If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

Service Dog wrote:Roseanne Barr's radio show Sunday, with her guest: TERF-feminist Cathy "Bug" Brennan.

Part 1 and 2 are all over the place... CIA brainwashing, indiscriminate claims about the JonBenet murder...

But, unless you want to hear random battshitery, you won't miss much if you jump ahead to Part 3, where it seems to be taking more shape...
(that's as far as I've listened.)

Maybe it's just me, but I really do glean a lot of amusement from the fact that Carrier named his, er, shop as 'Richard Carrier's Marvelous Amusements,' like some sort of travelling Victorian pedlar. I can just see him coming into town on a float pulled by Jen McCreight, wearing a battered top hat and prancing around to the music of a calliope as he divulges the wondrous Baynesian noveties on offer for his discerning patrons. There's almost something of Bradbury's 'Something Wicked This Way Comes' about it, with Carrier leading up the dark carnival as Mr Berk, with Ophelia as the Dust Witch, and PZ Myers taking the Cooger role as he goes backwards on the FTB merry-go-round and comes off it transformed into Alex Gabriel.

I'm sorry. It just amuses me to a most unseemly degree. Carrier has never failed to raise a grin in me, not since he wrote that his penis 'is of average size for a white male.'

He's the intellectual equivalent of David Brent.

spiffigt wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote: Anyway, the bottom line is that the three groups (if you include humans) have different arrangements, so I am not clear how you can get any sort of meaningful extrapolation if all three go their own way in this regard (mate guarding, pairing, parental investment etc. etc. etc.)

This. We may be closely related but that doesn't really mean diddly squat. Just look how different bonobos and chimpanzees behave.

Luckily we don't need to "extrapolate", since nowadays we can test species-specific hypotheses about behavior, as they did with the chimp study. The whole point of the study was that chimps and humans are different in this regard, so I'm not sure why you're bringing up extrapolation at all.

Sunder wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:Kinda poignant.

http://www.skepticink.com/nocrossnocres ... e-problem/

Trying to think how PZ would put a liberal slant on this one, and failing.

I've always been conflicted about Islam myself.

Doctrinally there's really nothing in the Koran that's of any measurable depth worse than what you can find in the Bible. They're both morally bankrupt tomes that advocate the most heinous of atrocities as punishments for trivial "crimes."

So if it's not the doctrine itself it just comes down to the practitioners. And noting that "moderate" Muslims are still pretty damn extreme doesn't really explain why.

Theological basis + history of application + current cultural canvass

The question here though is "can a standard approach of living by the book be compatible with western values". These gentleman seek to provide an answer from the perspective of moderate middle of the road Sunnis.

Why they are extreme to me is less of an imperative (given my govts policies) than blowing away the liberal smokescreen and noting that they are undeniably dangerous to "my" societies expressed values.

Tigzy wrote: ...He's the intellectual equivalent of David Brent.

That sir, is one hell of a line.

Since we appear to be under unusually heavy baboon surveillance right now.

HEY! HEEEYYYY!!! OVER HERE YOU FUCKERS!!!

[youtube]5YAlVAcKIq0[/youtube]

If saw the original "Promoting Amy" before it was blocked, the last minute or so is additional footage.

Well, that was a giant waste of time.

Blocked more or less instantly.

Fuck.

Guestus Aurelius wrote:Jan Steen: MVP[itter].


Something I've noticed with great amusement about Carrier is that for all his pompous loquaciousness, he's not a particularly good writer. In his refusal to strive for brevity and edit accordingly, he ends up with impenetrable, awkward prose that nobody wants to read, undercutting any decent points he might make. Massimo Pigliucci nailed it.

And it's not just his style that's problematic. Here is an excerpt from the Pigliucci link:

Dicky C wrote:Premise 2. By its own intrinsic nature, the most overriding value any conscious agent will have is for maximizing its own well-being and reducing its own suffering.

The possessive pronoun its at the beginning promises to correlate with the sentence's subject that will follow ("the most overriding value"), but it turns out to stand for any conscious agent instead. Also, he mixes future tense ("will have") with present tense ("is").

Better:

Guestus Aurelius wrote:Premise 2. People care most about maximizing their own well-being and reducing their own suffering.

Okay, I'm being a picky douche, but dammit, if he's going to parade his degree and claim to be "intellectual artillery," then a picky douche I will be.

Carrier is a lousy writer. Not only is his grammar atrocious, as you just showed. Calling something "the most overriding value" is pure nonsense. "Overriding" already means that it surpasses everything else in importance. "Most overriding" is like "most optimal", "most perfect", etc. Similarly, what is the use of the word "intrinsic" in "its own intrinsic nature"? "Its nature" is pretty intrinsic, right? For that matter, "own" is superfluous as well. Carrier has all the verbosity of a self-important pontificator.

Thanks for the compliment, BTW.

