You is all a bunch of poofs!

Driftless
.
.
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12361

Post by Driftless »

free thoughtpolice wrote: jugheadnaut wrote:
They are not allowed to have editorial policies that would be conventional for a standard publisher, nor decide what opinions are harmful, or even false. Obviously, the major social platforms been ignoring this for the last several years, and they're likely going to lose their broad civil immunity before too lo
I have seen that claim before. If that is settled law kindly send a link. To me that sounds like speculation by some lawyer or wannabe lawyer.
I doubt there is settled law that obligates internet platforms to publish false and possible dangerous claims. If you can find otherwise I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong.
Here's some interesting section 230 stuff. They apparently can't be sued for the sale of counterfeit goods:

https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/abse ... n-facebook
The Article wrote:Why does Facebook enable such scams? It’s simple. The law lets Facebook make a lot of money enabling counterfeiting. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes Facebook from any consequences for the content of ads bought on their platform; they can’t be sued for facilitating fraud and counterfeiting, so they don’t have any incentive to do anything about it. With no one at Facebook actually paying attention to the scam artists who are buying these ads, scams proliferate.
They take the ads down if notified, but anyone selling has to constantly monitor.

CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3743
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12362

Post by CommanderTuvok »

Embarrassing blooper from the Guardian, as they post a picture of black rapper Kano instead of racist black rapper Wiley, above an Owen Jones column.

It's as though all black rappers look the same to the people at the Guardian!

:lol:

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7329
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12363

Post by MarcusAu »

A bit out of date perhaps - but lets see how he does...did...has have did done...


Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12960
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12364

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Politico announced today that Joe Biden had selected Kamala Harris as his running mate on August 1, complete with a quote from Biden as to why. It was quickly retracted.

https://pjmedia.com/election/matt-margo ... TftPoVMUJY

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/2 ... 652#harris

Over the past several months, Politico has almost completely replaced its former staff with young, cheap -- and woke indoctrinated -- cub reporters straight out of college. Only a few old hands remain, appearing in joint bylines presumably when the rookies couldn't find the spoons to meet a deadline.
As a consequence, Politico has gone completely down the shitter.

But it's one of the few places left where I'm not banned from commenting.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12960
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12365

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Any doubts as to whether Joe Biden has completely lost his marbles should be put to rest by his latest public appearance:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 ... te-clisis/

The second clip, where he mistakes the venue, is particularly painful to watch.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12960
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12366

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Racialism vs. America: Wokeism is the essence of anarchy.

Consider … what the woke Left, in its angry self-righteousness, is revealing of itself in its season of apparent triumph. Witness the utter disregard for democratic government … in the monument-topplings by know-nothing mobs, along with the armed usurpation of power in Seattle’s Capitol Hill district. Add to that the contempt for freedom of speech manifested in the firings and cancellations of those who diverge, even ever so slightly, from the woke dogmas of the day….

To hasten and solidify the return of good sense, it is necessary to drive home the point that the violence and the illiberalism currently in season are not mere excesses, products of the heat of the moment. They represent the core, not the periphery, of the ‘anti-racist’ Left. They proceed from its vision of America.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 5115
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12367

Post by Service Dog »

free thoughtpolice wrote: Stella Immanuel MD claims hydroxychloriquine is 100% effective against Covid 19 and masks are useless.
Where did she claim masks are useless? I think you made that up.

If you can find a single false statement in the Whitecoat press conference, please point it out:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/HeC0tHZDX7dk/

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12368

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Any doubts as to whether Joe Biden has completely lost his marbles should be put to rest by his latest public appearance:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 ... te-clisis/

The second clip, where he mistakes the venue, is particularly painful to watch.
Both Trump and Biden are too old for the job and both are in some degree of mental decline. One is a lifelong stutterer and the other is a lifelong sociopath and malignant narcissist.
One could put together plenty of clips of Trump making gaffes, babbling word salad, and wandering off in the wrong direction.

Not that the US is the only country where elections boil down to the choice between a giant douche and a shit sandwich. Trudeau would have had his ass kicked out of office last election if there was a better alternative, for example. It is more the rule than the exception that politicians are flakes, crooks, or some variety of nut.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12369

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Service Dog wrote: Everyone's familiar with examples-- of rich socialists.

Beto 0'Rourke, Colin Kaepernick, Madonna, Russell Brand, The View, Jada Pinkett-Smith, , Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham.

