Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Maybe we should get rid of the mongoloids at birth

lol @ mongoloids!!! u r 2 funny!!!! nice 1 ian lol!!!!!!!

:cdc:

[ianfc]

Perhaps referring to the moment of inertia of a rotating body. Waiting for a physics lecture.

[James Caruthers]

If you expect someone else to pay for your healthcare there most certainly is an obligation to maintain some kind of good health and one thing the SJL'ers can usually be counted on to support it is the absolute requirement for tax supported universal healthcare.

I think incentives toward healthy behavior is the best way to go about it. I'm a bleeding heart liberal though and consider a basic level of universal healthcare as a fundamental collective responsibility even if the person receiving it is an idiot making terrible decisions.

And we seem to be forgetting the fact that a taxpayer-funded health care system saves a ton of money when a person drops dead of a heart attack at 49. People who leech off the system until 105 cost much more.

Yeah, I'm seeing two distinct models emerge in this discussion on the Pitt and elsewhere on the internet.

1) A fat person is using way more medical resources from an earlier age, and is therefore not pulling their weight in a taxpayer-funded medical system.
2) A fat person is dying earlier, therefore using fewer overall medical resources in a lifetime than more healthy people.

I think both arguments have flaws. Drawing on people I know in my life, I have seen the best and the worst extremes. I've seen fat people who go their entire lives being fat, and they are repeatedly in the hospital and receiving expensive treatment. They eat healthy at the hospital, but once they're out, they go back to poisoning themselves and end up back there. So there's this yo-yo of being treated and then going back to being unhealthy. But the kicker is, medicine is so damn good, that the person is not dying younger! They're just subsisting in this situation. with an abysmal quality of life. The hospital can keep them alive (using your tax dollars) and they can live to a fairly ripe old age using the medical system. The person I know who is doing this probably hasn't worked a day in forty years? Probably something like that.

The second extreme is with healthy people. I've known healthy old people who go practically their entire life staying active and fit, almost never using a hospital or even seeing inside a doctor's office. Then they get sick one day in their old age, spend a few weeks in the hospital, and die. So how about that? They paid taxes the entire time they were healthy, then barely use any of the resources they paid for. Because they took care of themselves.

I don't think anyone has an obligation to be healthy. But most of the arguments coming from the fat acceptance SJWs are based on conspiracy theories (doctors are anti-fat bigots) and lies about medicine/science. If someone wants to drink or smoke or eat a lot of food, that's their right. But we don't tell non-alcoholics "you should find alcoholics attractive or you're a bigot" and we don't tell non-smokers to love smokers or else they are bigots. Quite the opposite, actually, there's a lot of anti-smoker sentiment spread around, which only goes to show that smokers need to become SJWs and paint themselves as an oppressed class.

http://economics.com.au/?p=7693
Oh wait. :lol:

[SkepticalCat]

Are you sure you are not thinking of Logan's Run?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/

Yep thats the one, enjoyed the movie. Carousel was the machine.

That Carousel scene scared the freaking daylights out of me as a kid. I don't remember it being a "machine" though - I thought that was the name of the ceremony, or the arena in which it was held.

And they were subjected to it at age 30, not 25, I'm quite sure.

What an odd movie that was.

[dogen]

Are you sure you are not thinking of Logan's Run?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/

Yep thats the one, enjoyed the movie. Carousel was the machine.

That Carousel scene scared the freaking daylights out of me as a kid. I don't remember it being a "machine" though - I thought that was the name of the ceremony, or the arena in which it was held.

And they were subjected to it at age 30, not 25, I'm quite sure.

What an odd movie that was.

Ah, but Jenny Agutter gets her tits out. Everything after that is just gravy, as they say...

:cdc:

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Rotational mass? What the fuck is that?

I don't know if you're serious or not, but...

It's the same principle as grasping a piece of lead in your fist during a boxing match. Or, swinging a bucket filled with sand around your head as opposed to an empty bucket: the former will hurt more when applied to a human body, assuming both are swung at the same speed.

Notice: the energy held by something spinning is dependent on both its weight* and its speed of turning.

So, in this case, a tablesaw may be spinning at 15,000 revolutions per minute, but the blade is very light. The lathe may be turning at 500 revolutions per minute, but it is a great big lump of iron. So, the ratio of blade speed/lathe speed may be 30:1, but the ratio of blade weight/lathe weight may be 1000:1. Thus, the huge weight of the rotating lathe component means it has a massively greater amount of energy within it (and this energy is what is transferred to some poor sap's hand or face during an accident) than does the sawblade.

*Weight/mass distinction considered irrelevant due to laymen's use of the words.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

It was called "Renewal". LOGAN'S RUN, btw, was filmed in an Houston shopping mall just before it opened.

As a young teenager, I was madly in love with Jenny Agutter and her frequent lack of attire.


My sister worked with Michael York many, many years later on a film, and says he's a wonderful, easy-going, gregarious person.

[ianfc]

Are you sure you are not thinking of Logan's Run?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/

Yep thats the one, enjoyed the movie. Carousel was the machine.

That Carousel scene scared the freaking daylights out of me as a kid. I don't remember it being a "machine" though - I thought that was the name of the ceremony, or the arena in which it was held.