ROBOKiTTY wrote:If black-on-black racism is impossible, how do they explain the genocide in Rwanda and countless other ethnic atrocities around the world?

Seems very Western-centric to insist a simplistic interpretation of the power dynamics in the West must apply everywhere.

The genocide in Rwanda and similar problems are the fault of imperialism, capitalism, white arrogance, patriarchy , etc.
To claim that non-white people can be racist is racist. It is the height of eurocentric arrogance to think non white people might actually be responsible for their own actions. :ugeek:

Dick Strawkins wrote::lol: :lol: :lol:
Apparently Richard the tour the force has opened a Cafe Press site to sell Carrier mechandise to his legion of fans.
http://www.cafepress.com/carriersamusements

http://i.imgur.com/K5SMydc.jpg

Unfortunately the shelves are looking a little bare - Richard's only come up with two designs so far, neither of which inspire much hope in his graphic design sensibilities.

I wonder, now that the fun with 'Zvan Interference Services' is dying down, whether we have a new pitshop challenge staring us in the tour de face - creating Richard Carrier merchandise!
:D

Please tell me those are not his actual merchandise designs. Nobody could be that insipid and dull.....Could they?
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... VNyLagqbtQ

Tigzy wrote:Maybe it's just me, but I really do glean a lot of amusement from the fact that Carrier named his, er, shop as 'Richard Carrier's Marvelous Amusements,' like some sort of travelling Victorian pedlar. I can just see him coming into town on a float pulled by Jen McCreight, wearing a battered top hat and prancing around to the music of a calliope as he divulges the wondrous Baynesian noveties on offer for his discerning patrons. There's almost something of Bradbury's 'Something Wicked This Way Comes' about it, with Carrier leading up the dark carnival as Mr Berk, with Ophelia as the Dust Witch, and PZ Myers taking the Cooger role as he goes backwards on the FTB merry-go-round and comes off it transformed into Alex Gabriel.

I'm sorry. It just amuses me to a most unseemly degree. Carrier has never failed to raise a grin in me, not since he wrote that his penis 'is of average size for a white male.'

He's the intellectual equivalent of David Brent.

[youtube]OX1tHZl4NUQ[/youtube]

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Anybody that believes "people of color" cannot be racist need only visit certain neighborhoods and they will be disabused of that notion very quickly. If they survive. Dumbfucks. There's also a huge Korean community where I live, and a large black community. Their prevailing views of one another are often "colorful." How would one describe that? Racism seems to fit the bill just fine..

I spent a significant part of my youth growing up in San Francisco. Let me tell you, Asians are among the most racist people I've met in my life. Especially against other Asians with the Japanese being particularly bad, but the Koreans and Chinese playing right along with them.

Now, the reason the 'Japanese win' in my book is because they're racist even against themselves such as being from the wrong island (Okinawa) or ethnic sub-group (Ainu). Plus the racism can even extend to descendents of former Japanese colonies or those born and raised abroad, such as Japanese-Americans from Hawaii or California who are not considered 'real' Japanese.

That isn't to downplay other racism. I've seen it in all ethnic groups in my life. But to pretend there isn't racism among other ethnic subgroups toward other ethnic subgroups, including minority-on-majority racism is just stupid.

Okay, let's try again.
This will make even less sense than usual if you haven't already seen the original "Promoting Amy" (now blocked by Youtube everywhere except the Kerguelen Islands).

Here's the alternate link to that chapter:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10 ... =2&theater

For those who click on the link, as some fellow Pitters can confirm, my name isn't actually Renee Prough.

Anyway:

[youtube]ybsu1wjMORk[/youtube]

Gefan wrote:Okay, let's try again.
This will make even less sense than usual if you haven't already seen the original "Promoting Amy" (now blocked by Youtube everywhere except the Kerguelen Islands).

Here's the alternate link to that chapter:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10 ... =2&theater

For those who click on the link, as some fellow Pitters can confirm, my name isn't actually Renee Prough.

Anyway:

[youtube]ybsu1wjMORk[/youtube]

Christ, I nearly wet myself laughing at that one :lol: :lol:

Jan Steen wrote:
Carrier is a lousy writer. Not only is his grammar atrocious, as you just showed. Calling something "the most overriding value" is pure nonsense. "Overriding" already means that it surpasses everything else in importance. "Most overriding" is like "most optimal", "most perfect", etc. Similarly, what is the use of the word "intrinsic" in "its own intrinsic nature"? "Its nature" is pretty intrinsic, right? For that matter, "own" is superfluous as well. Carrier has all the verbosity of a self-important pontificator.

Aren't self-importance and verbosity implicit in the definition of pontificator? It's an awkward sentence because it implies that a pontificator is verbose because he's self-important rather than because pontificators are by definition verbose, as if a non-self-important pontificator wouldn't be verbose at all. Oh god, now I'm doing it....

