Fucking hell. I support equal rights for women obviously, and I am a SJW, obviously, 8-) but this girl is just retarded and now I remember why I don't like her. Oh and BTW, that time Anita said "everything is sexist and you need to point it all out," she was talking about the time after she had recently become a feminist and she acknowledged she was being fucking annoying.
So you're defending "Anita" again? When is it she stopped being fucking annoying? You really have a boner for these youtube feminists. :think:
Parody Accountant wrote:That was really sad, Cuntajus. Crazy how kinda racist it got from the group. Roma is a word for gypsy right?
Apparently either gypsy and/or someone who is Romani.
Romani
1. A member of a people that arrived in Europe in migrations from northern India around the 14th century, now also living in the Americas and Australia. Many Romani groups have preserved elements of their traditional culture, including an itinerant existence and the Romani language. Also called Roma.
Aneris wrote:The question is about who determines what words mean, and the prescriptivist view would posit that authorities do. Since this is not the entire story, someone like Jason Thibeault can wedge himself in and declare that he doesn't care about that, and this is not entirely false. Hence I mentioned it.
Dictionaries tend to lag behind usage because they are an attempt to record how words are used. The 'authority' of a dictionary comes from word usage: if the dictionary definition abs the use definitions conflict people will carry on using a word the way they have always done whatever the dictionary says.
The problem with Thibeault and his ilk is they dismiss dictionary definitions out of hand I n order to give the impression that the words they want to redefine are actually being used differently than in the dictionary when they are not.
Fucking hell. I support equal rights for women obviously, and I am a SJW, obviously, 8-) but this girl is just retarded and now I remember why I don't like her. Oh and BTW, that time Anita said "everything is sexist and you need to point it all out," she was talking about the time after she had recently become a feminist and she acknowledged she was being fucking annoying.
So you're defending "Anita" again? When is it she stopped being fucking annoying? You really have a boner for these youtube feminists. :think:
I'm putting the quote in context because I'm tired of seeing people who didn't watch the interview mention that quote in a context as if Anita was proscribing that behavior when she was actually laughing at herself.
Aneris wrote:The question is about who determines what words mean, and the prescriptivist view would posit that authorities do. Since this is not the entire story, someone like Jason Thibeault can wedge himself in and declare that he doesn't care about that, and this is not entirely false. Hence I mentioned it.
Dictionaries tend to lag behind usage because they are an attempt to record how words are used. The 'authority' of a dictionary comes from word usage: if the dictionary definition abs the use definitions conflict people will carry on using a word the way they have always done whatever the dictionary says.
The problem with Thibeault and his ilk is they dismiss dictionary definitions out of hand I n order to give the impression that the words they want to redefine are actually being used differently than in the dictionary when they are not.
Thibeault et al were the gang that wanted Ophie to give a yes/no answer to the 'are transwomen women' question right?
Would her reply have fulfilled the dictionary definition of 'yes' or 'no'?
I am currently reading Mark Forsyth's book 'The Elements of Eloquence' An absolutely brilliant piece on rhetoric. It's funny and thought provoking and each chapter is roughly a turd and a squeeze in length. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Aneris wrote:The question is about who determines what words mean, and the prescriptivist view would posit that authorities do. Since this is not the entire story, someone like Jason Thibeault can wedge himself in and declare that he doesn't care about that, and this is not entirely false. Hence I mentioned it.
Dictionaries tend to lag behind usage because they are an attempt to record how words are used. The 'authority' of a dictionary comes from word usage: if the dictionary definition abs the use definitions conflict people will carry on using a word the way they have always done whatever the dictionary says.
The problem with Thibeault and his ilk is they dismiss dictionary definitions out of hand I n order to give the impression that the words they want to redefine are actually being used differently than in the dictionary when they are not.
Indeed. Of maybe some interest, my several comments there under the handle of Steppenwolf - which that rather poisonous tranny "Xanthiosa" blew the whistle on. Of maybe some particular interest, my comment to Giliell on the question of definitions:
Steppenwolf (#34) wrote:Giliell, @21:
Steppenwolf: And most salient of those is the fact that some 49% of the population happen to be able to produce ova – aka, women – while another 49% happen to be able to produce sperm – aka, men.
