Tigzy wrote:In other news, Rolling Stone gets its just desserts over Sabrina Erdely's notorious campus rape story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ed ... ge%2Fstory
ffs, if it's a "pervasive national problem" THEN SURELY THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND A GENUINE EXAMPLE OF IT INSTEAD OF A HOAX.Once its flaws were exposed, the article’s deeper message of the effects of campus rape — a pervasive national problem — was lost amid the allegations of shoddy reporting.
The cleric in the video, Mohamad Iqbal Abdurrahman, also known as Abu Jibril (literally "the father of Jibril"), is indeed the father of a rather well known terrorist, Muhammad Jibril Abdul Rahman, known as "the Prince of Jihad". Father and son have encouraged people to terrorism and funneled money to terrorist organizations. They've both been arrested plenty of times, which makes daddy's request for the full application of the law in the video just a tad hypocritical.free thoughtpolice wrote:Not all muslim countries have problems with extremism, a perfect example is progressive Indonesia, the most populous Muslim majority country. :ugeek:
"Facts are a social construct".gurugeorge wrote:Tigzy wrote:In other news, Rolling Stone gets its just desserts over Sabrina Erdely's notorious campus rape story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ed ... ge%2Fstoryffs, if it's a "pervasive national problem" THEN SURELY THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND A GENUINE EXAMPLE OF IT INSTEAD OF A HOAX.Once its flaws were exposed, the article’s deeper message of the effects of campus rape — a pervasive national problem — was lost amid the allegations of shoddy reporting.
Grrrr ...
But they can always get Dick Carrier PHD for the cost of a few drinks, petrol and a bed for the night.Really? wrote:
I couldn't find his rider, but Stephen Hawking probably has fewer requirements than xir.
-
http://www.celebritytalent.net/sampleta ... n-hawking/
But don't try to book Dr. Hawking unless you have at least 75-150 large burning a hole in your pocket.
Old news. I have already revealed that the Parkinson's symptoms that she was displaying was actually kuru (human equivalent of mad cow disease) that she contracted from eating children's brains, such as the ones that were kidnapped from Haiti recently revealed in Wikileaks.CommanderTuvok wrote:So, I am busy offline for several hours, and suddenly the alt-right are babbling on Twitter about Hillary Clinton being involved in Satanism, and drinking blood, and "spirit cooking".
I mean, what the, like, fuck? Just when I thought it couldn't get any more ker-aye-zeeeeee.
And it appears that they were attending the work of some performance artist who is replicating parts of Alistar Crowley's rituals. Who knows how far the performance artist is really into it, or if it is just for show. But if you get some washington elites in to watch the show, and bam! You have yourself a scandal.CommanderTuvok wrote:So, I am busy offline for several hours, and suddenly the alt-right are babbling on Twitter about Hillary Clinton being involved in Satanism, and drinking blood, and "spirit cooking".
I mean, what the, like, fuck? Just when I thought it couldn't get any more ker-aye-zeeeeee.
It's a load of old nonsense. The 'Satanism' is some 'art' comprising a Saatchi-collection-quality load of pretentious old piss; the 'artist' invited John Podesta's brother to dinner. Said brother emailed John to see if he wanted to come along too. John Podesta never replied; subsequent emails show he never attended the dinner.CommanderTuvok wrote:So, I am busy offline for several hours, and suddenly the alt-right are babbling on Twitter about Hillary Clinton being involved in Satanism, and drinking blood, and "spirit cooking".
I mean, what the, like, fuck? Just when I thought it couldn't get any more ker-aye-zeeeeee.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html"While the body-shaming aspect of this case is inexcusable, the main issue here is not that Ms. Mathers denigrated another woman online with rude or unflattering remarks," she said. "Rather, Ms. Mathers, with both forethought and intent to humiliate and compare, photographed a naked woman, without her knowledge or consent, and then distributed it online for everyone to see and evaluate."
