If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

deLurch wrote:

rayshul wrote:I'm pretty open on the citizenship stripping. But I also think countries should stop aid and trade to countries where the politicians kill their citizens.

That might be more countries than you might expect depending on how you count them.

The US has a death penalty in some states. State governors have the right to pardon such convicts. Then you have the range of deaths from police officers. How well or poorly you take those deaths may range on how corrupt or good you think a countries police force is. However there is the recent case of an officer shooing an unarmed fleeing suspect. That officer, in an unusual switch, will be prosecuted. The video helps, but still not a shoe in. And then we have the two murderous convicts from New York that escaped. One killed, the other was shot, unarmed as he was fleeing to a tree line. The officer was concerned he would disappear once he hit that tree line. No one is the media is flinching on that. I am starting to suspect that it is legal to shoot a fleeing unarmed escaped prisoner in the US.

And then we get to the rest of the world. I know my country's issues. Every country has their problems.

I'm not sure the US has killed any Australian citizens, though.

The US kills our citizens all the time.

In Syria.


Thank you.

Brive1987 wrote:The US kills our citizens all the time.

In Syria.

Thank you.

Though I think Abbot's argument is that such "citizens" have kind of repudiated or renounced their citizenship.

So, now Gay Marrige is a thing in the USA the next step is polygamy. Right?

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

*shrug*

I am not alone apparently in predicting this. The only thing I am wondering about is if I will be still alive when it happens.

Bourne Skeptic wrote:

Steersman wrote:

Aneris wrote:Steersman, or Kirbmarc will you please make a new thread titled “The Nigger-Cunt Hypothesis”? It's a bad idea to ask two people, so please Steersman, will you do it? I just ask. I was under the impression each time that steersman is about to get it, but after it turned into a running gag, a farce and now a fad, I think it might take even longer than expected (this is recursive, it will take longer than you expect, even if you take this into account).

Roger wilco; will do. In which forum would you, or others, suggest I create it? The “Periodic Table of Swearing - The Undead Thread” or “Freethought, Atheism, Skepticism and Science”? Or is that even an option? Or are there others?

How about "General Discussion" at Atheism Plus?

As I've been banned there, under two different user names, there's not much likelihood of that happening. And even if I tried a third, I can't see the topic would be reviewed with much favour.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Billie from Ockham wrote:As much I love Bernie Sanders, that isn't happening. So, it seems to me, the best thing for the Democrats to do for about the next year is keep bringing up Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel.

Die Angela gefällt mir. Ich habe sie gern. Sie ist Heiß. Sieben aus Zehn.

/comincnc auf deutsch

That would probably be 'Zwei aus sechs' as the Jerries have a 1-6 grading system with 1 being the best.

In other news concerning male contraceptive a disruptive technology appears to be close(er) to release

This is about something called Vasalgel, a multi-year contraceptive for men. This should have some interesting societal consequences. It certainly has the potential to create a shift in the power dynamics regarding reproduction where effectively most (but not all) the cards are held by women where procreation is concerned.

Potentially, it could reduce the number of single mothers for starters.

Yet another reason why sometimes I wish I could live another 150-200 years because I really want to see how some of this stuff is really going to shake out. Scratch that, 300 years might be a better time frame for some of the long term consequences to shake out.

Evidently life is difficult for those who spend their lives being assholes to the rest of the world.

youtube.com/watch?v=KtV_SfSvRpU&feature=youtu.be&t=696

SoylentAtheist wrote:

Skep tickle wrote:"Please" - at The Indelible Stamp, Tauriq Moosa's blog: https://archive.is/SvQM3
Damion & Iamcuriousblue in the comments
h/t @thewtfmagazine

Tauriq wrote:Maybe use this time to try get more people employed who aren’t straight white men.

I would love to see the SJW/FTB crowd running out trying to get black people employed. It would be a comedy of errors. But I strongly suspect anything that does not involve twitter or blogging will not fit into their agenda.

Tauriq wrote:but please use this energy to get us jobs, get us recognised, get us safe and able to feed ourselves in industries we love but are told we’re not allowed in.

I so want to see this in action.

Tauriq wrote:PPS: People asking for evidence don’t care about evidence.

Um yeah. And kids asking for ice cream don't want ice cream. Give them some nice heads of broccoli that they so desperately desire.

It's pretty clear that Moosa doesn't give a shit about the "harassment" on Twitter and only wants to cash in his victim points to get more writing gigs by whining about it. He explicitly says so.

I'm actually wondering whether he deliberately wrote an incredibly stupid review, knowing he would get a lot of flack for it, and deliberately framed the consequences as "horrible harassment" by flouncing.

Tauriq Moosa wrote:Who cares what they’re saying about me? You know who I am. There’s nothing for you to defend, but there’s plenty for you to promote. I’m not going to tell you who that is, you should know. I’m thankful for the volume of support, but please use this energy to get us jobs, get us recognised, get us safe and able to feed ourselves in industries we love but are told we’re not allowed in.

Not allowed in anything.

Tauriq Moosa wrote:Contributor to io9, Guardian, Polygon, The Mary Sue, Paste, and elsewhere. Recommended by New York Times, New Yorker, Forbes, TheBrowser.com, and BBC.

So oppressed I literally can't even.