And they were subjected to it at age 30, not 25, I'm quite sure.

What an odd movie that was.

Fucking lathes and machines, I agree that it was 30. Having another look at the movie to decide if a ceremony or arena can kill without a killing mechanism.

[Dick Strawkins]

I've been watching this guy Lindybeige. He's has a degree in archaeology, strong geek cred and does lots of vids on historical arms and armor. For instance, he has some points on dual-wielding and crap fighting in movies and many other things.

Well worth watching his stuff. And not just because, when he gets going he sounds a lot like John Cleese.

Here's a video where he makes some sensible comments on terrorism. Now, let's play "spot the ablist language".

[youtube]vWbtN1mwgkU[/youtube]

He was doing OK until he said that he was unaware of any terrorism campaign that has ever achieved its aims ...

I think the IRA are pretty happy with the outcome of their terrorism (massive concessions by the British government, restructuring of the entire government of NI), and I'm fairly sure Al Qaida are pretty happy with the outcome of theirs (massive wide scale disruption both financial and social)

Yes, they may be idiots, and stupid - but not because terrorism doesn't work, it very clearly does work spectacularly well, it just has a very high cost to the terrorists themselves

Much like Tumblr feminists and SJWs are the Internet terrorists of today ... swarm in, crap over everything, attack anyone who disagrees... might be costly to their own personal lives/sanity/etc but it sure as hell creates a lot of noise which populist minded people seize upon to promote their own agendas

When a terrorist group "meets its aims" it generally means it achieves power. And when that happens it gets to write the history books for that particular conflict. Thus the terrorist group is thereafter known as a 'revolutionary army' if they won the conflict on their own, or as the 'resistance' if they needed help.
The Irish Republic, Israel, Cuba, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Kurdish Iraq, etc, all of these have seen power achieved by groups the former powers would have regarded as terrorists. Even the USA fits into this category. If the British forces had prevailed there is little doubt the 'founding fathers' would have been rounded up and executed for the equivalent of terrorism.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Rotational mass? What the fuck is that?

I don't know if you're serious or not, but...

It's the same principle as grasping a piece of lead in your fist during a boxing match. Or, swinging a bucket filled with sand around your head as opposed to an empty bucket: the former will hurt more when applied to a human body, assuming both are swung at the same speed.

Notice: the energy held by something spinning is dependent on both its weight* and its speed of turning.

So, in this case, a tablesaw may be spinning at 15,000 revolutions per minute, but the blade is very light. The lathe may be turning at 500 revolutions per minute, but it is a great big lump of iron. So, the ratio of blade speed/lathe speed may be 30:1, but the ratio of blade weight/lathe weight may be 1000:1. Thus, the huge weight of the rotating lathe component means it has a massively greater amount of energy within it (and this energy is what is transferred to some poor sap's hand or face during an accident) than does the sawblade.

*Weight/mass distinction considered irrelevant due to laymen's use of the words.

I suppose it is like the difference between being hit by a car traveling at 50mph, and being hit by a stick of butter traveling at 200mph (those figures are completely made up, mathematical similarity is not guaranteed).

Both will hurt, but will do different kinds of damage, and have different lethality probabilities.

[Mykeru]

Just being a bit of a devils advocate, how does it follow that what works for Wales and Scotland would work for Northern Ireland.

I mean, Jesus Christ, what does work for the Irish?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ntColcdmc7U/T ... Famine.jpg

"Fook off, I'm sortin' me spuds"

[Old_ones]

Just being a bit of a devils advocate, how does it follow that what works for Wales and Scotland would work for Northern Ireland.

I mean, Jesus Christ, what does work for the Irish?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ntColcdmc7U/T ... Famine.jpg

"Fook off, I'm sortin' me spuds"

Distilling.

when life deals you lemons (and barley) ...

[Mykeru]

When a terrorist group "meets its aims" it generally means it achieves power. And when that happens it gets to write the history books for that particular conflict. Thus the terrorist group is thereafter known as a 'revolutionary army' if they won the conflict on their own, or as the 'resistance' if they needed help.

So, it's just a quirk of history that we will miss out on the Al Qaeda 9/11 commemorative stamps?

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Rotational mass? What the fuck is that?

I don't know if you're serious or not, but...

It's the same principle as grasping a piece of lead in your fist during a boxing match. Or, swinging a bucket filled with sand around your head as opposed to an empty bucket: the former will hurt more when applied to a human body, assuming both are swung at the same speed.

Notice: the energy held by something spinning is dependent on both its weight* and its speed of turning.

So, in this case, a tablesaw may be spinning at 15,000 revolutions per minute, but the blade is very light. The lathe may be turning at 500 revolutions per minute, but it is a great big lump of iron. So, the ratio of blade speed/lathe speed may be 30:1, but the ratio of blade weight/lathe weight may be 1000:1. Thus, the huge weight of the rotating lathe component means it has a massively greater amount of energy within it (and this energy is what is transferred to some poor sap's hand or face during an accident) than does the sawblade.

*Weight/mass distinction considered irrelevant due to laymen's use of the words.

I suppose it is like the difference between being hit by a car traveling at 50mph, and being hit by a stick of butter traveling at 200mph (those figures are completely made up, mathematical similarity is not guaranteed).