Also, why is spellcheck telling me I'm misspelling pontificator?

Carrier's idea of putting Bayes' Theorem on shirts is not even original:

http://www.zazzle.co.uk/bayes_theorem_s ... 2932601151

The only difference is that this notation is correct while Carrier's is just stupid.

AndrewV69 wrote:
Try gorillas. As I recall they do things differently and there are studies out there (sorry no handy links).

Anyway, the bottom line is that the three groups (if you include humans) have different arrangements, so I am not clear how you can get any sort of meaningful extrapolation if all three go their own way in this regard (mate guarding, pairing, parental investment etc. etc. etc.)

As I recall anyway (not an expert and fuzzy memory on primate sexuality).

My understanding is that every group of apes has their particular way of doing it because it's what works for them. Older chimp females are more likely to successfully raise an offspring than younger chimps though, no matter what, the chimp infant mortality rate is very high and a female chimp (according to Jane Goodall) is likely to raise just three (of six) infants to adult hood.

Something that's kind of interesting, maybe just to me, while Chimp societies are patriarchal with an Alpha male, he can only become the Alpha male if the females support him as Alpha male. Kind of like politics -- 53% of voters last cycle were WOMEN, yet we got a male President... (Note to SJW lurkers, I did NOT insinuate that Obama was a chimp. I just looked up 2012's results: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/electi ... ed_12.html to make a point that females, despite controlling the vote, seem to put men (disproportionally) in power.)

Also the hierarchy isn't as stagnant as people think based on some one-hour TV show. Rather it's much more fluid with situational and relationship exceptions. Also other males, besides the Alpha and his closest friends, breed and the rules of who breeds with whom are complex and depend on female status and male status.

Suddenly I want to fuck Service Dog.

Guestus Aurelius wrote:Jan Steen: MVP[itter].


Something I've noticed with great amusement about Carrier is that for all his pompous loquaciousness, he's not a particularly good writer. In his refusal to strive for brevity and edit accordingly, he ends up with impenetrable, awkward prose that nobody wants to read, undercutting any decent points he might make. Massimo Pigliucci nailed it.

And it's not just his style that's problematic. Here is an excerpt from the Pigliucci link:

Dicky C wrote:Premise 2. By its own intrinsic nature, the most overriding value any conscious agent will have is for maximizing its own well-being and reducing its own suffering.

The possessive pronoun its at the beginning promises to correlate with the sentence's subject that will follow ("the most overriding value"), but it turns out to stand for any conscious agent instead. Also, he mixes future tense ("will have") with present tense ("is").

Better:

Guestus Aurelius wrote:Premise 2. People care most about maximizing their own well-being and reducing their own suffering.

Okay, I'm being a picky douche, but dammit, if he's going to parade his degree and claim to be "intellectual artillery," then a picky douche I will be.

Academic speak is a marginalising tactic, an in-group habit. Used by a popular writer, it's a sign of insecurity.

bovarchist wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:
Carrier is a lousy writer. Not only is his grammar atrocious, as you just showed. Calling something "the most overriding value" is pure nonsense. "Overriding" already means that it surpasses everything else in importance. "Most overriding" is like "most optimal", "most perfect", etc. Similarly, what is the use of the word "intrinsic" in "its own intrinsic nature"? "Its nature" is pretty intrinsic, right? For that matter, "own" is superfluous as well. Carrier has all the verbosity of a self-important pontificator.

Aren't self-importance and verbosity implicit in the definition of pontificator? It's an awkward sentence because it implies that a pontificator is verbose because he's self-important rather than because pontificators are by definition verbose, as if a non-self-important pontificator wouldn't be verbose at all. Oh god, now I'm doing it....

Also, why is spellcheck telling me I'm misspelling pontificator?

FLOOSH. :lol:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

BarnOwl wrote:Well done, Service Dog! :clap:

Speaking of Lou Reed, I was listening to the BBC radio program Newsday last night, and they chose to play the Candy Darling verse from Walk on the Wild Side.

But she never lost her head
Even when she was giving head ....

Just wondering about the usage of "giving head" outside the US?

I think it means the same thing; at least in the UK and Ireland.

Completely different meaning in Australia. The Koori's used to believe that the soul of a kangaroo stayed in the head even after the rest of the body was eaten. The head would then start to haunt the hunter and his family unless a medicine man would take the head from them. This has fallen into common usage and so to say to someone "give me head" means that you will take all of their burdens from them.
Similarly wild boar (Bush Pigs) are seen as a delicacy and are a desirable item in the outback. It has now used as a term of endearment for attractive girls.

So if you see an Australian girl just tell her "Give me head, bush pig" and you will be sure to get her attention.

Jan Steen wrote:

Guestus Aurelius wrote:Jan Steen: MVP[itter].