Kirbmarc wrote:

Steersman wrote:

Kirbmarc wrote:[.quote="Steersman"] Although I hope you'll provide a reasonably fair synopsis of my argument if you describe it in any detail.[/.quote]

Give me a succinct (300-400 characters long) exposition of your argument that you can find suitable to be sent to Croom and I'll quote it verbatim.

Will do. Within what sort of time-frame?

Take your time. I'll be waiting.

Ok. I've created a new thread in the Freethought forum as Aneris requested. And I've created the first comment such that it more or less provides a reasonably "succinct (500 word) exposition of my argument" that you could maybe send to Croom. If you think that is still too long you might try editing it or making suggestions as to what you think is unnecessary or redundant. Or I'll take another kick at the kitty.

HAHAHAHAHA
My sources indicate that Ophelia Benson banned Oolon after this exchange in the comments 20, 34, 43, 44:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... /06/20505/
She doesn't mention the ban in the comments but replies to Oolon's private Tweets show she banned him for it.

HT- LazyRedux AKA Percy Trumpton AKA Lazy Savant

Tony Parsehole wrote:HAHAHAHAHA
My sources indicate that Ophelia Benson banned Oolon after this exchange in the comments 20, 34, 43, 44:
freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2015/06/20505/
She doesn't mention the ban in the comments but replies to Oolon's private Tweets show she banned him for it.

HT- LazyRedux AKA Percy Trumpton AKA Lazy Savant

Archive link for everyone's delight - archive.is/AvHtE

SoylentAtheist wrote:

Tony Parsehole wrote:HAHAHAHAHA
My sources indicate that Ophelia Benson banned Oolon after this exchange in the comments 20, 34, 43, 44:
freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2015/06/20505/
She doesn't mention the ban in the comments but replies to Oolon's private Tweets show she banned him for it.

HT- LazyRedux AKA Percy Trumpton AKA Lazy Savant

Archive link for everyone's delight - archive.is/AvHtE

Cheers. In my joy I forgot to not directly link.

SoylentAtheist wrote:

Tony Parsehole wrote:HAHAHAHAHA
My sources indicate that Ophelia Benson banned Oolon after this exchange in the comments 20, 34, 43, 44:
freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2015/06/20505/
She doesn't mention the ban in the comments but replies to Oolon's private Tweets show she banned him for it.

HT- LazyRedux AKA Percy Trumpton AKA Lazy Savant

Archive link for everyone's delight - archive.is/AvHtE

Cheers. In my joy I forgot to not directly link.

Tony Parsehole wrote:

SoylentAtheist wrote:

Tony Parsehole wrote:HAHAHAHAHA
My sources indicate that Ophelia Benson banned Oolon after this exchange in the comments 20, 34, 43, 44:
freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2015/06/20505/
She doesn't mention the ban in the comments but replies to Oolon's private Tweets show she banned him for it.

HT- LazyRedux AKA Percy Trumpton AKA Lazy Savant

Archive link for everyone's delight - archive.is/AvHtE

Cheers. In my joy I forgot to not directly link.

That is OK. i have a firm set policy of not making my links clickable. That is how they track you.

James Caruthers wrote: <snip>

Your argument against Muslims is quite literally a white supremacist argument against black people. See:

"And differentiating between those was largely my point about "pissing and mass deportation", the former of which is of course largely hyperbolic, and the latter of which may be somewhat impractical. However, if the Black community isn't able to rein-in the violent thugs, those who think that their "slave history" trumps white culture, if push comes to shove, then I can see that many more white people are likely to consider banning Black immigration in general, or that mass deportation back to Africa is the lesser of the evils."

Explain how this is in any way different from you taking some violent radicals and extrapolating to argue why human rights violations of all devout Muslims would be acceptable.

You obviously didn't read or understand that article on analogies. What you're doing there isn't comparing a 3-4-5 triangle with a 30-40-50 one; it's comparing a 3-4-5 triangle with a 57-23-49-82 quadrilateral: there are so many differences between the two cases you're referring to that the attempt is ridiculous, and the result has enough holes in it to drive not just a tank through them, but a whole goddam armoured division. So to speak.

More particularly, apart from the fact that you apparently know even less about Islam than I do, you might note that, for examples, the Black community isn't motivated or guided by an overarching philosophy that promotes hate speech, the oppression of women, and a general repudiation of both human rights and the separation of church and state. Nor is it engaged in efforts to impose a system of law that is seriously at odds with Western case law, that should have been left in the 6th century where it was created, and that is not particularly "compatible with secular forms of government, human rights, freedom of thought, and women's rights". Nor is it engaged in multitudinous acts of barbarism and savagery both at home and abroad, all of which are more or less condoned by the "holy book" [what a fucking laugh] that some 50% to 75% of American Muslims think is "the Word of God, taken literally, word for word". For further details, you may wish to read, though I won't hold my breath, several of Ibn Warraq's papers, starting with this one on Islam, Middle East and Fascism

How about you read them first?

Tony Parsehole wrote:HAHAHAHAHA
My sources indicate that Ophelia Benson banned Oolon after this exchange in the comments 20, 34, 43, 44:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... /06/20505/
She doesn't mention the ban in the comments but replies to Oolon's private Tweets show she banned him for it.

HT- LazyRedux AKA Percy Trumpton AKA Lazy Savant

Benson needed to cull. At 40 odd comments that threat blew my mind.

