call herself "Chilidog" anyway? she's allergic to chili and dogs) argument that America became rich because of genocide and theft from Native Americans and African-Americans is wrong
There are so many points I want to expand on here but I'll keep it brief so I can sleep.

1. American laissez faire capitalism WOULD NOT EXIST without the exploitation and murder of native Americans and Africans. The land we stole from the native Americans and the labor was done by slaves. Try establishing capitalism with no property and no labor pool.

Second, laissez faire capitalism was in effect for more than a hundred years in America, and America was kind of a middling power for most of its history. It almost fell apart in civil war less than a hundred years after its founding and numerous financial crises at the turn of the century made its economy incredibly unstable. The US was excellent at one thing though: existing on the opposite end of an ocean from its competition, who were all in roughly the same area. Then they all went on a Continent-destroying war, decimated their manpower and infrastructure, and decided to do it all again on a much worse scale 30 years later. The US was in effect the winner by being the country that didn't have war waged inside its borders. If world wars 1 and 2 had been between the US Mexico and Canada, we'd be talking about how European economic models were vastly superior because North America would have been totally gutted by war and reliant on foreign powers to aid it both during the war and rebuilding after.

chili dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 2 months ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,397

@822,352 (Meta)
...are you for real?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #822,400

Bad draad

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 13 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,517

@822,382 (J)
> $7260 as the mean value of gained money from the original plan.
Spread out over 50 years. $145.20 a year.

Still not even close to accounting for the difference in GDP per capita.

@822,390 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> American laissez faire capitalism WOULD NOT EXIST without the exploitation and murder of native Americans and Africans.

Laissez faire capitalism was invented by a Scot in 1776. It existed in many places where there were no genocide or slavery.

@822,397 (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)

> ...are you for real?

It's like a Schrodinger's Cat quantum thing. I simultaneously am for real and trolling, but precisely measuring it alters the result.

(Edited 46 seconds later.)

Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 15 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,519

@previous (Meta)
No. Absolutely incorrect. $7260 is the 1990 value of the original investment, per capita. Your economic proficiency is one step above functionally illiterate.

If the per capita breakdown ignored children, the indigent, and prisoners then it would mean a household in 1990 had $29040 of additional, “unearned” wealth simply from being in a nation receiving post-War stimulus. (Half the population doubling up wealth by marriage.)

Also note I was using 3 percent growth as a good faith, minimal rate of growth. Many people show the ability to receive returns around 8 percent and a lucky few show exponential returns in their lifetimes.

Please stop making reckless, unsubstantiated claims about subjects for which you hold no background, training, or certification. This subject was a secondary focus of my undergraduate degree from an accredited university.

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Anonymous J double-posted this 2 months ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,521

@822,517 (Meta)
To ensure we are discussing the same data, please identify the difference of GDP per capita between West Germany and East Germany. I see the CIA World Facebook for 1990 reports $15300 and $9679, respectively.

Thanks.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous E replied with this 2 months ago, 41 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,527

@822,517 (Meta)
are you implying that there was no slavery in 18th century Scotland
I don't know why I'm picking that one thing out but bravo on the draad

Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,535

@822,517 (Meta)
See mercantilism for the origins of laissez faire capitalism. The beginnings of this period in history appear to be around 1600 +/- 50 years.

inb4 quibbling about the literal definitions of these two ideas

inb4 I sarcastically clarify it is true there was absolutely zero lassiez faire capitalism until it was defined and the presence of the black market was definitely not where we saw its original form

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,566

@822,519 (J)

> No. Absolutely incorrect. $7260 is the 1990 value of the $2590.37 invested original investment, per capita. Your economic proficiency is one step above functionally illiterate.
$7260 is if the Marshall plan money was invested at 3% for the period. These are your own numbers dude. Also why should it necessarily exclude children? Did they not spend any on education, pediatric healthcare, etc? Children in 1945 would be middle aged by 1990.

If the Marshall plan didn't earmark anything for those, it still freed up money for them. Like how NATO enables European countries to spend a pittance on defense and put that money into free healtcare and high speed trains instead.