Something I've noticed with great amusement about Carrier is that for all his pompous loquaciousness, he's not a particularly good writer. In his refusal to strive for brevity and edit accordingly, he ends up with impenetrable, awkward prose that nobody wants to read, undercutting any decent points he might make. Massimo Pigliucci nailed it.

And it's not just his style that's problematic. Here is an excerpt from the Pigliucci link:

Dicky C wrote:Premise 2. By its own intrinsic nature, the most overriding value any conscious agent will have is for maximizing its own well-being and reducing its own suffering.

The possessive pronoun its at the beginning promises to correlate with the sentence's subject that will follow ("the most overriding value"), but it turns out to stand for any conscious agent instead. Also, he mixes future tense ("will have") with present tense ("is").

Better:

Guestus Aurelius wrote:Premise 2. People care most about maximizing their own well-being and reducing their own suffering.

Okay, I'm being a picky douche, but dammit, if he's going to parade his degree and claim to be "intellectual artillery," then a picky douche I will be.

Carrier is a lousy writer. Not only is his grammar atrocious, as you just showed. Calling something "the most overriding value" is pure nonsense. "Overriding" already means that it surpasses everything else in importance. "Most overriding" is like "most optimal", "most perfect", etc. Similarly, what is the use of the word "intrinsic" in "its own intrinsic nature"? "Its nature" is pretty intrinsic, right? For that matter, "own" is superfluous as well. Carrier has all the verbosity of a self-important pontificator.

Thanks for the compliment, BTW.

He sure is the most smartest.

Gefan wrote:Okay, let's try again.
This will make even less sense than usual if you haven't already seen the original "Promoting Amy" (now blocked by Youtube everywhere except the Kerguelen Islands).

Here's the alternate link to that chapter:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10 ... =2&theater

For those who click on the link, as some fellow Pitters can confirm, my name isn't actually Renee Prough.

Anyway:

[youtube]ybsu1wjMORk[/youtube]

Oh, shit! That was good!

Gefan: Great work as always!
I think a nice thing to do, if there is anyone here that has not yet been banned, would be to share his work with our friends over at Pharyngula by posting a link there so they can see some of Gefan's great work.

Gefan wrote:Okay, let's try again.
This will make even less sense than usual if you haven't already seen the original "Promoting Amy" (now blocked by Youtube everywhere except the Kerguelen Islands).

Here's the alternate link to that chapter:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10 ... =2&theater

For those who click on the link, as some fellow Pitters can confirm, my name isn't actually Renee Prough.

Anyway:

[youtube]ybsu1wjMORk[/youtube]

Fuck, now i'm just walking around giggling and i can't even begin to explain the joke. Good work!

Service Dog wrote:

Service Dog wrote:Roseanne Barr's radio show Sunday, with her guest: TERF-feminist Cathy "Bug" Brennan.

Part 1 and 2 are all over the place... CIA brainwashing, indiscriminate claims about the JonBenet murder...

But, unless you want to hear random battshitery, you won't miss much if you jump ahead to Part 3, where it seems to be taking more shape...
(that's as far as I've listened.)

Sounds like Rosanne is horning in on Joe Rogan's act. I didn't listen though. Were there copious references to weed?

Cunning Punt wrote:Suddenly I want to fuck Service Dog.

Only because society has indoctrinated you that SD is sexy and that Ophie(par exemple) is not. Damn society!

katamari Damassi wrote:

Cunning Punt wrote:Suddenly I want to fuck Service Dog.

Only because society has indoctrinated you that SD is sexy and that Ophie(par exemple) is not. Damn society!

There is no method, neither in reality, nor the most fantastic imaginings of fiction, by which Ophie could become someone I'd be willing to stick it in, or frankly, even wish to think of in that manner. Given the choice between that and death by suffocation in a pit of spiders, I'd willingly commit my soul to countless numbers of the most foul creature to ever be part of Arachnida.

She dreams of a world in which her ugliness is only skin-deep.

Trophy wrote:

Tigzy wrote:Avicenna comes down like a ton of bricks on the SJW crowd who are giving Ophie shit :popcorn: : http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... etting-it/

If this is the start of an FTB/A+ schism, then I look forward to Carrier's inevitable tour-de-force of a meltdown owver the whole thing.

LOL! Awesome find.

Avicenna wrote:1. While Trigger Warnings are important to some it isn’t to most people. And unfortunately, life doesn’t come with a trigger warning.

This is such sweet victim-blaming, and deliciously telling the victims to "deal with it", or so we are told.

Avicenna wrote:I have had to treat acid victims, mutilations, burns. I have seen murders, road traffic accidents and even a damn shark attack. I've fucked a sheep, I've fucked a goat I rammed my cock right down its throat, So what, so what. So what, so what, you boring little fuck [oops, damn, sorry for the mixed up]

Avicenna wrote:Or it is it only white people’s worries that you bleed for? Steubenvilles and Rebecca Watsons? I am afraid the problem here is you are telling us to not tell our stories.