Steersman wrote:You obviously didn't read or understand that article on analogies. What you're doing there isn't comparing a 3-4-5 triangle with a 30-40-50 one; it's comparing a 3-4-5 triangle with a 57-23-49-82 quadrilateral: there are so many differences between the two cases you're referring to that the attempt is ridiculous, and the result has enough holes in it to drive not just a tank through them, but a whole goddam armoured division. So to speak.

Which is exactly what I'm arguing, on statistical and contextual terms, about your "nigger-cunt" analogy.

I think I broke my scrolling wheel. No hospitalization needed.

Kirbmarc wrote:

Steersman wrote:You obviously didn't read or understand that article on analogies. What you're doing there isn't comparing a 3-4-5 triangle with a 30-40-50 one; it's comparing a 3-4-5 triangle with a 57-23-49-82 quadrilateral: there are so many differences between the two cases you're referring to that the attempt is ridiculous, and the result has enough holes in it to drive not just a tank through them, but a whole goddam armoured division. So to speak.

Which is exactly what I'm arguing, on statistical and contextual terms, about your "nigger-cunt" analogy.

Sorry, but I think that the differences you're pointing to aren't particularly relevant, that they are, in part at least, little more than red-herrings, that you're ignoring the relationships between the parts and how they work together in each case.

For instance, while I don't want to belabour the point here in this thread - we may want to respond to each other and anyone else interested in the other thread by copying and pasting there - I think you're ignoring the fact that many feminists feel the same way about "cunt" as many blacks, and others, feel about "nigger", that you're "privileging" the latter group at the expense of the former. And you may also might note that many feminists are engaged in the same type of "reappropriation" that you're championing in the case of blacks. From the Wikipedia article you quoted from earlier:

Some feminists of the 1970s sought to eliminate disparaging terms for women, including "bitch" and "cunt".[14] In the context of pornography, Catharine MacKinnon argued that use of the word acts to reinforce a dehumanisation of women by reducing them to mere body parts;[15] and in 1979 Andrea Dworkin described the word as reducing women to "the one essential – 'cunt: our essence ... our offence'".[15]

Despite criticisms, there is a movement among feminists that seeks to reclaim cunt not only as acceptable, but as an honorific, in much the same way that queer has been reappropriated by LGBT people and the word nigger has been by the black community.[16] Proponents include Inga Muscio in her book, Cunt: A Declaration of Independence[17] and Eve Ensler in "Reclaiming Cunt" from The Vagina Monologues.

comhcinc wrote:How about you read them first?

You and Caruthers, and no few others, seem to have some difficulty with the concept that one doesn't have to read and understand every last bit of a subject before being able to use effectively what one does know; that one doesn't need to be an automotive engineer to be able to check and replenish the oil. "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king".

Steersman wrote:

comhcinc wrote:How about you read them first?

You and Caruthers, and no few others, seem to have some difficulty with the concept that one doesn't have to read and understand every last bit of a subject before being able to use effectively what one does know; that one doesn't need to be an automotive engineer to be able to check and replenish the oil. "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king".

Lol this is not the kingdom of the blind. You are surrounded by people who know more than you.

You seem to have difficulty with that concept.

If I ever need an expert on half ass theories supported by skimming summaries of information, I know the bigot to turn to.

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:It doesn't matter what you say to the Steersman, it sustains itself on the attention like a science fiction evil entity that absorbs the energy of whatever is thrown at it.

Kirbmarc, you are feeding the monster.

[youtube]IYFr3UyVpRA[/youtube]

comhcinc wrote:

Steersman wrote:

comhcinc wrote:How about you read them first?

You and Caruthers, and no few others, seem to have some difficulty with the concept that one doesn't have to read and understand every last bit of a subject before being able to use effectively what one does know; that one doesn't need to be an automotive engineer to be able to check and replenish the oil. "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king".

Lol this is not the kingdom of the blind.

It was a metaphor, a figure of speech.

comhcinc wrote:You are surrounded by people who know more than you.

Maybe on some subjects. And probably some do and some don't; I doubt that all of them do.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Brive1987 wrote:

Couch wrote:

Michael J wrote:
The rhetoric of Abbott would have ISIS at war with the Commonwealth of Australia, but I'm not sure whether it would stand legal challenge here or under international law.

We've seen enough cases already of ASIO and the Government targeting someone where the case falls apart in court.

QFT. ASIO and the Government need more checks and balances, not less. What's happening now is a different set of challenges than was faced when current laws were drafted. But that whould precipitate the drafting of new laws subject to the usual judicial oversight and determination, not removal of the judiciary from the process.

It's populist knee-jerk politics which resonates with a not-insignificant part of the electorate, evidently including Brive.

When a dual national chooses to fight for a terror organisation our airforce is busy bombing with good reason. An organisation that epitomises everything vile and dangerous to our basic world view and chooses to do so despite having been issued clear warnings about the consequences. Well then that fool has made the decision for themselves.

All we need is a proper process to ensure we haven't misunderstood what they are yelling at us.

You sound like you might be wealthy enough to vote green? ;)[/quote]
Ha!

I was only tugging your chain. And if you've worked for Morrison you've seen the downside of unreviewable administrative decision making.

I don't vote Green. I'm not attracted to single-issue parties, but I totes get their reason for being. The Greens here seem more about votes than workable policy - I don't know if that the situation elsewhere. My wife's mum is a big Greens supporter so I'm exposed to them through her. I'm very slightly heartened that they seem a lot less anti-science than they use de to be.

