Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

[Søren Lilholt]

Seeing that (in my opinion) it's simply a sexual preference, I feel like I should be able to refuse participating in it. The question is, should I have to use female pronouns and welcome them as women in public bathrooms? Wouldn't that just be participating in their sexual fantasies? It's bugging me that I'm expected to participate in their let's-pretend sex thrill game. Nothing against the sexual preference, but I don't have to join in and play the let's pretend game too. What do others think?

Society is full of polite fictions – we know, for example, that some people are better looking than others and therefore have a much wider pool of potential mates. But we play along with the idea that there’s someone for everyone, that mate choice is entered into without any negative considerations – leading us to gloss over certain bleak truths about why two (perhaps less good looking) people might choose to get together, or why some people never find a partner.

Likewise with trans people: as decent people, we pay transsexuals the courtesy of treating them as members of their preferred gender. We refer to an MTF as ‘she’ not because we REALLY TRULY BELIEVE they are a woman, but because we want to support their choices and make them comfortable in society. Whereas SJW fucknuckles, with their ideologue black and white thinking, insist that we must overturn reality itself - so for example where there is a person who identifies as woman, has a beard and a penis and a female partner, his partner is a lesbian. (Because lesbians fancy women, amirite?)

This is the difference between a fiction and a lie. SJWs are scared by the nuance and uncertainty of fiction, so need things to be a lie because they can’t face the difficulty of an adult conversation. It isn’t sufficient that society treats trans people as their preferred gender in every way that matters – no, everyone must TRULY BELIEVE these people are ‘really’ their preferred gender, because otherwise that leaves open the possibility that they are not. And that is scary, hard and complicated: and life must never be scary, hard and complicated.

They are creationists, basically.

[Billie from Ockham]

It's like how speed traps don't actually keep people going the speed limit. They just catch people who are between the speed zones either speeding up for a faster speed zone or slowing down for the slower one. Because that's where the cops set up to write the maximum number of tickets and make the most money.

Speed traps are set by local governments, not police. Quotas are not set by police officers, but usually city or county council.

Not where I live. The locations for the red-light cameras were selected by the city council (with input from the company that makes and rents out the cameras), while the locations at which officers set up for "speed enforcement" is entirely determined by the police dept.

Linking back to the other topic, it was suggested (at a city council meeting) that fake cameras be put at other intersections, so people wouldn't know which had working cameras and which didn't. This idea was dropped when it was pointed out that the list of active locations would be subject to our open records law.

[fuzzy]

If my experience is relevant, Elyse will probably be able to plead to a lesser charge than assault, and if drugs were a part of the incident, she will be ordered to some kind of drug treatment, AA or the like. She might also get some combination of community service, probation, fines and a short (most likely suspended) jail sentence on top of that. Of course I don't know where she lives, and whether my experiences are unique to my friend, or the region he lives in.

You said a mouthful. The incident can easily be cast as general nuttiness plus a maladjustment of perfectly legal prescriptions, for which she is presumably already being seen by the doctor who wrote 'em. We know of no accompanying public intoxication charge. I'd almost wager a hot dog photographed between my oily moobs that she skates with reduced charges and no drug counseling.

[Tigzy]

I was in a relationship for a while with someone I later realized had borderline personality disorder (this was a couple of decades back before it was easy to search for this information on the internet). She was constantly creating drama, leaving jobs and courses, and causing havoc all around her. None of it was her fault of course - it was always someone else. The thing that made it almost most difficult for me was that she was always threatening suicide. I felt like I was keeping her alive by not doing what I should have done from the outset - leave the relationship.

Whoo - I hear ya bruh. Been there meself - one crazy, fucked-up bird. Causing havoc, blaming everybody else and the constant threats of suicide - yeah, I got that too. Now, maybe she did have BPD - I dunno, I'm not a psychologist - but she was very fucked up. I got the impression that she was somehow addicted to having crises - that in some weird way, she actually liked it when she could perceive things as going to shit all around her. Fucking weird. Thankfully, she eventually overplayed her hand and I was finally able to see what a ridiculous creature she was and dumped her fat, useless arse. But not before she'd put me well through the wringer, though. Jesus!

Anyways, Elyse is definitely cut from the same mould. Poor Honeybanders. Sure, call him a cuck if you like, but if Elyse is anything like the nightmare hosebeast I had to put up with, then she'll have a knack of sucking otherwise reasonable people into her supremely fucked-up little world, and get really fucking vicious with you if you try to get away from her. Also, the poor tosser has had kids with her - which probably seemed like a good idea at the time when he saw her as not a loon, but a delightful manic pixie dream girl - which means he'll never be able to have her completely out of his life. Who knows, maybe he sticks around for the sake of the kids and works towards protecting them from Elyse's worst excesses. Perhaps, in his own quiet way, Honeybanders is the hero in this. Who knows. But damn, I feel sorry for the poor sod. In him, I see what I would have been had I stuck around with that fucking nightmare with tits.

[John D]

If my experience is relevant, Elyse will probably be able to plead to a lesser charge than assault, and if drugs were a part of the incident, she will be ordered to some kind of drug treatment, AA or the like. She might also get some combination of community service, probation, fines and a short (most likely suspended) jail sentence on top of that. Of course I don't know where she lives, and whether my experiences are unique to my friend, or the region he lives in.

You said a mouthful. The incident can easily be cast as general nuttiness plus a maladjustment of perfectly legal prescriptions, for which she is presumably already being seen by the doctor who wrote 'em. We know of no accompanying public intoxication charge. I'd almost wager a hot dog photographed between my oily moobs that she skates with reduced charges and no drug counseling.

Hey Fuzzy... congrats on the return of "The Muppet Show". I always loved that show...and I hope the new version is just as full of stupid puns.

On another topic, my newly acquired shelter mutt, whom I now adore, has Kennel Cough. Damn... it's like having a child who is sick.... keeping us up all night, running to the vet, worrying. derf. He is on an antibiotic and under strict orders to not have any dogie visitors.

On the plus side, he is an awesome dog. He is house trained, walks well, seldom barks, loves to chase toys, and is very affectionate (without licking). He really is one of the best dogs I have known. I feel super lucky. I just can't imagine why he was sent to the shelter. Perhaps the prior owner had to move or got sick or something.

[James Caruthers]

Nope. I've seen it. I've been around it. I've seen the ones who can be saved and the ones who can't, who you can only wash your hands of. Her parent are washing their hands of her. This is a death spiral. As someone mentioned before, the doctors aren't helping her, they are her drug dealers. That's all she wants from them. Drugs. This is going on while she is living in her parents house. They've seen it and they've told her to get out. Things are about to get 100X more fucked up for her and people around her when this happens. You tell me how it ends when she is kicked out of her parents house. You have to save what you can save. The kids. Elyse is gone. Be sure to comment on how the grandparents are unfeeling uncaring assholes when they kick her out and go to court to keep the kids and what's left of the trainwreck is whining about her kids have been stolen from her. Poor poor fucking Elyse? Fuck that. Poor poor everyone else around her.

And the buddy I knew in high school who ended up stealing his parents retirement money to pay for his drugs? Yeah, I wish he had died before he did that. I know a lot of people who wish they had been his cause of death, including his brother. And I could tell you a lot of other stories about the poor poor druggies who only deserve our love and understanding. Fuck that. They are not victims. They are victimisers.

If you care about Elyse so much send money to her PayPal account or whatever she is setting up. Buy her more drugs. Be a part of her impending death. Tell her she's a victim. Enable her behavior. Me, fuck that, I'll send money to the account her grandparents set up for the kids.

I... Don't think I ever mentioned sending Elyse any money or enabling her. But there might be some wiggle room in between "giving Elyse money for drugs" and "just fucking die already you human piece of shit with a rusty porcupine up your ass."

