Let me quote here:
Why Indeed!Marvolous Star
33 minutes ago
Why? Why? FIRST REBECA BLACK NOW THIS KID. WHY DO YOU RUIN PEOPLE LIVES.
Alison Gold - Chinese Food (Official Music Video)
[youtube]wWLhrHVySgA[/youtube]
Why Indeed!Marvolous Star
33 minutes ago
Why? Why? FIRST REBECA BLACK NOW THIS KID. WHY DO YOU RUIN PEOPLE LIVES.
The "all man" bit is especially dubious...Mykeru wrote: ...Sorry, Jesus being "all man and all god" isn't a scientific question...
If you are going to suck & fail, suck & fail in as big of a way as you possibly can.AndrewV69 wrote:OK, I was certain that it could not possibly get any worse (more fool me):
Let me quote here:
Why Indeed!
Alison Gold - Chinese Food (Official Music Video)
[youtube]wWLhrHVySgA[/youtube]
Fistbump for timezone privilege.KiwiInOz wrote:Only 6 hours and 24 minutes until tomorrow.
The hell the filmmakers are going to will be fabulous.Gefan wrote:
The "all man" bit is especially dubious...
Hmm... The first thing to do is to look at the original survey.ROBOKiTTY wrote:Meanwhile:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/politica ... 2D11820136
Social Justice League, what are you doing about this problem?
I still find it incredible the percentages that believe in something other than evolution are so high. It's shameful at any level of education.SoylentAtheist wrote:Hmm... The first thing to do is to look at the original survey.ROBOKiTTY wrote:Meanwhile:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/politica ... 2D11820136
Social Justice League, what are you doing about this problem?
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publ ... evolution/
Looking at this chart specifically
http://i.imgur.com/NIoq8sQ.png
It appears as if this whole anti-evolution idea is just flat out dying out. Sure you can try to speed it along, but I am not sure it is worth the effort.
Oh, I love that video. It's going along being all cute and stuff, then BOOM!Gefan wrote:The "all man" bit is especially dubious...Mykeru wrote: ...Sorry, Jesus being "all man and all god" isn't a scientific question...
[youtube]Gw3eP2JPFIY[/youtube]
:naughty:One of the haters’ tropes about me is that a lot of my blogging involves pointing to other people’s writing. Yes, that’s right, it does. And?
That’s not a bug, it’s a feature. I like being pointed to other people’s writing, and I like returning the favor. I like a good salmagundi, and I like making one. It’s all good.
Dammit - I was almost to the end! Now I have PTSD.TheMan wrote:Spoiler alert: apparently the world is a globe and it's next year now in this part of the world.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/20/w ... s-so-much/No, I do reading comprehension very well. I just don't do crazy, which is probably why this article doesn't agree with me.
Amanda hypothetises that cats are associated not just with women, but single, childless women. Are they? I confess I must've missed that societal cue. But more than that, she says that what a lot of people are doing when they say cats doesn't really love you and we must be fooling ourselves is a kind of <i>mansplaining</i>. Mansplaining?? Why that particular expression? Why not patronising or some other gender neutral word? Maybe so that it would better fit in with her rhetoric that people who don't like cats are sexist?
What about men? Don't they own cats too? Why the need for this silly 'cat lady' argument? Does it fit into the larger narrative that women are dumb and needy and cling to cats? No, it doesn't, because guess what, different people have different preferences and some people prefer cats and some people prefer dogs. Not all men choose dogs and not all women choose cats. Which is why Amanda's argument is such a stupid, laughable argument that it made me loudly guffaw when reading it the first time.
For crying out loud, there is so much wrong with it that I'm not sure why I should have to point them out. But just to make a point: My sister likes dogs <i>and</i> cats. She says that when she gets her own apartment, she's going to get both. On the other hand, my mother? Hates cats. Hates them. Doesn't want anything to do with them. But she likes dogs. Does that mean she is subliminally sexist? Give me a fucking break.
Amanda has a confirmation bias the size of a small country and she has the ego to boot. If she honestly thinks people's preferences of cats and dogs, or their dislike of one or the other, she's an idiot. A radical feminist idiot.
And, it bears repeating, this is why I never comment on FTB, Raw Story or any of the authoritarian blogs. The game is rigged. All one manages to do is frustrate oneself and, not coincidentally, drive up the offending site's traffic. You first check the article, then you comment, then you have to check to see if your response was shit-canned and all they see is hit-hit-hit while giving the false impression to everyone who isn't you of not only agreement, but that dissenters -- that being you -- can't stick in a fight.Pitchguest wrote:Sadly, though, my permission to respond had been revoked.