I've voted for both major parties, but predominantly Labor nationally and liberal (conservative) at the state level. I vote Independent for local government largely 'cause he's a mate...

comhcinc wrote:If I ever need an expert on half ass theories supported by skimming summaries of information, I know the bigot to turn to.

Sorry but it's starting to get slightly Atheism-plussy/FtBish around here; the above quote could have been penned by Peezus Christ himself.

Let Steers speak his mind, there's no need for shaming tactics.

This is the 'pit, right?


Disclaimer: I think he's wrong (for a variety of reasons) but still enjoy reading his views, thoughts and opinions.

/shrug

Bhurzum wrote:

comhcinc wrote:If I ever need an expert on half ass theories supported by skimming summaries of information, I know the bigot to turn to.

Sorry but it's starting to get slightly Atheism-plussy/FtBish around here; the above quote could have been penned by Peezus Christ himself.

Let Steers speak his mind, there's no need for shaming tactics.

This is the 'pit, right?


Disclaimer: I think he's wrong (for a variety of reasons) but still enjoy reading his views, thoughts and opinions.

/shrug

Thanks.

And I think there's some merit in that "slightly Atheism-plussy/FtBish" - no shortage of unevidenced opinions. No problem with that of course, but when they're presented as Papal Encyclicals, as is periodically the case, then we might wonder whether we've got the right room.

Bhurzum wrote:

comhcinc wrote:If I ever need an expert on half ass theories supported by skimming summaries of information, I know the bigot to turn to.

Sorry but it's starting to get slightly Atheism-plussy/FtBish around here; the above quote could have been penned by Peezus Christ himself.

Let Steers speak his mind, there's no need for shaming tactics.

This is the 'pit, right?


Disclaimer: I think he's wrong (for a variety of reasons) but still enjoy reading his views, thoughts and opinions.

/shrug

Fuck that noise. I am not shaming anyone. Steersman is full of shit and a bigot.

If you enjoy reading his wall of text, that's your prerogative, but don't tell me I can't mock him if I want to.

I'm not demanding Steersman be banned, I am not claiming him being here is causing harm. I am not silencing him in any way.

He can say whatever stupid shit he wants, but I retain the right to mock him for it.

comhcinc wrote:

Bhurzum wrote:

comhcinc wrote:If I ever need an expert on half ass theories supported by skimming summaries of information, I know the bigot to turn to.

Sorry but it's starting to get slightly Atheism-plussy/FtBish around here; the above quote could have been penned by Peezus Christ himself.

Let Steers speak his mind, there's no need for shaming tactics.

This is the 'pit, right?


Disclaimer: I think he's wrong (for a variety of reasons) but still enjoy reading his views, thoughts and opinions.

/shrug

Fuck that noise. I am not shaming anyone. Steersman is full of shit and a bigot.

In your fucking opinion. Which you've never had the balls to provide any credible evidence or argument that might justify it. You're welcome to do so of course. But most reasonable skeptics are likely to use that as evidence in itself that you're simply blowing smoke out of your ass.

Steersman wrote:

comhcinc wrote:

Bhurzum wrote: Sorry but it's starting to get slightly Atheism-plussy/FtBish around here; the above quote could have been penned by Peezus Christ himself.

Let Steers speak his mind, there's no need for shaming tactics.

This is the 'pit, right?


Disclaimer: I think he's wrong (for a variety of reasons) but still enjoy reading his views, thoughts and opinions.

/shrug

Fuck that noise. I am not shaming anyone. Steersman is full of shit and a bigot.

In your fucking opinion. Which you've never had the balls to provide any credible evidence or argument that might justify it. You're welcome to do so of course. But most reasonable skeptics are likely to use that as evidence in itself that you're simply blowing smoke out of your ass.

You are a bigot. Proof? Post after post defending the use of the word nigger. You are full of shit. Proof? To support your position you offer books and articles that you admit you have not read.

Total weak sauce.

If anyone wants a more accurate account of the Moosa issue other than Myers' lies and childish invective there is this https://storify.com/Iamcuriousblue/taur ... y-happened. Props to Damion too. As a general point https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/ is a main hub for gamergate stuff.

TLDR version. He thought the term 'Master Race' in gaming terms was serious rather than a self deprecating term. Only someone desperate to be offended while being wilfully ignorant would thing it was serious. He started to abuse gamers so they told him where to get off. He cried, as they do, including accusing people of abuse who never even tweeted or contacted him. If he had simply said 'sorry my bad' that woud have been the end of it. But we're dealing with SJW's so no chance of that.

In any event this insane posturing of SJW's has now reached mainstream. Myers and co are doing great damage by their authoritarian cutleral hijacking attempts which is great. Keep it up guys, people's eyes are opening at last. You have hijacked feminism and are doing a great job trashing it. Hopefully one day the word feminism will get back to what it meant in the first place and we will achieve true equality and the respectibility you ruined.

Taking on Gamers was a massive mistake and it's great fun watching the results. The AS community can go screw itself, it deserves what it got.

Bhurzum wrote:

comhcinc wrote:If I ever need an expert on half ass theories supported by skimming summaries of information, I know the bigot to turn to.

Sorry but it's starting to get slightly Atheism-plussy/FtBish around here; the above quote could have been penned by Peezus Christ himself.

