Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
Jeff Stelling surely?Tony Parsehole wrote:Andy Capp would be Hartlepool's greatest claim to fame if it wasn't for the monkey hanging business.
People are still going to be asking who Godfrey Elfwick is in twenty years, I just know it.d4m10n wrote:Twenty quid says it's Parsehole.
Don't forget it's got a massive Asda. We go there when we fancy a day out.subbie1957 wrote:Jeff Stelling surely?Tony Parsehole wrote:Andy Capp would be Hartlepool's greatest claim to fame if it wasn't for the monkey hanging business.
As you can see, Hartlepool doesn't have many claims to fame, but Jeff is one of them.
I forgot about that Asda! I'm kicking myself now. I must look so dumb!Tony Parsehole wrote:Don't forget it's got a massive Asda. We go there when we fancy a day out.subbie1957 wrote:Jeff Stelling surely?Tony Parsehole wrote:Andy Capp would be Hartlepool's greatest claim to fame if it wasn't for the monkey hanging business.
As you can see, Hartlepool doesn't have many claims to fame, but Jeff is one of them.
I'm a Geordie. We talk like thisTony Parsehole wrote:Are you a fellow Smoggie then?
Anonymous, the online hacktivist collective, has vowed to shut down terrorist websites and social media accounts promoting terrorism to avenge the brutal murder of Charlie Hebdo journalists. The group intends to render the jihadist websites inaccessible through the denial of service (DDoS) attack.
http://anonhq.com/paris-terror-attack-a ... -websites/
I think he's for real. But I reserve full commitment and we'll just remain 'enemies with benefits' just in case... ;)Jiminy Cricket wrote:I first saw Godfrey Elfwick on one of the recent blog threads mentioned here. I thought he was satirizing the SJWs there. Frankly, I think he's doing it on Twitter, too. Is there some suspicion that he's for real?
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:In the meantime, did anyone from FTB/Pharyngula peep a word about the latest Boko Haram massacre? Honest question, I don't visit that cesspool anymore.
[youtube]2FDcplwT-8Q[/youtube]subbie1957 wrote:I'm a Geordie. We talk like thisTony Parsehole wrote:Are you a fellow Smoggie then?
JacquesCuze wrote:
I found this post by Yemmy downright enlightening (for me) and linking directly to it, because I figure it's worth a click:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/yemmynistin ... -it-wrong/
I almost posted this earlier...d4m10n wrote:Twenty quid says it's Parsehole.
Fuck that guy. Really. Pretending he didn't understand that the republican party became the home of the southern democrats after the Civil Rights Act and since then a lot of the power of the party then shifted to the south. Pretending that the Republicans didn't accept those racist with open arms.JacquesCuze wrote:[youtube]hwqhoVIh65k[/youtube]
Found this via twitter.
I have my disagreements over parts of this guy's history, but I did find his video very well done, amusing, and provides some food for thought. Perhaps the key disagreement I have with his video, regardless, are the clowns in Congress since I was a kid, has represented the two parties.
Asda == Wal*MartTony Parsehole wrote:Don't forget it's got a massive Asda. We go there when we fancy a day out.subbie1957 wrote:Jeff Stelling surely?Tony Parsehole wrote:Andy Capp would be Hartlepool's greatest claim to fame if it wasn't for the monkey hanging business.
As you can see, Hartlepool doesn't have many claims to fame, but Jeff is one of them.
I can see your point about MRAs; as entertaining as it can be to hear Karen Straughan rhetorically tear the faces off of feminists, some of the rhetoric goes too far into "cultural narratives" and other pointless shit. If you are going to talk about how the media demonizes men, you also have to be open to Sarkeesian and her damsel in distress tropes. To be fair though, I don't think the MRAs have had that Jean Irigaray moment yet wherein they assert that the Principia Mathematica is a false rape accusation manual.Kirbmarc wrote:They're both completely right, IMHO. The MRAs are the gender-flipped version of the radfems, and the MGTOW are the male counterpart to the Lesbian Separatists. We don't need special rights for women or men, and we don't need to hide from society because we don't like it.I keep up with (some of) the MGTOW stuff, and the short general-case version seems to be "MRAs are acting like gender-flipped Feminists. The Other Paul in particular is acting like a gender-flipped Sarkeesian. They just want power/attention/etc for themselves. Fuck 'em. We're not changing the world to suit them, we're doing our own thing." The MRA response is along the lines of "well, then you're just like the Lesbian Separatists, except for the fact that you don't give a fuck about homosexuality, ya bunch of fuckin' neck-beard fedora-wearing permavirgins."