Styling-yourself as one of of those-- ain't real flattering.
Those aren't Rich Socialists, they all belong to the Woke Twat party. You must have flunked Political Science.
Rich Socialists are folks like George Soros, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos. People that have had success in capitalism and unlike Trump haven't had tons of bankruptcy and inherited most of their money.
Also not Libertarians like Vlad Putin or broke ass life failure Ayn Rand that ended up living off the teat of big government in her last years.

John D
.
.
Posts: 4785
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12370

Post by John D »

A good review of Portland at the start of the podcast.... and Trump Derangement Syndrome and its impact on Hydroxy at 45 minutes.


free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12371

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Service Dog wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: Stella Immanuel MD claims hydroxychloriquine is 100% effective against Covid 19 and masks are useless.
Where did she claim masks are useless? I think you made that up.

If you can find a single false statement in the Whitecoat press conference, please point it out:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/HeC0tHZDX7dk/
https://apnews.com/afs:Content:9153030274
“I came here to Washington, D.C., to tell America nobody needs to get sick,” she said in the video. “This virus has a cure. It is called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax. I know you people want to talk about a mask. Hello? You don’t need mask. There is a cure. I know they don’t want to open schools. No, you don’t need people to be locked down. There is prevention and there is a cure.”
You gotchaed me. She doesn't say "masks are useless", she says you don't need them. None of the quacks in the presser you posted are wearing masks or social distancing either.
As for a single false statement, The emphatic claim made that hydroxychloroquine is a sure cure as well as a preventative is considered to be false by the consensus of researchers.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 5115
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12372

Post by Service Dog »

free thoughtpolice wrote: You gotchaed me. She doesn't say "masks are useless", she says you don't need them. None of the quacks in the presser you posted are wearing masks or social distancing either.
As for a single false statement, The emphatic claim made that hydroxychloroquine is a sure cure as well as a preventative is considered to be false by the consensus of researchers.
She claimed a 100% survival rate among the 350+ patients she treated, and the medical staff she works-with, using hydroxychloroquine + zinc + zithromax. Are you disputing that claim? Is a 'consensus of researchers' disputing that claim?

Your previous post on Dr. Immanuel was based on a Daily Beast article. Why did that article focus soley on her weird religion, and not dispute any claims from the actual press conference?

She & the other Whitecoat doctors explicitly contrasted a methodological blindspot-- in relying on 'researchers' and intensive-care doctors (who only see the worst cases)-- without factoring-in the success-stories from frontline doctors.

The Whitecoat doctors also were absolutely clear-- about the flaws in studies which seemed to disprove hydroxychloroquine: sometimes a toxic overdosage was administered. Sometimes the studies only looked at hydroxychloroquine-- without also administering Zinc. (the whole point of hydroxychloroquine is that it allows Zinc to pass the cell barrier to destroy the virus. No zinc = a delivery system with no warhead.) My understanding is-- the only current study looking at hydroxychloroquine plus Zinc--- is not projected to be complete until January 2021.


I think your tribal us-vs-them cheerleading-- prevents you from looking at this issue clearly. Which makes you just-like the Rich Socialist tech & news media companies-- which censored the press conference & misreported what the doctors said.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10850
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12373

Post by Lsuoma »

MarcusAu wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: My vet told me how a couple of weeks ago, she had to pull out a still[not]born foal. I'll spare you all the details.
I don't see why.

Story subjects are many and varied, but in the end you can't beat a dead horse.
Paging Steerzo, paging Steerzo!

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10850
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12374

Post by Lsuoma »

Driftless wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: jugheadnaut wrote:
They are not allowed to have editorial policies that would be conventional for a standard publisher, nor decide what opinions are harmful, or even false. Obviously, the major social platforms been ignoring this for the last several years, and they're likely going to lose their broad civil immunity before too lo
I have seen that claim before. If that is settled law kindly send a link. To me that sounds like speculation by some lawyer or wannabe lawyer.
I doubt there is settled law that obligates internet platforms to publish false and possible dangerous claims. If you can find otherwise I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong.
Here's some interesting section 230 stuff. They apparently can't be sued for the sale of counterfeit goods:

https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/abse ... n-facebook
The Article wrote:Why does Facebook enable such scams? It’s simple. The law lets Facebook make a lot of money enabling counterfeiting. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes Facebook from any consequences for the content of ads bought on their platform; they can’t be sued for facilitating fraud and counterfeiting, so they don’t have any incentive to do anything about it. With no one at Facebook actually paying attention to the scam artists who are buying these ads, scams proliferate.
They take the ads down if notified, but anyone selling has to constantly monitor.
Matt Stoller covered knock-offs on hi Big blog recently.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10850
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12375

Post by Lsuoma »


Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10850
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12376

Post by Lsuoma »

MarcusAu wrote: A bit out of date perhaps - but lets see how he does...did...has have did done...