But no. I was merely playing devil's advocate and you are correct.

At first, I thought that, perhaps, not every narcissist in the world was my personal NPD family member, and Elyse was not necessarily that same drug addict you knew back in the day. That the future was not written in stone. But I am wrong.

If you really wish, as you should, that people on downward spirals should be die before they can cause more harm, what keeps you from enacting that in reality? It can't be the moral argument. Most morality is a matter of relative help and harm, as you are explaining here. Under your logic, considering potential damage to the kids, it would be moral to kill Elyse and thus allow her children to be placed elsewhere. You would only accelerating Elyse's inevitable death and moving the children to a better living situation before they can witness the full degradation of their mother and any likely spillover onto themselves. Relying on the grandparents is an unwieldy solution, as they may die unexpectedly. It is, if anything, the highest moral good to kill (Elyse) in defense of innocent lives in this way.

Now do your patriotic duty and go kill a substance abuser today. The only way to rehabilitate a substance abuser on a downward spiral is with a bullet.

There comes a time, my friend, when we must all take up arms to defend what we believe in. You passionately believe that this is a death spiral. What can be the harm, therefore, in accelerating the death to preserve lives and suffering. Perhaps Elyse, in her spiral, may steal her parents' retirement money or push her children into sex work? You would be saving her children from rape and her parents from poverty.

[James Caruthers]

Fats, efficient body scan for everyone, à la Total Recall. That would be the more efficient solution. Sure, there might be minor problems like privacy and such, but that's the price to pay for safety.

Reminds me of a quote...

We already have body scanners that basically check you over in the nude to make sure your junk doesn't look too much like a box cutter.

[Lsuoma]

Don't see the connection. The student was right, sure, so what? And it's obvious that the instructor simply wanted the "threat" of a surprise quiz on the table so students would feel compelled to read all assignments (right up until he actually gave the quiz).

The randomness of the timing of the quiz is not analogous to the randomness of an airport screening because the contents of the quiz are not random (they will always be based on a reading assignment).

I thought that the purpose of airport screening was to detect objects that could be used to take over or destroy an airplane.

Yes. AND...?[/quote]
Yes and ho!

[Parody Accountant]

I think the kids are probably better-off with their mother. I don't think jail would improve her mentality. I think she'd come out of jail with even less regard for her own safety, less responsibility, less regard for right & wrong. (The only thing jail would help-- is with her retarded racial politics. She'd finally know what her non-white neighbors are like, instead of mistaking them for unicorns). I think the general public's idea of sentencing is way off. "6 months" & "a couple of years" are not light sentences. Think of it like warzone combat: A month of shooting is a lot of hell. I think encouraging her to drop dead brings shame to the person who says it, but I don't think it's murder to admit that's crossed your mind.

I've never used the word "cuck" in my life-- is it a unsympathetic synonym for abused husband? In porn it means a guy who likes his wife being with other men. If Honeybanders likes that, bully for them both, unless criminally framing other men is part of the fantasy. If Honeybanders wakes up today & wants to change everything, what are his options? If he 'takes the kids' she'll scream he's a kidnapping abuser & the system will listen. Where would he take them? His power to kick her out of her parents house might not exist. And he may be programmed by evolution and life in our society to have scant sense of purpose beyond selfless service to the woman he loves. (Or he may be a more selfish fuckup than she is, but I don't see evidence either-way.)

For all his save-the-world humanitarian bluster, I bet Pixlee is a self-centered gay stereotype; useless for babysitting 2 actual needy kids in a pinch. I don't think 'tough love' evicting them will teach anything useful, nor friends refusing to fund her. The profound overhaul she needs is only randomly available, dispensed by luck... there's no reliable source.

For what it's worth, I don't think she'll see jail for the assaults, and I would be surprised by that length of a sentence.

However, I was stating that if you could force sobriety on her and force her to deal with all the pains of life sober for 6 months MINIMUM for her to even begin to unfuck herself.

I'm only couching this under the impression that she could not get prescribed Xanax or benzos by prison staff. I can't imagine they'd be willing and able, but I don't know

A family member of mine has a serious drug problem and severe mental health issues, and has been in a very similar situation to Elyse. He got extremely wasted one night a couple years ago, drove, crashed into a work site (thankfully it was the middle of the night and no one was there) then he spit on one of the cops trying to take him in and got a felony assault charge on top of the OVI. I realize that this is an anecdote, but he didn't get any prison time. He's been in these sorts of messes a number of times, and the judges in his area of Ohio are pretty good about seeing that he needs help and not prison time.

If my experience is relevant, Elyse will probably be able to plead to a lesser charge than assault, and if drugs were a part of the incident, she will be ordered to some kind of drug treatment, AA or the like. She might also get some combination of community service, probation, fines and a short (most likely suspended) jail sentence on top of that. Of course I don't know where she lives, and whether my experiences are unique to my friend, or the region he lives in.

Its my understanding that prisons tend to have thriving black markets in any case, though, and not a very good option for getting someone clean. I also know that my friend has been to county before, and they let him have his Suboxone there, so they'd most likely do the same with Elyse and her Xanax. But that was also county, not the pen, and it was a prescription that he came in the door with. Refills are anyone's guess - IDK how they handle access to physicians in the system.

I see what you are saying. The bit about black markets I had thought about, but she doesn't strike me as able to earn favors or provide money

[James Caruthers]

I don't see the situation getting any better. You can only help someone so much and Elyse doesn't seem to want to admit any personal failings. All of her problems are things she thinks she can medicate.

SELF-medicate and yeah, that is a big problem. She is her own biggest obstacle to recovery.

I think even an armchair internet diagnosis of BPD/NPD is sounding pretty reasonable at this point. People with NPD seem to have an inability to recognize fault because it feels to them like they have zero worth as a human being if they admit fault. Or something like that. I don't really understand, although I have watched some interviews with narcissists. If someone does something better than them, then they feel like they are nothing. If someone does a thing right that they cannot do, they feel worthless. If someone shows them they are wrong, they feel like nothing. It invalidates them as people to accept blame-it's like they become less than human in their own eyes. Their ego is shattered.

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/narc ... tability-0

I realize it's nothing special to say so, but narcissists tend to be deeply insecure in many ways despite maintaining a very high opinion of themselves in general. I agree with the link that avoidance and strong boundaries are the best way to deal with a narcissist. Perhaps this is why things with Elyse have unfolded as they have.

Have you not dealt with a SO or close family member with bpd?

That shit gets real crazy, and stays there permanently

Yep. And Yep.

These days I try to understand how fucked up they are so it doesn't offend/enrage me personally so much when they act like assholes for no reason. Otherwise I'd probably be in prison. :lol:

I'm not saying Elyse's grandparents are wrong. Cutting 'em off is all you can do.

But I dunno about wishing anyone dead. My view is if you don't want it hard enough to do it yourself, you don't want it and shouldn't pretend.

I know it's hard to resist the call of the edgelord though. :lol: This is the Internet and I dunno about you, but I'm a navy seals special forces operator badass! :dance:

I think the best for Elyse would be a recovery program that keeps her out of jail and gives her some contact with her kids, which Banders could be taking care of along with perhaps those grandparents. Who might be extra-forgiving if they knew Elyse was in recovery and getting treatment. Jail wouldn't be good because Elyse could probably keep getting wasted in prison and become a hardened criminal in the process.

[Billie from Ockham]

Yes and ho!

I clearly should have replied that, as Laurie Anderson said so long ago: "here come the planes ... they're American planes ... smoking and non-smoking."

[Service Dog]

Greenwald... more Chomsky than SJW....civil libertarian, not authoritarian... SJW...

I think the idea that "Authoritarian" is the key component of "SJW" is inaccurate.