What we do need are equal standards before the law for all individuals (and we already have that more or less), the end of the big influence of identity policies (which won't go away easily, but at least are easy to mock) and maybe the gradual mellowing of some extreme, silly and harmful stereotypes (slut-shaming, virgin-shaming, etc.). But the latter is a gradual process that won't happen overnight just because the vocal minorities are being loud enough. And anyway most problems in Western societies don't require special groups of activists to handle them.
John D wrote: First is the fact that France has so many laws regulating how you dress. I think you can probably go topless but can't wear a hijab.
Hmmmm I have see that. Looking online I found this.another lurker wrote:@com
I am currently watching "Aerial America:Alabama" on the Smithsonian Channel. I had no idea that Alabama was such a diverse and beautiful state. Also, that some of the earliest rocket programs got their start in Alabama.
I wouldn't have any problem with that, but too many of them are making a big deal out of how the world is going to miss them, how tragic it is that they're no longer looking forward to marriage, how women are going to regret "letting all the good men go away", yadda yadda yadda.Mostly what I've heard from the MGTOWs I've listened to is that they feel marriage is generally a bad deal and not worth it, and that sexual relationships are similar. If a person believes those things, then declining participation seems like a reasonable response.
Yup. My Bad.Lsuoma wrote:Luce Irigaray.
I agree with you, but we've had 40 years of popular culture telling women they are strong and perfect and can do anything and are the best creatures in the history of the planet and how men don't deserve them and how they can have babies on their own...Kirbmarc wrote:I wouldn't have any problem with that, but too many of them are making a big deal out of how the world is going to miss them, how tragic it is that they're no longer looking forward to marriage, how women are going to regret "letting all the good men go away", yadda yadda yadda.Mostly what I've heard from the MGTOWs I've listened to is that they feel marriage is generally a bad deal and not worth it, and that sexual relationships are similar. If a person believes those things, then declining participation seems like a reasonable response.
I think that they're yet another movement more interested in pandering to hurt feelings and resentment than in real activism for a concrete goal. I don't mind people who don't want to marry or have relationships, but it's still their free choice to "go their own way", and their whining and moaning about how great they are and how big of a loss is their departure is pretty pointless and get grating very quickly.
If you want to leave, leave, but don't expect the entire world to care.
Really? wrote: polishing a fedora every night.
That is simply gorgeous...they don't make cars like that anymore.John D wrote:Good afternoon everyone...
I think John started talking about schools, so I'm a bit confused he seems to have expanded the area here. In schools, all visible religious hardware is forbidden, isn't it?Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I stopped reading right here.John D wrote: First is the fact that France has so many laws regulating how you dress. I think you can probably go topless but can't wear a hijab.
The only dress-styles that are forbidden in France are the niqab and the burka. The hijab is totally ok.
Simple reason: niqab and burka cover your face and thus you can't be identified. You could be a man under the garment. There even was a robbery quite a few years back with two men in niqab, in Marseille, IRRC.
It's basic security.
I, on the other hand, find it peculiar that one would allow something as drastic as the school uniform (for which I normally hear the motivation that it equals out children's social status, whether that's true or not), and then in the same breath allow overtly religious clothing which is precisely meant to create a (sub)group identity.John D wrote:There certainly are dress codes and such at schools in the US, and you will get arrested for nudity (depending greatly on local regulations), but there is no law about a hijab. Very strange that there is in "uber-liberal" France.
Thanks for the correction.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:John D wrote: First is the fact that France has so many laws regulating how you dress. I think you can probably go topless but can't wear a hijab.
