Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
Ben Miller actually studied quantum physics at Cambridge, but I don't think he completed his phd.rayshul wrote:Unrelated, but definitely my favourite science skit.
[youtube]3wHKBavY_h8[/youtube]
Chances are he completed it in a parallel universe.bhoytony wrote:
Ben Miller actually studied quantum physics at Cambridge, but I don't think he completed his phd.
Actor Brian Blessed did it a long time ago wearing the same clothes as Mallory and climbing without oxygen. He wrote a book about it called The Turquoise Mountain which is very good. There was also a documentary called Galahad of Everest.Lapsang Souchong wrote:
That's the one I own, along with a motorcycle jacket and a couple of vests. I think that the inside game pockets (of the Border) are probably more intended for dead birds but I've found they work fine when loaded down with trout. I do love them. Probably not as practical as more modern materials but classic. Speaking of classic, some adventuresome climbers need to replicate Mallory's and Irvine's attempt at Everest while wearing tweeds and smoking pipes.
free thoughtpolice wrote:Ian Cromwell (Crommunist) is not a racist, there is no such a thing as a bigot of color even if they make negative sweeping generalizations of other racial groups, i.e. Caspers (Honkies). White people are all racists because of PRIVILEGE.
By the way Crommy if you are reading this remember; the very best bigots are the self righteous bigots.
So let's say the Sunday times publishes a cartoon criticizing President Obama’s economic policies that depicts him with physical features akin to a chimpanzee where he is eating a big slice of watermelon while a band of the Black Panther party robs a bunch of white folks and hand out welfare checks. Oh, and this cartoon is published on MLK Jr. day.Trophy wrote:@Git Mobile:
Yeah. To quote wiki: "Blood libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover."Ever heard of the blood libel?
Because trying to depict the crippling impact of the wall is exactly the same as showing Jews eating pastries with human blood. Right. Get a clue dumbass or make a better argument. So nope, it does not compute.
To figure out if a cartoon is racist or sexist, you first have to look at the context, and then look at the artist's other drawings and then if all that you observe point at the same direction, then you can scream foul. But as it is typical with cries of sexism or racism, it's not that the cartoon is actaully racist, it's that it hurts some people's feelings and since people normally do not like their feelings hurt, they try to shut up the artist and what other way to shut someone up than screaming "Rasicm!".Yes, because there's never been any cartoons at all depicting hook-nosed Jews drenched in the blood of innocents have there?
To put it differently, accusations of anti-semitism, racism or sexism are serious accusations and you can't just issue them if your fucking feelings are hurt. They should be backed by evidence.
Karmakin wrote:That's actually the biggest beef I have with what they're doing. If they don't understand the complexities of the issues that they're talking about, then how in the world are they going to come up with solution sets/policy concepts to fix said problems? It's impossible. Just blaming "privilege" or the "patriarchy' isn't going to get you anywhere.Jack wrote:The fact is no one knows for sure yet which feminism defines reality. But whatever the answer is it is likely to be a lot more complex and nuanced than they can be bothered to find out. The fact that they reject evolutionary psychology out of hand tells me they are not really interested in knowing what may be true if it goes against their dogma.
It is this rejection of critical thinking and the free thought it requires I find the most objectionable. That they then try and defend their position with censorship, self affirmation and Kafka-trapping tells me how weak their arguments are.
Sorry for the boring rant. I feel better now.
The best example of this happening was the whole thing about harassment policies. The "leaders" of the movement just wanted some sort of secret banning/shunning list that they could use at their own discretion...the whole idea of having some sort of official harassment policy, and even more importantly what should it entail wasn't even on their radar at first. Personally, I think there are reasons why this is this case but that is neither here or there. (Actually it is. I think that it's more than likely that they and/or their friends commonly act in ways that would violate a reasonable anti-harassment policy) And the discussion DID go there...but I think that was mostly that to ignore it would have been TOO suspicious.
A more recent example is the wage gap. In the thread on Adam Lee's site with the whole petition fiasco, I responded to a commentator with an explanation of one vector which does result in a wage gap. Women tend to take more time off for maternity leave than men do for paternity leave, and this results in a year or two with lower/no raises which, in most companies where raises are a % level of the current raise, can snowball over decades.