It's those pronouns.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Just shoot me.
A group called FemPhys had it speak:
A.W. Peet is a Professor of Physics and a Fellow of Trinity College at the University of Toronto. They hold a B.Sc.(Hons) from the University of Canterbury and a Ph.D. from Stanford University. Their awards include a Radcliffe Fellowship from Harvard and an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Research Fellowship. They grew up in the South Pacific island nation of Aotearoa/New Zealand, and have a little web site at ap.io/home/. They have lived experience of misogyny, ableism, and transphobia.
Please note that Dr. Peet uses they/them pronouns.
http://www.snopes.com/john-podesta-spirit-cooking/Tigzy wrote:
The only controversy here is how Marina Whatsherface ever attained the title of 'artist' in the first place, considering how shit her work is.
...she staged at a number of museums around the world in the ‘90s, painting graffiti with pigs’ blood.
Sounds like shit is one of the few things her work isn't :rimshot:...Abramovic's cookbook does reference recipes containing bodily fluids such as semen and breast milk...
If rape was as prevalent as feminists say it is you wouldn't be able to throw a stone on campus without hitting a rape victim.gurugeorge wrote:Tigzy wrote:In other news, Rolling Stone gets its just desserts over Sabrina Erdely's notorious campus rape story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ed ... ge%2Fstoryffs, if it's a "pervasive national problem" THEN SURELY THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND A GENUINE EXAMPLE OF IT INSTEAD OF A HOAX.Once its flaws were exposed, the article’s deeper message of the effects of campus rape — a pervasive national problem — was lost amid the allegations of shoddy reporting.
Grrrr ...
Then again, Marina Thingy's success could be explained by having her soul being contracted out exclusively to the devil.jet_lagg wrote:http://www.snopes.com/john-podesta-spirit-cooking/Tigzy wrote:
The only controversy here is how Marina Whatsherface ever attained the title of 'artist' in the first place, considering how shit her work is.
...she staged at a number of museums around the world in the ‘90s, painting graffiti with pigs’ blood.Sounds like shit is one of the few things her work isn't :rimshot:...Abramovic's cookbook does reference recipes containing bodily fluids such as semen and breast milk...
We also weren't supposed toKirbmarc wrote:..."Yeah, you know, you're not allowed to disclose my trans status to anyone, even though I have made it public knowledge by writing a public webpage linked to my name"For safety reasons, you should never reveal someone's transgender status to a third party. First and foremost, it is not your story to tell. In particular, the existence of this web essay does not constitute permission to you the reader to disclose my trans status to anyone
That's it. If the devil exists then so does God.Tigzy wrote:Then again, Marina Thingy's success could be explained by having her soul being contracted out exclusively to the devil.
http://i.imgur.com/ErjGvWQ.png
Anyone here not familiar with Marina Abramovic or what she does? You should do a search and view at least one of her performance art pieces.deLurch wrote:And it appears that they were attending the work of some performance artist who is replicating parts of Alistar Crowley's rituals. Who knows how far the performance artist is really into it, or if it is just for show. But if you get some washington elites in to watch the show, and bam! You have yourself a scandal.CommanderTuvok wrote:So, I am busy offline for several hours, and suddenly the alt-right are babbling on Twitter about Hillary Clinton being involved in Satanism, and drinking blood, and "spirit cooking".
I mean, what the, like, fuck? Just when I thought it couldn't get any more ker-aye-zeeeeee.
http://www.infowars.com/spirit-cooking- ... rformance/
From what little I have read, I think it is much to do about nothing. But the internet-right, see this as a major opening to shifting the black vote as they tend to be fairly religious, and Hillary Clinton was participating and attending a satanic cult in their eyes.
If large chunks of your electorate base choose you based on the latest scandal and your virtue signaling, don't be surprised if the flee from you at the drop of the hat. She and the media trained them to think this way instead of focusing on substance.