Another viewpoint, is Will Shetterly's analysis:

[1960's & 70's] Civil rights workers defined their causes by what they supported: equality, integration, peace. [Later] Social Justice activists define their causes by what they oppose: anti-racism, anti-war, anti-capitalism, etc.

2. Civil rights workers [ Unite ] humanity as brothers and sisters. Social justice activists divide humanity into groups based on physical or ethnic identity and their "allies".

3. Civil rights workers had goals that could be legally accomplished. Social justice activists bristle when asked what specific measures they support.

Going further than Shetterly I'd say:

A. it's not simply about being "pro-" or "anti-" =whatever=.
It's about being pro- or anti- treating-everyone-equally.
Because going beyond equal-treatment means contradicting the ideals of Western Democracy.

B. SJWs mistake a negative hate for their opponents for a positive love of their own partisans.


A & B aren't "authoritarian" or "anti-authoritarian". A. is about whether authority is applied selectively, playing favorites.
B. is a form of stinkin' thinkin', which screws-up a person's (or movement's) ability to think-straight. That may be used to justify authoritarian actions. But even a person who takes no authoritarian action can evangelize hateful nonsense, and it's still a problem.

Under Shetterly & my definition,Greenwald or Chomsky might still be SJWs, even-if they don't advocate coercive means.

[James Caruthers]

If someone does something better than them, then they feel like they are nothing. If someone does a thing right that they cannot do, they feel worthless. If someone shows them they are wrong, they feel like nothing. It invalidates them as people to accept blame-it's like they become less than human in their own eyes. Their ego is shattered.

Basically narcissists are just an exasperation of the human trait of saving face.

Face is a sense of worth that comes from knowing one's status and reflecting concern with the congruency between one's performance or appearance and one's real worth.

Positive face is "the positive consistent self-image or 'personality' (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants"
Negative face is "the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction—i.e., to freedom of action and freedom from imposition"

The problem with narcissists is that they cannot pick which "face" not to save when there is a "face-threatening" event, because they want to save both completely: they want complete freedom of action and a consistently positive self-image (including universal approval at any times).

Most human beings are able to make compromises and accept some partial loss of one face or the other, i.e. you either do some thing you don't want to do or accept that not everyone is going to like you and that you can fail badly because of something that is your fault. Narcissistic people can't.

Yeah, and when they feel trapped? That's when you gotta watch the fuck out because ANYTHING can happen.

[justinvacula]

New South Park episode makes fun of social justice warriors, 'check your privilege,' PC - quite on point:

Watch:




Hopefully not :nin: 'd

[Parody Accountant]

It's like how speed traps don't actually keep people going the speed limit. They just catch people who are between the speed zones either speeding up for a faster speed zone or slowing down for the slower one. Because that's where the cops set up to write the maximum number of tickets and make the most money.

Speed traps are set by local governments, not police. Quotas are not set by police officers, but usually city or county council.

Not where I live. The locations for the red-light cameras were selected by the city council (with input from the company that makes and rents out the cameras), while the locations at which officers set up for "speed enforcement" is entirely determined by the police dept.

Linking back to the other topic, it was suggested (at a city council meeting) that fake cameras be put at other intersections, so people wouldn't know which had working cameras and which didn't. This idea was dropped when it was pointed out that the list of active locations would be subject to our open records law.

Or easily inferred from internationally mapping where you got your ticket and Journaling each date and time. I also think habeas corpus and discovery make this conversation null as you said.

A wealthy individual or some one who doesn't b care to pay fines could map the whole thing and upload it to Facebook

[Parody Accountant]

If my experience is relevant, Elyse will probably be able to plead to a lesser charge than assault, and if drugs were a part of the incident, she will be ordered to some kind of drug treatment, AA or the like. She might also get some combination of community service, probation, fines and a short (most likely suspended) jail sentence on top of that. Of course I don't know where she lives, and whether my experiences are unique to my friend, or the region he lives in.

You said a mouthful. The incident can easily be cast as general nuttiness plus a maladjustment of perfectly legal prescriptions, for which she is presumably already being seen by the doctor who wrote 'em. We know of no accompanying public intoxication charge. I'd almost wager a hot dog photographed between my oily moobs that she skates with reduced charges and no drug counseling.

I'm Still mad. Commie is fucking up

[Tribble]

I still don't see what's wrong with the 50/50 random/targeted approach. The random element is retained, preventing terrorists from being able to game the system, but suspicious-looking people (whatever that entails) are still stopped and searched anyway.

Why not?

Because any deviation from randomness (whether it's 50% or even 1%) is exploitable. It's just math.

Imagine if you knew a roulette wheel was completely random 50% of the time but the other 50% of the time it was biased towards a section of the wheel. You can see right away that gamblers would take advantage of this. Same principle with terrorists.

They would prepare to exploit the 50% section of the system that wasn't random. If they are faced with the random section of the system they have no advantage. If they are faced with the non-random section of the system they gain an advantage.

100%* random is non-exploitable. They will face no advantage no matter what they do.

*Note that STRICTLY speaking nothing is ever truly 100% random but that's another issue altogether.

Two things:

1. It MIGHT be possible to exploit the system. But it doesn't mean that is possible to exploit the system or that the terrorists would know how to exploit the system. In short, your premise includes a posit of perfect information and the ability to act on it rationally. These posits are common flaws in both modeling and criticisms of modeling. We see this a lot in the (rather laughable) work done in supply-side economics and certain types of finance.

2. You're not considering the populations and resources. You had 762 million passengers in the US last year. You can't check them all. You can't even come close. By engaging in both profiling (higher likelyhood targets) and random selection (all targets regardless of likelyhood) you can simply utilize your resources to greater effect.

At this point I can see the shape of the answer in my mind. And it's obivous that under any sort of reasonable assumptoins that don't rely on highly unrealisitic (if not impossible) 'perfect information/perfect evasion' scenarios profiling will be a winning solution. It won't be perfect, people will still slip through and there will be, undoubtedly, false positives as well. Now, if I were doing a more formal argument I would do the math (with a wide number of assumptions) which would show that profiling would, at the worst of the likely assumptions (instead of the silly perfect information ones), be a zero sum game. But would more likely have a positive result than a negative result.

Now, beyond that, I don't see how any of this is going to really work. The whole process is complete shit:

Washington (CNN)The Department of Homeland Security said Monday that the acting administrator for the Transportation Security Administration would be reassigned, following a report that airport screeners failed to detect explosives and weapons in nearly every test that an undercover team conducted at dozens of airports.

According to a report based on an internal investigation, "red teams" with the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General were able to get banned items through the screening process in 67 out of 70 tests it conducted across the nation.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/ ... ing-tests/

June, 2015, and we still can't find jack shit. But we have to dump our perfume and honey in the trash... Fucking idiots.

So, to me, the whole argument might be interesting from a theoretical perspective. But it's a pointless argument because when you see the failure rate, you have to realize that 95% of the time, the terrorists are going to win the game.

[youtube]N3zKuLgH_l8[/youtube]

[youtube]0OYWYAJhxgE[/youtube]

[Parody Accountant]

SELF-medicate and yeah, that is a big problem. She is her own biggest obstacle to recovery.

I think even an armchair internet diagnosis of BPD/NPD is sounding pretty reasonable at this point. People with NPD seem to have an inability to recognize fault because it feels to them like they have zero worth as a human being if they admit fault. Or something like that. I don't really understand, although I have watched some interviews with narcissists. If someone does something better than them, then they feel like they are nothing. If someone does a thing right that they cannot do, they feel worthless. If someone shows them they are wrong, they feel like nothing. It invalidates them as people to accept blame-it's like they become less than human in their own eyes. Their ego is shattered.