And someone called this mansplaining. Yeah. I was actually agreeing with the overall concept (although I think the numbers that most feminists use are terrible statistics), but without understanding the actual vectors of the problem, you are completely unable to fix it.
It's interesting, because me and my wife sometimes talk about this sort of thing. That it's a guy thing to try and fix issues when we see them, and where women tend to just want to emote about them. Now personally this is a more essentialist view that I'm comfortable with, but I wonder if there's not something to it, where this movement has zero interest or belief that it can actually fix these issues that they're complaining about, and all it's doing is emoting them.
Hey, pretty cool! Looks like the whole docu too. I'll watch it after I take a shower. Thanks for posting.bhoytony wrote: Actor Brian Blessed did it a long time ago wearing the same clothes as Mallory and climbing without oxygen. He wrote a book about it called The Turquoise Mountain which is very good. There was also a documentary called Galahad of Everest.
There's also a great docu of the finding of Mallory's body in 1999. It's in five parts.Lapsang Souchong wrote:
Hey, pretty cool! Looks like the whole docu too. I'll watch it after I take a shower. Thanks for posting.
So let's ignore everything else and talk about a hypothetical scenario, even though this has nothing to do with the cartoon published by Sunday times. But okay, I'll bite, even though I'm not sure I get the watermelon slice piece but I'm sure it's some racist euphemism that escapes me.Git Mobile wrote:So let's say the Sunday times publishes a cartoon criticizing President Obama’s economic policies that depicts him with physical features akin to a chimpanzee where he is eating a big slice of watermelon while a band of the Black Panther party robs a bunch of white folks and hand out welfare checks. Oh, and this cartoon is published on MLK Jr. day.
Yet we have to look at the "context" to see if it is racist, do we? Are objections to it just "hurt feelings" then?
I'm not really twitter savvy, but as I understand this:masakari2012 wrote:Oh, looks like the tweets were already shared, but it was in a different format with the black background.
Is Steve Bell a racist?Trophy wrote:
But if the cartoonist has been drawing every single president of US as a chimp, then nope, most likely not racist.
Steersman wrote:Considering that more than a few here apparently managed to see what I was getting at you might want to consider the possibilities that I’m not speaking Urdu as you suggested and that the problem is less with the transmitter than with the receiver.Michael K Gray wrote:A type-sample of that to which I refer.Steersman wrote:I take it then that you didn’t read the section of Pinker’s The Blank Slate I referenced? Nor are much familiar with the undercurrents that recently motivated Watson’s attempted hatchet-job of evolutionary psychology?Michael K Gray wrote:Steersman. I have you on "ignore" for what I consider good reason.
…
How on earth do you manage to say so much, yet be so utterly vapid?What the flying fucking fuck does that even mean, for fux sake?Steersman wrote:The more I read about the topic the more convinced I am that gender-equity feminism manifests a significant and decidedly problematic watershed in the movement.
A non-response that not only does not even attempt to answer a direct question "What the flying fucking fuck does that even mean, for fux sake?", but distracts with a totally irrelevant fucking side question.
But since one might argue that one can lead some Aussies to a syllogism even if one can’t make them think, at least without cutting up the components of the argument into smaller bite-sized chunks, my statement – “gender-equity feminism manifests a significant and decidedly problematic watershed in the movement†– qualifies as the abstract to Pinker’s synopsis in the linked chapter of his. Not much point to the abstract section of a document if you quote the entire document in that section.
And since even that might not suffice to get the point through your apparently rather thick skull, let me try rephrasing that statement in point form, starting with a definition from a dictionary which, apparently, some Aussies have never heard of or don’t know how to use:
Pointed enough for you?1) watershed: “A critical point that marks a division or a change of course; a turning pointâ€;
2) the gender-equity division in feminism seems predicated, in part, on the nature-nurture dichotomy and debate;
3) a significant percentage of feminists – those subscribing to gender feminism – largely repudiate the idea that genetics has any influence on human behaviour – i.e., they believe, rather dogmatically, that human psychology is entirely a matter of nurture, that gender is a social construct;
4) the foregoing largely flies in the face of significant amounts of credible science, notably evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics;
5) that repudiation constitutes some problematic anti-intellectualism and science denialism – the implications and consequences of which are profound and far-reaching;
6) hence, that issue constitutes a significant watershed, a turning point, in both feminism and its credibility in the broader discourse.
