Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

Old subthreads
Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22381

Post by Really? »

Ape+lust wrote:So the smash party is an actual party and not just a hashtag?

That's a woman who knows how to work a grudge :shock:

http://imgur.com/WpFAHbe.jpg
Those things are thirty dollars apiece! She should sell them on SJWbay and go to rehab!

Not that I don't respect her massive level of spite.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/451665 ... pect-o.gif

Billie from Ockham
.
.
Posts: 5470
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22382

Post by Billie from Ockham »

Parody Accountant wrote:http://i.imgur.com/y7TokAW.png
This is one of the most outrageous 'shoops that I ever seen on this site. By the definition provided to us by Laci Green (who seems to have put on a few pounds), it achieves the status of "problematic."

Anita's beta white knights do not fuck from behind, standing up, in what appears to be a kitchen.

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22383

Post by deLurch »

Ape+lust wrote:Dang, shoops galore today.
Awesome :D
It has been a while. What is the method for your madness when it comes to keeping and organizing the components of your shoops. On occasion I find it useful to redo one.

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22384

Post by AndrewV69 »

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.
You left out the part where Elyse gets raped.

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22385

Post by Ape+lust »

Really? wrote:
Ape+lust wrote:So the smash party is an actual party and not just a hashtag?

That's a woman who knows how to work a grudge :shock:

http://imgur.com/WpFAHbe.jpg
Those things are thirty dollars apiece! She should sell them on SJWbay and go to rehab!

Not that I don't respect her massive level of spite.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/451665 ... pect-o.gif
Yeah, no kidding. Most people would chill for a little while if it meant a few hundred bucks in pocket. And per usual, Useless Hubby will stand by and watch cheer, though his family needs cash right now.

SJWwatchdog
.
.
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:36 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22386

Post by SJWwatchdog »

There's a Facebook group called:
FUCK SOCIETY'S PATRIARCHAL EXPECTATIONS: a smash-it-all party

No satire here. These people are beyond satire.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22387

Post by Service Dog »

deLurch wrote: "Having sex with girls you don't like"
[youtube]czt1KHs12yA[/youtube]
I think you guys overlooked the crucial thing about that video.
Roosh says 6 out of 7 women he sleeps with... he dislikes so much
that drinking copious alcohol is required to even tolerate them.
And afterwards, he feels unfulfilled, empty, regretful.

What does he suggest: growing & realizing that sex without a deeper personal connection isn't worth chasing for hours in annoying bars.

What does he NOT AT ALL suggest: Claiming that he was a victim, blaming the other person, failing to take responsibility for his choices, pretending he didn't consent, retroactively withdrawing consent, blaming the alcohol, accusing the other person of rape, calling the cops, or demanding new laws to protect himself.


For me, the uncanny thing about the video was how-much it mirrored a conversation with my Yom Kippur 9/22 date; who told me that she had finally deleted Tinder because of a bad date, weeks ago. In her case, the revolving-door-sex with strangers was made tolerable, not by alcohol, but by getting kinky. She went-along with the Bad Date's domination fantasy: wearing a schoolgirl skirt, "calling him Daddy", "choking on his cock'. This matches my Tinder dating... and I had already concluded that young girls today are willing to do shit like that because it's a surefire way to =feel something=, when the impersonal one-time sex makes feeling attachment, love, desire... too painful to be worth-it; or when not-knowing a partner means you don't know the subtle things that get them off.

Again, to my friend's credit: she didn't say she was raped, victimized, needed new laws, or police help, or a global cultural change. She just decided to Stop Doing That, because it wasn't enough fun.

You guys made fun of Roosh, but he's not obsessed with proving his prowess or the 'notch count' on his belt. He's not stuck in perpetual adolescence. Doesn't clutch pearls. He's speaking like a 30 year old jewish woman with a graduate degree and a white collar union career.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22388

Post by Really? »

Billie from Ockham wrote:
Parody Accountant wrote:http://i.imgur.com/y7TokAW.png
This is one of the most outrageous 'shoops that I ever seen on this site. By the definition provided to us by Laci Green (who seems to have put on a few pounds), it achieves the status of "problematic."