Let Steers speak his mind, there's no need for shaming tactics.

This is the 'pit, right?


Disclaimer: I think he's wrong (for a variety of reasons) but still enjoy reading his views, thoughts and opinions.

/shrug

Atheism plus is about stopping and removing unwanted opinions. There is nothing in the Slympit to say people can't express an opinion and there is no call to stop Steersman expressing one. So it is not like Atheism Plus at all. If it is, so is yours (tone policing) And mine probably, you can't win with SJW think.

Steersman wrote:In your fucking opinion. Which you've never had the balls to provide any credible evidence or argument that might justify it. You're welcome to do so of course. But most reasonable skeptics are likely to use that as evidence in itself that you're simply blowing smoke out of your ass.

I had actually prepared a response to comhcinc myself but thought better of it. Whenever I unscrew the top of my skull and allow the dull bulb within to shine forth, I tend to make an absolute arse of myself.

I actually wrote "Then take up your vorpal sword and slay that Jabberwock! Just make sure to show your workings when you do so."

Now you'll understand why I binned it.

Anyway, you've hammered the nail for me.

Oh, and comhcinc, sorry if my response seemed confrontational, it was written in haste. Dull bulb y'see :(

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:http://www.squce.com/wp-content/uploads ... uickly.jpg

Meh I've been awake all night and I am grouchy.

How are you doing?

comhcinc wrote:So an update on the job search. I had a really awesome interview last week with a place I really hopes hires me. I have a phone interview in about an hour at a place that I would not mind working at. I put in my resume at a law office looking for help, wrote a cover letter to go along with my awesome new resume (thanks couch) and while that might be a long shot I think if I could get in I can wow them with knowledge of basic contract law and pro wrestling.

If you'll excuse the double-negative, there is nothing in contract law that pro-wrestling doesn't prepare you for. :D

JackSkeptic wrote:Atheism plus is about stopping and removing unwanted opinions. There is nothing in the Slympit to say people can't express an opinion and there is no call to stop Steersman expressing one. So it is not like Atheism Plus at all. If it is, so is yours (tone policing) And mine probably, you can't win with SJW think.

You know something Jack, I actually done one of those "tooth dryer" gestures after I hit the "Submit" button. As my latest response highlights, I wrote it in haste and as a result, my self-deprecation chip is now dangerously close to meltdown.

Truly, I am the lowest hanging of fruits...

Anyway, have at it you magnificent bastards.

Long live the 'pit!

comhcinc wrote: Meh I've been awake all night and I am grouchy.

How are you doing?

Awake all night as well, for the past 4/5 days. The pain is okay during the day, but it gets bad when I try to sleep, so I just nod on and off.

From the link reported by Jack Skeptic.

Damion wrote:Add to this some gross double-standards - many who are decrying the "attack" on Tauriq Moosa are just fine with an even greater public dressing down of someone like Tim Hunt

Indeed.

It seems like the problem isn't the "attack" or the "harassment" but merely a problem of political and ideological affiliations. Basically SJWs want to feel free to say and do whatever they want but shun others if the criticize them in the same fashion.

That's the root of the problem. SJWs want to reshape society so that only their opinions are allowed in public. They want to use shame on their enemies and tales of victimhood for their allies until no objection is heard, not even the most feeble ones.

In this context they're a bigger threat to freedom and society at large than their critics.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

comhcinc wrote: Meh I've been awake all night and I am grouchy.

How are you doing?

Awake all night as well, for the past 4/5 days. The pain is okay during the day, but it gets bad when I try to sleep, so I just nod on and off.

I had the same issue when I first injured my ankle. It's like you do these micromovments when you sleep. I never got use to, I just got into the habit of taking cat naps.

Bhurzum wrote:

Steersman wrote:In your fucking opinion. Which you've never had the balls to provide any credible evidence or argument that might justify it. You're welcome to do so of course. But most reasonable skeptics are likely to use that as evidence in itself that you're simply blowing smoke out of your ass.

I had actually prepared a response to comhcinc myself but thought better of it. Whenever I unscrew the top of my skull and allow the dull bulb within to shine forth, I tend to make an absolute arse of myself.

I actually wrote "Then take up your vorpal sword and slay that Jabberwock! Just make sure to show your workings when you do so."

Now you'll understand why I binned it.

Anyway, you've hammered the nail for me.

Oh, and comhcinc, sorry if my response seemed confrontational, it was written in haste. Dull bulb y'see :(

It's all cool.

Steersman wrote:

comhcinc wrote:Fuck that noise. I am not shaming anyone. Steersman is full of shit and a bigot.

In your fucking opinion. Which you've never had the balls to provide any credible evidence or argument that might justify it. You're welcome to do so of course. But most reasonable skeptics are likely to use that as evidence in itself that you're simply blowing smoke out of your ass.

Steersman has supplied the evidence himself. He's spent three years arguing for his God given right to call black people niggers, he defends each and every case of police killing black people and he wants Muslims forcefully expelled from his country.

If Steers isn't racist, who is?

Shatter face

Couch wrote:

comhcinc wrote:So an update on the job search. I had a really awesome interview last week with a place I really hopes hires me. I have a phone interview in about an hour at a place that I would not mind working at. I put in my resume at a law office looking for help, wrote a cover letter to go along with my awesome new resume (thanks couch) and while that might be a long shot I think if I could get in I can wow them with knowledge of basic contract law and pro wrestling.