What a dick-head. That you need spoon-feeding is my fault?Wassa matta? Scared of telling the truth about your multiple inadequacies and feel the need to deflect direct questioning to others who have zero idea of your thought-processes, such as they may be?
Metalogic42 wrote:They're the Xie-Man Privilege Haters Club.cunt wrote:I like the fact they still don't get anything. Even as every other post on their forum is from a mod/admin/setar/cipher. Brick-headed.
[/spoiler]OK, I'm going to try a little experiment here.
The objective here is to try to create a 'safe-space' to discuss feminism.
We all know that raising questions on this topic on popular atheist or skeptical sites does little more than incite a lot of heat and not a few insults or accusations of misogyny.
This is a shame for the simple reason that IF feminism is out of limits to skepticism, then the entire technique of skepticism can be called into question because nothing should be given special treatment.
I am not even coming at this from an anti-feminist angle.
I am not an MRA.
I am not anti-feminist.
The limited understanding of feminism that I have allows me to see that there are various strands of feminism.
And some of these are pretty close to the sort of equality driven humanist values that I personally hold.
Because of this I feel it is wrong to automatically assume to know a persons viewpoint on equality simply because they label themselves 'feminist'.
As an example I would ask people to read the following short blog post by Bridget Gaudette on the blog, 'Emily has books':
http://www.emilyhasbooks.com/label-reads-disposable/
The post describes how Gaudette, an independent thinker and fine writer who has been labelled a 'chill girl' for not toeing the 'correct' line, is disowned by a fellow atheist, simply for describing herself a feminist.
This strikes me as unfair.
A week or so ago the slymepit had a poll about feminism that used PZ Myers definition of feminism (plagiarized from Rebecca West):Virtually everyone who answered the poll agreed with the idea that "women are people"."Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."
So?
Does this mean that the Slymepit is a site full of feminists*?
(*=PZ Myers defined)
My own opinion is that the slymepit is indeed full of individuals who think women are people.
In fact a sizeable portion of the regulars here ARE women from a variety of different nationalities and ethnic backgrounds.
What I would say is that certain forms of feminism are opposed by the majority of the slymepit - in particular the political radical feminism that is epitomised by the likes of the trans-hating radfemhub: http://radicalhub.com/radfem-101/
What I would like to do here is create a discussion whereby people - and hopefully this will include lurkers who are not registered slymepitters - can contribute knowledge about feminism.
You do not need to register to post on this site as a guest (and please understand that you can post anonymously if you feel it would be personally dangerous for you to make your RL identity known here)
Even if you hate the slymepit, treat it as an opportunity to convert one or two of us.
I want to know if there is something I am not getting.
Is there a type of feminism, distinct from basic humanism, that will survive the skeptical process?
Is the equity feminism-gender feminism dichotomy a real one? or is that division mainly an assumed one from the point of view of MRA anti-feminist groups?
My major question is the following:
Can skepticism be used to resolve the major question dividing feminism - the question of which is the correct feminism - 'sex-positive'; or (to use the preferred term) 'anti-pornography' feminism.
To me it seems that skepticism will never resolve this question because each position is based on different values.
Sex-positive feminism is based on the idea that people have control over the use of their own bodies, and the value of allowing this independent control supercedes the negative aspects - such as the fact that allowing sex work can result in a proportion of people being involved through coercion.
Anti-porn/sex-work feminists take the view that this cost is too high.
It is essentially a "Schrödingers sex traffic victim" argument. A customer can never be sure that the sex worker is not being coerced, therefore he/she must assume that the sex worker could be a coerced sex traffic victim and therefore prostitution should be illegal to prevent this (this is the basis of the 'Swedish Model' - the system in Sweden where paying for prostitution is illegal.) The same basic principle applies to other sex work such as pornography although the calls for making pornography illegal seem to have less public support.