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/narc ... tability-0

I realize it's nothing special to say so, but narcissists tend to be deeply insecure in many ways despite maintaining a very high opinion of themselves in general. I agree with the link that avoidance and strong boundaries are the best way to deal with a narcissist. Perhaps this is why things with Elyse have unfolded as they have.

Have you not dealt with a SO or close family member with bpd?

That shit gets real crazy, and stays there permanently

Yep. And Yep.

These days I try to understand how fucked up they are so it doesn't offend/enrage me personally so much when they act like assholes for no reason. Otherwise I'd probably be in prison. [emoji38]

I'm not saying Elyse's grandparents are wrong. Cutting 'em off is all you can do.

But I dunno about wishing anyone dead. My view is if you don't want it hard enough to do it yourself, you don't want it and shouldn't pretend.

I know it's hard to resist the call of the edgelord though. [emoji38] This is the Internet and I dunno about you, but I'm a navy seals special forces operator badass! :dance:

I think the best for Elyse would be a recovery program that keeps her out of jail and gives her some contact with her kids, which Banders could be taking care of along with perhaps those grandparents. Who might be extra-forgiving if they knew Elyse was in recovery and getting treatment. Jail wouldn't be good because Elyse could probably keep getting wasted in prison and become a hardened criminal in the process.

You're such a cunt . I love you though... Fucking stop saying edge lord you troll.

Shit probably got me doing it now

[John Greg]

James Carruthers asid:

I... Don't think I ever mentioned sending Elyse any money or enabling her.... [snipped]

I wholeheartedly agree with JC's sardonic, ironic, satiric, sarcastic repost to MacGruber I know everything there is to know about someon I've never met and the rest of the world too Knows.

Or something like that.

And if I am misreading Carruthers, then I wholeheartedly agree with my misinterpretation.

:snooty:

[John D]

Yes and ho!

I clearly should have replied that, as Laurie Anderson said so long ago: "here come the planes ... they're American planes ... smoking and non-smoking."

[youtube]0hhm0NHhCBg[/youtube]

[Parody Accountant]

I still don't see what's wrong with the 50/50 random/targeted approach. The random element is retained, preventing terrorists from being able to game the system, but suspicious-looking people (whatever that entails) are still stopped and searched anyway.

Why not?

Because any deviation from randomness (whether it's 50% or even 1%) is exploitable. It's just math.

Imagine if you knew a roulette wheel was completely random 50% of the time but the other 50% of the time it was biased towards a section of the wheel. You can see right away that gamblers would take advantage of this. Same principle with terrorists.

They would prepare to exploit the 50% section of the system that wasn't random. If they are faced with the random section of the system they have no advantage. If they are faced with the non-random section of the system they gain an advantage.

100%* random is non-exploitable. They will face no advantage no matter what they do.

*Note that STRICTLY speaking nothing is ever truly 100% random but that's another issue altogether.

Two things:

1. It MIGHT be possible to exploit the system. But it doesn't mean that is possible to exploit the system or that the terrorists would know how to exploit the system. In short, your premise includes a posit of perfect information and the ability to act on it rationally. These posits are common flaws in both modeling and criticisms of modeling. We see this a lot in the (rather laughable) work done in supply-side economics and certain types of finance.

2. You're not considering the populations and resources. You had 762 million passengers in the US last year. You can't check them all. You can't even come close. By engaging in both profiling (higher likelyhood targets) and random selection (all targets regardless of likelyhood) you can simply utilize your resources to greater effect.

At this point I can see the shape of the answer in my mind. And it's obivous that under any sort of reasonable assumptoins that don't rely on highly unrealisitic (if not impossible) 'perfect information/perfect evasion' scenarios profiling will be a winning solution. It won't be perfect, people will still slip through and there will be, undoubtedly, false positives as well. Now, if I were doing a more formal argument I would do the math (with a wide number of assumptions) which would show that profiling would, at the worst of the likely assumptions (instead of the silly perfect information ones), be a zero sum game. But would more likely have a positive result than a negative result.

Now, beyond that, I don't see how any of this is going to really work. The whole process is complete shit:

Washington (CNN)The Department of Homeland Security said Monday that the acting administrator for the Transportation Security Administration would be reassigned, following a report that airport screeners failed to detect explosives and weapons in nearly every test that an undercover team conducted at dozens of airports.

According to a report based on an internal investigation, "red teams" with the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General were able to get banned items through the screening process in 67 out of 70 tests it conducted across the nation.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/ ... ing-tests/

June, 2015, and we still can't find jack shit. But we have to dump our perfume and honey in the trash... Fucking idiots.

So, to me, the whole argument might be interesting from a theoretical perspective. But it's a pointless argument because when you see the failure rate, you have to realize that 95% of the time, the terrorists are going to win the game.

[youtube]N3zKuLgH_l8[/youtube]

[youtube]0OYWYAJhxgE[/youtube]

Not if you catch the ones who look moslum

[Parody Accountant]

John Greg how about poking in with an update / repost for those who have not been able to take action.

[James Caruthers]

John Greg is reading me correctly.

Usually I'm the know-it-all cunt being reminded I can't Clarissa Explain It All.

I do support murdering people who remind me of people from my past that I didn't like.

[Parody Accountant]

John Greg is reading me correctly.

Usually I'm the know-it-all cunt being reminded I can't Clarissa Explain It All.

I do support murdering people who remind me of people from my past that I didn't like.

Lulzy

[James Caruthers]

https://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Colds ... 913929.jpg

psssh...nothin personnel...Elyse...

[Tony Parsehole]

Worth a look.
http://www.everyjoe.com/2015/09/17/life ... r-users/#1

Today I learned if you type "thin" into tumblr's search bar this pops up:

http://cdn3.everyjoe.com/wp-content/upl ... g-okay.jpg

But if you type "obese" or "fat" you are directed to feeder and fat acceptance blogs, all in the name of "Body Positivity"

Very disturbing.

[Tony Parsehole]

In fact, I went back to the Tumblr search by and typed in “fat” and “obese” and didn’t get the same splash page asking if I needed help. I was actually greeted with suggestions for other search terms such as “plus size,” “curvy,” and “body positivity.” Typing in obese gave me similar options, including a suggested search for “feedee” which seems to be blogs dedicated to people who are fattened by “feeders.” Also, one of the top hits in the search lead to a fat man’s fat porn blog. This was with the adult filter turned on.

So what’s the message here? Fat good, skinny bad? Why suggest I need help when I type in words associated with fitness, but suggest I look at fetish blogs where people are fattening up others like some fairy tale witch? Acceptance?

[Bhurzum]

Noel Plum examines the recent Kate Brooks video on censorship. I don't always agree with Noel, that's why I love his videos, but he's on point with this one!

[youtube]Ivq3Ukpy0Co[/youtube]

[John D]

In fact, I went back to the Tumblr search by and typed in “fat” and “obese” and didn’t get the same splash page asking if I needed help. I was actually greeted with suggestions for other search terms such as “plus size,” “curvy,” and “body positivity.” Typing in obese gave me similar options, including a suggested search for “feedee” which seems to be blogs dedicated to people who are fattened by “feeders.” Also, one of the top hits in the search lead to a fat man’s fat porn blog. This was with the adult filter turned on.

So what’s the message here? Fat good, skinny bad? Why suggest I need help when I type in words associated with fitness, but suggest I look at fetish blogs where people are fattening up others like some fairy tale witch? Acceptance?

Doesn't everyone just use Tumblr for porn?

[Tribble]

John Greg how about poking in with an update / repost for those who have not been able to take action.

I just PM'd him. I never go back more than three pages when I'm behind.