I'm eagerly waiting for PZ to call out Avicenna on his unhealthy obsession with Rebecca Watson. Any minute now ...

Avicenna wrote:Rape? I have heard the term “Birth Rape” being used before. Or the rape of a woman by a doctor when the doctor performs things considered basic and gynaecologically sound. While I think consent is important in medicine I think that in emergencies consent should be assumed. Otherwise the entire field of Emergency and Trauma medicine are buggered.

He has a point, which means, I'll have a pile of pop corn ready just in case.

Avicenna wrote:I am sure you will call this mansplainin or whatever. But frankly?

*sarcastic face* Naah, it's all good. They'll just listen and reason with you. *reaches for pop corn*

5 comments at the moment including 1 from NoelP. Another is SallyStrange who does even know where to start, so she doesn't.

Meanwhile PZ has 100 comments on why texting while driving is dangerous.

Roseanne Barr talking about mind control is like a fish talking about a bicycle.

Tigzy wrote:Avicenna comes down like a ton of bricks on the SJW crowd who are giving Ophie shit :popcorn: : http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... etting-it/

If this is the start of an FTB/A+ schism, then I look forward to Carrier's inevitable tour-de-force of a meltdown owver the whole thing.

Wow! Just checked that out. I noticed that the only pharyngutard who commented was Sally Strange and she basically said "See FfTB isn't a hivemind!" (my paraphrase).
Still, does anyone want to start a pool as to when Avicenna departs for Patheos?

Sorry, I can't watch the Roseanne thing. I gave it a few minutes and you know something is wrong when Roseanne is the least obnoxious person in the conversation. I can't listen to some asshole use the word "memes" with a straight face.

Just more SJW tosh.

"Why aren't you accepting more transgender people? BAAWWWW"

"We are, it's not gender specific or whatever, we accept everyone"

"memes memes culture ideology gender umbrella memes gender identity *proceed to argue about gender identity and group dynamics and politics*"

These bloody SJWs have a very doublespeak way of talking. I wish they could just say what they want to say without a bunch of group-specific language. I mean, I use "SJW" as a shorthand for a social justice warrior, but most people outside of the Pitt would understand very quickly what a Social Justice Warrior is if you explained it.

Maybe I'll come back to this video later. I mean, does Roseanne Barr have any influence in modern-day feminism? I thought 3rd wave feminism much left her in the dust back in the '90s.

Jimmy Russel wrote:If this hasn't already been posted. Trouble in paradise between Ophelia and A+

Comments section gets nasty, concludes with

Jesus h fucking Christ. No wonder people hate Atheism plus if that’s a representative sample.

http://t.co/oJ4slj7lti

Clearly Ophelia is a misogynist, racist, and endorser of pedophilia who just can't stand rich white men losing their preferential treatment.

... or maybe she's less enthusiastic about A+ since people hear pointed out that their conversation on the sex industry was more level headed and mature than the excrement a lot of FTBloggers post.

Brive1987 said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 29#p138729):

Academic speak is a marginalising tactic, an in-group habit. Used by a popular writer, it's a sign of insecurity.

Yes. It can also be described as both jargon, and the process of baffle them with bullshit. It is something that first-year college/university students often fall victim to/of -- they mistakenly equate long-winded jargon and hopelessly opaque logorrhea with eloquence and wisdom.

Paradoxically, it sits comfortabley alongside his remarkably inflated ego, grossly exaggerated sense of self-importance, and his all-consuming arrogance.

Michael J wrote: So if you see an Australian girl just tell her "Give me head, bush pig" and you will be sure to get her attention.

You forgot to add the YMMV.

Just saying.

ianfc wrote:http://img5.joyreactor.com/pics/post/sp ... 840105.gif

:shock: :o :shock:

Robbie wrote:

ianfc wrote:http://img5.joyreactor.com/pics/post/sp ... 840105.gif

:shock: :o :shock:

Oh God, between photos of Caine's butchered rats and now this ........

I'm officially triggered

James Caruthers wrote:Sorry, I can't watch the Roseanne thing. I gave it a few minutes and you know something is wrong when Roseanne is the least obnoxious person in the conversation.

I made it to the end. It was like watching Michael J. Fox play miniature golf against Stevie Wonder and a Roomba.

Endlessly flailing, rarely connecting with the ball, certainly not locating the hole.

Impossible to watch/ impossible to look away.

And yet-- it was one of the most enlightening Feminist meeting of the minds I've witnessed.
(Passing of the minds, actually.)

To Roseanne's credit, she invited a guest she disagrees-with, and let her speak. On the other hand, she didn't listen to a thing the guest said. Whenever she disagreed, Roseanne would just look down at her iPad & tune-out for a couple minutes... then interrupt to repeat her own opinion again/ not incorporating the guest's point.