Both will hurt, but will do different kinds of damage, and have different lethality probabilities.

Also, of course: one is a tearing blade, and the other is a mashing lump of iron.

[Mykeru]

Just being a bit of a devils advocate, how does it follow that what works for Wales and Scotland would work for Northern Ireland.

I mean, Jesus Christ, what does work for the Irish?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ntColcdmc7U/T ... Famine.jpg

"Fook off, I'm sortin' me spuds"

Distilling.

when life deals you lemons (and barley) ...

That's vodka you got going there, son.

[Michael J]

I've been watching this guy Lindybeige. He's has a degree in archaeology, strong geek cred and does lots of vids on historical arms and armor. For instance, he has some points on dual-wielding and crap fighting in movies and many other things.

Well worth watching his stuff. And not just because, when he gets going he sounds a lot like John Cleese.

Here's a video where he makes some sensible comments on terrorism. Now, let's play "spot the ablist language".

[youtube]vWbtN1mwgkU[/youtube]

He was doing OK until he said that he was unaware of any terrorism campaign that has ever achieved its aims ...

I think the IRA are pretty happy with the outcome of their terrorism (massive concessions by the British government, restructuring of the entire government of NI), and I'm fairly sure Al Qaida are pretty happy with the outcome of theirs (massive wide scale disruption both financial and social)

Yes, they may be idiots, and stupid - but not because terrorism doesn't work, it very clearly does work spectacularly well, it just has a very high cost to the terrorists themselves

Much like Tumblr feminists and SJWs are the Internet terrorists of today ... swarm in, crap over everything, attack anyone who disagrees... might be costly to their own personal lives/sanity/etc but it sure as hell creates a lot of noise which populist minded people seize upon to promote their own agendas

When a terrorist group "meets its aims" it generally means it achieves power. And when that happens it gets to write the history books for that particular conflict. Thus the terrorist group is thereafter known as a 'revolutionary army' if they won the conflict on their own, or as the 'resistance' if they needed help.
The Irish Republic, Israel, Cuba, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Kurdish Iraq, etc, all of these have seen power achieved by groups the former powers would have regarded as terrorists. Even the USA fits into this category. If the British forces had prevailed there is little doubt the 'founding fathers' would have been rounded up and executed for the equivalent of terrorism.

I think that it depends on how lose you are with the term terrorism. When does terrorism become outright civil war? Was the communist takeover of cuba and other south american countries terrorism? Was the Taliban resistance to the Russians in Afganistan terrorism or civil war?

[ianfc]

When a terrorist group "meets its aims" it generally means it achieves power. And when that happens it gets to write the history books for that particular conflict. Thus the terrorist group is thereafter known as a 'revolutionary army' if they won the conflict on their own, or as the 'resistance' if they needed help.

So, it's just a quirk of history that we will miss out on the Al Qaeda 9/11 commemorative stamps?

So I guess it's all over.

[Dick Strawkins]

I think that it depends on how lose you are with the term terrorism. When does terrorism become outright civil war? Was the communist takeover of cuba and other south american countries terrorism? Was the Taliban resistance to the Russians in Afganistan terrorism or civil war?

I guess the word 'terrorist' is a recent invention. In historical conflicts the term 'revolutionary' might have been used. As we get closer to the present we see 'terrorist' cropping up more and more - often in situations indistinguishable from 'revolutionary' scenarios - for example the Stern Gang in pre-Israeli Palestine.
If we only use 'terrorist' to refer to revolutionaries that have failed, or revolutionaries that have not succeeded (and perhaps never will), then we will never see a terrorist group achieve it's aims- because the ones that do are no longer called terrorists.

[another lurker]

It was called "Renewal". LOGAN'S RUN, btw, was filmed in an Houston shopping mall just before it opened.

As a young teenager, I was madly in love with Jenny Agutter and her frequent lack of attire.


My sister worked with Michael York many, many years later on a film, and says he's a wonderful, easy-going, gregarious person.

I finally saw Logan's Run last week. OMG, it was horrible. But Jenny Agutter is quite cute:P

[Mykeru]

I think that it depends on how lose you are with the term terrorism. When does terrorism become outright civil war? Was the communist takeover of cuba and other south american countries terrorism? Was the Taliban resistance to the Russians in Afganistan terrorism or civil war?

Oh fuck, I post this because his idea was to call terrorists "stupid" and that was all ablist and shit, but you earnest mooks want to have a Socratic circle jerk over who is a terrorist and what is terrorism?

Fuck you all. Watch this one instead.

[youtube]XLWzH_1eZsc[/youtube]

Two points

1. Fuck you katana fan-boys and

2. That's a cheap-assed Chinese-made Shinwa sword he's got there. A company so shameless it claims to do "Damascus Steel", even though its blades would bend if you so much as LARPed with them. So...fuck you katana fan-boys. And LARPers. And China.

[ianfc]

When a terrorist group "meets its aims" it generally means it achieves power. And when that happens it gets to write the history books for that particular conflict. Thus the terrorist group is thereafter known as a 'revolutionary army' if they won the conflict on their own, or as the 'resistance' if they needed help.

So, it's just a quirk of history that we will miss out on the Al Qaeda 9/11 commemorative stamps?

So I guess it's all over.