When I updated my model on Tuesday, I thought it was too optimistic as well. But then I looked at the other models:jugheadnaut wrote:Genuinely interested, though, do you think that 2% holds any water whatsoever. If you take today's RCP no toss-up map and flip Florida (which only has a 1.2% lead for Clinton and Trump has led some of the recent polls, including one from the NYT, by 4%), that's all it takes for Trump to win (without even having to win Colorado, never mind Pennsylvania or Michigan). Granted, with the current overall polling numbers it definitely isn't 50/50, since the set of close states Trump has to win is smaller than the set of close states Clinton has to win. But 538's 65% seems intuitively reasonable, while 10% (never mind 2%) seems absurdly low.
I am actively fudging swing state polls.d4m10n wrote:But hey, who knows? I'm counting on swing state polls not to suffer from systemic bias.
Where I am on this election right now is that I see a whole bunch of Clinton supporters making VERY compelling cases for Trump, and a bunch of Trump supporters making VERY compelling cases for Clinton.CommanderTuvok wrote:So, I am busy offline for several hours, and suddenly the alt-right are babbling on Twitter about Hillary Clinton being involved in Satanism, and drinking blood, and "spirit cooking".
I mean, what the, like, fuck? Just when I thought it couldn't get any more ker-aye-zeeeeee.
I think there's a non-zero % chance that ALL of the polls are just horribly wrong, and that we'll see one candidate just CRUSH. Why? I think you could make cases for either or both campaigns getting out massive amounts of non-voters. Clinton, with the presented existential threat of Trump, and Trump, in presenting a strong case to extremely disaffected voters.d4m10n wrote:When I updated my model on Tuesday, I thought it was too optimistic as well. But then I looked at the other models:jugheadnaut wrote:Genuinely interested, though, do you think that 2% holds any water whatsoever. If you take today's RCP no toss-up map and flip Florida (which only has a 1.2% lead for Clinton and Trump has led some of the recent polls, including one from the NYT, by 4%), that's all it takes for Trump to win (without even having to win Colorado, never mind Pennsylvania or Michigan). Granted, with the current overall polling numbers it definitely isn't 50/50, since the set of close states Trump has to win is smaller than the set of close states Clinton has to win. But 538's 65% seems intuitively reasonable, while 10% (never mind 2%) seems absurdly low.
Turns out I'm in good company, right up there with Sam Wang.
But hey, who knows? I'm counting on swing state polls not to suffer from systemic bias.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Using someone's preferred pronouns costs nothing and is not that big of a deal AFAIC, but all the demanded accommodations are ridiculous. Dollars to donuts (see what I did there?) that xe routinely stops at McDonalds on the way into work and scarfs a sausage egg McMuffin with a large Coke.InfraRedBucket wrote: Bring all your own stuff or you could just like fucking use Skype and not need to travel much at all.
Xir makes Stephen Hawking seem like Arnie Schwarzenegger.
lool, you owe me a keyboard :)Easy J wrote:... "Once The Elders of Zion's flaws were exposed, the work's deeper message of the effects of World Jewry — a pervasive worldwide problem — was lost amid the allegations of shoddy fact checking."
This shit is really amazing. I'm disabled, the kind of stuff you can see on an X-ray, metal detector or scars. You fucking hobble along and make do. Life isn't always comfy. But the shitstain manages to bicycle? Bullshit. Toughen up, butter cup.Really? wrote:That's amazing. Why would anyone invite xir to anything ever? There is a zero percent chance xir will be happy with anything.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Fuck me some more.
It is a special needs precious snowflake. Must be read to be believed:
http://ap.io/home/disability-accommodations/
I have no ill will to Caine and would be happy to have lunch or a few beers with her and her hubby who sounds like a cool guy.I don’t go over there and read. I did a couple of times months ago, to see just how much abear was lying to me via email, and I saw more than enough. No desire to go back. Never had a desire to go in the first place.