The guest-- Brennan-- was half-right, about Freedom of Assembly meaning that ovary-women should be free to congregate privately without having to include transwomen/ and lesbians should be free to not-fuck chicks-with-dicks if they don't wanna. But she was wrong about oppression of women being the end-all-be-all ultimate form of oppression.

Roseanne outright contradicted that last bit-- gender was irrelvant compared to class-- rich vs. poor being the ultimate oppression. But then Roseanne expanded her point into Marxist gibberish. Brennan just let it slide, rather than say it's a complete contradiction with everything she believes.

The black co-host felt race was the ultimate form of oppression, saying "I"m not a feminist because feminism doesn't represent black women. Black women have always worked." But she didn't hash out her differences with the other two, either. At least she kept asking why transwomen hate Brennan.

As the first sign of friction, they all retreated. Sparks never flew.

and-- fucking Aratina Cage-- The Block Bot wasn't mentioned once in the whole program, you asshole.

ianfc wrote:http://img5.joyreactor.com/pics/post/sp ... 840105.gif

That is so...creepy. Ugh. Who would deliberately wear glasses like that? Cool spider though.

Service Dog wrote:

James Caruthers wrote:Sorry, I can't watch the Roseanne thing. I gave it a few minutes and you know something is wrong when Roseanne is the least obnoxious person in the conversation.

I made it to the end. It was like watching Michael J. Fox play miniature golf against Stevie Wonder and a Roomba.

Endlessly flailing, rarely connecting with the ball, certainly not locating the hole.

Impossible to watch/ impossible to look away.

And yet-- it was one of the most enlightening Feminist meeting of the minds I've witnessed.
(Passing of the minds, actually.)

To Roseanne's credit, she invited a guest she disagrees-with, and let her speak. On the other hand, she didn't listen to a thing the guest said. Whenever she disagreed, Roseanne would just look down at her iPad & tune-out for a couple minutes... then interrupt to repeat her own opinion again/ not incorporating the guest's point.

The guest-- Brennan-- was half-right, about Freedom of Assembly meaning that ovary-women should be free to congregate privately without having to include transwomen/ and lesbians should be free to not-fuck chicks-with-dicks if they don't wanna. But she was wrong about oppression of women being the end-all-be-all ultimate form of oppression.

Roseanne outright contradicted that last bit-- gender was irrelvant compared to class-- rich vs. poor being the ultimate oppression. But then Roseanne expanded her point into Marxist gibberish. Brennan just let it slide, rather than say it's a complete contradiction with everything she believes.

The black co-host felt race was the ultimate form of oppression, saying "I"m not a feminist because feminism doesn't represent black women. Black women have always worked." But she didn't hash out her differences with the other two, either. At least she kept asking why transwomen hate Brennan.

As the first sign of friction, they all retreated. Sparks never flew.
and-- fucking Aratina Cage-- The Block Bot wasn't mentioned once in the whole program, you asshole.

Yeah, I went back to it because of the promise of something relevant. Pretty much happened like you said. If they had been writing blogs at each other, I'm sure all that latent hostility would have ignited into a shitstorm of bogus accusations, cries of "sister punisher" and Roseanne calling someone a bitch. Or maybe being called one. One point that they all seemed to agree on is that feminism is a fucking failure. They as much as say so, that feminism lost its focus/social justice movements lost their focus and got mired down in useless nonsense.

What they don't seem to realize is that constantly crying "what about *insert tiny minority group*?" Is precisely what makes these movements so divisive. Or rather, it seems to me that trying to cater to every little whim a minority group has ends up alienating a) the majority and b) other minority groups, who then all vie for attention.

The cultural marxist rhetoric was flowing fast and free in that video. You can almost feel the moment when all three turn off their brains and start jabbering incoherently about class and privilege.

Did they even really have what counts as "a conversation?" I mean, one jabbers, then the other jabbers, then the third jabbers. They don't seem to be exchanging ideas. Each only reacts to what the others are saying when they're all in agreement, otherwise the dissenters stay quiet. But then, that has been my experience with SJW movements. They talk so tough on their blogs. :lol: Maybe next time they should write their talking points down.

I also laughed when Roseanne disdained higher education/academia. Don't get me wrong, academia has problems, but Roseanne is the poster child for White Trash. In this case, the source for the claim really does undermine how seriously I can take the claim itself. :lol:

Saw this pic and thought of Richard Carrier:

John Greg wrote:It is something that first-year college/university students often fall victim to/of

or sometimes, whole academic departments...

Still remember my pedagogy teacher (when I was stupid enough to study to become a math teacher) explain that they where trying to create a jargon for teachers, for the whole reason of appearing smarter and therefore raising the status (and hopefully the pay) of the teaching profession.
She flat out said something very close to "The idea is that if we have our own language that others don't understand, just like doctors, architects and engineers, then everyone will think we are smart and pay us more!". She was a very good teacher, stuck with a very, very shitty curriculum, and probably way to honest...