Maybe you guys could have a victory stamp with some goon with his fingers up some kid looking for a bomb or something that would show the Al Qaeda cunts not to fuck with us

[Sunder]

I guess the word 'terrorist' is a recent invention. In historical conflicts the term 'revolutionary' might have been used. As we get closer to the present we see 'terrorist' cropping up more and more - often in situations indistinguishable from 'revolutionary' scenarios - for example the Stern Gang in pre-Israeli Palestine.
If we only use 'terrorist' to refer to revolutionaries that have failed, or revolutionaries that have not succeeded (and perhaps never will), then we will never see a terrorist group achieve it's aims- because the ones that do are no longer called terrorists.

I think the distinction made in the video was a decent one. "Revolutionaries" have specific strategic goals. They may employ terroristic and guerrilla tactics to achieve those goals, but the goals themselves are fairly straightforward military goals. Take this bridge, hold this town, push back the enemy.

Modern fundamentalist terrorism has no such clear strategic goals and no real ability to achieve them if it did.

[KiwiInOz]

Maybe we should get rid of the mongoloids at birth

Genghis Khan says "Fuck you"

http://venturegalleries.com/wp-content/ ... 45x377.jpg

[Clarence]

Off topic but does anyone have a good takedown of the "1 in 5 college girls are raped" statistic.
I ask this because while the stat sounds alarmist and bullshit I have yet to hear a decent response. The responses I have heard have simply been things like "most of the victims did not think they were raped or did not act the way I expect rape victims to act". The problem with this kind of rebuttal is that if the methodology for the 1 in 5 stat holds up then surely the above simply tells us something about how rape victims react to rape and therefore does nothing to invalidate the study.
What I am looking for is which questions from the survey that led to the 1in5 stat were misleading the subjects or how were the subjects' answers misinterpreted.

Asking them their source for that figure is a good start.

Some random points:

* The 1-in-4 figure originated with a written survey of c. 3,600 individuals done by Koss back in 1985?? The questions asked 'has the following ever happened to you?' & described incidents that met the criminal definition of rape & sexual assault, but did not say "were you raped?" Koss' methodology has been widely criticized. For one, respondents self-selected. Second, it surveyed college graduates of all ages and asked 'has this ever happened during your lifetime?'

* Recent figures have been worked up in an attempt to corroborate Koss' 1-in-4 figure (& to save on printing costs for new posters). A 1-in-5 figure was arrived at (just barely, rounded up), but only by extrapolating sexual assault incidences among college freshmen women across 6+ average years of college attendance. However, incidence drops off dramatically after the freshman year (after the first three weeks of the freshman year, actually), and is exceedingly rare among grad students;

* Though these figures include all rape & sexual assault whether completed, attempted or threatened, they are usually referred to as "rape" by activists;

* US government studies consistently arrive at lower rates for the general population, for instance: 17.6 percent of women in the United States have survived a completed or attempted rape. (Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November 2000) . Or c. 1-in-6. Other studies arrive at estimates as low as c. 1-in-10;

* Sexual assault rates among lower socio-economic groups is always found to be higher. As these groups also have much lower college attendance rates, the figures don't match;

* The US Bureau of Justice Statistics found an annual incidence 1.8 per 1,000 for sexual assault. From 1995 to 2010, it estimated 619,000 total female victims age 12 or older, out of an adult (18+) female population of c. 119 million. (Those are the best figures I could find on short notice.) Somebody can do the math and extrapolate for more years;

* The BJS data are estimates of all sexual assaults, not just those reported to police. (Reporting is now at c. 40%);

* The FBI's UCR and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) also have useful data.


1 in 6 is, of course, still intolerable. That's the general population; given demographics, the rate must be lower for college women. As I mentioned, the large majority of assaults occur during the victim's first three weeks on campus, and most involve alcohol. If activists are working from erroneous figures, the focus of anti-rape campaigns will be misdirected, diminished in effectiveness, and neglect more vulnerable populations.

I believe (might be wrong and maybe it's someplace else) that someone else did a takedown of some of those ridiculous statistics earlier in this very thread. Regardless, I'm going to add a few observations and links to Matt's info above.

A. In addition to the points Matt made above, at least one of the alcohol questions used by Koss seems to be a bit dicey.
B. Here are three excellent links to Feminist Critics. Two links about the Koss survey (including one that has the actual questions themselves) and one , more recent that ...well, if you read the comments they seem to unveil some intense dishonesty from Koss and her compatriots. My personal opinion? I don't trust Koss even treated the data she got in her survey the correct way: it wouldn't surprise me if she massaged it, consciously or not to come up with the conclusions she wanted or expected. And my last link is interesting in its own right: apparently, according to Koss, "forced to penetrate" should not be classified as rape. Who knew?

http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/200 ... -koss-noh/
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/200 ... stion-noh/
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/201 ... -mill-noh/
http://tamenwrote.wordpress.com/2013/10 ... propriate/

I think the the third link is by far the most important link of them all. While there have been reasons to doubt some feminist "rape /sexual assault" research for years, there's rarely this much that suggests duplicity.

[Garlic]

Rotational mass? What the fuck is that?

I don't know if you're serious or not, but...