> Also note I was using 3 percent growth as a good faith, minimal rate of growth. Many people show the ability to receive returns around 8 percent and a lucky few show exponential returns in their lifetimes.
Okay then what's a fair rate of growth? I'm just using your rate.
> Please stop making reckless, unsubstantiated claims about subjects for which you hold no background, training, or certification. This subject was a secondary focus of my undergraduate degree from an accredited university.
Please stop being a fag lol 😂. Communism has failed and no amount of prevaricating and handwaving can change it.

chili dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,569

@previous (Meta)
Its failings had absolutely nothing to do with authoritarianism and the US invading any country doing well for itself outside the capitalist system and installing puppet leaders
Nope

Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,577

@822,566 (Meta)
> recognizing the ills and failures of capitalism means you are advocating for full communism

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,579

@822,569 (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
Yeah I remember that time the US invaded the Soviet Union and China. That shit was insane!

Meta double-posted this 2 months ago, 50 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,580

@822,577 (J)

Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,585

@previous (Meta)
unrelated reaction shitpost image dot png

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 months ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,647

@822,517 (Meta)
What places were those exactly? And yes laissez faire capitalism predates the US but American laissez faire capitalism doesn't, which was my point.

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,648

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That makes no sense. It's saying "the English language predates the US but American English doesn't". By definition it can't predate the US because it's American English.

(Edited 48 seconds later.)

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 months ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,649

@previous (Meta)
I was pointing out how the American implementation of capitalism was only possible because genocide theft and slavery enabled it. You then started talking about some unspecified other countries that allegedly did the same without some form of brutal colonialism or other exploitative practices. I just don't get what relevance that point had since we were talking about america.

(Edited 20 seconds later.)

Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,650

@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
meta does not have reading comprehension skills because he is drunk

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,657

@822,649 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I'm saying, yes, America did have slavery and genocide and it became a rich capitalist country. Other countries had no (or little) slavery and genocide and also became rich capitalist countries.

I believe America's economic success is a result of capitalism, not the genocide and slavery of 1607-1865. My opinion is that "America became rich because of slavery and genocide" is confusing correlation and causation. Many other countries did slavery and genocide and did not become rich. Many countries which did not do slavery and genocide became rich.

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,658

@previous (Meta)
We have established you have no working knowledge of how to perform microeconomic calculations and no background or certification in macroeconomics. Opinion disregarded.

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,662

@previous (J)
We have established you're a commie fag who can't even figure out what the ROI on the Marshall Plan was 😂

Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 31 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,663

@previous (Meta)
Please identify where my math was in error.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,688

This is still a bad draad.

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,691

@previous (A)
You don't even have to say "Meta style" thread. Just put Meta in the name field. You don't even need a tripcode.

chili dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,703

@822,657 (Meta)
Holy shit this is the most only-ironically unaware jingoistic post I have seen in a long time

(Edited 43 seconds later.)

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,712

@previous (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
Dictionary
jingoistic
jin·go·is·tic
ˈˌjiNGɡōˈistik/
adjective derogatory
characterized by extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy.
"jingoistic propaganda"

I don't see how my reply was jingoistic. Could you please explain where I expressed "extreme patriotism" and/or an "aggressive or warlike foreign policy"?

Anonymous E replied with this 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,715

@previous (Meta)
looool

Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,734

fucking autists

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 6 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,815

@822,703 (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
Or is this that new thing where dictionary definitions don't matter because they were written by white cishetero privileged dudebros?

Anonymous J replied with this 2 months ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,892

@previous (Meta)
nice madpost

Anonymous E replied with this 2 months ago, 50 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,907

@822,815 (Meta)

> Or is this that new thing where dictionary definitions don't matter because they were written by white cishetero privileged dudebros?

when you say something stupid and then double down a day later I get concerned

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 29 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,923

@previous (E)
Don't make me quadruple down.

Anonymous E replied with this 2 months ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,928

@previous (Meta)
don't make me make a Catherine draad about wanting KFC to reissue the double down

Meta replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #822,947

@previous (E)
do it faggot
:
[upload]

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting, also keep in mind you can minify URLs using MiniURL and generate image macros using MiniMacro.