Giliell: … This little “aka” you’re doing is a grouping done by people. There is no direct link from “produces sperm” to “man” or “produces ova” to “woman”. Those terms have been defined and redefined throughout time and place ….
This is very important. Whatever definition you use for “man” or “woman”, “male” or “female”, those definitions are socially constructed and subject to change. This does not erase the fact that some people produce sperm and other people produce ova.
Yes, I quite agree with you that “there is no direct link” between the labels and the defining attributes, and that they are “socially constructed and subject to change”. However, I think that that rather flagrantly if not disingenuously ignores the rather crucial question as to why we we create definitions and dictionaries in the first place – you maybe think it is just for “artistic expression” or job security?
While I’m certainly no lexicographer, I kind of get the impression that there’s some utilty and value in the process, and that the primary component seems to be to provide a compendium of what are virtually a set of conventions or labels or handles on a diverse spectrum of objects and concepts. You might ask yourself how we would deal with something as simple as “Fred left the house and drove his car to the store” if we didn’t have a common understanding of what each of those labels referred to or entailed. Maybe, “Fred left the [rectangular assembly of wood & stone with doors, windows and an roof] and drove his [electromechanical system consisting of 4 wheels, a drive train, and an engine] to the [place where people sell a diverse range of goods and services]”? Would get a little tedious, at best, and after a very short time. ....
And my final parting shot to Jason which is, of course, unlikely to see the light of day:
Steppenwolf wrote:Jason, @35:
So little “courage in your convictions” that you have to ban me instead of actually trying to refute my supposedly “disingenuous argumentation”? Which I note you let stand until you had enough evidence to convict me through guilt by association.
As for “back the fuck out of their spaces”, I’m reminded of Bill Maher’s quip that Muslims just want to be left alone to abuse their women. You maybe think that the depredations of the Saudis against women and atheists will come to an end without confronting them?
jimthepleb wrote:I am currently reading Mark Forsyth's book 'The Elements of Eloquence' An absolutely brilliant piece on rhetoric. It's funny and thought provoking and each chapter is roughly a turd and a squeeze in length. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
jimthepleb wrote:I am currently reading Mark Forsyth's book 'The Elements of Eloquence' An absolutely brilliant piece on rhetoric. It's funny and thought provoking and each chapter is roughly a turd and a squeeze in length. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
They are very short, aren't they? You must have a high-fibre diet.
jimthepleb wrote:I am currently reading Mark Forsyth's book 'The Elements of Eloquence' An absolutely brilliant piece on rhetoric. It's funny and thought provoking and each chapter is roughly a turd and a squeeze in length. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Hint, hint; a word to the wise? :-)
But sounds like a good recommendation.
Nah Steers if I want to be rude to you I'm just rude. As I hope you are to me. The pit and YouTube comments sections are the two 'safe' spaces where I don't feel the need to compose, consider and edit my mental diarrhoea. Elsewhere I try to maintain some decorum. Oh and excepting Disqus, cos fuck Disqus.
Tigzy wrote:Steersman - did the ladyboy Lovecraft (Xanthiosa) offer a mild dox by using your apparent RL name there?
Not exactly or not entirely - Melby & I have exchanged first names on Sinmantyx which I expect Xanthiosa saw there and decided to use to twist the knife.
Tigzy wrote:Steersman - did the ladyboy Lovecraft (Xanthiosa) offer a mild dox by using your apparent RL name there?
Not exactly or not entirely - Melby & I have exchanged first names on Sinmantyx which I expect Xanthiosa saw there and decided to use to twist the knife.
jimthepleb wrote:I am currently reading Mark Forsyth's book 'The Elements of Eloquence' An absolutely brilliant piece on rhetoric. It's funny and thought provoking and each chapter is roughly a turd and a squeeze in length. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
They are very short, aren't they? You must have a high-fibre diet.
A single push and squeeze per chapter. 5 chapters per poo. (On average... Billie from Ockham I don't want the maths done.)
Tigzy wrote:Steersman - did the ladyboy Lovecraft (Xanthiosa) offer a mild dox by using your apparent RL name there?
Not exactly or not entirely - Melby & I have exchanged first names on Sinmantyx which I expect Xanthiosa saw there and decided to use to twist the knife.