It's the same principle as grasping a piece of lead in your fist during a boxing match. Or, swinging a bucket filled with sand around your head as opposed to an empty bucket: the former will hurt more when applied to a human body, assuming both are swung at the same speed.

I think that's what the nerds call rotational energy.

(My nerd privilege, let me show you it)

[ianfc]

Maybe we should get rid of the mongoloids at birth

Genghis Khan says "Fuck you"

http://venturegalleries.com/wp-content/ ... 45x377.jpg

I do hope Steersman's contexte toujours du contexte is working here

[ROBOKiTTY]

All this talk of food is triggering me as I'm unable to eat.

[KiwiInOz]

Maybe we should get rid of the mongoloids at birth

Genghis Khan says "Fuck you"

http://venturegalleries.com/wp-content/ ... 45x377.jpg

I do hope Steersman's contexte toujours du contexte is working here

Mais bien sur.

[ianfc]

All this talk of food is triggering me as I'm unable to eat.

Genghis would have no trouble feeding you something

[ianfc]

Mais bien sur.

Really, I thought the context was rather evident.

[JacquesCuze]

For Jenny Agutter fans, if you haven't seen American Werewolf in London, see American Werewolf in London. It's werewolf effects still hold up today, in fact, quite well, because today, it would all be done in craptacular CGI. The werewolf effects were so good, it inspired Thriller.

[KiwiInOz]

Mais bien sur.

Really, I thought the context was rather evident.

Damn it. I'll say it again in English with an imagined French accent.

"But of course"

[Brive1987]

Popular young (39) workmate died in a car crash yesterday. I've lost both parents, so I know how life works - but it's a bit poignant when staff are erupting in tears with his workstation still logged in

Bummer.

[Brive1987]

For Jenny Agutter fans, if you haven't seen American Werewolf in London, see American Werewolf in London. It's werewolf effects still hold up today, in fact, quite well, because today, it would all be done in craptacular CGI. The werewolf effects were so good, it inspired Thriller.

That movie scarred me as a kid.

[ianfc]

Mais bien sur.

Really, I thought the context was rather evident.

Damn it. I'll say it again in English with an imagined French accent.

"But of course"

My goggle translate is poor, I saw "there is no context" first up, agologes, but I had to get the little dig in.

[ianfc]

As is my spelling and movie knowledge

[ianfc]

Popular young (39) workmate died in a car crash yesterday. I've lost both parents, so I know how life works - but it's a bit poignant when staff are erupting in tears with his workstation still logged in

Bummer.

A friend/client 56 died 2 weeks ago, dementia, apparently unrelated to his Down Syndrome so I'm told. Fucking heartbreaking stuff.

[Dick Strawkins]

[youtube]vWbtN1mwgkU[/youtube]

Even the kind of disorganized fundamentalist terrorism that characterizes islamic terrorism in the western world can achieve certain objectives and I think it's silly of this guy to ignore that and simply call the terrorists 'stupid'.
Take for example the recent kerfuffle over the Jesus and Mo cartoons in the UK.
What is the reason behind the refusal of news organizations to show or print these incredibly mild cartoons - or at least the Mo side of the cartoon?
Is it because they really find offensive the idea of showing a cartoon figure of someone who lived 1600 years ago?
Or is it because they are mindful of threats of violence (and real acts of violence that have been carried out previously) over the publication of such imagery)?
You may conclude (as I think it is reasonable to do) that threats and acts of violence over the publication of these cartoons have the objective of frightening news organizations so that they will be scared over their personal safety, or that of their correspondents in Islamic countries, and these threats and attacks have now resulted in a de facto ban on media exposure of these images.
Which was the aim of the threats and attacks in the first place.

Isn't that terrorism achieving an aim?

As for his own example, it seems to me that he's trying to ringfence specific kinds of disorganized terrorism and then assign particular aims to these actions that don't seem to fit reality. For example the two islamic guys who tried to cut the head off the soldier in London a while back - he seems to imagine the aim was to overthrow the British government or to attempt to gain power, which seems a bizarre reading of the situation.

[Dick Strawkins]

Popular young (39) workmate died in a car crash yesterday. I've lost both parents, so I know how life works - but it's a bit poignant when staff are erupting in tears with his workstation still logged in

Bummer.

A friend/client 56 died 2 weeks ago, dementia, apparently unrelated to his Down Syndrome so I'm told. Fucking heartbreaking stuff.

Dementia is very common in older Down Syndrome individuals (the risk is about six times the rate seen in non Downs Syndrome individuals) so I wonder why they would rule out a connection.

[ianfc]

The palliative care model I work with, if there is a no medical intervention order from family, is only about providing comfort and when the ability to swallow ends the morphine drip is no far behind. Euthanasia your guess, been with 3 with DS men who have suffered this fate all under 60.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I do hope Steersman's contexte toujours du contexte is working here

Mais bien sur.

How's that cultural appropriation going for you guys? LEAVE MY PEOPLE'S LANGUAGE ALONE!!! (or don't, I don't care).

Re terrorism, I seem to remember Star Wars' Rebellion being labelled as terrorists by the Empire. Which, of course, leads to the question: what group was the terrorists, Sauron and his orcs or Gandalf and his "Fellowship of the Ring"?