So this is the emailgate everyone is talking about.free thoughtpolice wrote:It turns out that Caine has slandered me. She has called me a liar, alleging I made false statements during our email exchanges.
http://archive.is/IW8eW
I have no ill will to Caine and would be happy to have lunch or a few beers with her and her hubby who sounds like a cool guy.I don’t go over there and read. I did a couple of times months ago, to see just how much abear was lying to me via email, and I saw more than enough. No desire to go back. Never had a desire to go in the first place.
Nevertheless, you have dropped the gauntlet and I need to defend my honor.
I will tell the truth about the emails.
Best. Post. Evah!InfraRedBucket wrote:Really? wrote:That's amazing. Why would anyone invite xir to anything ever? There is a zero percent chance xir will be happy with anything.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Fuck me some more.
It is a special needs precious snowflake. Must be read to be believed:
http://ap.io/home/disability-accommodations/Actually I think we may have something suitable for you. What colour would you like?If your institution/organization/group/company does not have a chair that satisfies all of the above six requirements, please contact me by email with pictures and/or specifications of the best high-quality ergonomic office chairs you do have, so that I can evaluate suitability.
http://i.imgur.com/kyAb46N.png
I need to assemble the pieces and it may take some time, so I appreciate patience while I reveal the whole thing. I want to get it right so it's fair and accurate.So this is the emailgate everyone is talking about.
Seems reasonable.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Fuck me some more.
It is a special needs precious snowflake. Must be read to be believed:
http://ap.io/home/disability-accommodations/
Richard Carrier has admitted he wouldn't mind if he took a salty current to the face in the course of events.ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:It's great that Meyers's blog attracts such a diverse audience:
http://i.imgur.com/C5JZ34i.png
Note that "Moments of political madness" is a sub-blog looked after by someone other than Meyers. It pops up all the time in recent comments. Any way of removing it from the data used to create FfTB's Alexa graphs?
The other view is the Islamists would prefer a Clinton White House win because the Clintons are overall more Salafi-friendly. And if Trump does disengage from foreign adventues (not likely IMHO, but YMMV) that'll erode part of the Islamist/ISIL raison d'être.deLurch wrote:I thought the Islamic extremists were going to lay low for a while in the US so Trump wouldn't win.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sources-us- ... us-monday/
CBS News has learned about a potential terror threat for the day before the election.
Sources told CBS News senior investigative producer Pat Milton that U.S. intelligence has alerted joint terrorism task forces that al Qaeda could be planning attacks in three states for Monday.
It is believed New York, Texas and Virginia are all possible targets, though no specific locations are mentioned.
U.S. authorities are taking the threat seriously, though the sources stress the intelligence is still being assessed and its credibility hasn’t been confirmed. Counterterrorism officials were alerted to the threat out of abundance of caution.
Any Slymepitter familiar wwith how these thing go down in the USA, like impeachments and so on want to read and comment?if what Bret Baier is reporting from FBI sources on Fox News is true, America is headed for a constitutional crisis.
If there is anything to it I doubt it would touch Hillary herself. Not that she is free of blame just that she will be protected. I don't know what constitutional crisis he is talking about. Even, even if Hillary is indicted our system is setup to handle such things. I mean look at Nixon. And yeah much like with Nixon she would probably get pardoned. World isn't fair.AndrewV69 wrote:The madness, there is no end to it:
Hillary's High Crimes & MisdemeanorsAny Slymepitter familiar wwith how these thing go down in the USA, like impeachments and so on want to read and comment?if what Bret Baier is reporting from FBI sources on Fox News is true, America is headed for a constitutional crisis.
And I would understand if you do not want to either. I am not too sure I want to explore this now. Especially as I have not seen any "evidence" yet.
Anyway, interesting times people. Very interesting. Dunno how true any of this is but it does make life interesting.