I stopped reading right here.
The only dress-styles that are forbidden in France are the niqab and the burka. The hijab is totally ok.
Simple reason: niqab and burka cover your face and thus you can't be identified. You could be a man under the garment. There even was a robbery quite a few years back with two men in niqab, in Marseille, IRRC.
It's basic security.
I agree. The French shouldn't pass a law making it illegal to wear a niqab or burqa. They should be more like the US where persons of color can legally wear hoodies but honkies have the right to shoot them for it. :bjarte:How can it be right to allow a Jew to wear a Yamika and a Muslim cannot wear a burka?
That was back in 2003. And I agree with Fadela (of "Ni Putes Ni Soumises" notoriety).Thus, when some feminists began defending the headscarf on the grounds of "tradition", Fadela Amara countered: "It's not tradition, it's archaic! French feminists are totally contradictory. When Algerian women fought against wearing the headscarf in Algeria, French feminists supported them. But when it's some young girl in a French suburb school, they don't. They define liberty and equality according to what colour your skin is. It's nothing more than neocolonialism."
Religious signs are forbidden only if they are ostentatious.I think John started talking about schools, so I'm a bit confused he seems to have expanded the area here. In schools, all visible religious hardware is forbidden, isn't it?
Confirmed.Tony Parsehole wrote:He's for real. He's just completely bonkers. Apparently he's a woman today.Jiminy Cricket wrote:I first saw Godfrey Elfwick on one of the recent blog threads mentioned here. I thought he was satirizing the SJWs there. Frankly, I think he's doing it on Twitter, too. Is there some suspicion that he's for real?
Ah Ha! No wonder black men don't get shot in France... they can't wear "deep hoods". Too bad we don't have this law in the US.... or Trayvon would still be alive!Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Religious signs are forbidden only if they are ostentatious.I think John started talking about schools, so I'm a bit confused he seems to have expanded the area here. In schools, all visible religious hardware is forbidden, isn't it?
Again, in school. In public spaces, only garments covering the face and preventing the identification of a person are forbidden. It also includes deep hoods, motorbike helmets (when entering a supermarket, for example), scarves across the face... Only exceptions are during carnival, Halloween...
While it isn't a law it is pretty much practiced as much. Try walking in to any public place with your face covered.John D wrote:Ah Ha! No wonder black men don't get shot in France... they can't wear "deep hoods". Too bad we don't have this law in the US.... or Trayvon would still be alive!Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Religious signs are forbidden only if they are ostentatious.I think John started talking about schools, so I'm a bit confused he seems to have expanded the area here. In schools, all visible religious hardware is forbidden, isn't it?
Again, in school. In public spaces, only garments covering the face and preventing the identification of a person are forbidden. It also includes deep hoods, motorbike helmets (when entering a supermarket, for example), scarves across the face... Only exceptions are during carnival, Halloween...
Okay... I am not trying to be annoying in this case... and I apologize for make my false claims about French law. Thanks for explaining... and it makes more sense now. I must have been listening to a US news report about French law to get my facts so wrong.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Religious signs are forbidden only if they are ostentatious.I think John started talking about schools, so I'm a bit confused he seems to have expanded the area here. In schools, all visible religious hardware is forbidden, isn't it?
Again, in school. In public spaces, only garments covering the face and preventing the identification of a person are forbidden. It also includes deep hoods, motorbike helmets (when entering a supermarket, for example), scarves across the face... Only exceptions are during carnival, Halloween...
comhcinc wrote:
While it isn't a law it is pretty much practiced as much. Try walking in to any public place with your face covered.
They also seem to have a rather large number of religious wackos, at least as suggested by this recent post of Jerry Coyne - on his "website" - to the effect that:another lurker wrote:@com
I am currently watching "Aerial America:Alabama" on the Smithsonian Channel. I had no idea that Alabama was such a diverse and beautiful state. Also, that some of the earliest rocket programs got their start in Alabama.