I think I had a lathe once, it was in a Starbucks.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Popular young (39) workmate died in a car crash yesterday. I've lost both parents, so I know how life works - but it's a bit poignant when staff are erupting in tears with his workstation still logged in

Bummer.

Ouch, sorry to hear that. My sympathies.

[ianfc]

I do hope Steersman's contexte toujours du contexte is working here

Mais bien sur.

How's that cultural appropriation going for you guys? LEAVE MY PEOPLE'S LANGUAGE ALONE!!! (or don't, I don't care).

Re terrorism, I seem to remember Star Wars' Rebellion being labelled as terrorists by the Empire. Which, of course, leads to the question: what group was the terrorists, Sauron and his orcs or Gandalf and his "Fellowship of the Ring"?

I think I had a lathe once, it was in a Starbucks.

You don't look French more Italian I think, maybe you should check your cultural appropriation

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

My father's side of the family is Italian, my mother's side Belgian and Polish so no cultural appropriation for me. I am a child of immigrants and thus shall get my rightful under-privileged privilege. Or something.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

As for his own example, it seems to me that he's trying to ringfence specific kinds of disorganized terrorism and then assign particular aims to these actions that don't seem to fit reality. For example the two islamic guys who tried to cut the head off the soldier in London a while back - he seems to imagine the aim was to overthrow the British government or to attempt to gain power, which seems a bizarre reading of the situation.

I'm pretty sure their objective was (a) to demonstrate they were insane, and (b) to scare the fuck out of the non-Islamic population of the UK ... so they did both quite well. Islamic terrorists mostly seem to want to create a "muslims vs the world" situation, and to reinforce both sides in their trenches, and they do very very well at that.

And if the guy wants a good example of terrorism actually working, the ANC did a damn fine job of making apartheid an issue and eventually overthrowing the government of South Africa. A former terrorist became possibly the world's most revered politician and leader.


Frankly, to anyone who thinks terrorism doesn't work, have you looked the fuck around you recently?

[surreptitious57]

If you don’t belong to the marginalized group that is pointing out that a certain term makes them uncomfortable or is a
contributor to their marginalization, is it fair for you as an outsider to say it’s ok because it doesn’t make me uncomfortable

Here is what I would do : I would listen to your point of view. I would then decide on the most appropriate course of action. That
would be some where on the spectrum between complete rejection and absolute acceptance of your position. One is referencing
a sliding scale here since not every word happens to possess the same emotional resonance. If it happens to be nigger or cunt or
faggot for example then it is a no brainer as those terms are obviously unacceptable. If however they happen to be less infamous
then the jury may be out for a while. I believe in absolute freedom of speech so we may have a little tete a tete over that too. As
I take my responsibilities very seriously indeed. So much so I would be prepared to die for them. Forgive me if this upsets you but
are you prepared to die for your words ? If not that is fine as most are not either. But I am. And again forgive me if this upsets you
but if I die I have lost everything whereas you will still be alive. However I will say that as a general principle I would try to avoid
using any word that genuinely causes anxiety. But this is not an absolute position however as the final decision would be taken by
me and is therefore as such not an automatic forgone conclusion. I hope this clarifies my position on this

[Satan]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/imag ... 88o9OR9Yrw

Kids, don't use wide angle lenses for portraits....

[Satan]

People sometimes have naked-in-public anxiety dreams. Then there's Bjarte...

http://imgur.com/zqoUcVp.png

Strange how the epitome of gender equality has put the woman in a patriarchy-approved dress and heels.

It's almost as if these people don't really believe in the ideology they're selling.

:bjarte: Outrageous.

[deLurch]

People sometimes have naked-in-public anxiety dreams. Then there's Bjarte...

http://imgur.com/zqoUcVp.png

Ape+lust,
I thought that was a very funny 'shoop you put together mocking the whole SJW gang & the surlies.

...and then I saw it retweeted on Surly's twitter account.

Nothing is sadder than seeing Poe come to life.

[Sunder]

You may conclude (as I think it is reasonable to do) that threats and acts of violence over the publication of these cartoons have the objective of frightening news organizations so that they will be scared over their personal safety, or that of their correspondents in Islamic countries, and these threats and attacks have now resulted in a de facto ban on media exposure of these images.
Which was the aim of the threats and attacks in the first place.

Isn't that terrorism achieving an aim?

Except that their aim isn't simply to stop media outlets from showing pictures of Muhammad. It's to stop everyone. And that simply isn't a tenable goal. Prohibition simply doesn't work no matter how many threats you package it with. And individuals will protest and thwart them continuously.

It's the Islamic version of the War on Drugs. It's simply an unwinnable position.

And the ultimate point the guy was making was that calling them stupid is a delegitimization tactic, whereas calling them "evil" does the exact opposite.

[ianfc]

Fuck would I like to know what will be in 20, 50, 100 years. No worries I go the pit and the future is laid out for me.

[Steersman]

[.quote="KiwiInOz"]


Mais bien sur.[/.quote]
Really, I thought the context was rather evident.

Damn it. I'll say it again in English with an imagined French accent.

"But of course"

My goggle translate is poor, I saw "there is no context" first up, agologes, but I had to get the little dig in.

Ouch; turn-about-is-fair-play; [TW for the flatulent] hoist by one’s own petard – and all that.