OK tldr
Summary:
Can skepticism be applied to the various forms of feminist thought (gender, equity, sex-positive, anti-porn, separatist) to allow us to discard those forms that do not stand up to skeptical scrutiny and in so doing reveal a form of feminism that is independent of basic humanism.
jjbinx007 wrote:
So Grimalkin has written and performed a song mocking anyone who hates atheismplus
http://grimalkinblog.wordpress.com/2012 ... n-masters/
Whatever you do, do not visit the rest of the blog
Lsuoma giveth and Lsuoma taketh away.Dick Strawkins wrote:Ooops, too much text.
That's happened our spoiler tags? :?
Go and see the Der Sturmer and then tell me if this cartoon comes even close. It fucking doesn't. The problem with the Der Sturmer cartoon is not that they used to draw Jews with big noses. That would be focusing on the form. They were racist because they used to spread racist and semi-semite propaganda. That is content.Basically, if you don't want people to compare your cartoons to the worst of Nazi Germany, and suggesting that you may have similar motives, then stop drawing shit like it came straight out of Der Sturmer. And don't publish it on Holocaust Memorial Day, ffs.
Form vs content again. Yes, I think Pat Condell is a fucking racist asshole but not because he does harsh criticism of Islam. That would be focusing on the form, something that you would do. Islam deserves to be harshly criticized. So, instead, look at the content of his beliefs: Muslims immigrate to UK, produce lots of babies, take over the white population, and then establish Muslim theocracy and the only way to stop it is to stop immigration from muslim countries. That is essentially the message of Pat Condell's videos. I hope I don't need to explain why this view is racist.And how the fuck is Pat Condell "racist"?
Altair wrote:Lsuoma giveth and Lsuoma taketh away.Dick Strawkins wrote:Ooops, too much text.
That's happened our spoiler tags? :?
About your thread, I find that topic interesting, will try to post something when I'm home after work.
In the meanwhile, there's a comment by me in the post you linked that showcases some of my opinions on the subject. If you have time, just do a CTRL-F for "Altair • 2 months ago" at that page.
Submariner wrote:I'm not really twitter savvy, but as I understand this:masakari2012 wrote:Oh, looks like the tweets were already shared, but it was in a different format with the black background.
Melodie twitted something that caused J Vacula's tweeter to go off, then when he twitted her back, she complained he was a twat.
Is that about right?
Neither she nor you even know what a poe is. Go look it up, it is not just another word for parody.surreptitious57 wrote: The song is a poe in case you did not know. But it says so - so I am wondering
And she loves the attention you give the site but that is what they do here Grim
Yeah, so if men consider a woman to be sexually attractive in some way, its objectification.Talking about people’s bodies is not objectifying them. Literally turning them into sex objects which are seen as nothing else is objectifying. If I posted my pic, and everybody started critiquing me, I would *not* feel “objectified. If I looked like Kate Upton here (I use Kate because I am thin/lean, not buxom and such like Kate) posted my pic to a men’s site, and comments about what a f**kable a-s, or grab-able boobs I had, or something I had, THEN I would feel objectified. Not if some random woman online said my waist was too wide, or my legs too skinny. That would just be stating an opinion, my waist and/or legs mean nothing else to her and have not been turned into “objectsâ€.
Thanks – I think. :-)nippletwister wrote:For the record, I think you're often a needlessly wordy summabitch, but the only times I've actually had trouble understanding you were the times I just couldn't be bothered to read several whole paragraphs referring to discussions I wasn't even involved in. I get a bit wordy myself, so I can't criticize too much.Steersman wrote:Considering that more than a few here apparently managed to see what I was getting at you might want to consider the possibilities that I’m not speaking Urdu as you suggested and that the problem is less with the transmitter than with the receiver.Michael K Gray wrote:A type-sample of that to which I refer.Steersman wrote:I take it then that you didn’t read the section of Pinker’s The Blank Slate I referenced? Nor are much familiar with the undercurrents that recently motivated Watson’s attempted hatchet-job of evolutionary psychology?Michael K Gray wrote:Steersman. I have you on "ignore" for what I consider good reason.
…
How on earth do you manage to say so much, yet be so utterly vapid?