(They've also created a teacher-license that all Swedish teachers need to have now, for the very same reason - "doctors have licenses and are well paid, if we get one maybe we also get better paid!")

Seem to be going on in other departments/parts of academia as well, I think Chomsky nailed it here: 5:40 to 7:22

Hey Brive- read your comment to Avicenna. Well done.

The phrase "writing blogs at each other" needs to be said more often.

Tony Parsehole wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote::lol: :lol: :lol:
Apparently Richard the tour the force has opened a Cafe Press site to sell Carrier mechandise to his legion of fans.
http://www.cafepress.com/carriersamusements

http://i.imgur.com/K5SMydc.jpg

Unfortunately the shelves are looking a little bare - Richard's only come up with two designs so far, neither of which inspire much hope in his graphic design sensibilities.

I wonder, now that the fun with 'Zvan Interference Services' is dying down, whether we have a new pitshop challenge staring us in the tour de face - creating Richard Carrier merchandise!
:D

Please tell me those are not his actual merchandise designs. Nobody could be that insipid and dull.....Could they?
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... VNyLagqbtQ

I'm afraid the designs are as depicted. Carrier is the sort of person who believes they warrant a Fields medal for discovering the equation editor in MS Word.

Welch finds the most foulest creature to ever be part of Arachnida.

http://data1.whicdn.com/images/34792389/650_large.gif

James Caruthers wrote: ....
The cultural marxist rhetoric was flowing fast and free in that video. You can almost feel the moment when all three turn off their brains and start jabbering incoherently about class and privilege.
....
They don't seem to be exchanging ideas. Each only reacts to what the others are saying when they're all in agreement, otherwise the dissenters stay quiet. But then, that has been my experience with SJW movements.

Technically, I'm not sure any of those 3 are SJWs. They all seem to pre-date the po-mo era. Cultural marxists, yes. But they view Atheism-plussers and Aratina as CIA sleeper agents, who have destroyed feminism with "privilege" and trivial-victimhood coffee/elevator crap (instead of the proper big-issues-victimhood of 2nd wave feminism).

BTW, Im curious about the views you posted on post-processual archeology.
Any links to egregious examples would be appreciated.
I have a sneaking suspicion that, in regards to that specific field/during that specific era, I'm going to turn into a huge SJW... and side with the pinko-softhead-hippies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-proce ... rchaeology

The important thing to notice is not only do P-P archeologists believe all archeology is tainted by political bias, they believe archeology itself should serve the interests of Social Justice.

I can't find the example a prof showed me, it was something about examining the "sensuous nature" of rocks.

Interpretation

Due to the fact that they believe archaeology to be inherently subjective, post-processualists argue that "all archaeologists... whether they overtly admit it or not", always impose their own views and bias into their interpretations of the archaeological data.[7] In many cases, they hold that this bias is political in nature.[8] Post-processualist Daniel Miller believed that the positivist approach of the processualists, in holding that only that which could be sensed, tested and predicted was valid, only sought to produce technical knowledge that facilitated the oppression of ordinary people by elites.[9] In a similar criticism, Miller and Chris Tilley believed that by putting forward the concept that human societies were irresistibly shaped by external influences and pressures, archaeologists were tacitly accepting social injustice.[10] Many processualists took this further and criticised the fact that archaeologists from wealthy, western countries were studying and writing the histories of poorer nations in the second and third worlds. Ian Hodder stated that archaeologists had no right to interpret the prehistories of other ethnic or cultural groups, and that instead they should simply provide individuals from these groups with the ability to construct their own views of the past.[11] While Hodder's viewpoint was not universally accepted amongst post-processualists, there was enough support for opposing racism, colonialism and professional elitism within the discipline that in 1986 the World Archaeological Congress was established.[12]

A number of post-processualists, such as Michael Shanks, Christopher Tilley and Peter Ucko, undermined "archaeology's claims to be an authoritative source of knowledge about the past", thereby "encourag[ing] people to question and resist all forms of authority… This position was hailed by its supporters as democratizing archaeology and purging it… of elitist pretensions".[13]

In the 1960s and 1970s, feminist archaeology emerged as adherents of the second wave feminist movement began to argue that women in the archaeological record had been ignored by archaeologists up until that time. According to archaeologist Sam Lucy, "The agendas of feminist archaeology and post-processualism highlighted the importance of social and political factors on supposedly 'objective' investigation".[28]

I'm not saying Post-Processual archeology hasn't done some good things. Like I said much earlier, PoMo has some benefit in teaching people to be more skeptical of information. But they go the wrong direction with that skepticism and teach that you should be skeptical of information from authority figures (reasonable enough), but blindly accept any info that wears a SJW cloak.

http://www.uni-kiel.de/ufg/dateien/date ... 202000.PDF

I didn't do much more than glance through it, but this article looks like a very promising mine of post-processual bullshit. Marx is mentioned, the title has "agency" in it, and it showed up under the google feminism search.