Coyne wrote:As reported by that site, and verified by Al.com, the last act in 2014 of the city council of Winfield, Alabama (population 4540) was to declare that the town was now OWNED BY GOD. The council passed this resolution (from Al.com), and I kid you not ....
Well Asians and doctors :whistle:John D wrote:the ones people (especially Asians!) use to keep away germs?
That's an excellent question, and I have no idea. I guess a doctor's note would do.John D wrote:Okay... I am not trying to be annoying in this case... and I apologize for make my false claims about French law. Thanks for explaining... and it makes more sense now. I must have been listening to a US news report about French law to get my facts so wrong.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Religious signs are forbidden only if they are ostentatious.I think John started talking about schools, so I'm a bit confused he seems to have expanded the area here. In schools, all visible religious hardware is forbidden, isn't it?
Again, in school. In public spaces, only garments covering the face and preventing the identification of a person are forbidden. It also includes deep hoods, motorbike helmets (when entering a supermarket, for example), scarves across the face... Only exceptions are during carnival, Halloween...
But... a real question..... Can people wear those surgical masks across their face in public... the ones people (especially Asians!) use to keep away germs?
I'm not sure that "ripping into Benson" is all that accurate as I haven't seen a lot of particularly odious criticisms of her - apart maybe from Giliell's for her "smear" of Benson.Richard Dworkins wrote:I have no sympathy for her. Wasn't too long ago she was bleating about paintings that offended her and demanding others agree with her ideas as to what good and bad satire should be.Shatterface as Guest wrote:I think it's significant that not only are the Horde ripping into Benson but that Myers isn't coming to her defence.Look at Ophelia Benson. One of the most important bloggers on FTB. Some would call her a leader. And yet the moment she dares to say that maybe some cartoons which have been declared racist might not be racist she's cast aside, attacked, criticized and even called a "Slymepit hero".
Shatterface
Confirmed? How exactly? If I saw him doing this schtick in person I still wouldn't believe it. It's like a bad drama school exercise that he won't stop.TiBo wrote:Confirmed.Tony Parsehole wrote:He's for real. He's just completely bonkers. Apparently he's a woman today.Jiminy Cricket wrote:I first saw Godfrey Elfwick on one of the recent blog threads mentioned here. I thought he was satirizing the SJWs there. Frankly, I think he's doing it on Twitter, too. Is there some suspicion that he's for real?
You have a point, but so do they.Kirbmarc wrote:I wouldn't have any problem with that, but too many of them are making a big deal out of how the world is going to miss them, how tragic it is that they're no longer looking forward to marriage, how women are going to regret "letting all the good men go away", yadda yadda yadda.Mostly what I've heard from the MGTOWs I've listened to is that they feel marriage is generally a bad deal and not worth it, and that sexual relationships are similar. If a person believes those things, then declining participation seems like a reasonable response.
I think that they're yet another movement more interested in pandering to hurt feelings and resentment than in real activism for a concrete goal. I don't mind people who don't want to marry or have relationships, but it's still their free choice to "go their own way", and their whining and moaning about how great they are and how big of a loss is their departure is pretty pointless and get grating very quickly.
If you want to leave, leave, but don't expect the entire world to care.
French ban on face covering is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclava, niqÄbs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances.
Jiminy Cricket wrote:Confirmed? How exactly? If I saw him doing this schtick in person I still wouldn't believe it. It's like a bad drama school exercise that he won't stop.TiBo wrote:Confirmed.Tony Parsehole wrote: He's for real. He's just completely bonkers. Apparently he's a woman today.
Smoggy-Wan Kenobi: This isn't the hipster you're looking for.
Pitter: This isn't the hipster we're looking for.
You need to understand where she's coming from. Perhaps she did a Bible Code thing on your post and thought you were calling her a cunt.Steersman wrote:I'm not sure that "ripping into Benson" is all that accurate as I haven't seen a lot of particularly odious criticisms of her - apart maybe from Giliell's for her "smear" of Benson.Richard Dworkins wrote: I have no sympathy for her. Wasn't too long ago she was bleating about paintings that offended her and demanding others agree with her ideas as to what good and bad satire should be.