Two of my favorite science popularizers had awesome buggers' grips, Asimov and Burke. Graeme Garden has some good ones too.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12377

Post by jugheadnaut »

free thoughtpolice wrote: jugheadnaut wrote:
They are not allowed to have editorial policies that would be conventional for a standard publisher, nor decide what opinions are harmful, or even false. Obviously, the major social platforms been ignoring this for the last several years, and they're likely going to lose their broad civil immunity before too lo
I have seen that claim before. If that is settled law kindly send a link. To me that sounds like speculation by some lawyer or wannabe lawyer.
I doubt there is settled law that obligates internet platforms to publish false and possible dangerous claims. If you can find otherwise I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong.
All of the case law around Section 230 is on the liability immunity aspect of the law, not obligations entailed by the law. So, at this point, obligations are purely interpretation, not settled case law. One thing I was clearly wrong about in retrospect, is when I said internet platforms have no ability to determine what is harmful under Section 230. The plain text of the law gives them immunity from liability for good-faith actions restricting content that the provider considers objectionable, although that's put into the context of obscenity, violence, and harassment.

So what's the argument behind the interpretation that Section 230 entails internet content providers not have tight editorial and moderation policies in return for the broad immunity from liability they are given? 230(c)(1) states:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
The question becomes if the interactive computer service voluntary opts to become a publisher by having a curating approach to censorship and moderation or user content, do they lose the ability to not be treated as a publisher. If this sounds like a reach to you, consider Quillette. Most of what they publish is user content submitted to them for publication. Obviously, they have high editorial standards and a political orientation that guides their selection into what to publish. They are clearly a publisher, regardless of 230(c)(1), and if they publish something libelous, they can be held to account. So what's the line? If YouTube has a clear policy of promoting or impeding content based on it's political point of view, at some point they are clearly a publisher like Quillette. The question right now is not whether there is a line, it's where the line is, and currently there's no case law behind it.

But I think pretty much nobody wants this decided by judges. The internet landscape has changed hugely since 1996 in ways that no one, as far as I know, foresaw, and it's the role of lawmakers to update this law. Personally, I don't want a neutrality mandate, I want requirements for more transparency, disclosure, and perhaps, independent ombudsmen.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12378

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Service Dog wrote:
She claimed a 100% survival rate among the 350+ patients she treated, and the medical staff she works-with, using hydroxychloroquine + zinc + zithromax. Are you disputing that claim? Is a 'consensus of researchers' disputing that claim?

Your previous post on Dr. Immanuel was based on a Daily Beast article. Why did that article focus soley on her weird religion, and not dispute any claims from the actual press conference?
That claim is anecdotal evidence, not backed up by documentation (to my knowledge). Immanuel's crackpot, anti-scientific view are relevant to the discussion because she is making a claim of proof. I don't think her claim is either true or accurate. There have been several preliminary studies and some studies that have been ongoing for some months. No preliminary studies have claimed 100% efficacy as Immanuel has claimed and the ongoing studies would have almost certainly reported early results if they were anywhere near that promising. (see remdesivir)
My understanding is-- the only current study looking at hydroxychloroquine plus Zinc--- is not projected to be complete until January 2021
There is and has been more than one. The Turkish study was supposed to be complete on July 1 but hasn't yet released a conclusion. One preliminary study was released in May that claimed some mild success but wasn't a fully rigorous study and peer reviews haven't corroborated the results. Again if these studies produced results anywhere near as promising as the claims made by Immanuel you better believe there would loads of researchers falling all over each other to reproduce the results.
She & the other Whitecoat doctors explicitly contrasted a methodological blindspot-- in relying on 'researchers' and intensive-care doctors (who only see the worst cases)-- without factoring-in the success-stories from frontline doctors.
The studies that looked in to possible preventive used at risk hospital staff that were healthy at the start of the study, so your white coats apparently missed that one. A non formalized outpatient study has problems with it such as not examining and testing on a regular basis. Maybe their patients changed doctors or went to the hospital without notifying the doctor or moved. Without a formal fully documented study it is also easy to miss many variables.
You call studies that test the serious cases as methodologically flawed? Ever consider that the less serious cases would get better without hydroxy and zinc? You would be making a bigger methodological flaw by only selecting healthier cases and ignoring the serious ones, which is why the early French study was discredited.
I think your tribal us-vs-them cheerleading-- prevents you from looking at this issue clearly
You just belong to a different tribe. My tribe likes to see rigorous studies that use the scientific method to determine fact.
Your tribe likes to believe "experts" handpicked by the Tea Party Patriots and their poorly documented anecdotes such as the vague claims made by a kooky witch doctor who has scientific belief including having nocturnal sex with demons causes endometriosis. I wouldn't completely dismiss the possibility she was making a lot of her "results" up.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12379