Cool. Oh, and -
[.youtube]yq0BITsiqQg[/youtube]
Don't see what the intent of that skit is - how the term relates to the actions, although I see that "ladyboys" has a clear definition - learn something new everyday:
Kathoey or katoey (Thai: กะเทย; rtgs: Kathoei [kàtʰɤːj]) is a Thai term that refers to either a transgender woman or an effeminate gay male in Thailand. A significant number of Thais perceive kathoeys as belonging to a third gender, including many kathoeys themselves .... The word kathoey is of Khmer origin.[2] It is most often rendered as ladyboy or lady boy in English conversation with Thais and this latter expression has become popular across Southeast Asia.
I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE
James Caruthers wrote:"Interview" well I guess it was more of a panel, whatever.
OK. What panel? Got a link and a timestamp? You could just be trolling or edgy/contrarian again, so. :character-ariel:
[youtube]\mHDbZ2hHtlg[/youtube]
6:40 you dense fucker. She says she was "the most obnoxious person to be around" right after she became a feminist and started pointing out how sexist everything was.
So this is a clear case of Anita's critics LYING about her.
Parody Accountant wrote:I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE I WANT THE MATHS DONE
I don't mind the maths, but I'm glad Mykeru is not around to provide the video with VoiceOver.
"You are not a slave to your attack. You are not required to respond in a "right" way. For everyone it is different. Put the script away. Survive however you need to survive. Just survive."
SO FUCK YOU PARENTS. IM SURVIVING! STOP MAKING ME A SLAVE TO MY ATTACK. THIS IS JUST ME SURVIVING.
THIS WINE? THESE PILLS? THE SCREAMS? THESE PILLS? THE BLOOD? THESE CREAMS AND OINTMENTS? THE MESS? THESE PILLS?
James Caruthers wrote:[youtube]mHDbZ2hHtlg[/youtube]
6:40
Go on, call me a white knight. Just shows you have no argument.
Golly carrruthers sounds like I hit a sore spot. :P
You stood for your sweetie, and even gave proof that she said that but you still haven't bothered to mention who and where she was given this grave injustice.
At any rate, if anything she is more obnoxious now than when she made that statement.
You need to listen to the wisdom of your beloved too. "The more you think you are not bewitched by her charms, the more you actually are."
:romance-heartbeating: :romance-heartbeating: :romance-hearteyes:
What makes me pissed off isn't that it's Anita or any feminist, it's that people are being lied about on the motherfucking Pit of all places and I can't clear up the lie without this partisan bullshit.
I swear, I could post a pack of outright lies here and as long as it was about a feminist, plenty of people would swallow it whole with no need for citations or evidence.
James Caruthers wrote:What makes me pissed off isn't that it's Anita or any feminist, it's that people are being lied about on the motherfucking Pit of all places and I can't clear up the lie without this partisan bullshit.
I swear, I could post a pack of outright lies here and as long as it was about a feminist, plenty of people would swallow it whole with no need for citations or evidence.
Again who said it where? How do we know it's a lie until you tell us what was said?
James Caruthers wrote:What makes me pissed off isn't that it's Anita or any feminist, it's that people are being lied about on the motherfucking Pit of all places and I can't clear up the lie without this partisan bullshit.
I swear, I could post a pack of outright lies here and as long as it was about a feminist, plenty of people would swallow it whole with no need for citations or evidence.
Why don't you just answer the question though? I didn't see where it was claimed she was lying either... I believe you, but it was not a bad question man.
One of those terms has a technical meaning and the other does not, so, no, they aren't the same thing. However, by the common use of "available" (subject to endless argument, I'm sure), the two exist in a hierarchy, in that a drug will not be available unless it has an approved use. One step further: in practice, the two terms are actually roughly equivalent, as I can't imagine a drug company not immediately making a drug available once it has approval. If there is an example of a prescription drug that was "sat on" after being approved, I'd be delighted to learn of it.
Hmm. I've got to ponder that. I can see some holes, or weaknesses in your argument, but also some clarifications from it to mine. Specifically, I am referring to the term "available" as in commercially available -- available and on sale to the public.