Although one might suggest that that “toujours le contexte” – analogous of course to “L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace!” [/pedant/cultural appropriation] – is of course and as you suggest, even apart from the dig, still relevant. I had raised an eyebrow when I first saw that “mongoloids” comment of yours but I had assumed, fortunately, that there were probably a few precursors – the context. Easy to lose sight of if one isn’t paying attention.

[Za-zen]

Terrorism fuckin rocks, without it, we'd never have had the excuse to do terrorist shit

[youtube]O486MgCTq34[/youtube]

[Dick Strawkins]

If you don’t belong to the marginalized group that is pointing out that a certain term makes them uncomfortable or is a
contributor to their marginalization, is it fair for you as an outsider to say it’s ok because it doesn’t make me uncomfortable

Here is what I would do : I would listen to your point of view. I would then decide on the most appropriate course of action. That
would be some where on the spectrum between complete rejection and absolute acceptance of your position. One is referencing
a sliding scale here since not every word happens to possess the same emotional resonance. If it happens to be nigger or cunt or
faggot for example then it is a no brainer as those terms are obviously unacceptable. If however they happen to be less infamous
then the jury may be out for a while. I believe in absolute freedom of speech so we may have a little tete a tete over that too. As
I take my responsibilities very seriously indeed. So much so I would be prepared to die for them. Forgive me if this upsets you but
are you prepared to die for your words ? If not that is fine as most are not either. But I am. And again forgive me if this upsets you
but if I die I have lost everything whereas you will still be alive. However I will say that as a general principle I would try to avoid
using any word that genuinely causes anxiety. But this is not an absolute position however as the final decision would be taken by
me and is therefore as such not an automatic forgone conclusion. I hope this clarifies my position on this

In other words you try to make an assessment whether their request for you to refrain from using certain words is reasonable or not and you make your decision based on that assessment.

Which is probably what most people here do too.
In fact it is probably the way almost everyone on either side of the divide regards proposed limitations on language usage.

I have no problem with Ophelia deciding she cannot abide people using particular pejoratives on her site - there's plenty of sites that discourage bad language for a variety of reasons.
My main issue is not even whether I can use certain pejoratives on non-FTB sites - it is the idea that I must regard other people who use those pejoratives (on non-FTB sites) as misogynists.
I am not prepared to do that.

As for why, let me give you an example connected to another judgement of character flaw - ableism.
If the Aplussers say that they don't want the word 'stupid' used on their site because it triggers them in some way due to perceived ableism, then fine. No problem. It's their site. They can make up whatever rules they want. I probably find those rules too restrictive to open conversation so I wont visit the site, but it's a free world, let them do it if they want.

On the other hand should I regard other people who use the word 'stupid' as being ableist?
I think that is a step too far.
Is Rebecca Watson ableist for using that word?

I am not a fan of Watson but I don't think it's fair to call her ableist just because she uses that pejorative. If she insisted on calling someone stupid when they were telling her she was triggering them then it's another matter - (although that might still not be ableism - it would be bullying.)

Likewise with people who use certain other pejoratives.
Am I to regard non-US feminists like Laurie Penny and Germaine Greer as misogynists?
They have no problem using the word cunt as an insult.

And if it's fair for them to use it then why is it unfair for others.
Is it because they have a vagina?

No vagina, no cunt. (For some reason when I read that line in my head it comes out in a sing-songy Bob Marley voice)

But what about trans women, can they use it?

OK, just to be safe lets say that nobody can use it.
It is a word that means vagina and so it's beyond the pale to call anyone an insult that means vagina, for example cunt or twat.
Or fanny.

Is that right?

[Za-zen]

People sometimes have naked-in-public anxiety dreams. Then there's Bjarte...

http://imgur.com/zqoUcVp.png

Strange how the epitome of gender equality has put the woman in a patriarchy-approved dress and heels.

It's almost as if these people don't really believe in the ideology they're selling.

:bjarte: Outrageous.

the Stick cartoons Barf keeps in his sock drawer as wank material, depict him being dildo fucked by any stick in a dress

[ianfc]

Maybe some confusion Steers old chum but the dig was directed at Really?. Kick my arse if I'm mistaken.

[Steersman]

If you don’t belong to the marginalized group that is pointing out that a certain term makes them uncomfortable or is a
contributor to their marginalization, is it fair for you as an outsider to say it’s ok because it doesn’t make me uncomfortable

Here is what I would do : I would listen to your point of view. I would then decide on the most appropriate course of action. That would be some where on the spectrum between complete rejection and absolute acceptance of your position. One is referencing a sliding scale here since not every word happens to possess the same emotional resonance. If it happens to be nigger or cunt or faggot for example then it is a no brainer as those terms are obviously unacceptable. ....

Really? But since I’m not one to belabour a point (flog a dead horse; gild a lily), I won’t elaborate on that question. However, since I see that you’ve also commented recently on Lousy Canuck’s “Stupid” post, and since he seems to deem me persona non grata in his benighted neck of the woods, I thought I would query you on this portion of it:

I make a distinction between attributing stupidity to an individual and to an idea. The former is capable of emotion so one avoids causing offence by using such a term. The latter however is not so the same degree of reluctance can be disregarded. Though avoiding causing offence as a natural default position is not something I agree with. Ones emotional reaction to the words of others is only something one is in control of and no one else. This is because offence can never be given only taken.