Post by free thoughtpolice »

jugheadnaut wrte:
So what's the argument behind the interpretation that Section 230 entails internet content providers not have tight editorial and moderation policies in return for the broad immunity from liability they are given? 230(c)(1) states:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
From what I read there it looks like they are not to be punished or given credit for content provided to them, for example they can't claim copyright to the material. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything that obligates them to provide a platform for information they don't want to place.
Refusing to publish or adding a disclaimer is acting more as an editor than a publisher. If they wanted to limit the ability of the platform then they should say so explicitly. Maybe we agree that the law could be clearer, perhaps better defining the rules for qualifying for section 230.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5083
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12380

Post by KiwiInOz »

MarcusAu wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: My vet told me how a couple of weeks ago, she had to pull out a still[not]born foal. I'll spare you all the details.
I don't see why.

Story subjects are many and varied, but in the end you can't beat a dead horse.
For that, you deserve a whipping, boy.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5083
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12381

Post by KiwiInOz »

Service Dog wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: Stella Immanuel MD claims hydroxychloriquine is 100% effective against Covid 19 and masks are useless.
Where did she claim masks are useless? I think you made that up.

If you can find a single false statement in the Whitecoat press conference, please point it out:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/HeC0tHZDX7dk/
Fuck you, demon spawn.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12382

Post by jugheadnaut »

Driftless wrote:
Here's some interesting section 230 stuff. They apparently can't be sued for the sale of counterfeit goods:

https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/abse ... n-facebook
The Article wrote:Why does Facebook enable such scams? It’s simple. The law lets Facebook make a lot of money enabling counterfeiting. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes Facebook from any consequences for the content of ads bought on their platform; they can’t be sued for facilitating fraud and counterfeiting, so they don’t have any incentive to do anything about it. With no one at Facebook actually paying attention to the scam artists who are buying these ads, scams proliferate.
They take the ads down if notified, but anyone selling has to constantly monitor.
Counterfeits are the least of the scams from Facebook ads. What's extremely common right now is a Chinese scam where they'll put up a web ad for an attractive product (pictures generally stolen from the actual vendor or a Kickstarter/Indiegogo campaign) typically priced between $15 and $40 and have a rapidly changing series of storefronts that the ad leads to.

The storefront gives no indication the product is Chinese, and will sometimes actively portray itself as domestic to the shopper. They will only use PayPal to complete purchases. Once bought, the first step of the scammer is to simply not send the product. If the customer notices and complains, they will then send out a dollar store level product which has little resemblance to the product purchased (e.g. instead of a tennis ball launcher, you'll get a couple of dog toy quality tennis balls or instead of a putting matt, you'll get a golf ball). The original storefront is long gone by then.

If they are contacted for a refund, they'll claim it was a simple mistake, and they'll be happy to give you a refund if you send the product back to China via a tracked method, which costs over twice what you spend in the first place. If you dispute with PayPal, they'll back the vendor that the full refund on return is the fair solution. I'd say well over half of Facebook ads now are variants on this scam. I think PayPal actually bears much more responsibility here than Facebook, since they are clearly aware of these scams. Their community message boards are full of reports, and no doubt, they get a torrent of disputes with the same story. And yet they are actively and continuingly acting as the bag man for this fraud.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12383

Post by jugheadnaut »