One of the queens of irony strikes again: Zvan telling people how to deal with criticism: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... /#comments

She says:

When you’re criticized online, chances are very good it won’t be by a child with a winning smile, but people will still be paying attention to how you respond. Be careful in how you treat power differentials between you and the person or people criticizing you....

Be exceptionally careful about using the power you have online against critics less powerful than you are. “Classy” is still the strongest compliment out there for handling online criticism....

The rule of thumb when dealing with power differentials in which you have the greater power is that the more of it you exercise, the weaker your position appears to be....

It is to laugh.

John Greg wrote:One of the queens of irony strikes again: Zvan telling people how to deal with criticism: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... /#comments

She says:

When you’re criticized online, chances are very good it won’t be by a child with a winning smile, but people will still be paying attention to how you respond. Be careful in how you treat power differentials between you and the person or people criticizing you....

Be exceptionally careful about using the power you have online against critics less powerful than you are. “Classy” is still the strongest compliment out there for handling online criticism....

The rule of thumb when dealing with power differentials in which you have the greater power is that the more of it you exercise, the weaker your position appears to be....

It is to laugh.

Zvan giving lessons in how to handle criticism is like Ken Ham teaching abiogenesis.

While writing some follow up on my last blogs entry, the “researching” brought me across Sheldon Solomon, whose name I only heard as an author of the Terror Management Theory. Anyway, discovered him as a speaker and found it amazing enough to let you know.

In this lecture he strikes a very nice balance between a ton of interesting topics, which are presented very accessible and often eloquent in phrasing. Even though his style is very un-academic, which like here (can go both ways though). Its a serious topic, probably the most serious of them all, yet he makes it sound almost fun. And so its halfway gruesome, halfway witty — and about death (in a cultural, psychological, large scale historical sense) and denial of it, and what kind of effects that might have had on humans & history. Kind of perfect for halloween season, I guess. Also, his diction is a lot like Noel Plum's. Anyway, give it a try!

[youtube]XpVkrIdz9-Y[/youtube]

katamari Damassi wrote:Hey Brive- read your comment to Avicenna. Well done.

Ta. Sometimes I can't resist and this seemed a clear case of the real world hitting fantasy - on FtB too! Something to be pointed out and encouraged. :popcorn:

John Greg wrote:One of the queens of irony strikes again: Zvan telling people how to deal with criticism: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... /#comments

She says:

When you’re criticized online, chances are very good it won’t be by a child with a winning smile, but people will still be paying attention to how you respond. Be careful in how you treat power differentials between you and the person or people criticizing you....

Be exceptionally careful about using the power you have online against critics less powerful than you are. “Classy” is still the strongest compliment out there for handling online criticism....

The rule of thumb when dealing with power differentials in which you have the greater power is that the more of it you exercise, the weaker your position appears to be....

It is to laugh.

Can't look now, but did she also bring privilege into it? I can't imagine leaving that out.

John Greg wrote:One of the queens of irony strikes again: Zvan telling people how to deal with criticism: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... /#comments

She says:

When you’re criticized online, chances are very good it won’t be by a child with a winning smile, but people will still be paying attention to how you respond. Be careful in how you treat power differentials between you and the person or people criticizing you....

Be exceptionally careful about using the power you have online against critics less powerful than you are. “Classy” is still the strongest compliment out there for handling online criticism....

The rule of thumb when dealing with power differentials in which you have the greater power is that the more of it you exercise, the weaker your position appears to be....

It is to laugh.

After Vacula held a lecture on online reputation management or what it was, this sounds like a great idea. I'm putting together a guide on how to be funny on the slymepit.

welch wrote:

John Greg wrote:One of the queens of irony strikes again: Zvan telling people how to deal with criticism: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... /#comments

She says:

When you’re criticized online, chances are very good it won’t be by a child with a winning smile, but people will still be paying attention to how you respond. Be careful in how you treat power differentials between you and the person or people criticizing you....

Be exceptionally careful about using the power you have online against critics less powerful than you are. “Classy” is still the strongest compliment out there for handling online criticism....

The rule of thumb when dealing with power differentials in which you have the greater power is that the more of it you exercise, the weaker your position appears to be....

It is to laugh.

Zvan giving lessons in how to handle criticism is like Ken Ham teaching abiogenesis.

It's like Obama teaching Rockstar how to launch a website which is expected to attract millions of users.

BAM!

ZING!!

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:

welch wrote:


Zvan giving lessons in how to handle criticism is like Ken Ham teaching abiogenesis.

It's like Obama teaching Rockstar how to launch a website which is expected to attract millions of users.

BAM!

ZING!!

Have you heard that Republicans want to hire McAfee to fix the site? You can't make that up.