"Steersman: The more I read about the topic the more convinced I am that gender-equity feminism manifests a significant and decidedly problematic watershed in the movement."
What the flying fucking fuck does that even mean, for fux sake?
A non-response that not only does not even attempt to answer a direct question "What the flying fucking fuck does that even mean, for fux sake?", but distracts with a totally irrelevant fucking side question.
….
I also tend to think that all of this debate – even if acrimonious and vituperative – over feminism is actually of some benefit in highlighting the fact that postmodernism – apparently one of the pillars undergirding at least gender feminism – has stolen a march on skepticism and rationality. Reminds me of several sections from another of Pinker’s books, How the Mind Works (highly recommended):Also...I hope you're right about a watershed in the movement. How long can society take all this whiny, entitled bullshit seriously?
Pinker wrote:... When sociobiologists first began to challenge [the Standard Social Science Model], they met with a ferocity that is unusual even by the standards of academic invective. The biologist E.O. Wilson was doused with a pitcher of ice water at a scientific convention, and students yelled for his dismissal over bullhorns and put up posters urging people to bring noisemakers to his lectures. Angry manifestos and book-length denunciations were published by organizations with names like Science for the People and The Campaign Against Racism, IQ, and the Class Society. ...[pg 45]
Many of us have been puzzled by the takeover of humanities departments by the doctrines of postmodernism, poststructuralism, and deconstruction, according to which objectivity is impossible, meaning is self-contradictory, and reality is socially constructed. The motives become clearer when we consider typical statements like ‘Human beings have constructed and used gender – human beings can deconstruct and stop using gender’ ....[ pg 57]
Scented Nectar wrote:Here's a taste of what was current in Sweden in 2005. Note also that Sweden had their feminist belief in satanic child rape in the 2000s, a couple decades late to the false memory game, but chock full of the paranoid hate/fear and without evidence.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:Possibly a little conspiracy theory laden, but not necessarily so. Harriet Harman, quite senior in the last UK Labour Gov, is quite the radfem and a poster on radfemhub, although I would need to see evidence that she had access to the 'inner sanctum' where social workers referred to boys as 'little rapists'. The involvement of Swedish radfems in Govt has been well documented (ask Scented about that). See what Erin Pizzey has to say about how well her message goes down. Consider the UN's stipulation that aid to African rape victims go to women only despite the fact that almost all of the male prisoners in the various Central African conflicts are raped, according to some aid workers. I believe H. Clinton had something to do with that. The reluctance to criticise Valerie Solanas by some supposed moderates might suggest something. Admittedly I don't have links to this stuff because I'm horrendous at bookmarking, but google it if you are interested. Is the infiltration of radfemminess into mainstream politics that far-fetched considering some of the shite that comes out of both left and right these days?Metalogic42 wrote:Wow, some of the commenters on AVFM are just as crazy as FTB o_O
JGteMolder wrote:No; there’s no difference between “radical†feminism and “equity†feminism. Equity feminism is merely the shield the radical feminism uses for plausible deniability reasons. “Radical†feminism are actually the people in control of the feminist movement, they are also in positions of power all across the world working on anti-male legislation.
Then there’s “Radical radical†feminism. You know, the types like “The Femitheist†and “the radfem hubâ€, but as the agent orange showed even the radical radical feminism is already in positions of power to make legislation. Really, the only difference between “radical†feminism and “radical radical†feminism is that the later comprises themselves of “radical†feminists that have lost patience or their mind, so they are actually spouting their goals; as opposed to keeping them in the shadows.
To not point this out, to not hammer this reality into people’s brains, is to let the hate movement that is feminism continue onward unopposed; and then you can expect the gas chamber one of these days.
[youtube]yn3cHsHnUPM[/youtube]
I also wrote an article about it here:
http://scentednectar.blogspot.com/2012/ ... riget.html where I talk about how I naively tried to tell PZ about it (before EG happened), thinking at the time that he was actually against sexism and false beliefs in satan. Hahahah, yeah right, eh?
He got caught up working out the physics of Gundam Wing.bhoytony wrote:Ben Miller actually studied quantum physics at Cambridge, but I don't think he completed his phd.rayshul wrote:Unrelated, but definitely my favourite science skit.