free thoughtpolice wrote: jugheadnaut wrte:
So what's the argument behind the interpretation that Section 230 entails internet content providers not have tight editorial and moderation policies in return for the broad immunity from liability they are given? 230(c)(1) states:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
From what I read there it looks like they are not to be punished or given credit for content provided to them, for example they can't claim copyright to the material. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything that obligates them to provide a platform for information they don't want to place.
Refusing to publish or adding a disclaimer is acting more as an editor than a publisher. If they wanted to limit the ability of the platform then they should say so explicitly. Maybe we agree that the law could be clearer, perhaps better defining the rules for qualifying for section 230.
The language in Section 230 doesn't directly address the current situation, and wasn't meant to. Back in 1996, there was universal awareness of the enormous business and cultural impact that the internet and web would have. Social conservatives were concerned about obscene materials being available on the web, while economic conservatives and centrists (there were Democratic centrists then, including the POTUS) were concerned that regulation and litigation could strangle the new technology in the crib. The CDA and Section 230 were a compromise based on that. Even if my interpretation that a platform should lose its liability immunity if they exhibit viewpoint based editorial control over user content, it doesn't mean that this platform wouldn't be legally able to do this. They would just have to be as careful with what they publish as a traditional publisher, because they're not immune from lawsuits based on the published content. Of course, for most, this will not be a good trade-off from a business perspective and they're likely to at least try to practice viewpoint neutrality.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12384

Post by jugheadnaut »

free thoughtpolice wrote: You just belong to a different tribe. My tribe likes to see rigorous studies that use the scientific method to determine fact.
Unless the facts so determined conflict with the dogmatic tribal politics, such as in GMO safety studies, the genetic factors related to intelligence, anything contradicting the blank slate hypothesis, anything contradicting the catastrophic climate change story, anything showing incidence of rape has declined rapidly in the western world and there is no rape epidemic in colleges, and women don't get paid less for the same work. In which case, the scientists involved are called incompetent or shills (if not -ists and -phobes), and the results ignored.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7329
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12385

Post by MarcusAu »

Lsuoma wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 11:15 am
Two of my favorite science popularizers had awesome buggers' grips, Asimov and Burke. Graeme Garden has some good ones too.
I always wondered if Asimov's were a tribute to Huxley. Since you mention it - I suppose Jimmy Edwards may have put his facial stylings to some practical use.

I blame Kiwi & Screwtape who (peripherally) brought up the subject of 'mutton chops' a couple of pages back.

screwtape
.
.
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:15 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12386

Post by screwtape »

free thoughtpolice wrote: My tribe likes to see rigorous studies that use the scientific method to determine fact.
Aha! You're white, aren't you? Bet you like linear thinking and believe in a work ethic too! Pathetic!

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12387

Post by free thoughtpolice »

screwtape wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: My tribe likes to see rigorous studies that use the scientific method to determine fact.
Aha! You're white, aren't you? Bet you like linear thinking and believe in a work ethic too! Pathetic!
I now believe in the "I'm too old to work" ethic but I still sneak in some productive activity from time to time.
And yes, I am White. I have difficulty sleeping trying to decide how to atone for my white privilege.
:lol: :lol: Just joking

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 5115
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12388

Post by Service Dog »

free thoughtpolice wrote:
You just belong to a different tribe. My tribe likes to see rigorous studies that use the scientific method to determine fact.

Your tribe likes to believe "experts" handpicked by the Tea Party Patriots and their poorly documented anecdotes such as the vague claims made by a kooky witch doctor who has scientific belief including having nocturnal sex with demons causes endometriosis. I wouldn't completely dismiss the possibility she was making a lot of her "results" up.
Hey dum-dum... you saying-out-loud your notions of 'your' tribe vs. 'my' tribe... doesn't say anything about me. It just proves I was right about your retarded tribal mentality.


My actual opinion is informed by the recent Koch-funded Reason Magazine interview with Senior Fellow Jonathan Rauch of the Soros-affiliated Brookings Institution (currently in hot water for their role in trafficking the Steele Dossier/ 96% of Brookings' political donations go to Dems).

In the Reason interview, Rauch cited Karl Popper's concept of the Open Society. In a tribal Closed Society-- there's one correct homogenous opinion for all-- and dissent not tolerated. It's regarded as a threat. In an Open Society-- institutions tolerate a multiplicity of opinions-- tho many opinions are inevitably wrong-- because allowing such diversity of opinion is the surest, fastest way to submit the competing opinions to falsification. This process is cumulative & not limited strictly to 'science' but also-includes pursuit of truth-- such as ethical journalism.

As demonstrated by the censoring of the Whitecoats' press briefing, you and your comrades at Twitter & Facebook clearly adhere to the tribal closed society model.

Open Society Foundations is also the name of George Soros' multi-billion dollar private money-influence tentacle. 2nd in budget only-to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 5115
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12389

Post by Service Dog »

http://www.cinema.com/image_lib/16069_poster.jpg

I keep hearing rave reviews of 'Mr. Jones', the film about journalist Gareth Jones, who uncovered the truth
about the USSR's communist-made famine-- while his contemporary Walter Durante of the New York Times won a Pulitzer for covering-up Stalin's famine.