If you'll excuse the double-negative, there is nothing in contract law that pro-wrestling doesn't prepare you for. :D

Hulk Hogan is suing gawker media over them releasing the sex tape.

So far the judge has ruled that him must use his real name but will be allowed to wear a plain bandana.

No word yet on what entrance music he will be allowed to use.

James Caruthers wrote:Your argument against Muslims is quite literally a white supremacist argument against black people.

I'm staying out of this mostly, but religion is not the same thing as race.

Being against detrimental cultural practices, such as religion-ordered violence, has nothing to do with physical features and is not racism.

Being against certain physical features (no matter what the culture or behaviours) IS racism.

I'm seeing the two things conflated a lot. I don't think there is anything wrong with having strong opinions against harmful cultural practices. I even think it's essential in order to improve the quality of life for everyone.

There is something wrong with being against certain physical attributes though. It's a very different thing.

Scented Nectar wrote:

James Caruthers wrote:Your argument against Muslims is quite literally a white supremacist argument against black people.

I'm staying out of this mostly, but religion is not the same thing as race.

Being against detrimental cultural practices, such as religion-ordered violence, has nothing to do with physical features and is not racism.

Being against certain physical features (no matter what the culture or behaviours) IS racism.

I'm seeing the two things conflated a lot. I don't think there is anything wrong with having strong opinions against harmful cultural practices. I even think it's essential in order to improve the quality of life for everyone.

There is something wrong with being against certain physical attributes though. It's a very different thing.

See?

This is why I started following you on YT.

Well, that and the coffee, the delicious (if slightly weapons-grade) coffee!

Scented Nectar wrote:

James Caruthers wrote:Your argument against Muslims is quite literally a white supremacist argument against black people.

I'm staying out of this mostly, but religion is not the same thing as race.

Being against detrimental cultural practices, such as religion-ordered violence, has nothing to do with physical features and is not racism.

Being against certain physical features (no matter what the culture or behaviours) IS racism.

I'm seeing the two things conflated a lot. I don't think there is anything wrong with having strong opinions against harmful cultural practices. I even think it's essential in order to improve the quality of life for everyone.

There is something wrong with being against certain physical attributes though. It's a very different thing.

You are right in that religion isn't a race, and mocking Islam, for example, or criticizing it, can never be argued to be "racist" even if the mockery is crude (like a crudely drawn cow-pig who represents Mohammed as a pedophile, for example).

But James' argument isn't that hatred of Islam is equivalent to hatred of black people. James (and I, incidentally) are arguing not against criticism and mockery of Islam, but against the illiberal principle of "collective guilt".

James rightfully points out that Steersman's argument for a "population transfer" is exactly the same argument used by anyone who ascribes the guilt of specific crimes committed by specific people to an entire group which happens to share a trait with the perpetrators.

The argument of "collective guilt" is always wrong, no matter who uses it against whomever: white supremacists use it against black people, Steersman uses it against Muslims, radfems use it against men.

We should prosecute and severely punish Muslim who commit crimes (any crimes, including stalking and actually harassing- not "Twitter harassing" people in the street), and do not excuse those crimes because of their religion or as payback against the "Evil West". We should also feel free to criticize that ideology with any means without caring about the fainting couch brigade ready to cry racism at the first argument which criticizes Islam.

What is morally wrong for us to do is to lump together all people, guilty or innocent of any crime, and expel them from a country or treat them as second-class citizens just because they share a trait with some criminals. It doesn't matter whether that trait is race, religion, gender, or even ideology.

Only people who have actually committed crimes should be treated as criminals. Even people who support or agree with criminals shouldn't be treated as criminals unless they actually took part in some criminal activity. Lumping together people for their beliefs regardless of what they've actually done is highly illiberal: it's engaging in "thoughtcrime prevention", just like the SJWs want to do.

Ideas can be bad, horrible, stupid, bigoted and such. They aren't crimes. Criticize Islam, mock it, point out how certain branches are better than others, call out Muslim people on hypocrisy. But if you criminalize Islam itself like Steersman, and not just the crimes committed in the name of Islam, you're behaving exactly like the authoritarian dictators that the SJWs wish to be.

Them Hare Krishna piss me off with their cymbals and bells and shit. Don't get me started on Zoroastrian's I piss on their fire!
That's my tuppence.
Come at me bros!

Kirbmarc wrote:The argument of "collective guilt" is always wrong, no matter who uses it against whomever: white supremacists use it against black people, Steersman uses it against Muslims, radfems use it against men.

I'll need to choose my words very carefully here, this will probably be misinterpreted due to my lousy powers of expression.

In short, I have one (tiny) issue with the above quote: the radical Muslims, the ones who use violence against non-military targets and have zero problem with murder, use the non-violent slice as camouflage. Not only that, the non-violent slice, due to Qur'anic dogma (please correct me if I'm wrong here!), are almost duty bound to stay silent in order to protect their Muslim brothers and/or sisters. I've heard lots of Muslims say this and state that regardless of their actions, they refuse point blank to "turn in" their fellow Muslims.

Within this context, it's almost understandable why some people might use the "population transplant" argument.

Fuck me, I'm going to be mauled for this but hopefully you guys 'n' gals "get" the point I'm trying to crudely make...

Bhurzum wrote:

Kirbmarc wrote:The argument of "collective guilt" is always wrong, no matter who uses it against whomever: white supremacists use it against black people, Steersman uses it against Muslims, radfems use it against men.