XXX
That she apparently forgot that she initiated the communication with JV and then hassled – if not harassed – him for responding reminds me of this Monty Python skit posted here earlier by Barael:TheMan wrote:It's not a tweet sent to JV accidently...look at it like CC in an email. she had to physically include his address in her tweet.Submariner wrote:I'm not really twitter savvy, but as I understand this:masakari2012 wrote:Oh, looks like the tweets were already shared, but it was in a different format with the black background.
Melodie twitted something that caused J Vacula's tweeter to go off, then when he twitted her back, she complained he was a twat.
Is that about right?
Yes. She typed his name in there with "@", which she knows will notify Justin Vacula that he was mentioned.TheMan wrote:Submariner wrote:I'm not really twitter savvy, but as I understand this:masakari2012 wrote:Oh, looks like the tweets were already shared, but it was in a different format with the black background.
Melodie twitted something that caused J Vacula's tweeter to go off, then when he twitted her back, she complained he was a twat.
Is that about right?
It's not a tweet sent to JV accidently...look at it like CC in an email. she had to physically include his address in her tweet.
I hate her because she's a dishonest hypocritical bitch. I don't KNOW how good she is at her job, I neither work with nor for her. She may be quite good at her job.HoneyWagon wrote:http://i.imgur.com/dtsuwsx.png
Well that settles it. Everything is perfect and there is no reason for self reflection.
I have no knowledge of her doing a bad job getting speakers (for CFI DC) and organising events. My issue is one can do that and still be a divisive figure that is incapable of seeing the legitimate complaints of others in the movement.
I am sure people think she is great until they disagree with her...then they see what we all already see.
Damn those pesky Jews for not listening to their betters eh? Especially when they have the likes of Trophy here to tell them what they should find threatening or not. Ignore the two thousand years of persecution because Trophy is here to tell you what you can get upset about.Trophy wrote:@Git mobile:
Your problem is that you are focusing on the form rathern than the content. For example:
Yep, go and tell those blacks in the 1950s that they shouldn't criticise Klan pictures because they were "form" and not "content". Gotcha. Trophy is the arbitrer of what is permissible or not. All hail Trophy.Trophy wrote:Go and see the Der Sturmer and then tell me if this cartoon comes even close. It fucking doesn't. The problem with the Der Sturmer cartoon is not that they used to draw Jews with big noses. That would be focusing on the form. They were racist because they used to spread racist and semi-semite propaganda. That is content.Basically, if you don't want people to compare your cartoons to the worst of Nazi Germany, and suggesting that you may have similar motives, then stop drawing shit like it came straight out of Der Sturmer. And don't publish it on Holocaust Memorial Day, ffs.
Islam is a race now is it?Trophy wrote:Form vs content again. Yes, I think Pat Condell is a fucking racist asshole but not because he does harsh criticism of Islam. That would be focusing on the form, something that you would do. Islam deserves to be harshly criticized. So, instead, look at the content of his beliefs: Muslims immigrate to UK, produce lots of babies, take over the white population, and then establish Muslim theocracy and the only way to stop it is to stop immigration from muslim countries. That is essentially the message of Pat Condell's videos. I hope I don't need to explain why this view is racist.And how the fuck is Pat Condell "racist"?
Quite right. I;ve never understood why some people (usually Far Left Westerners, and lentil eaters who wear sandals) are so afraid to say they dislike Islam.another lurker wrote:It is ok to hate islam, the religion
"continue" free enquiry??d4m10n wrote:[That said, I remain hopeful that CFI will continue their proud tradition of free inquiry, instead of going down the path of 'safe spaces' wherein ideological disagreements are shut out instead of hashed out.
Here’s a simple, if counter-intuitive request to those who believe that the Holocaust means anything at all:
Spare us your Holocaust pieties, your monuments, your memorials, museums and days of remembrance, and consider that, instead of honoring Jews murdered over 65 years ago, you may want to begin, instead, to honor Jews who are still among us.