It was posted earlier, and got smacked down because it was not exactly what some people were looking for. But this is the same story I've been getting all day from retards on twitter - the kind of Trumpling that reads Alex Jones and thinks he is a real reporter, or an accurate news site. They gained some traction by some reasonably accurate reporting on Gamergate (stopped clock effect), but too many people swallowed his bull hooks one and sinker. This is a real "satanic panic" happening in real time, not back in the 70s, 80s, 90s (D&D, Rock, Metal, Satanic Ritual Abuse, etc). It's amazing to see such blind ideological stupidity happen in real time, despite seeing the same thing from others over the last few years.CommanderTuvok wrote:So, I am busy offline for several hours, and suddenly the alt-right are babbling on Twitter about Hillary Clinton being involved in Satanism, and drinking blood, and "spirit cooking".
I mean, what the, like, fuck? Just when I thought it couldn't get any more ker-aye-zeeeeee.
Further, Baier said "Indictment is obviously a very loaded word" and that "no one knows if there would or would not be an indictment."
Shh...there are no secret Lizard people ruling the world, and Hillary does not eat live mice for dinner. The alien attack will be completely fake. Just follow the directions of the actors and you will have a starring role in the movie...free thoughtpolice wrote:Snopes is in the pocket of big Hillary. :hand:
More email secrets, Clinton to rig election by staging fake alien invasion.
Knowing Hillary it may even be areal alien invasion. :shock:
Really? wrote:That's amazing. Why would anyone invite xir to anything ever? There is a zero percent chance xir will be happy with anything.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Fuck me some more.
It is a special needs precious snowflake. Must be read to be believed:
http://ap.io/home/disability-accommodations/
On the contrary, we have a very, very good idea.The Anonymous Flid wrote:Never assume that you know what life as a person with disabilities is like. The truth is, you probably have no idea.
There's a LOT of moving parts, and China plays the long game.Billie from Ockham wrote:In contrast to other, previous attempts by countries to move up in basic science and engineering, China can't "buy" the actual people who are doing the work. US academics, for example, will rarely take jobs in Mainland China, no matter how high the pay. (Hong Kong, maybe, but no-fucking-way to Beijing.) So China is using a different approach ... a combination of all-expenses-paid trips to China for Americans and Europeans, plus sending us as many undergrads and grad-students that we'll take. And these two prong are connected. Only part of the all-expenses-paid stuff is about the actual information gleaned from conference. The other part is the hope that people who accept these trips will be more likely to accept Chinese students into their labs.
(Taiwan is doing this, too. I was introduced to several "promising students" on my trip there. Almost every one of them later applied to join my lab.)
Or did you think that "pay-to-play" and other forms of subtle bribery and corruption were only for politicians (e.g., the Clinton Foundation)?
If they want to behave like toddlers, they should be treated like toddlers. For example toddlers can't vote or go to the university.Spike13 wrote:Do these bozos not realize that they're harming people who have nothing to do with their quarrel with Peterson? Do they even care? For all their supposed "humanity" and "empathy" they sure as hell love to behave like proper cunts.
No, no they don't.
Nothing is as important as their pet peeve at the moment.
When baby wants a bottle, it doesn't care that it's keeping the whole house up at night.
When a toddler has a melt down in a store, it doesn't care that it is annoying the shit out of everyone else.
"Madness", indeed. Though, isn't there a Chinese curse to the effect, "may you live in interesting times"?AndrewV69 wrote:The madness, there is no end to it:
Hillary's High Crimes & MisdemeanorsAny Slymepitter familiar wwith how these thing go down in the USA, like impeachments and so on want to read and comment?if what Bret Baier is reporting from FBI sources on Fox News is true, America is headed for a constitutional crisis.
And I would understand if you do not want to either. I am not too sure I want to explore this now. Especially as I have not seen any "evidence" yet.
Anyway, interesting times people. Very interesting. Dunno how true any of this is but it does make life interesting.