I'll need to choose my words very carefully here, this will probably be misinterpreted due to my lousy powers of expression.

In short, I have one (tiny) issue with the above quote: the radical Muslims, the ones who use violence against non-military targets and have zero problem with murder, use the non-violent slice as camouflage. Not only that, the non-violent slice, due to Qur'anic dogma (please correct me if I'm wrong here!), are almost duty bound to stay silent in order to protect their Muslim brothers and/or sisters. I've heard lots of Muslims say this and state that regardless of their actions, they refuse point blank to "turn in" their fellow Muslims.

Within this context, it's almost understandable why some people might use the "population transplant" argument.

Fuck me, I'm going to be mauled for this but hopefully you guys 'n' gals "get" the point I'm trying to crudely make...

You could make the exact same argument about non-violent fundamentalist Christians who refuse to turn in anti-abortionist terrorists. Or about black people who don't "snitch" on their neighbours. Or about police officers which do not feel like reporting their colleagues (the "blue wall of silence"). The list goes on.

Aneris wrote:By now PZ Myers sounds entirely like the Nazi “Wochenschau”...

https://archive.is/vJFrN

Re: Project “Save Space” in Eastern Europe, attacking poles over human races.

Open this thread and you see a tendentious black and white image of Mr Moosa, as if he not only quit Twitter but ended his life. PZ Myers writes pure propaganda. He not only largely leaves out why Mr Moosa found himself in a controversy, he invents new reasons: people drove him off because this is what evil does to good.

PZ Myers wrote:Our colleague here at FtB, Tauriq Moosa, had enough of the nonstop harassment on Twitter, and has left the medium. This is a real loss; his was an entertaining, humane, and vigorous voice, which is probably why the #GamerGate goons targeted him and did their damnedest to drive him offline. And they claim to be on the side of ethics…while Tauriq’s greatest crime was to write a balanced review of a game (he liked it, and also stated some of its problems with race) which prompted all these people who say they are trying to improve ethics in game journalism to stomp all over him. They couldn’t come up with any actual ethical issues, and really just didn’t like a review that treated a game as less than perfection.

You can learn more about the harrassment at The Mary Sue and Inquisitr. There is now a hashtag, #IStandWithTauriq, which the gamergaters are proudly trashing — they’re calling him a racist, comparing him to Hitler, making rape jokes, and when I checked in earlier, some vile scumbag was flooding it with racist cartoon porn, so be warned. As always, there are piles of gg assholes disingenuously claiming there was no harassment, under a hashtag that revels in flinging shit and immediately disproves their innocence.
Once again, I am appalled at how miserably repugnant some people can be.

The article by Tauriq Moosa shows perfectly why #GamerGate exist. Gamers, internationally, have to deal with postmodern identity bollocks and put up with Anglo-American racism which SJWs demand that it's also discussed in a Polish game. The project could have a catchy name like “creating safe space in the east” or so. Aren't there thousands of US titles good enough for it? So Europeans as per SJW cultural imperialism have to portray a US society at all times? Or what PoC are the correct ones? Right, dark skin colour = one identity, and they are all a racial Schicksalsgemeinschaft, like the Whites. Hence Poland must fulfill the assigned White People duty as well, despite the fact that especially the polish weren't seen as “white” and never had much a say in anything up until recently.

How was is in the golden olden days of the movement before Elevatorgate? Was the US secular movement always this way, that nobody was criticized for blatant propaganda?

I made this observation and subsequent argument, too. That the out-rage over the game was yet more American Cultural Imperialism enacted through the mechanism of applying American racial demographics toward a game set and developed in another country with the charge of 'racism' being applied.

I pointed out the demographics of Poland, in that time period used to build the environment was over 99% Pole & Rus with the balance being Lithuanian Tatars that had so inbred with the local population as to be racially indistinct.

I also pointed out that it was idiotic as attacking historical set-piece games, like Way of the Samurai (series), made in Japan which are full of Asian (Japanese) characters ...

This was, of course, dismissed as 'not convincing.' I pointed out that there was nothing that would be 'convincing' and the argument wasn't for HIM, but to show others what an ignorant, blathering fool the author was by talking out his ass about something of which he was not only supremely incompetent to talk about but how his political/social agenda has warped his brain to the point the basic facts of reality no longer hold sway over his thought-processes and how SJWs are simply a toxic cancer who will anything at anytime over their personal feelings of 'the Way Things Must Be.'

Then, of course, we had the complete melt down after being mocked on twitter over the whole 'PC Master Race' is 'White Racism.'

Kirbmarc wrote:

Bhurzum wrote:

Kirbmarc wrote:The argument of "collective guilt" is always wrong, no matter who uses it against whomever: white supremacists use it against black people, Steersman uses it against Muslims, radfems use it against men.

I'll need to choose my words very carefully here, this will probably be misinterpreted due to my lousy powers of expression.

In short, I have one (tiny) issue with the above quote: the radical Muslims, the ones who use violence against non-military targets and have zero problem with murder, use the non-violent slice as camouflage. Not only that, the non-violent slice, due to Qur'anic dogma (please correct me if I'm wrong here!), are almost duty bound to stay silent in order to protect their Muslim brothers and/or sisters. I've heard lots of Muslims say this and state that regardless of their actions, they refuse point blank to "turn in" their fellow Muslims.