But I don't have much sympathy for her either as she still looks like a narrow-minded bigot. As suggested by the fact that she has deleted this recent comment of mine over there:
http://i57.tinypic.com/2jg80mb.jpg
I wouldn't say a large number. That town has less than 5000 people in it. I have been to the place. It's in the middle of no where and it's the kinda of place that you live because you were born there. Some things I could point out from CoyneSteersman wrote:They also seem to have a rather large number of religious wackos, at least as suggested by this recent post of Jerry Coyne - on his "website" - to the effect that:another lurker wrote:@com
I am currently watching "Aerial America:Alabama" on the Smithsonian Channel. I had no idea that Alabama was such a diverse and beautiful state. Also, that some of the earliest rocket programs got their start in Alabama.Coyne wrote:As reported by that site, and verified by Al.com, the last act in 2014 of the city council of Winfield, Alabama (population 4540) was to declare that the town was now OWNED BY GOD. The council passed this resolution (from Al.com), and I kid you not ....
That isn't really that bad for that area. I am sure housing doesn't cost that much and Power would be under the TVA banner which is dirt cheap compare to what the rest of the nation pays.Sadly, where the City of Winfield is now “because of God’s grace and mercy†is impoverished: the median income of a family, as reported by Wikipedia, is about $38,000—12,000 or so less than the median income of all Americans
Now that God is the mayor, I assume that all crime will cease immediately, as will fornication and consumption of the Demon Rum.
If I was looking for somebody who might use elf as part of their identity, I'd probably investigate those who dress up as elves and fight with rubber swords.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Elfwick is bhoytony!!!
Knew it all along!
No idea what you're talking about... :whistle:bhoytony wrote:If I was looking for somebody who might use elf as part of their identity, I'd probably investigate those who dress up as elves and fight with rubber swords.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Elfwick is bhoytony!!!
Knew it all along!
Just send me your therapist and grocery bills. I've done this before! :lol:Walter Ego wrote:Thanks for showing that again. I was just about to start making my lunch. :-(
While I see nothing inherently wrong or bad about women only groups, there appears to be a small set of people who set up such groups to foster oppression olympics and us vs. them wars. I also think it is hilarious that they want grant money for their wikiforum.windy wrote:Except when it's women or other protected groups feeling silenced by white males in some vaguely-defined way. Then no problem is too small for a top-down intervention:Selenite wrote: Lately, the fad is to deny that social pressures can be coercive. So long as people physical can make a choice, then they're totally free. So all we have to worry about is force and legal coercion.
Free speech discussions turn these people shockingly libertarian for the duration.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants: ... ject_Women
There is currently no space on-wiki where a woman can go and be sure that she'll be able to participate in discussions without being dominated by men's voices. Wikipedia needs a place where women can feel safer and not always overwhelmed by male advice, criticism, and explanations.What is the problem you're trying to solve?
I don't think he should worry about cosmetic issues like empty skin flaps. Saving his life by losing weight is way more important, and anyways, he's cost the health system over a million already.feathers wrote:Paul Mason is doing better now. Man has cost the NHS a fortune. I wonder how he managed to use GBP 75 a day on food (see table down that page).Scented Nectar wrote:I want to know WHO HAS BEEN FEEDING HIM??? Obviously he can't even get up to prepare food, much less go to the grocery store, so who keeps feeding him large amounts of food? Most people when cooking for others, prepare average meal sizes, but this guy's been eating enough to feed a large village for years. And someone is also doing the disgusting job of cleaning up his incontinence pad etc. I doubt he fits in the shower, so he probably stinks to high hell. He's probably not seen, or been able to reach, his dick in years. His skin folds in that region probably smell like a downtown phone booth inhabited by a hobo.
But yeah, if you can't get horny about fat people, you're an evil oppressor.