There are many ways to show reverence for a tiny minority which has somehow survived despite the best efforts, past and present, of practitioners of homicidal antisemitism. However, the especially morally righteous among you may wish to gain a basic understanding of the precise manner in which Jews have been caricatured, vilified, demonized and dehumanized prior to pogroms, massacres and genocides, studiously avoid advancing narratives or creating graphic depictions which evoke such antisemitic imagery, and righteously condemn those who do so.
You can not undo the horrors inflicted upon six million souls, but you can live your life with a steely determination to never again allow lethal, racist narratives about living Jews to go unchallenged, and to assiduously fight efforts to reintroduce such toxic calumnies into the “respectable†public discourse
As someone who is a liberal, I can't figure this out either. An attack on Islam is NOT an attack on brown skinned people who speak Arabic, but somehow many want to equate the two things and it's annoying as shit. Some people think that attacking ideas is attacking the person, which is not necessarily true. It is possible to do both, but that must be done deliberately and simply criticizing the theology is not equivalent to tearing down the adherent.Git Mobile wrote: Islam is a race now is it?
What is it with fucking liberals and their constant shilling for Islam, the most genocidal fascist misogynistic backwards belief system on the planet?
You’ve said a mouthful there. You’ve no doubt read Shermer’s eSkeptic article on witch-hunts and Benson’s hatchet-job on him which motived that response of his – if not, highly recommended – but my impression of Benson’s trumped up charge against him for having made a supposedly though egregiously sexist comment – “[atheism], it’s more of a guy thing†– seems predicated on a definition of sexist as little more than the tautological “what Shermer saidâ€.nippletwister wrote:It's not really quite to "witch hunt" proportions yet, but I know I am not the only one seeing noticeable parallels between even fairly "moderate" feminism as it's presented today, and religious pogroms/social purges of the past. ….Scented Nectar wrote:Here's a taste of what was current in Sweden in 2005. Note also that Sweden had their feminist belief in satanic child rape in the 2000s, a couple decades late to the false memory game, but chock full of the paranoid hate/fear and without evidence.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ...
Possibly a little conspiracy theory laden, but not necessarily so. Harriet Harman, quite senior in the last UK Labour Gov, is quite the radfem and a poster on radfemhub, although I would need to see evidence that she had access to the 'inner sanctum' where social workers referred to boys as 'little rapists'. The involvement of Swedish radfems in Govt has been well documented (ask Scented about that). See what Erin Pizzey has to say about how well her message goes down. Consider the UN's stipulation that aid to African rape victims go to women only despite the fact that almost all of the male prisoners in the various Central African conflicts are raped, according to some aid workers. I believe H. Clinton had something to do with that. The reluctance to criticise Valerie Solanas by some supposed moderates might suggest something. Admittedly I don't have links to this stuff because I'm horrendous at bookmarking, but google it if you are interested. Is the infiltration of radfemminess into mainstream politics that far-fetched considering some of the shite that comes out of both left and right these days?
(youtube:yn3cHsHnUPM)
I also wrote an article about it here:
http://scentednectar.blogspot.com/2012/ ... riget.html where I talk about how I naively tried to tell PZ about it (before EG happened), thinking at the time that he was actually against sexism and false beliefs in satan. Hahahah, yeah right, eh?
I mean, even mainstream feminists believe all kinds of idiotic shit with no evidence....that we have a pervasive "rape culture" in the west, that only men can or do really commit abuse in relationships (though the real numbers show parity), that men are likely to be sexual abusers and manipulators, idiotic shit like "rape switches"...etc, etc....how long before all this unfounded belief causes even more ugliness than it already has? How much "witch hunt" mentality can the liberal side of western society absorb before something has to give? American history has plenty of ugly examples of right-wing witch hunting, maybe it's just a matter of time and power.....the fact that so many liberals are lazy finger-pointers may keep the damage from spreading, but may also keep the uninformed masses from protesting any idiocy that does manage to make it into policy.
Git: you know what I could never understand? Growing up, I noticed that people would go on about how truly *terrible* the Holocaust was. But then, they would make 'Jew' jokes, or they would say 'I don't want no Jew moving into MY neighbourhood'Git Mobile wrote:My last comment on the subject, a quote from:
http://cifwatch.com/2013/01/27/how-one- ... orial-day/
Here’s a simple, if counter-intuitive request to those who believe that the Holocaust means anything at all:
Spare us your Holocaust pieties, your monuments, your memorials, museums and days of remembrance, and consider that, instead of honoring Jews murdered over 65 years ago, you may want to begin, instead, to honor Jews who are still among us.