[Scented Nectar]

Seeing that (in my opinion) it's simply a sexual preference, I feel like I should be able to refuse participating in it. The question is, should I have to use female pronouns and welcome them as women in public bathrooms? Wouldn't that just be participating in their sexual fantasies? It's bugging me that I'm expected to participate in their let's-pretend sex thrill game. Nothing against the sexual preference, but I don't have to join in and play the let's pretend game too. What do others think?

Society is full of polite fictions – we know, for example, that some people are better looking than others and therefore have a much wider pool of potential mates. But we play along with the idea that there’s someone for everyone, that mate choice is entered into without any negative considerations – leading us to gloss over certain bleak truths about why two (perhaps less good looking) people might choose to get together, or why some people never find a partner.

Likewise with trans people: as decent people, we pay transsexuals the courtesy of treating them as members of their preferred gender. We refer to an MTF as ‘she’ not because we REALLY TRULY BELIEVE they are a woman, but because we want to support their choices and make them comfortable in society. Whereas SJW fucknuckles, with their ideologue black and white thinking, insist that we must overturn reality itself - so for example where there is a person who identifies as woman, has a beard and a penis and a female partner, his partner is a lesbian. (Because lesbians fancy women, amirite?)

This is the difference between a fiction and a lie. SJWs are scared by the nuance and uncertainty of fiction, so need things to be a lie because they can’t face the difficulty of an adult conversation. It isn’t sufficient that society treats trans people as their preferred gender in every way that matters – no, everyone must TRULY BELIEVE these people are ‘really’ their preferred gender, because otherwise that leaves open the possibility that they are not. And that is scary, hard and complicated: and life must never be scary, hard and complicated.

They are creationists, basically.

I'm not sure where the line is between polite fiction and participating in someone else's lie in the case of trans-women. I understand making people feel comfortable in society - that's good, but at some point it crosses over to participating in their fantasies. Also, if pretending femaleness is part of someone's sexual fantasy, do I have to go along with calling them 'her' and 'she'? Do I have to call a trans-woman who sleeps with women and has a dick, a lesbian? It feels kind of like people are expected to participate in someone else's sex thrills or else they must be a bigot. I've nothing against sex thrills, but the participants should be consenting and there by choice. Just like it's wrong for a frottage fetishist to rub against nonconsenting subway riders. Nothing wrong with frottage, but the participants should be consenting and there by choice. It feels like participating in trans-womens' fantasy pronouns is a (perhaps milder) version of that.

[NoGodsEver]

I think we all understand what Elyse truly needs at this point. And that's a personal relationship with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I am almost not joking.

[deLurch]

John Greg how about poking in with an update / repost for those who have not been able to take action.

I just PM'd him. I never go back more than three pages when I'm behind.

Don't worry about John. He's just hanging around.

https://slimgur.com/images/2015/09/17/c ... e05072.jpg

[Billie from Ockham]

I think we all understand what Elyse truly needs at this point. And that's a personal relationship with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I am almost not joking.

I agree. I'd love to Jesus defend himself against a rape accusation.

[Old_ones]

Nope. I've seen it. I've been around it. I've seen the ones who can be saved and the ones who can't, who you can only wash your hands of. Her parent are washing their hands of her. This is a death spiral. As someone mentioned before, the doctors aren't helping her, they are her drug dealers. That's all she wants from them. Drugs. This is going on while she is living in her parents house. They've seen it and they've told her to get out. Things are about to get 100X more fucked up for her and people around her when this happens. You tell me how it ends when she is kicked out of her parents house. You have to save what you can save. The kids. Elyse is gone. Be sure to comment on how the grandparents are unfeeling uncaring assholes when they kick her out and go to court to keep the kids and what's left of the trainwreck is whining about her kids have been stolen from her. Poor poor fucking Elyse? Fuck that. Poor poor everyone else around her.

And the buddy I knew in high school who ended up stealing his parents retirement money to pay for his drugs? Yeah, I wish he had died before he did that. I know a lot of people who wish they had been his cause of death, including his brother. And I could tell you a lot of other stories about the poor poor druggies who only deserve our love and understanding. Fuck that. They are not victims. They are victimisers.

If you care about Elyse so much send money to her PayPal account or whatever she is setting up. Buy her more drugs. Be a part of her impending death. Tell her she's a victim. Enable her behavior. Me, fuck that, I'll send money to the account her grandparents set up for the kids.

I get that you have a history with someone who went through this shit, but I think your dichotomy about junkies being victimizers as opposed to victims is false. I think these people are actually both victims and victimizers.

I've lived through the same shit with the cousin I mentioned in my last post. He's a close friend of mine, and he's drained us of thousands of dollars (especially his parents) and put us through lots of sleepless nights. His parents have alternately kicked him out of the house and let him come back, he's been in and out of mental hospitals and jail. He's been in the same death spiral you are talking about for years, and he's literally died a couple times to boot. The thing is, he's mental and he's had serious traumas. He isn't a rational actor, in fact he goes through periods where he is completely psychotic, and he can't differentiate his psychoses from reality. So he didn't sit down one day and decide to become a heroin addict so that he could lose the ability to be responsible and fuck up the lives of the people close to him. It started as a release from the hell that was his life and mental illness, and it ended up owning him and contributing to the hellishness of his life. He did a lot to fuck us up, but he didn't do it with foresight or malice.

The other thing is that he actually seems to be pulling out of it now. He hit a low point in his life and finally decided to face his addiction. He's on opiate replacement therapy now, and he's been stabilizing for awhile. He doesn't do drugs that he isn't prescribed anymore, and he hasn't had an OD in months. He's even back in college, and just got his own apartment for the first time in forever.

Elyse isn't your addict or my addict, and I don't know much about her situation, because she doesn't interest me much. Honestly the amount of stuff on this site about her makes me a little uncomfortable, because I don't think her situation is any of my business. But that aside, I don't think her future is written in stone, and I don't think she is 100% victimizer. Yeah, it looks like she is putting her family through hell, and yeah she is probably going to get worse before she gets better. I don't think that necessarily means that she is going to die or that we should hope for her to die.

Personally, I hope she deletes her damn social media accounts and checks herself into rehab or some kind of a program, because she clearly needs serious help she isn't getting, and I don't think her vomit selfies are going to help her when and if she ever pulls out of this situation. The best thing for her family would be if she could pull herself together and become a functioning adult again.

tl;dr - I see your point of view, but I think you are being a little too harsh.

[fuzzy]

[...], he is an awesome dog. He is house trained, walks well, seldom barks, loves to chase toys, and is very affectionate (without licking). He really is one of the best dogs I have known. I feel super lucky. I just can't imagine why he was sent to the shelter. Perhaps the prior owner had to move or got sick or something.

I'm thinking of acquiring a dog in the vague future as I've not yet had my own in my adult life. In the past few years I got to know a couple of extraordinary old dogs pretty well.

On my other note, I have this very fancy sensitive CPAP and combo mask, not really feeling any silver bullets in the mornings but logging good hours and feel like day and night are separating; how tired one is is a subtle thing. I've also hit a magic weight number that I believe will scare me into action losing a few

[NoGodsEver]

I think we all understand what Elyse truly needs at this point. And that's a personal relationship with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I am almost not joking.

I agree. I'd love to Jesus defend himself against a rape accusation.

He raped my childhood and got off scot-free.

[Parody Accountant]

John Greg how about poking in with an update / repost for those who have not been able to take action.

I just PM'd him. I never go back more than three pages when I'm behind.

He posted right as I was typing that up.

Now it looks sarcastic. It was not

[Parody Accountant]

I think we all understand what Elyse truly needs at this point. And that's a personal relationship with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I am almost not joking.

It would be nice to excommunicate some people. Can we donate her to a relatively peaceful religion like jainism

[Parody Accountant]

I think we all understand what Elyse truly needs at this point. And that's a personal relationship with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I am almost not joking.