People who get that bad have enablers.feathers wrote:Paul Mason is doing better now. Man has cost the NHS a fortune. I wonder how he managed to use GBP 75 a day on food (see table down that page).Scented Nectar wrote:I want to know WHO HAS BEEN FEEDING HIM??? Obviously he can't even get up to prepare food, much less go to the grocery store, so who keeps feeding him large amounts of food? Most people when cooking for others, prepare average meal sizes, but this guy's been eating enough to feed a large village for years. And someone is also doing the disgusting job of cleaning up his incontinence pad etc. I doubt he fits in the shower, so he probably stinks to high hell. He's probably not seen, or been able to reach, his dick in years. His skin folds in that region probably smell like a downtown phone booth inhabited by a hobo.
But yeah, if you can't get horny about fat people, you're an evil oppressor.
Noooo, that's not how left-right works nowadays. Left and right only pertain to economic issues. Social issues form a different axis.Jiminy Cricket wrote: I don't think it's reasonable to label the U.S. Libertarian Party as right wing. On all social issues they are more left wing than most Democrats.
Well you see people with burkas on, but really how many people ride the subway in New York anyway? I mean just drive your car. ;)Ericb wrote:comhcinc wrote:
While it isn't a law it is pretty much practiced as much. Try walking in to any public place with your face covered.
I see women with Burkas on the NYC subway all the time.
My wife is preparing to have bariatric surgery in March and this already has her worried. She is also worried that we are going to break up afterwards because it has happened to everyone she knows. Note it's the person who has the surgery that breaks it off. So if anyone has a couch I can crash on in the near future......another lurker wrote:Empty skin flaps are actually a health issue because they can get sweaty and cause infections.
The MGTOW are not the same as separatists. They only avoid committed relationships, rather than avoiding all interactions with the opposite sex. I consider myself a WGTOW, since I've never wanted a committed relationship and/or to live with anyone I'm having sex with, but I'm not a separatist like back in my old cult days.Old_ones wrote:I can see your point about MRAs; as entertaining as it can be to hear Karen Straughan rhetorically tear the faces off of feminists, some of the rhetoric goes too far into "cultural narratives" and other pointless shit. If you are going to talk about how the media demonizes men, you also have to be open to Sarkeesian and her damsel in distress tropes. To be fair though, I don't think the MRAs have had that Jean Irigaray moment yet wherein they assert that the Principia Mathematica is a false rape accusation manual.Kirbmarc wrote:They're both completely right, IMHO. The MRAs are the gender-flipped version of the radfems, and the MGTOW are the male counterpart to the Lesbian Separatists. We don't need special rights for women or men, and we don't need to hide from society because we don't like it.I keep up with (some of) the MGTOW stuff, and the short general-case version seems to be "MRAs are acting like gender-flipped Feminists. The Other Paul in particular is acting like a gender-flipped Sarkeesian. They just want power/attention/etc for themselves. Fuck 'em. We're not changing the world to suit them, we're doing our own thing." The MRA response is along the lines of "well, then you're just like the Lesbian Separatists, except for the fact that you don't give a fuck about homosexuality, ya bunch of fuckin' neck-beard fedora-wearing permavirgins."
What we do need are equal standards before the law for all individuals (and we already have that more or less), the end of the big influence of identity policies (which won't go away easily, but at least are easy to mock) and maybe the gradual mellowing of some extreme, silly and harmful stereotypes (slut-shaming, virgin-shaming, etc.). But the latter is a gradual process that won't happen overnight just because the vocal minorities are being loud enough. And anyway most problems in Western societies don't require special groups of activists to handle them.
On the other hand I find the equivalency between MGTOWs and lesbian separatists really confounding. Firstly, its not my understanding that MGTOWs are separatists in any real sense; only that they mistrust the idea of marriage and abstain either from marriage specifically or from romantic relationships more generally. Maybe MGTOW rhetoric is different in practice (I confess that I haven't gone out of my way to interact with a lot of them) but I don't get the sense that they band together in communes and have the longing conversations about male only societies that would parallel the things Scented Nectar sometimes posts about. Mostly what I've heard from the MGTOWs I've listened to is that they feel marriage is generally a bad deal and not worth it, and that sexual relationships are similar. If a person believes those things, then declining participation seems like a reasonable response.