I also find it funny when they scream and cry for being blocked and censored yet routinely do the same for anyone presenting an alternate view to theirs. They then label anything that challenges their view as 'hating' and 'PTSD inducing' They are so dishonest it would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact they spread their poison whenever they can.Mykeru wrote:And, it bears repeating, this is why I never comment on FTB, Raw Story or any of the authoritarian blogs. The game is rigged. All one manages to do is frustrate oneself and, not coincidentally, drive up the offending site's traffic. You first check the article, then you comment, then you have to check to see if your response was shit-canned and all they see is hit-hit-hit while giving the false impression to everyone who isn't you of not only agreement, but that dissenters -- that being you -- can't stick in a fight.Pitchguest wrote:Sadly, though, my permission to respond had been revoked.
Just a little correction. 'Patronising' is not gender neutral. Derived from 'pater', or 'pops' to you. If I were given to SJ Warrioring I'd be pointing out how insulting it is to dad types, but I won't because I'm not.Pitchguest wrote:Someone responded to me on Marcotte's 'It's sexist to hate cats' article, asking me if I did reading comprehension, and while I kind of wanted to keep my reaction to the article brief (lots of laughter) I decided to respond to this one person. Sadly, though, my permission to respond had been revoked.
Nevertheless, here it is for posterity.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/20/w ... s-so-much/No, I do reading comprehension very well. I just don't do crazy, which is probably why this article doesn't agree with me.
Amanda hypothetises that cats are associated not just with women, but single, childless women. Are they? I confess I must've missed that societal cue. But more than that, she says that what a lot of people are doing when they say cats doesn't really love you and we must be fooling ourselves is a kind of <i>mansplaining</i>. Mansplaining?? Why that particular expression? Why not patronising or some other gender neutral word? Maybe so that it would better fit in with her rhetoric that people who don't like cats are sexist?
What about men? Don't they own cats too? Why the need for this silly 'cat lady' argument? Does it fit into the larger narrative that women are dumb and needy and cling to cats? No, it doesn't, because guess what, different people have different preferences and some people prefer cats and some people prefer dogs. Not all men choose dogs and not all women choose cats. Which is why Amanda's argument is such a stupid, laughable argument that it made me loudly guffaw when reading it the first time.
For crying out loud, there is so much wrong with it that I'm not sure why I should have to point them out. But just to make a point: My sister likes dogs <i>and</i> cats. She says that when she gets her own apartment, she's going to get both. On the other hand, my mother? Hates cats. Hates them. Doesn't want anything to do with them. But she likes dogs. Does that mean she is subliminally sexist? Give me a fucking break.
Amanda has a confirmation bias the size of a small country and she has the ego to boot. If she honestly thinks people's preferences of cats and dogs, or their dislike of one or the other, she's an idiot. A radical feminist idiot.
Way back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and I ran a mostly political blog site, we had a forum " Salon des Refusés", which alludes to the fact that the sort of people we wanted were those thrown off other blogs for having an opinion. As it was my blog I was the Sooper-Dooper Administrator and enlisted minions to do the day-to-day moderation. I had been formerly dogpiled and banned from The Straight Dope and The Darwin Awards and ran it, well, pretty much like The Pit.JackSkeptic wrote:I also find it funny when they scream and cry for being blocked and censored yet routinely do the same for anyone presenting an alternate view to theirs. They then label anything that challenges their view as 'hating' and 'PTSD inducing' They are so dishonest it would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact they spread their poison whenever they can.Mykeru wrote:And, it bears repeating, this is why I never comment on FTB, Raw Story or any of the authoritarian blogs. The game is rigged. All one manages to do is frustrate oneself and, not coincidentally, drive up the offending site's traffic. You first check the article, then you comment, then you have to check to see if your response was shit-canned and all they see is hit-hit-hit while giving the false impression to everyone who isn't you of not only agreement, but that dissenters -- that being you -- can't stick in a fight.Pitchguest wrote:Sadly, though, my permission to respond had been revoked.
Notice to all bloggers. If your routinely censor and block anything you dislike you are only fooling yourself and the stupid. And the stupid will eventually represent the majority of your responders. You are intellectual cowards and lightweights. If you want to spew your thoughts into the world yet can't handle people reacting to them do not expect people to take you seriously or give a stuff about your vacuous opinions.
Mandy Marcottage-cheese wrote:Pitchguest wrote:Someone responded to me on Marcotte's 'It's sexist to hate cats' article, asking me if I did reading comprehension, and while I kind of wanted to keep my reaction to the article brief (lots of laughter) I decided to respond to this one person. Sadly, though, my permission to respond had been revoked.