Fucking rot. Hard not to see Trump as the lesser of the two evils even if he's a bit of a long-shot.Tyler Durden wrote:DOJ's Peter Kadzik Exposed Colluding With Clinton Campaign
by Tyler Durden
Nov 2, 2016 6:26 PM
On Monday we were the first to note that Podesta's friend Peter Kadzik was the DOJ representative chosen to head up a "thorough" review of the new Huma Abedin emails as revealed by a letter he wrote to Congress. Given Kadzik's personal relationship with Podesta, it seemed like a "convenient" choice for the Clinton campaign."Ironically", that is the same Peter Kadzik who has proven his "impartiality" in multiple WikiLeaks emails including this newly released bombshell in which Kadzik provides a very helpful "heads up" about Hillary's email server investigation. This is what Kadzik emailed to John Podesta (via gmail) on May 19, 2015:In the letter to Congress, the DOJ writes that it “will continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” assistant attorney General Peter J. Kadzik writes in letters to House and Senate lawmakers.As we also reported previously (see below), prior to joining the DOJ, Kadzik was the attorney of Marc Rich, whose records the FBI released yesterday, as well as Podesta; in fact, the Clinton campaign chairman infamously wrote that Kadzik was a “fantastic lawyer” who “kept me out of jail.” ....There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the emails.
Agreed, do your Federal Service and get the vote. Nothing comes without a cost.Kirbmarc wrote:If they want to behave like toddlers, they should be treated like toddlers. For example toddlers can't vote or go to the university.Spike13 wrote:Do these bozos not realize that they're harming people who have nothing to do with their quarrel with Peterson? Do they even care? For all their supposed "humanity" and "empathy" they sure as hell love to behave like proper cunts.
No, no they don't.
Nothing is as important as their pet peeve at the moment.
When baby wants a bottle, it doesn't care that it's keeping the whole house up at night.
When a toddler has a melt down in a store, it doesn't care that it is annoying the shit out of everyone else.
And yes Jadehawk, before you panic, this is a joke.
This is all starting to look familiar.free thoughtpolice wrote:Snopes is in the pocket of big Hillary. :hand:
More email secrets, Clinton to rig election by staging fake alien invasion.
Knowing Hillary it may even be areal alien invasion. :shock:
http://i.memecaptain.com/gend_images/6VT3Mw.jpgBrive1987 wrote:Agreed, do your Federal Service and get the vote. Nothing comes without a cost.
Oh, yeah, great idea. That can't backfire in any way...Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations.
So, what to do?
According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.
‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’
And here I thought that the idea behind the equality of opportunity was to raise standards and treat disadvantage people better. No, it's all about "leveling the playing field", even when this means restricting the freedom to read bedtime stories to your child. Because, you know, this is unfair to the poor children who don't get everyone to read them bedtime stories.‘The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t—the difference in their life chances—is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,’ he says.
This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion—that perhaps in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted.
Yes, you've read it right. By treating your children well you are disadvantaging other people's children. It's not like those other people could be encouraged to be better parents, no siree. It's you, the selfish good parent, who are selfishly giving advantages to your children over other people's children. Sounds legit.So should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?
‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift.
Biological ties are a social construct.Then, does the child have a right to be parented by her biological parents? Swift has a ready answer.
‘It’s true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people’s identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.’
Gee, you think?It’s here that the traditional notions of what constitutes the family come apart. A necessary product of the Swift and Brighouse analytical defence is the calling into question of some rigid definitions.
‘Politicians love to talk about family values, but meanwhile the family is in flux and so we wanted to go back to philosophical basics to work out what are families for and what’s so great about them and then we can start to figure out whether it matters whether you have two parents or three or one, or whether they’re heterosexual etcetera.’
For traditionalists, though, Swift provides a small concession.
‘We do want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution,’ he says. ‘If you start to think about a child having 10 parents, then that’s looking like a committee rearing a child; there aren’t any parents there at all.’