There are many ways to show reverence for a tiny minority which has somehow survived despite the best efforts, past and present, of practitioners of homicidal antisemitism. However, the especially morally righteous among you may wish to gain a basic understanding of the precise manner in which Jews have been caricatured, vilified, demonized and dehumanized prior to pogroms, massacres and genocides, studiously avoid advancing narratives or creating graphic depictions which evoke such antisemitic imagery, and righteously condemn those who do so.
You can not undo the horrors inflicted upon six million souls, but you can live your life with a steely determination to never again allow lethal, racist narratives about living Jews to go unchallenged, and to assiduously fight efforts to reintroduce such toxic calumnies into the “respectable†public discourse
free thoughtpolice wrote:14
Aratina Cage
January 28, 2013 at 1:25 pm (UTC -8)
A guy called Michael Heath has been insisting … that I lied about Shermer, that I am a liar, that I defamed Shermer, that my article is demagoguery. That’s all false.
What the hell would he do that for? He has always been long-winded, but this blind rage some of these men (many of them gay) get into when one of their favorites is criticized by an uppity woman is beyond me.
Arantinacave defending Ophelia Benson from some truly mild mannered criticism from a long time ftb commenter.
I wonder if Josh knows a is such a homophobe!
Actually, Ophelia. It's true!!A guy called Michael Heath has been insisting … that I lied about Shermer, that I am a liar, that I defamed Shermer, that my article is demagoguery. That’s all false.
Oh yes you DO!!Trophy wrote:Form vs content again. Yes, I think Pat Condell is a fucking racist asshole but not because he does harsh criticism of Islam. That would be focusing on the form, something that you would do. Islam deserves to be harshly criticized. So, instead, look at the content of his beliefs: Muslims immigrate to UK, produce lots of babies, take over the white population, and then establish Muslim theocracy and the only way to stop it is to stop immigration from muslim countries. That is essentially the message of Pat Condell's videos. I hope I don't need to explain why this view is racist.And how the fuck is Pat Condell "racist"?
Peter Firstbrook's book on the expedition is pretty good too.bhoytony wrote:There's also a great docu of the finding of Mallory's body in 1999. It's in five parts.Lapsang Souchong wrote:
Hey, pretty cool! Looks like the whole docu too. I'll watch it after I take a shower. Thanks for posting.
Oh fuck, not you too?another lurker wrote:It is ok to hate islam, the religion
However, it is not ok to hate the people, the muslims
Does that sound reasonable?
Islamophobia = ok
Muslimophobia = not ok
The "benign" members of any misogynistic cult are far worse than the few true believers, as they provide cover, funding, labour, support & plausibility for the truly awful things done in their name.free thoughtpolice wrote:Islam is a despicable belief system. Fortunately, most muslims don't follow all the bad stuff.
It's not great quality, looks like a VHS recording of the programme from the early '90s.BarnOwl wrote:
Peter Firstbrook's book on the expedition is pretty good too.
I didn't know about the Brian Blessed/Everest documentary at all, and just spent several seconds going "EEEeeeEEEEEeeeeeEeeeeeEEEE!!!!111!!" with excitement at the prospect of watching it. Thanks for posting it!
I think Blessed might have played Old Deuteronomy and Bustopher Jones when I saw Cats in London years and years ago (early 1990s).
The game pockets worked well for smuggling tortillas into the UK - couldn't find them anywhere in London back then. Nowadays I imagine it's not difficult at all.Lapsang Souchong wrote: That's the one I own, along with a motorcycle jacket and a couple of vests. I think that the inside game pockets (of the Border) are probably more intended for dead birds but I've found they work fine when loaded down with trout. I do love them. Probably not as practical as more modern materials but classic. Speaking of classic, some adventuresome climbers need to replicate Mallory's and Irvine's attempt at Everest while wearing tweeds and smoking pipes.