Nevertheless, here it is for posterity.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/20/w ... s-so-much/No, I do reading comprehension very well. I just don't do crazy, which is probably why this article doesn't agree with me.
Amanda hypothetises that cats are associated not just with women, but single, childless women. Are they? I confess I must've missed that societal cue. But more than that, she says that what a lot of people are doing when they say cats doesn't really love you and we must be fooling ourselves is a kind of <i>mansplaining</i>. Mansplaining?? Why that particular expression? Why not patronising or some other gender neutral word? Maybe so that it would better fit in with her rhetoric that people who don't like cats are sexist?
What about men? Don't they own cats too? Why the need for this silly 'cat lady' argument? Does it fit into the larger narrative that women are dumb and needy and cling to cats? No, it doesn't, because guess what, different people have different preferences and some people prefer cats and some people prefer dogs. Not all men choose dogs and not all women choose cats. Which is why Amanda's argument is such a stupid, laughable argument that it made me loudly guffaw when reading it the first time.
For crying out loud, there is so much wrong with it that I'm not sure why I should have to point them out. But just to make a point: My sister likes dogs <i>and</i> cats. She says that when she gets her own apartment, she's going to get both. On the other hand, my mother? Hates cats. Hates them. Doesn't want anything to do with them. But she likes dogs. Does that mean she is subliminally sexist? Give me a fucking break.
Amanda has a confirmation bias the size of a small country and she has the ego to boot. If she honestly thinks people's preferences of cats and dogs, or their dislike of one or the other, she's an idiot. A radical feminist idiot.
I'd take issue with that one, for a start.Well, I think -
what kind of patriarchal rapiness would having a pet owl indicate?BarnOwl wrote:Standard Marcotte et al. philosophy: judge people and assign them to groups based on the types of companion animals they do or don't have. Several years ago on Pharyngula, there was a similar brand of stupid, assigning negative qualities (natch, because the PeeZus would NEVER have a small dog) to people who have small dogs. One of several commenters who handed PeeZus' arse right back to him recalled the loyalty and companionship of her Pekinese dogs. Of course, Marcotte et al. conveniently ignore the fact that many people adopt pets in a fairly random or serendipitous manner: friend finds a stray (or two or three), someone at work is fostering irresistibly cute cats or dogs, abandoned dog jumps into your car at a friend's ranch, stray kitties fed on the back porch find a forever home, etc. But no, they MUST assign some patriarchal rape culture meaning to it, which confirms their weird biases and entitled sense of peeved oppression. :roll:
I'm certainly no fan of Libertarianism, and am usually annoyed by the ridiculous posturings of its many followers in my state, but it's inaccurate to assume that most of those followers are wealthy. Quite the contrary, by my observations. To me it seems to be a movement largely fueled by the desperate and ineffectual flailing of people who have disenfranchised themselves, and who have little or no power, influence, or disposable income. The Tea Party libertarian movement may very well eat itself in short order (one can hope).You cannot call yourself pro-liberty, even including the word in your name, if you are unwilling to recognize that the greatest oppressive force opposing freedom in America is unregulated greed. Libertarianism is a philosophy for the well-off, the privileged, and those who dream someday of being a wealthy boss with power over the peons. When capital is the measure of success, those who have it thrive at the expense of those who don’t; when we don’t have redistribution of wealth, we do not have equality of opportunity.
The kind that pukes up feathers and small bones when it's finished.rpguest wrote:what kind of patriarchal rapiness would having a pet owl indicate?BarnOwl wrote:Standard Marcotte et al. philosophy: judge people and assign them to groups based on the types of companion animals they do or don't have. Several years ago on Pharyngula, there was a similar brand of stupid, assigning negative qualities (natch, because the PeeZus would NEVER have a small dog) to people who have small dogs. One of several commenters who handed PeeZus' arse right back to him recalled the loyalty and companionship of her Pekinese dogs. Of course, Marcotte et al. conveniently ignore the fact that many people adopt pets in a fairly random or serendipitous manner: friend finds a stray (or two or three), someone at work is fostering irresistibly cute cats or dogs, abandoned dog jumps into your car at a friend's ranch, stray kitties fed on the back porch find a forever home, etc. But no, they MUST assign some patriarchal rape culture meaning to it, which confirms their weird biases and entitled sense of peeved oppression. :roll:
Marcotte is wasting her paltry talents on this penny-ante "what kind of dog you have" bigotry when she could be going for big time bigotry where she makes insulting generalizations about entire classes and races of people.BarnOwl wrote:Standard Marcotte et al. philosophy: judge people and assign them to groups based on the types of companion animals they do or don't have. Several years ago on Pharyngula, there was a similar brand of stupid, assigning negative qualities (natch, because the PeeZus would NEVER have a small dog) to people who have small dogs. One of several commenters who handed PeeZus' arse right back to him recalled the loyalty and companionship of her Pekinese dogs. Of course, Marcotte et al. conveniently ignore the fact that many people adopt pets in a fairly random or serendipitous manner: friend finds a stray (or two or three), someone at work is fostering irresistibly cute cats or dogs, abandoned dog jumps into your car at a friend's ranch, stray kitties fed on the back porch find a forever home, etc. But no, they MUST assign some patriarchal rape culture meaning to it, which confirms their weird biases and entitled sense of peeved oppression. :roll:
It depends on if you got the owl's consent before having it, I guess.rpguest wrote: what kind of patriarchal rapiness would having a pet owl indicate?