I agree. I'd love to Jesus defend himself against a rape accusation.

He raped my childhood and got off scot-free.

If God is everything, he's every rapist and victim.

Oh fuck my brain hurts now

[John D]

Seeing that (in my opinion) it's simply a sexual preference, I feel like I should be able to refuse participating in it. The question is, should I have to use female pronouns and welcome them as women in public bathrooms? Wouldn't that just be participating in their sexual fantasies? It's bugging me that I'm expected to participate in their let's-pretend sex thrill game. Nothing against the sexual preference, but I don't have to join in and play the let's pretend game too. What do others think?

Society is full of polite fictions – we know, for example, that some people are better looking than others and therefore have a much wider pool of potential mates. But we play along with the idea that there’s someone for everyone, that mate choice is entered into without any negative considerations – leading us to gloss over certain bleak truths about why two (perhaps less good looking) people might choose to get together, or why some people never find a partner.

Likewise with trans people: as decent people, we pay transsexuals the courtesy of treating them as members of their preferred gender. We refer to an MTF as ‘she’ not because we REALLY TRULY BELIEVE they are a woman, but because we want to support their choices and make them comfortable in society. Whereas SJW fucknuckles, with their ideologue black and white thinking, insist that we must overturn reality itself - so for example where there is a person who identifies as woman, has a beard and a penis and a female partner, his partner is a lesbian. (Because lesbians fancy women, amirite?)

This is the difference between a fiction and a lie. SJWs are scared by the nuance and uncertainty of fiction, so need things to be a lie because they can’t face the difficulty of an adult conversation. It isn’t sufficient that society treats trans people as their preferred gender in every way that matters – no, everyone must TRULY BELIEVE these people are ‘really’ their preferred gender, because otherwise that leaves open the possibility that they are not. And that is scary, hard and complicated: and life must never be scary, hard and complicated.

They are creationists, basically.

I'm not sure where the line is between polite fiction and participating in someone else's lie in the case of trans-women. I understand making people feel comfortable in society - that's good, but at some point it crosses over to participating in their fantasies. Also, if pretending femaleness is part of someone's sexual fantasy, do I have to go along with calling them 'her' and 'she'? Do I have to call a trans-woman who sleeps with women and has a dick, a lesbian? It feels kind of like people are expected to participate in someone else's sex thrills or else they must be a bigot. I've nothing against sex thrills, but the participants should be consenting and there by choice. Just like it's wrong for a frottage fetishist to rub against nonconsenting subway riders. Nothing wrong with frottage, but the participants should be consenting and there by choice. It feels like participating in trans-womens' fantasy pronouns is a (perhaps milder) version of that.

I have trouble wrapping my head around this whole thing. My daughter calls herself a she and is a pansexual polyamorous female. Okay... whatever. I can deal with this easy enough... she likes more than one long term sex partner and they can be male or female. No problem. When my daughters "heart-friend" comes to a family function they are just my daughter's good friend. I tell her "Just call her your friend... no one cares if you fuck.... I don't care who is fucking whom in my family.... it is no ones fucking business."

The challenge is that my daughters friend insists she is non-gendered. They believe this even though a baby popped out of their va-jay-jay and they have a two year old daughter. They look female. They have a female voice. They look a bit butch, but other than that, no one would think they are at all male. So, what I don't understand is why they think it is important for us to call them a them. How can this possibly affect my interaction with them. It has no value at all for me to call them a them. And fuck me.... how do you introduce "them" to 40 relatives at a family reunion. Should I really have to explain to 40 people I see twice a year that dumb-ass over here wants to to call them a "them." It is such a fucking downer. Please don't drag me into your personal "journey" every time I introduce you to someone. You look female, you have a female voice, you have a baby that came out of you, and you have a female name. What the fuck! Stop this fucking bullshit already. It is a drag to be with you even though I like you. You are FUCKING THIS UP!

[Matt Cavanaugh]

<snipped quotes>
This is literally the only reason you need to disagree with Harris about racial profiling:

It doesn't work.

http://www.lamberthconsulting.com/page/ ... oesnt-work

It's like any of the other bullshit police techniques that cops use which don't actually deter crime but do work wonderfully to harass the populace or engage a particular officer's personal bigotry against some minority group.

<snipped Youtube video>

That's what I was trying to argue.

You might find it interesting to read this 2012 article where an actual security expert explains in details why Harris' system for airport security doesn't work.

A sample quote:

Security is a trade-off, and requires some sort of cost-benefit analysis. What is the cost of your [Sam Harris'] security system? What are the benefits? What, exactly, is your correlation? (TSA screeners can’t sort based on religion; they have to sort based on something they can detect. And since there’s no such thing as “looking Muslim”—it’s a belief system, not an ethnic group—they’re going to sort on something like “looking Arab,” whatever that ends up meaning.) Then, you’re going to have to analyze the resulting security system. How does it work, and how does it fail? What’s the false-positive and false-negative rate? (You’ll have to do some theoretical analysis, at the very least refuting current research.) Can your system be gamed? (You’ll need some experimental data with real-world TSA agents in real-world conditions. The last thing we want is a security system that can be defeated with a bottle of blonde hair dye.)

Another interesting quote:

There are known European-looking Muslim terrorists. In Kip Hawley’s book, he mentions by name specific Muslim terrorists who were 1) actively plotting against airplanes, and 2) ethnically European. He writes about the Austrian Abdulrahman Hilal Hussein: “with his trim muscular build and light brown hair, Abdulrahman looked, talked, and acted like the other Austrian schoolchildren” and that he “resembled Nicholas Cage.” He writes about Fritz Gelowicz, a German who converted to Islam as a teenager: “A handsome boy, with light brown hair and fair skin, Fritz was indistinguishable from his peers in many ways.” I asked Hawley about profiling in a recent interview, and he said: “Profiling on the basis of LOOKS is terrible security. AQ has hundreds, literally, of agents selected specifically because they don’t look like young middle-eastern men.” When I pressed him, he added: “AQ has trained hundreds of western operatives, including from North America, of all ages, colors, genders, whatever—many of whom we know by real name, some only by nickname.”

Profiling based on appearances is only an open invitation for the terrorists to game the system. Terrorists WANT to game the system because their goal is to blow shit up and kill civilians. They're not young punks who want to signal that they belong to a crime gang to feel cooler than their peers and get "street cred" . They want to terrorize people by committing random, unexpected acts of violence. Anything that helps them to slip past the law enforcement radar is a bonus.

Random searches are much better as a deterrent. A wannabe terrorist, or a terrorist organization, know that there's no way to avoid them but luck. There's no way to game a random system.

You're arguing that, because certain criteria for profiling won't work or can be circumvented, no useful profiling criteria exist.

[RonSwanson]

Noel Plum examines the recent Kate Brooks video on censorship. I don't always agree with Noel, that's why I love his videos, but he's on point with this one!

...snip...

Good video. The motion "Should speech be free to offend?" isn't a motion SJWs are against. Not really. They are perfectly happy to offend their ideological enemies. In fact, it's encouraged that you offend the SJW enemies: white-cis-het-male-shitlords.

It's pure hypocrisy.

And yeah, the zero sum thinking of SJWs is frustrating. If they spent more time championing the voices of the powerless instead of trying to shut down the voices of the powerful they'd actually be doing some good.

[John D]

[...], he is an awesome dog. He is house trained, walks well, seldom barks, loves to chase toys, and is very affectionate (without licking). He really is one of the best dogs I have known. I feel super lucky. I just can't imagine why he was sent to the shelter. Perhaps the prior owner had to move or got sick or something.

I'm thinking of acquiring a dog in the vague future as I've not yet had my own in my adult life. In the past few years I got to know a couple of extraordinary old dogs pretty well.