Meanwhile, in today's New York Times, two-time Pulitzer winner Nicholas Kristof writes...

"Help Me Find Trump’s ‘Anarchists’ in Portland
The president has his politically driven narrative. And then there’s reality.
momcccp.jpg
(84.27 KiB) Downloaded 170 times
By Nicholas Kristof
Opinion Columnist

PORTLAND, Ore. — I’ve been on the front lines of the protests here, searching for the “radical-left anarchists” who President Trump says are on Portland streets each evening.
I thought I’d found one: a man who for weeks leapt into the fray and has been shot four times with impact munitions yet keeps coming back. I figured he must be a crazed anarchist.
But no, he turned out to be Dr. Bryan Wolf, a radiologist who wears his white doctor’s jacket and carries a sign with a red cross and the words “humanitarian aid.” He pleads with federal forces not to shoot or gas protesters.
“Put your gun barrels down!” he cries out. “Why are you loading your grenade launchers? We’re just standing ——”

And then they shoot.

Dr. Wolf, an assistant professor at Oregon Health Sciences University, helps at a medic stand operated by volunteers from the medical school. Could they be radical-left anarchists? No, they’ve imposed order on the anarchy of the street by establishing qualifications for field medics and a hierarchy among them, so that any badly injured protester will immediately get the right kind of care.

Accomplishing all this while tear gas is swirling and impact munitions are whizzing by, without even asking for insurance cards — that seems the opposite of what fanatical anarchists might do.
Maybe the rioting anarchists were in front of the crowd, where there are discussions about Black Lives Matter? I found musicians and activists and technicians, who were projecting a huge sign on the wall of a nearby building — “Fed Goons Out of PDX” — that seemed a bit geeky for anarchists.

Oh, wait, there was a man using angry language about the federal “occupation” and calling it “abhorrent.” Lots of protesters don’t seem to like him, so could he be a crazed anarchist rioter?
Oops, no, that’s just Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, sputtering after being tear-gassed by the feds.
Then I heard someone calling for the overthrow of Portland’s “leadership,” and I’d figured I’d finally found an anarchist. But it turned out to be Maria Bartiromo of Fox News, asking Chad Wolf, the acting head of homeland security, “Why can’t you just arrest the leadership in Portland because of their ignoring what’s really happening on the ground?”
She may be a crazed anarchist trying to topple legitimate authority, but I doubt she’s the kind Trump meant.

OK, I’ll fess up: Sure there are anarchists and antifa activists in the Portland protests, just as there are radiologists and electricians, lawyers and mechanics. Report on the ground here and any single narrative feels too simplistic. The protesters aren’t all peaceful, nor are they primarily violent. They’re a complicated weave, differing by time of day.
nursegodfrey.jpg
(125.63 KiB) Downloaded 170 times
In the evening, the throngs are entirely peaceful, listening to speeches about Black Lives Matter, and the authorities do not intervene. Then, as if following a script, about 11 p.m. some protesters begin to shoot fireworks or set small trash fires. (No, they’re not trying to burn down the federal courthouse, as Wolf suggests.)

Some of these late-night protesters try to provoke the federal forces, partly to show how federal agents overreact with indiscriminate force. Meanwhile, Trump is deploying federal forces to provoke protesters into using violence that he can campaign on.

Provocateurs are found in both the streets and the White House.
We see dueling narratives. One is Trump’s, and it portrays Portland and other cities with protests against police brutality as teetering on the abyss and requiring his Lincolnesque hand to hold America together. The other is — well, shall we call it reality? Yes, there’s violence and vandalism, as well as opportunistic looting, and it’ll be a challenge to manage it, but local officials are much better placed to do so than the White House.
Oregon and Trump administration officials on Wednesday announced an agreement to reduce tensions around the federal courthouse. But the timing and extent of the withdrawal of federal forces was unclear.
I’m against all violent attacks on officers, and I worry that Trump’s provocations are succeeding in seeding violence — as we’ve already seen in Seattle, Oakland and elsewhere. Every time angry progressives burn a building down, they win votes for Trump.
That’s what this is about: politics. The big threat in Portland and across America is not anarchists but Covid-19, so Trump welcomes street clashes to change the subject. If he actually cared about the defacement of the federal courthouse in Portland, he would remove the graffiti; instead, he leaves it there for photo ops. It’s the protesters, not the federal authorities, who deploy teams each night in Portland to clean up the area around the courthouse.
It also must be said that while there’s violence from both sides, what I’ve seen firsthand is that the most violent behavior overwhelmingly comes from the federal agents, and indeed the most serious injuries have been suffered by protesters. Your federal tax dollars paid to shoot a man in the face with a “less lethal” munition — an unprovoked assault that left him with a fractured skull and possible brain damage.
If you want to call one side “rioters” or “anarchists” working to create tumult in Portland, it’s the uninvited feds who qualify."