I can think of several reasons why a company might hold back on placing a product on the market for immediate sale, and instead hold back. I mean, let's, please, not pretend that drug companies are in anyway whatsoever moral and/or ethical entities whose primary concern is the immediate welfare of the public. Such naivety boons no-one.
I can only post hypotheticals though, simply because, having once done some medical research, the amount of work (and time) involved to actually research the tens of thousands of drugs over the last several decades, for whichever ones may or may not have been held back from immeditate commercial sale to await improved market position, etc., etc., etc., is just too daunting.
So, I will ponder up a few hypotheticals, and get back to you. For now, it's nap time.
Hope you have/had a nice nap.
I, too, can think of reasons why a drug company might hold a drug back; I've just never heard of one doing so.
James Caruthers wrote:What makes me pissed off isn't that it's Anita or any feminist, it's that people are being lied about on the motherfucking Pit of all places and I can't clear up the lie without this partisan bullshit.
I swear, I could post a pack of outright lies here and as long as it was about a feminist, plenty of people would swallow it whole with no need for citations or evidence.
Why don't you just answer the question though? I didn't see where it was claimed she was lying either... I believe you, but it was not a bad question man.
James Caruthers wrote:I'm putting the quote in context because I'm tired of seeing people who didn't watch the interview mention that quote in a context as if Anita was proscribing that behavior when she was actually laughing at herself.
My take away from that quote isn't that she is proscribing that people need to point out everything is sexist and everything is racist. It is the fact that she views everything as sexist and everything as racist.
James Caruthers wrote:I'm putting the quote in context because I'm tired of seeing people who didn't watch the interview mention that quote in a context as if Anita was proscribing that behavior when she was actually laughing at herself.
My take away from that quote isn't that she is proscribing that people need to point out everything is sexist and everything is racist. It is the fact that she views everything as sexist and everything as racist.
It is her world view that people see as absurd.
Eh, somewhere in the middle for me. It's clear she was describing her first year as annoying to others, and describes the change away from pointing out sexism everywhere all the time as a positive or progressive thing. It's also clear that her world view didn't change at all, and that she does still SEE everything as racist and sexist. The only difference now is that $he choo$e$ which battle$ to fight.
jimthepleb wrote:I am currently reading Mark Forsyth's book 'The Elements of Eloquence' An absolutely brilliant piece on rhetoric. It's funny and thought provoking and each chapter is roughly a turd and a squeeze in length. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
They are very short, aren't they? You must have a high-fibre diet.
A single push and squeeze per chapter. 5 chapters per poo. (On average... Billie from Ockham I don't want the maths done.)
How about a "classic," then?
Did you hear about the constipated mathematician?
He worked it out with a pencil-thin skank named Elyse who then posted it on YouTube.
James Caruthers wrote:What makes me pissed off isn't that it's Anita or any feminist, it's that people are being lied about on the motherfucking Pit of all places and I can't clear up the lie without this partisan bullshit.
I swear, I could post a pack of outright lies here and as long as it was about a feminist, plenty of people would swallow it whole with no need for citations or evidence.
Gee Caruthers. Now where did you learn the idea that lying to people is OK in order to get what you want.
James Caruthers wrote:What makes me pissed off isn't that it's Anita or any feminist, it's that people are being lied about on the motherfucking Pit of all places and I can't clear up the lie without this partisan bullshit.
I swear, I could post a pack of outright lies here and as long as it was about a feminist, plenty of people would swallow it whole with no need for citations or evidence.
I disagree. One of the things I like best about the Slymepit is that its members piss me off by insisting upon treating opponents in a relatively fair fashion. Just look at what we've been since FTB collapsed. We have largely argued with each other about stupid shit and insisted upon evidence and hoped Elyse would be tranquilized by Dr. Drew and taken to the set of next season's Insane Person Rehab.
Parody Accountant wrote:Eh, somewhere in the middle for me. It's clear she was describing her first year as annoying to others, and describes the change away from pointing out sexism everywhere all the time as a positive or progressive thing. It's also clear that her world view didn't change at all, and that she does still SEE everything as racist and sexist. The only difference now is that $he choo$e$ which battle$ to fight.
Yep. That's my read of what she said, too. She did not change her view at all; she just learned to be a little less annoying.