Within this context, it's almost understandable why some people might use the "population transplant" argument.

Fuck me, I'm going to be mauled for this but hopefully you guys 'n' gals "get" the point I'm trying to crudely make...

I understand why some, even many people might come to agree with Steersman' ideas, but this doesn't make them right.

Being for secular, liberal democracy sometimes means making tough, potentially unpopular choices to stand for what you believe in and refuse to take authoritarian "shortcuts" just because they look appealing.

comhcinc wrote:

Steersman wrote:

comhcinc wrote:How about you read them first?

You and Caruthers, and no few others, seem to have some difficulty with the concept that one doesn't have to read and understand every last bit of a subject before being able to use effectively what one does know; that one doesn't need to be an automotive engineer to be able to check and replenish the oil. "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king".

Lol this is not the kingdom of the blind. You are surrounded by people who know more than you.

You seem to have difficulty with that concept.

If I ever need an expert on half ass theories supported by skimming summaries of information, I know the bigot to turn to.

Oh, snap!

Kirbmarc wrote:You could make the exact same argument about non-violent fundamentalist Christians who refuse to turn in anti-abortionist terrorists. Or about black people who don't "snitch" on their neighbours. Or about police officers which do not feel like reporting their colleagues (the "blue wall of silence"). The list goes on.

Yup, I get that. However, I'd be the first to criticize anyone who hid/protected a criminal regardless of flavor. Black, white, green, polka dot, whatever - we're all in this together.

Additionally, I'm the first to admit my relative ignorance of the subtlety and nuance at play. This is precisely why I enjoy this type of conversation and rabidly devour everything that's brought to the table. My logic may be flawed, my reasoning too simplistic but at least I'm trying!

Anyway, I'll continue to read the posts and hit the links you guys and gals throw up. What's the worst thing that could happen?

Bhurzum wrote:

comhcinc wrote:If I ever need an expert on half ass theories supported by skimming summaries of information, I know the bigot to turn to.

Sorry but it's starting to get slightly Atheism-plussy/FtBish around here; the above quote could have been penned by Peezus Christ himself.

Let Steers speak his mind, there's no need for shaming tactics.

This is the 'pit, right?


Disclaimer: I think he's wrong (for a variety of reasons) but still enjoy reading his views, thoughts and opinions.

/shrug

Poppycock. Shaming is, in fact, a normal, healthy social tool when used appropriately (and one you used implicitly in your post). Like any other social tool, it can be abused, especially if formalized into a legal code. It's also only (significantly) effective in small, tightly-knit social communities and breaks down in larger communities where anonymity can be (mostly) preserved.

And that is your basic Freshman-level Sociology 101 knowledge base. The Pit, btw, is exactly the kind of place where shaming is/can be an effective social tool. Even though you're trying to sabotage it while using it.

Steersman is shamed by being ignored and mocked within the community because with his idiocies, he's violating basic social norms. And the negative responses he gets to his regressive, moronic positions are absolutely normal, adult behavior on the part of the people doing it.

Steersman wrote:In your fucking opinion. Which you've never had the balls to provide any credible evidence or argument that might justify it. You're welcome to do so of course. But most reasonable skeptics are likely to use that as evidence in itself that you're simply blowing smoke out of your ass.

Turing fail.

Couch wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:

Couch wrote:
We've seen enough cases already of ASIO and the Government targeting someone where the case falls apart in court.

QFT. ASIO and the Government need more checks and balances, not less. What's happening now is a different set of challenges than was faced when current laws were drafted. But that whould precipitate the drafting of new laws subject to the usual judicial oversight and determination, not removal of the judiciary from the process.

It's populist knee-jerk politics which resonates with a not-insignificant part of the electorate, evidently including Brive.

When a dual national chooses to fight for a terror organisation our airforce is busy bombing with good reason. An organisation that epitomises everything vile and dangerous to our basic world view and chooses to do so despite having been issued clear warnings about the consequences. Well then that fool has made the decision for themselves.

All we need is a proper process to ensure we haven't misunderstood what they are yelling at us.

You sound like you might be wealthy enough to vote green? ;)

Ha!

I was only tugging your chain. And if you've worked for Morrison you've seen the downside of unreviewable administrative decision making.

I don't vote Green. I'm not attracted to single-issue parties, but I totes get their reason for being. The Greens here seem more about votes than workable policy - I don't know if that the situation elsewhere. My wife's mum is a big Greens supporter so I'm exposed to them through her. I'm very slightly heartened that they seem a lot less anti-science than they use de to be.

I've voted for both major parties, but predominantly Labor nationally and liberal (conservative) at the state level. I vote Independent for local government largely 'cause he's a mate...[/quote]

I knew Morrison for quite some time at v. close range. He made me sad. Now I get to see his face almost every night on the news.

I really hate voting for any party. At state level I last voted Fred Nile - but only to net off my youngish son's arrogant leftism. Ie I was pissing him off.

Thats what politics has been reduced to for me.

I didn't really think you were green, but its been awhile since Ive hurled the "rich enough ..." barb about. :mrgreen:

Jonathan Dimbleby has resigned his honorary position with UCL in response to their treatment of Tim Hunt.

Shatterface

Peez appears to be in denial thats Hunt's little lesson cost him his self respect, legacy and ongoimg relevance.

PZ is a cunt.