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12390

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Service Dog wrote:
Hey dum-dum... you saying-out-loud your notions of 'your' tribe vs. 'my' tribe... doesn't say anything about me. It just proves I was right about your retarded tribal mentality.
:lol: My accepting of results from the scientific method is retarded and is an example of belonging to a closed society?
I know the kooky feminist post modernist left don't like "scientism" as they call it, and kooky loves them conspiracy theory right are anti-science too.
Call me narrow minded and a member of a closed society but I think they are totally full of shit.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10850
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12391

Post by Lsuoma »

MarcusAu wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 11:15 am
Two of my favorite science popularizers had awesome buggers' grips, Asimov and Burke. Graeme Garden has some good ones too.
I always wondered if Asimov's were a tribute to Huxley. Since you mention it - I suppose Jimmy Edwards may have put his facial stylings to some practical use.

I blame Kiwi & Screwtape who (peripherally) brought up the subject of 'mutton chops' a couple of pages back.
Whack-o!

katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5428
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12392

Post by katamari Damassi »

Question for the Put:. Who killed Herman Cain, Hillary or George Soros?

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7329
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12393

Post by MarcusAu »

katamari Damassi wrote: Question for the Put:. Who killed Herman Cain, Hillary or George Soros?
Does this answer your question?


MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7329
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12394

Post by MarcusAu »

By the way KD - your recommendation of Edward French's channel is still paying dividends.

But then I've always been a sucker for a Karloff accent and anything written by Joe R Lansdale:




'The Beast with Five Fingers' still holds up really well too.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 5115
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12395

Post by Service Dog »

free thoughtpolice wrote: :lol: My accepting of results from the scientific method is retarded and is an example of belonging to a closed society?
My words were clear: your support for Facebook and Twitter censoring dissenting opinions-- is what makes you an enemy of open society.

You're so afraid of a witch doctor from Cameroon-- that you think she should be deplatformed by a centralized authority.
You are a baboon.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12396

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Service Dog wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: :lol: My accepting of results from the scientific method is retarded and is an example of belonging to a closed society?
My words were clear: your support for Facebook and Twitter censoring dissenting opinions-- is what makes you an enemy of open society.

You're so afraid of a witch doctor from Cameroon-- that you think she should be deplatformed by a centralized authority.
You are a baboon.
You are in favor of forcing private businesses to publish false and possibly dangerous news by some fringe crackpots while masquerading as representatives of the health profession. These private businesses have the right keep sleazeballs like that from discrediting their service, especially if they are counselling people to break the law. Some "central authorities" also known as lawmakers have tried to create bylaws that require people to practice safe distancing and wearing face masks. And yes, central authorities have the right to pass laws in the interest of public health, like people shouldn't be going around pissing on other peoples doors ( a law that even you might agree with) even if they believe it isn't a threat to public health.
Also, twitter and friends have a right to remove my remarks if I encourage people to go and piss on your door.
So now I am a baboon and an enemy of open society as well as the ideological equal of Beta O'Rourke and the woke crowd. It's apparent you are losing your argument when you have to resort to silly name calling and blatant misrepresentation of my ideology.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 5115
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12397

Post by Service Dog »

Baboon is a term of art. Coined by Franc Hoggle. Baboons screech in unison when frightened by dissent, and attack as a mob-- until the dissonant voice is a fading smear of dry blood. That sort of thing is necessary, to make women feel safe at TAM, and so forth. That's a scientific fact. Freeze peach.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12960
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12398

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

It's apparent you are losing your argument when you have to resort to silly name calling and blatant misrepresentation of my ideology.
completelackofselfawareness.jpg
(20.84 KiB) Downloaded 120 times

John D
.
.
Posts: 4785
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12399

Post by John D »

freethought police = commie baboon! I love it.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17040
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12400

Post by Brive1987 »

Speaking of baboons. This is why the world will self destruct in a grain/fake meat/seed oil/sugar-fat combo puff of ultra processed food inspired metabolic syndrome.


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17040
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12401

Post by Brive1987 »

This is an incredibly interesting no bullshit account of the realities of animal / grain farming set against world requirements.