:lol:
Well I was reading a right wing blog the other day and I just learned that the American revolution was in fact a *libertarian* movement, no liberalism at all. This of course coming from a guy who believes that man was only truly free when living under a king in a feudal society...BarnOwl wrote:Speaking of the fashionable left flapping its mouth, PeeZus has yet another post about Libertarians:
I'm certainly no fan of Libertarianism, and am usually annoyed by the ridiculous posturings of its many followers in my state, but it's inaccurate to assume that most of those followers are wealthy. Quite the contrary, by my observations. To me it seems to be a movement largely fueled by the desperate and ineffectual flailing of people who have disenfranchised themselves, and who have little or no power, influence, or disposable income. The Tea Party libertarian movement may very well eat itself in short order (one can hope).You cannot call yourself pro-liberty, even including the word in your name, if you are unwilling to recognize that the greatest oppressive force opposing freedom in America is unregulated greed. Libertarianism is a philosophy for the well-off, the privileged, and those who dream someday of being a wealthy boss with power over the peons. When capital is the measure of success, those who have it thrive at the expense of those who don’t; when we don’t have redistribution of wealth, we do not have equality of opportunity.
I consider myself to be a progressive liberal (by US definitions), but I'm not going to deny that I benefit from the capitalist economy in the US. If wealth were redistributed across the country, I'd have much less than I do now. I could survive, and possibly be quite happy, but I'd be much less comfy. It's possible that PeeZus is willing to give up his current lifestyle to usher in some utopian egalitarian US vision, but the evidence to date indicates that he enjoys the wining and dining and expense-paid domestic and international travel, and partakes of it frequently. For starters, perhaps he should cut ties with a blogging network that operates on a capitalist model - if his messages are so important, then best disavow the ads revenue.
Robertson is a fundie who credits his beliefs with saving his life and his marriage. Setting aside the truth, or lack thereof to these beliefs, given he has them, the fact he says the things he does is utterly unsurprising.Badger3k wrote:Derp - I see PZ has just discovered that the Duck Dynasty bigot and homophobe, and fundie asshat...is all of those. I have never seen the show and I knew all that a long time ago. Maybe they do live under rocks.
I think we should have a more rigorous system of vetting reality-tv rednecks, guidos, trailer trash, gold-diggers and the like to make sure they don't hold any unsavory beliefs.welch wrote:Robertson is a fundie who credits his beliefs with saving his life and his marriage. Setting aside the truth, or lack thereof to these beliefs, given he has them, the fact he says the things he does is utterly unsurprising.Badger3k wrote:Derp - I see PZ has just discovered that the Duck Dynasty bigot and homophobe, and fundie asshat...is all of those. I have never seen the show and I knew all that a long time ago. Maybe they do live under rocks.
I watch and enjoy the show, because I think it's funny, even though it's staged as hell. But then, I get a lot of the jokes that someone who hasn't lived in the south a long time wouldn't get.
That is, of course, excepting Lsuoma's bottomless asshole.Mykeru wrote:Do we get a new thread for the new year?
Because there's no way an asshole could still be bleeding.
A multiple rapist whose moral code forbids him to eat cheese. You don't get many of those nowadays.John D wrote:In other news.... Michael Shermer has decided to go full vegan after viewing the film "Speciesism". I guess he must have never really thought about it before...
http://vimeo.com/ondemand/speciesism
Of course it's okay to rape 'em, just so long as you don't kill and eat 'em after.Tony Parsehole wrote:A multiple rapist whose moral code forbids him to eat cheese. You don't get many of those nowadays.John D wrote:In other news.... Michael Shermer has decided to go full vegan after viewing the film "Speciesism". I guess he must have never really thought about it before...
http://vimeo.com/ondemand/speciesism
Preach on!Mykeru wrote:Do we get a new thread for the new year?
Because there's no way an asshole could still be bleeding.