On my other note, I have this very fancy sensitive CPAP and combo mask, not really feeling any silver bullets in the mornings but logging good hours and feel like day and night are separating; how tired one is is a subtle thing. I've also hit a magic weight number that I believe will scare me into action losing a few

My wife is doing well with her CPAP. I have some advice.... never sleep without it... not even naps. When my wife takes a nap on the couch she just gets the shitty half sleep. It makes her less able to sleep properly since she has been half sleeping for a while. Naps are fine.... just make sure you use the machine.

Good luck with the weight loss. It sometimes helps people sleep better too. I had some good luck with a fasting diet where I ate normally 5 days a week and ate just 600 calories for two days (not contiguous days). But... each to their own. Few people like my fasting diet.

[Scented Nectar]

I think we all understand what Elyse truly needs at this point. And that's a personal relationship with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I am almost not joking.

I agree. I'd love to Jesus defend himself against a rape accusation.

He raped my childhood and got off scot-free.

That's nothing. He raped his own mom once, back when she was still a virgin!

[Steersman]

If someone does something better than them, then they feel like they are nothing. If someone does a thing right that they cannot do, they feel worthless. If someone shows them they are wrong, they feel like nothing. It invalidates them as people to accept blame-it's like they become less than human in their own eyes. Their ego is shattered.

Hey steersman watch how I reply.

Thanks. that was a well articulated post. I found it persuasive.

Thanks; that was a well articulated post, although not particularly persuasive. :-)

For one thing, you may not have noticed but many of my comments, recent ones in any case, are relatively short if not entirely "sweet". And, for another, I don't always aim for being a man of few words, but when I elaborate, with many qualifications and 8x12 photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, I try to make them all count. ;-)

TL;DR: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

[Parody Accountant]

Hey steersman watch how I reply.

Thanks. that was a well articulated post. I found it persuasive.

Thanks; that was a well articulated post, although not particularly persuasive. :-)

For one thing, you may not have noticed but many of my comments, recent ones in any case, are relatively short if not entirely "sweet". And, for another, I don't always aim for being a man of few words, but when I elaborate, with many qualifications and 8x12 photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, I try to make them all count. ;-)

TL;DR: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Jesus Christ you would reference Arlo Guthrie and his long ass song.

And yes I noticed, buddy. Keep it up. You're still a cunt

[Scented Nectar]

Society is full of polite fictions – we know, for example, that some people are better looking than others and therefore have a much wider pool of potential mates. But we play along with the idea that there’s someone for everyone, that mate choice is entered into without any negative considerations – leading us to gloss over certain bleak truths about why two (perhaps less good looking) people might choose to get together, or why some people never find a partner.

Likewise with trans people: as decent people, we pay transsexuals the courtesy of treating them as members of their preferred gender. We refer to an MTF as ‘she’ not because we REALLY TRULY BELIEVE they are a woman, but because we want to support their choices and make them comfortable in society. Whereas SJW fucknuckles, with their ideologue black and white thinking, insist that we must overturn reality itself - so for example where there is a person who identifies as woman, has a beard and a penis and a female partner, his partner is a lesbian. (Because lesbians fancy women, amirite?)

This is the difference between a fiction and a lie. SJWs are scared by the nuance and uncertainty of fiction, so need things to be a lie because they can’t face the difficulty of an adult conversation. It isn’t sufficient that society treats trans people as their preferred gender in every way that matters – no, everyone must TRULY BELIEVE these people are ‘really’ their preferred gender, because otherwise that leaves open the possibility that they are not. And that is scary, hard and complicated: and life must never be scary, hard and complicated.

They are creationists, basically.

I'm not sure where the line is between polite fiction and participating in someone else's lie in the case of trans-women. I understand making people feel comfortable in society - that's good, but at some point it crosses over to participating in their fantasies. Also, if pretending femaleness is part of someone's sexual fantasy, do I have to go along with calling them 'her' and 'she'? Do I have to call a trans-woman who sleeps with women and has a dick, a lesbian? It feels kind of like people are expected to participate in someone else's sex thrills or else they must be a bigot. I've nothing against sex thrills, but the participants should be consenting and there by choice. Just like it's wrong for a frottage fetishist to rub against nonconsenting subway riders. Nothing wrong with frottage, but the participants should be consenting and there by choice. It feels like participating in trans-womens' fantasy pronouns is a (perhaps milder) version of that.

I have trouble wrapping my head around this whole thing. My daughter calls herself a she and is a pansexual polyamorous female. Okay... whatever. I can deal with this easy enough... she likes more than one long term sex partner and they can be male or female. No problem. When my daughters "heart-friend" comes to a family function they are just my daughter's good friend. I tell her "Just call her your friend... no one cares if you fuck.... I don't care who is fucking whom in my family.... it is no ones fucking business."

The challenge is that my daughters friend insists she is non-gendered. They believe this even though a baby popped out of their va-jay-jay and they have a two year old daughter. They look female. They have a female voice. They look a bit butch, but other than that, no one would think they are at all male. So, what I don't understand is why they think it is important for us to call them a them. How can this possibly affect my interaction with them. It has no value at all for me to call them a them. And fuck me.... how do you introduce "them" to 40 relatives at a family reunion. Should I really have to explain to 40 people I see twice a year that dumb-ass over here wants to to call them a "them." It is such a fucking downer. Please don't drag me into your personal "journey" every time I introduce you to someone. You look female, you have a female voice, you have a baby that came out of you, and you have a female name. What the fuck! Stop this fucking bullshit already. It is a drag to be with you even though I like you. You are FUCKING THIS UP!

It gets ridiculous. But, no matter how ridiculous, you're the bigot if you don't remember and use their preferred pronoun genders.

Today, I identify as a microscopic mite. My pronouns are itchy, dust-dweller, and scabie's (that last one is not spelled wrong - it's my possessive pronoun!).

[Parody Accountant]

I'm not sure where the line is between polite fiction and participating in someone else's lie in the case of trans-women. I understand making people feel comfortable in society - that's good, but at some point it crosses over to participating in their fantasies. Also, if pretending femaleness is part of someone's sexual fantasy, do I have to go along with calling them 'her' and 'she'? Do I have to call a trans-woman who sleeps with women and has a dick, a lesbian? It feels kind of like people are expected to participate in someone else's sex thrills or else they must be a bigot. I've nothing against sex thrills, but the participants should be consenting and there by choice. Just like it's wrong for a frottage fetishist to rub against nonconsenting subway riders. Nothing wrong with frottage, but the participants should be consenting and there by choice. It feels like participating in trans-womens' fantasy pronouns is a (perhaps milder) version of that.

I have trouble wrapping my head around this whole thing. My daughter calls herself a she and is a pansexual polyamorous female. Okay... whatever. I can deal with this easy enough... she likes more than one long term sex partner and they can be male or female. No problem. When my daughters "heart-friend" comes to a family function they are just my daughter's good friend. I tell her "Just call her your friend... no one cares if you fuck.... I don't care who is fucking whom in my family.... it is no ones fucking business."

The challenge is that my daughters friend insists she is non-gendered. They believe this even though a baby popped out of their va-jay-jay and they have a two year old daughter. They look female. They have a female voice. They look a bit butch, but other than that, no one would think they are at all male. So, what I don't understand is why they think it is important for us to call them a them. How can this possibly affect my interaction with them. It has no value at all for me to call them a them. And fuck me.... how do you introduce "them" to 40 relatives at a family reunion. Should I really have to explain to 40 people I see twice a year that dumb-ass over here wants to to call them a "them." It is such a fucking downer. Please don't drag me into your personal "journey" every time I introduce you to someone. You look female, you have a female voice, you have a baby that came out of you, and you have a female name. What the fuck! Stop this fucking bullshit already. It is a drag to be with you even though I like you. You are FUCKING THIS UP!