Really? wrote:Just look at what we've been since FTB collapsed. We have largely argued with each other about stupid shit and insisted upon evidence and hoped Elyse would be tranquilized by Dr. Drew and taken to the set of next season's Insane Person Rehab.
Parody Accountant wrote:Eh, somewhere in the middle for me. It's clear she was describing her first year as annoying to others, and describes the change away from pointing out sexism everywhere all the time as a positive or progressive thing. It's also clear that her world view didn't change at all, and that she does still SEE everything as racist and sexist. The only difference now is that $he choo$e$ which battle$ to fight.
Yep. That's my read of what she said, too. She did not change her view at all; she just learned to be a little less annoying.
That's what she said. I still say she is more annoying than ever but is more skillful at using passive-aggressive tactics to shame people into not calling out her annoying behavior.
Parody Accountant wrote:Eh, somewhere in the middle for me. It's clear she was describing her first year as annoying to others, and describes the change away from pointing out sexism everywhere all the time as a positive or progressive thing. It's also clear that her world view didn't change at all, and that she does still SEE everything as racist and sexist. The only difference now is that $he choo$e$ which battle$ to fight.
Yep. That's my read of what she said, too. She did not change her view at all; she just learned to be a little less annoying.
That's what she said. I still say she is more annoying than ever but is more skillful at using passive-aggressive tactics to shame people into not calling out her annoying behavior.
Apologies. I should have written that she thinks that she's learned to be less annoying, as I agree that she's much worse. But anyone who kept listening after, e.g., "the myth of men being physically stronger than women" deserves all the pain that she dishes out.
So Elyse is hosting a party this weekend in Chicago with her SJW enablers. The Facebook chatter informs us that all sorts of things will be shaved, some by means of Internet financing. I will be interested in discovering if any of her fellow hyphenated beasts will see the pills and the booze and the crying and the laughing and the bruises, finally realize that they did in fact help create a monster, and tap out early. But I doubt it - these people are self-selected, and invested. They bought plane tickets for this shit.
The high point of #smashparty2015 will doubtless be all the smashing. I do look forward to Elyse smashing all of her Surly-Ramics, although it must be noted that those things might have some minimal value, and it probably makes sense for Banders to Ebay them for a few bucks (I'm sure Elyse is incapable of even that - much easier to smash them). They were stupid purchases to begin with - even when Banders had one of his call center jobs, it's doubtful that, with the two kids and all, a proper budget could have made room for handmade anything.
Yet, we all know that the subsequent downhill slope will be steep and bouldery. Substances will be consumed, joy will be expressed, darker emotions will be vented, ulterior motives will be detected, and teams will be formed. Regardless of how things play out, the end result will be a police intervention and the airbnb host throwing them out on the street. I just wish they had a live cam.
SJWwatchdog wrote:I'm new here ... I enjoy this site!
So Elyse is hosting a party this weekend in Chicago with her SJW enablers. The Facebook chatter informs us that all sorts of things will be shaved, some by means of Internet financing. I will be interested in discovering if any of her fellow hyphenated beasts will see the pills and the booze and the crying and the laughing and the bruises, finally realize that they did in fact help create a monster, and tap out early. But I doubt it - these people are self-selected, and invested. They bought plane tickets for this shit.
The high point of #smashparty2015 will doubtless be all the smashing. I do look forward to Elyse smashing all of her Surly-Ramics, although it must be noted that those things might have some minimal value, and it probably makes sense for Banders to Ebay them for a few bucks (I'm sure Elyse is incapable of even that - much easier to smash them). They were stupid purchases to begin with - even when Banders had one of his call center jobs, it's doubtful that, with the two kids and all, a proper budget could have made room for handmade anything.
Yet, we all know that the subsequent downhill slope will be steep and bouldery. Substances will be consumed, joy will be expressed, darker emotions will be vented, ulterior motives will be detected, and teams will be formed. Regardless of how things play out, the end result will be a police intervention and the airbnb host throwing them out on the street. I just wish they had a live cam.
Welcome and fuck off indeed.
I do wonder how much of what you say is real and how much is satire. I don't know. Could Elyse's shitty friend really be so shitty that they are spending money to fly in to pour tequila down her throat? Why not send her that airfare money for rehab? That's what a friend would do.