OZ farmer interviewed and tells it as it is.

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/p ... 0486449361

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12960
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12402

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Brive1987 wrote: Speaking of baboons. This is why the world will self destruct in a grain/fake meat/seed oil/sugar-fat combo puff of ultra processed food inspired metabolic syndrome.

Buy Soylent Corp stock now.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 5115
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12403

Post by Service Dog »

Antifa is short for Sciantifaic Marxism

and

Brack Rives Mattal is a pee-o-pul dlemoclatic socialease levorution-ar.


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17040
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12404

Post by Brive1987 »

I don’t care that he was a ‘bit left’ or sometimes a ‘bit wrong’.

I love AJP Taylor


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17040
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12405

Post by Brive1987 »


screwtape
.
.
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:15 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12406

Post by screwtape »

Brushes with the recently-mentioned famous:
1. I was taken to see Jimmy Edwards in a pantomime in Oxford back when he was known for 'Whack-O!' Must have been '60 or '61.
2. Once had AJP Taylor's first wife in hospital (heart attack, I think) back when I was a student. He looked just like he did on television, I thought with consummate banality to my unsophisticated self.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7329
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12407

Post by MarcusAu »

screwtape wrote: I was taken to see Jimmy Edwards in a pantomime in Oxford back when he was known for 'Whack-O!' Must have been '60 or '61.
That's the stuff - none of this modern day drama when men dressing up as women.

Though the phrasing does not preclude your being forced at gun point to ensure a bit of light entertainment.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 5115
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12408

Post by Service Dog »

Wall Of Moms deemed White Supremacist by BLM

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 ... -portland/

Driftless
.
.
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12409

Post by Driftless »

Service Dog wrote: Wall Of Moms deemed White Supremacist by BLM

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 ... -portland/
Sounds like it is ultimately a dispute about money. Who can profit from the organization? Who will get control of the donations?

According to Heather and Brett on the Darkhorse Podcast the "Riot Ribs" stand in downtown Portland has closed after receiving $300,000 in donations. There is big money in these protests and the vultures are circling.


free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12411

Post by free thoughtpolice »


To the tune of Talking Heads' Psycho Killer:
Psycho Tweeter
Qu'est que ca
Covfefe fe fe fe covfefe fe fe
Psych Tweeter
Run run away


Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12960
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12413

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

This Bev Barnum looks to be another Anita Sarkeesian type grifter looking for her catapult moment.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12414

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Slymepit's favorite liberal pwner Mothertucker Carlson takes it to narrow minded scientismist Tony Fauci and defends Dr. Stella Immanuel for her Afro-based beliefs, inferring that the lame stream media has conspired to make it look like she believes in witchcraft, demon sex, and alien DNA. He appears to infer that criticizing her amounts to racism and the imposition of colonial thought.
It looks like Carlson has more in common with the loony left than anyone thought.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12415

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
It's apparent you are losing your argument when you have to resort to silly name calling and blatant misrepresentation of my ideology.
completelackofselfawareness.jpg
I seem to remember someone saying it was a certainty that covid escaped from the Wuhan lab. When I politely raised the possibility that it may have originated in the countryside from natural means, which by the way is now the consensus of the virologists that actually have been researching corona virus, that some one wrote:
. So get yourself a little red star to wear, cuz you're a member of that Useful Idiot's Brigade.
Clearly that someone had lost the debate at that point. The fact that i decided to respond by calling him a QAnon believing dumbass whose mother probably fucks his horses isn't relevant to the argument because the someone had already lost the argument. :D


free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12417

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Trump illegally blocks people on twitter! Censorship! Why does Trump hate free speech and loves cancel culture?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/3 ... ter-389588

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12960
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12418

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

I thought obsessive posting of scat fetish was banned at The Pit.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10850
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12419

Post by Lsuoma »

screwtape wrote: Brushes with the recently-mentioned famous:
1. I was taken to see Jimmy Edwards in a pantomime in Oxford back when he was known for 'Whack-O!' Must have been '60 or '61.
2. Once had AJP Taylor's first wife in hospital (heart attack, I think) back when I was a student. He looked just like he did on television, I thought with consummate banality to my unsophisticated self.
A close friend of mine was the last person to wipe Peter Cook's ringpiece in the Royal Free when he shat himself just before his liver finally gave out.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10850
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#12420

Post by Lsuoma »

Oh, and I have had a 30-second conversation with Brenda about Lusitano horses.

Post Reply