Not to brag, but I kind of called this back in 2014: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=379&p=155242#p155242Kirbmarc wrote:Peak insanity from some "philosophers" of the extreme left: Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?
Oh, yeah, great idea. That can't backfire in any way...Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations.
So, what to do?
According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.
‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’
And here I thought that the idea behind the equality of opportunity was to raise standards and treat disadvantage people better. No, it's all about "leveling the playing field", even when this means restricting the freedom to read bedtime stories to your child. Because, you know, this is unfair to the poor children who don't get everyone to read them bedtime stories.‘The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t—the difference in their life chances—is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,’ he says.
This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion—that perhaps in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted.
If bedtime stories are an unfair advantage then what else? Beauty surely gives beautiful people an unfair advantage, should be give ugly scars to beautiful people? Intelligence is also an unfair advantage, should be we require people who are too clever to take drugs that will damage their brains? What about crippling sane individuals to level the playing field with people who can't walk?
Yes, you've read it right. By treating your children well you are disadvantaging other people's children. It's not like those other people could be encouraged to be better parents, no siree. It's you, the selfish good parent, who are selfishly giving advantages to your children over other people's children. Sounds legit.So should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?
‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift.
Biological ties are a social construct.Then, does the child have a right to be parented by her biological parents? Swift has a ready answer.
‘It’s true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people’s identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.’
Gee, you think?It’s here that the traditional notions of what constitutes the family come apart. A necessary product of the Swift and Brighouse analytical defence is the calling into question of some rigid definitions.
‘Politicians love to talk about family values, but meanwhile the family is in flux and so we wanted to go back to philosophical basics to work out what are families for and what’s so great about them and then we can start to figure out whether it matters whether you have two parents or three or one, or whether they’re heterosexual etcetera.’
For traditionalists, though, Swift provides a small concession.
‘We do want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution,’ he says. ‘If you start to think about a child having 10 parents, then that’s looking like a committee rearing a child; there aren’t any parents there at all.’
It's often said that Orwell didn't intend 1984 to be an instruction manual. I don't think Vonnegut wanted Harrison Bergeron to be an instruction manual either.Kirbmarc wrote:Peak insanity from some "philosophers" of the extreme left: Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?
Oh, yeah, great idea. That can't backfire in any way...Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations.
So, what to do?
According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.
‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’
Interesting.Shatterface wrote:Children are more likely to be murdered by step parents than genetic parents but if abandoning the genetic link in parenting levels the playing field who are we to argue?
Kirbmarc wrote:I've realized that I've come to loath the expression "leveling the playing field". It used to mean helping people who had disadvantages, now it's become all about shaming and guilt-tripping people who have advantages.
I expect people to argue for scarring beautiful people or making clever people dumber anytime soon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_Justicehttp://shinynewbooks.co.uk/wp-content/u ... ustice.jpg
Facial Justice is a dystopian novel by L. P. Hartley, published in 1960. The novel depicts a post-apocalyptic society that has sought to banish privilege and envy, to the extent that people will even have their faces surgically altered in order to appear neither too beautiful nor too ugly. The novel was included in Anthony Burgess's Ninety-nine Novels: The Best in English Since 1939: A Personal Choice.
Maybe they can finally open the London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre, and get some more control over the Alphas, Gammas and Epsilons. He sounds like he would make a fine Director.Kirbmarc wrote:Gee, you think?It’s here that the traditional notions of what constitutes the family come apart. A necessary product of the Swift and Brighouse analytical defence is the calling into question of some rigid definitions.
‘Politicians love to talk about family values, but meanwhile the family is in flux and so we wanted to go back to philosophical basics to work out what are families for and what’s so great about them and then we can start to figure out whether it matters whether you have two parents or three or one, or whether they’re heterosexual etcetera.’
For traditionalists, though, Swift provides a small concession.
‘We do want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution,’ he says. ‘If you start to think about a child having 10 parents, then that’s looking like a committee rearing a child; there aren’t any parents there at all.’