I watched about 15 minutes of it once, and it's pretty much The Beverly Hillbillies only less authentic.welch wrote:Robertson is a fundie who credits his beliefs with saving his life and his marriage. Setting aside the truth, or lack thereof to these beliefs, given he has them, the fact he says the things he does is utterly unsurprising.Badger3k wrote:Derp - I see PZ has just discovered that the Duck Dynasty bigot and homophobe, and fundie asshat...is all of those. I have never seen the show and I knew all that a long time ago. Maybe they do live under rocks.
I watch and enjoy the show, because I think it's funny, even though it's staged as hell. But then, I get a lot of the jokes that someone who hasn't lived in the south a long time wouldn't get.
Brilliant. The Melody shoop busts me up every time I think of it.
"I was in the Virgin Islands once. I met a girl. We ate lobster, drank piña coladas. At sunset, we made love like sea otters.That was a pretty good day. Why couldn't I get that day over, and over, and over? "zenbabe wrote:I once spent New Year's Eve in Sydney, big anniversary of a bridge; had a magnificent and very private view of the fireworks, a lot of pricey alcohol, the heat of a summer evening, and the pitter patter of sexy time.
Ah well. If I never have another night like that at least I had one.
AMIRITE?
GET OUT OF MY HEADMykeru wrote:"I was in the Virgin Islands once. I met a girl. We ate lobster, drank piña coladas. At sunset, we made love like sea otters.That was a pretty good day. Why couldn't I get that day over, and over, and over? "zenbabe wrote:I once spent New Year's Eve in Sydney, big anniversary of a bridge; had a magnificent and very private view of the fireworks, a lot of pricey alcohol, the heat of a summer evening, and the pitter patter of sexy time.
Ah well. If I never have another night like that at least I had one.
AMIRITE?
--Groundhog Day
That trailer is bizarre. It starts with a not at all shocking expose about bad conditions at giant meat producing businesses, then there's Pete Singer, and then there's people talking about the Nazis-including an interview with a man in a Nazi uniform. This is the movie Shermer tweeted that everyone should go see it?John D wrote:In other news.... Michael Shermer has decided to go full vegan after viewing the film "Speciesism". I guess he must have never really thought about it before...
http://vimeo.com/ondemand/speciesism
"Who wants some flapjacks?!"Mykeru wrote:"I was in the Virgin Islands once. I met a girl. We ate lobster, drank piña coladas. At sunset, we made love like sea otters.That was a pretty good day. Why couldn't I get that day over, and over, and over? "zenbabe wrote:I once spent New Year's Eve in Sydney, big anniversary of a bridge; had a magnificent and very private view of the fireworks, a lot of pricey alcohol, the heat of a summer evening, and the pitter patter of sexy time.
Ah well. If I never have another night like that at least I had one.
AMIRITE?
--Groundhog Day
My mistake. He is not full on vegan... he is the "I don't think shellfish suffer" kind of vegan. So is it okay to eat a cow that dies of old age? Fuck this is complicated! How about an octopus? Can I eat an octopus? They are highly intelligent invertebrates. Cuttlefish perhaps... hmmmmm....katamari Damassi wrote:That trailer is bizarre. It starts with a not at all shocking expose about bad conditions at giant meat producing businesses, then there's Pete Singer, and then there's people talking about the Nazis-including an interview with a man in a Nazi uniform. This is the movie Shermer tweeted that everyone should go see it?John D wrote:In other news.... Michael Shermer has decided to go full vegan after viewing the film "Speciesism". I guess he must have never really thought about it before...
http://vimeo.com/ondemand/speciesism
Incidentally, even Singer draws the line(arbitrarily)at vertebrates, which would make eating shrimp okay.
Personally I draw the line at spindle cells. If it's got'em I don't eats'em.John D wrote:My mistake. He is not full on vegan... he is the "I don't think shellfish suffer" kind of vegan. So is it okay to eat a cow that dies of old age? Fuck this is complicated! How about an octopus? Can I eat an octopus? They are highly intelligent invertebrates. Cuttlefish perhaps... hmmmmm....katamari Damassi wrote:That trailer is bizarre. It starts with a not at all shocking expose about bad conditions at giant meat producing businesses, then there's Pete Singer, and then there's people talking about the Nazis-including an interview with a man in a Nazi uniform. This is the movie Shermer tweeted that everyone should go see it?John D wrote:In other news.... Michael Shermer has decided to go full vegan after viewing the film "Speciesism". I guess he must have never really thought about it before...
http://vimeo.com/ondemand/speciesism
Incidentally, even Singer draws the line(arbitrarily)at vertebrates, which would make eating shrimp okay.