While I generally agree with you that “offence is never given only taken” – why I tend to think that those who do so do that frequently out of self-aggrandizement – I question your implication that that distinction between the “individual and the idea” is entirely valid. For instance, calling someone’s idea stupid seems only a hair’s breadth away from calling the originator of the idea stupid as well; presumably “smart” people don’t generally come up with stupid ideas or plans. Although maybe the “problem” is predicated on an inability to realize that smart people can come with stupid ideas, and vice versa.

In any case, it seems a rather common and sticky problem. For instance, consider the case some 14 months ago in which Benson, Myers, and Company accused Michael Shermer of making a sexist comment – his “[atheist activism], it’s more of a guy thing” – which seemed tantamount in the eyes of many to accusing him of being a sexist:

But there’s just not enough evidence (from the video in question) to consider Shermer a sexist. Myers goes on to say:
Need I point out that the reason gender ratios have been improving is because people like Ophelia and Rebecca Watson and Greta Christina and Jen McCreight have been pointing out the discrimination for years ….

Oh. So I guess it’s not a guy thing, and you were wrong, Michael. It might have been cleverer of you to just say, “I was wrong, I made a sexist remark, the evidence shows that it’s not a guy thing.”

So, apart from the egregrious fact that none of that illustrious company even managed to prove that the remark itself was sexist in the first place – “rush to judgement” being their claim-to-fame, it seems that there may be some justification for thinking that the idea and the person are largely synonymous; seems tantamount to denying personal responsibility to argue otherwise.

[surreptitious57]

I have no problem with Ophelia deciding she cannot abide people using particular pejoratives on her site - there's plenty of sites that discourage bad language for a variety of reasons.My main issue is not even whether I can use certain pejoratives on non-FTB sites - it
is the idea that I must regard other people who use those pejoratives (on non-FTB sites) as misogynists. I am not prepared to do that

As for why, let me give you an example connected to another judgement of character flaw - ableism. If the Aplussers say that they don't want the word stupid used on their site because it triggers them in some way due to perceived ableism, then fine. No problem. It's their site. They can make up whatever rules they want. I probably find those rules too restrictive to open conversation so I wont visit the site but it's a free world, let them do it if they want

On the other hand should I regard other people who use the word stupid as being
ableist? I think that is a step too far.Is Rebecca Watson ableist for using that word

I am not a fan of Watson but I don't think it's fair to call her ableist just because she uses that pejorative. If she insisted on
calling someone stupid when they were telling her she was triggering them then it's another matter - (although that might
still not be ableism - it would be bullying)

Likewise with people who use certain other pejoratives. Am I to regard non-US feminists like Laurie
Penny and Germaine Greer as misogynists?They have no problem using the word cunt as an insult

And if it's fair for them to use it then why is it unfair for others. Is it because they have a vagina
No vagina, no cunt. (For some reason when I read that line in my head it comes out in a sing-song
Bob Marley voice) But what about trans women, can they use it

OK, just to be safe lets say that nobody can use it. It is a word that means vagina and so it's beyond
the pale to call anyone an insult that means vagina, for example cunt or twat.Or fanny. Is that right

If everyone observed three little rules life would be so much easier :

Number One : accept responsibility for everything you say or write. They are your words and no one elses

Number Two : if someone does not want you to use a particular word or phrase because it is offensive to
them try to avoid doing so unless there is a justifiable reason as to why you cannot or should not do that

Number Three : accept that there will be inevitable differences of opinion on use of language. Learn to
tolerate them rather than demanding everyone accepts your interpretation as the natural default position

[Steersman]

Maybe some confusion Steers old chum but the dig was directed at Really?. Kick my arse if I'm mistaken.

I thought your “toujours le context” was a bit of a dig at me since I’ve used that phrase several times; but maybe it was just the “shovel” to hit “Really?” over the head with, or to drive the point home. :-)

Or maybe it was just a “word to the wise” en passant that I was too tired or too rushed to have noticed ….

[Steersman]

I have no problem with Ophelia deciding she cannot abide people using particular pejoratives on her site - there's plenty of sites that discourage bad language for a variety of reasons. My main issue is not even whether I can use certain pejoratives on non-FTB sites - it is the idea that I must regard other people who use those pejoratives (on non-FTB sites) as misogynists. I am not prepared to do that. ....
<snip>

OK, just to be safe lets say that nobody can use it. It is a word that means vagina and so it's beyond
the pale to call anyone an insult that means vagina, for example cunt or twat.Or fanny. Is that right

If everyone observed three little rules life would be so much easier :

Number One : accept responsibility for everything you say or write. They are your words and no one elses

Number Two : if someone does not want you to use a particular word or phrase because it is offensive to
them try to avoid doing so unless there is a justifiable reason as to why you cannot or should not do that

Number Three : accept that there will be inevitable differences of opinion on use of language. Learn to
tolerate them rather than demanding everyone accepts your interpretation as the natural default position

Nice rules. Although one might suggest that your earlier “those terms are obviously unacceptable” - which I might emphasize included the word in question - seems a little inconsistent with your number 3.