It gets ridiculous. But, no matter how ridiculous, you're the bigot if you don't remember and use their preferred pronoun genders.

Today, I identify as a microscopic mite. My pronouns are itchy, dust-dweller, and scabie's (that last one is not spelled wrong - it's my possessive pronoun!).

I identify as trans-cis, and if I flip a coin it better fucking land on its edge, because I can't make heads or tails of jack shit

[dog puke]

I think we all understand what Elyse truly needs at this point. And that's a personal relationship with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I am almost not joking.

Yep, I get that too. What a world we live in.

[Scented Nectar]

I identify as trans-cis, and if I flip a coin it better fucking land on its edge, because I can't make heads or tails of jack shit

Hey, I've heard of you! You made portable radios and computers possible. You were a major technological turning point. I for one, am very happy you're a trans-cis-ter. :)

[Steersman]

<snip>
Thanks; that was a well articulated post, although not particularly persuasive. :-)

For one thing, you may not have noticed but many of my comments, recent ones in any case, are relatively short if not entirely "sweet". And, for another, I don't always aim for being a man of few words, but when I elaborate, with many qualifications and 8x12 photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, I try to make them all count. ;-)

TL;DR: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Jesus Christ you would reference Arlo Guthrie and his long ass song.

:lol: Fond memories of hearing that the first time - at the on-campus residences at University, many moons ago: it came on the radio just before lunch hour so I had to listen to it all the way to the end which delayed my heading out to the cafeteria by some 15 or 20 minutes. Amusing to see a whole bunch of other people making a beeline in the same direction at the same time as they had done so as well.

And yes I noticed, buddy. Keep it up. You're still a cunt

Puh-leeze. That's "Official Slyme Pit Cunt" to you - buddy. ;-)

[Steersman]

I identify as trans-cis, and if I flip a coin it better fucking land on its edge, because I can't make heads or tails of jack shit

Hey, I've heard of you! You made portable radios and computers possible. You were a major technological turning point. I for one, am very happy you're a trans-cis-ter. :)

:lol: :clap: :clap: :lol:

[John Greg]

Status Update

Hi gang.

Here's a general update as to the status of The John Greg PayPal Life Support System.

I've met my goal to pay my overdue taxes (with some leftover for ISP and phone -- my work tools), and so, as soon as I file, I won't have to worry about the CRA descending on me like a raving raging hyena, and pilfering any prepaid monthlies.

I am, however, still short of my goal for rent, emergencies, and other essentials.

As I mentioned earlier, I am still worried about the future and my place in it, but thanks to you fine folk, the immediate wolf is held back from the immediate door, and I'm no longer quite so despairing and in panic.

Cheers to you all!
__________________

So, for anyone who may not have seen it yet, a truncated repost:

The John Greg PayPal Life Support System

I have decided to take the advice of many Pit pals, and start a PayPal account so that anyone who wants to help me get through my current crisis can donate (lump sum, or monthly).

My money/work crisis that has led to despair/depression; a crisis revolving around being homeless and living on the street in just a few month's time. I am simply terrified of that. At my age, it is a slow and painful early death sentence. And I will not live on the street. I won't; I can't.

So, if you would like to contribute, please PM me, and I'll give you my email address for the PayPal account -- given the recent influx of rather hostile trolls, I would rather not post that in the open.

[dog puke]

I agree. I'd love to Jesus defend himself against a rape accusation.

He raped my childhood and got off scot-free.

That's nothing. He raped his own mom once, back when she was still a virgin!

Yeah, but that was before she was his mom so you can't accuse him of incest or anything. 8-)

[Parody Accountant]

You guys today I was pondering my pronouns and I thought about how racist all the other words are. I was at the post office transitioning, and I felt all neo. neo natal, and neo matrix. So I pregamed my appetizers with pills and started a parenting advice blog. I helped others with my struggles, so I better keep having struggles so I can help more people. why do people make that so hard for me? I wish these assholes would just leave me alone! They don't call me, which is proof they hate me. I should call them and tell them not to call me ever again!

[dog puke]

He raped my childhood and got off scot-free.

That's nothing. He raped his own mom once, back when she was still a virgin!

Yeah, but that was before she was his mom so you can't accuse him of incest or anything. 8-)

Dear colleagues,

Fuck me and my privilege - I forgot that he is retroactive incestuous rapist.

Title IX, y'all.

[Parody Accountant]

Good to hear jg, thanks for the update

[Scented Nectar]

He raped my childhood and got off scot-free.

That's nothing. He raped his own mom once, back when she was still a virgin!

Yeah, but that was before she was his mom so you can't accuse him of incest or anything. 8-)

But he's all-knowing and timeless, so I think it still counts as incest. Plus, all humans are his children, so that's double incest.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

I still don't see what's wrong with the 50/50 random/targeted approach. The random element is retained, preventing terrorists from being able to game the system, but suspicious-looking people (whatever that entails) are still stopped and searched anyway.

Why not?

Because any deviation from randomness (whether it's 50% or even 1%) is exploitable. It's just math.

Imagine if you knew a roulette wheel was completely random 50% of the time but the other 50% of the time it was biased towards a section of the wheel. You can see right away that gamblers would take advantage of this. Same principle with terrorists.

They would prepare to exploit the 50% section of the system that wasn't random. If they are faced with the random section of the system they have no advantage. If they are faced with the non-random section of the system they gain an advantage.

100%* random is non-exploitable. They will face no advantage no matter what they do.

*Note that STRICTLY speaking nothing is ever truly 100% random but that's another issue altogether.

The arguments against profiling by appear to based more on the realistic financial cost that can be borne in incorporating it into the strategy than on effectiveness. I can't help but feel there is an element of hand waving in this assertion that random searches are a deterrent when it comes to suicidal Islamists. On the contrary, it does away with the need for the rather difficult task of recruiting anomalous Jihadis and beating the profilers. It places the advantage squarely with a committed group of Jihadis if it is reduced to a numbers game. Simultaneously send in a number of people at different locations and success is practically a given. It is hard to believe that a suicide bomber is going to be devoid of behavioural signs that a decent profiler could spot such as extreme anxiousness, odd lack of affect, forced casualness or any one of a number of mismatches between appearance and behaviour. It brings to mind the case of a British agent caught by the Gestapo because he glanced the wrong way when crossing the road. The profiling does not have to be perfect, it just has to raise the odds of catching someone above pure chance. As I said, the obstacle to adding profiling on top of random screening appears to be a financial one. How can it be a good thing that the only thing stopping a lone wolf Islamist suicide bomber whose profile practically screams danger is pure chance?

As far as the Harris Schneier thing is concerned, I think they are both wrong. Harris is unwilling to concede the practical difficulties of implementing profiling and Schneier overplays the deterrent effect of random searches to zealots with deathwishes. The cost of failure to people with expendable operatives is presumably low. I also think that Schneier is very pedantic in insisting that ethnic and behavioural profiling are distinct and that the discussion be limited to ethnic. The congruity between the two profiles is going to be far more informative than assessing them in isolation, which would perhaps negate some of Schneier's arguments against profiling. Further, I don't think that Harris ever called for exclusive use of profiling, only ethnic profiling, exclusion of non-Muslims or much of the other straw being stacked on him. His central point was always that the largest threat of SUICIDE BOMBING, by far, comes from Islamists and pretending that a caucasian family BEHAVING exactly like a caucasian family on holiday is indistinguishable as a threat (by the system in place) from a lone sweating Pakistani is nuts. The current system (as presented to the public) is an admission that the resources aren't there to implement effective security.

The vitriol Harris gets over this is odd, but sadly expected, considering that he is one of the few people willing to enter into a civil exchange with his critics and even invites Schneier to link to sources for his arguments.