Anita's beta white knights do not fuck from behind, standing up, in what appears to be a kitchen.
Yeah, this is bullshit. So Anita is supposed to make Captain Picard a sandwich while she's getting buttfucked? This is a clear part of Patriarchy and I'm so glad Google Ideas has supported her successful attempt to start a discussion without a response to her discussion.

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22389

Post by deLurch »

SJWwatchdog wrote:There's a Facebook group called:
FUCK SOCIETY'S PATRIARCHAL EXPECTATIONS: a smash-it-all party
No satire here. These people are beyond satire.
https://web.archive.org/save/_embed/htt ... 316921785/

Benzos, Booze, Black outs, and the self proclaimed Beyonce of Rape. What could possibly go wrong.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22390

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Service Dog wrote:
You guys made fun of Roosh, but he's not obsessed with proving his prowess or the 'notch count' on his belt. He's not stuck in perpetual adolescence. Doesn't clutch pearls. He's speaking like a 30 year old jewish woman with a graduate degree and a white collar union career.
A video I made a few years ago during the deer rut. Kind of on topic.
[youtube]OOOdZuzVH_c[/youtube]

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22391

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Ignore that. Somehow the video isn't working.

MacGruberKnows
.
.
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22392

Post by MacGruberKnows »

Someone needs to go on Elyse's facebook post about having her butthole waxed and say something about 'there are a lot of buttholes on this page getting waxed.'

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22393

Post by Tigzy »

deLurch wrote:
SJWwatchdog wrote:There's a Facebook group called:
FUCK SOCIETY'S PATRIARCHAL EXPECTATIONS: a smash-it-all party
No satire here. These people are beyond satire.
https://web.archive.org/save/_embed/htt ... 316921785/

Benzos, Booze, Black outs, and the self proclaimed Beyonce of Rape. What could possibly go wrong.
Also, if anyone cares to check out the FB page of Elyse's hubby - poor woebegone schleb that he is - you'll see he's just come out as bisexual.

Personally, I think he's gone full gay - let's face it, a decade or two living with and shagging that demented bag of tripe would be enough to turn any red-blooded bloke onto the virtues of manluv - but Stockholm Syndrome means he still has to keep something available for the missus.

I've just had a horrible thought - that Honeybanders and 'family friend' Sasha Pixlee might actually be lovers! It could, after all, go some way to explaining why Sasha just happened to be there when he and Honeybanders turned up and bravely let Elyse's rapist get away.

Hmmm...
Sasha just happened to be there when he and Honeybanders turned up and bravely let Elyse's rapist get away.
Christ, these people are fucked up aren't they. I mean, you see that and it really hits you. Jesus Christ.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22394

Post by James Caruthers »

deLurch wrote:
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.
She's not saying that at all though. If your opinion is that she thinks everything is sexist and racist, that's fine. But what she's actually saying is that she became a feminist and then was a gigantic pain in the ass to everyone around her because suddenly she saw all this sexism and racism and had to go around pointing it out. She's having a laugh at herself and the person she used to be. Of all the things Anita has said, it's definitely one of those that makes me hate(fuck) her less.

You're welcome to think whatever you wish about how she views the world, but people use that specific quote to say that Anita is telling feminists that "you have to point it all out" which is a lie. People pull that quote out of its context to lie about Anita. AKA "lying for antifeminism" which is as annoying to me as "lying for peezus."

[youtube]PL2Zmye3BkY[/youtube]

You can just type the quote into google to find a wealth of idiots taking it out of context.

The comments to the video I linked give numerous examples of antifeminists/anti-SJWs saying "oh, so you're saying, Anita, that everything is sexist and we should all point it out."

I brought the whole thing up in the first place because we were talking about Lacie Green and I think I saw someone mentioning Anita as well in the same context, as if what Lacie was saying is what Anita says too, and I wanted to clarify that Anita has a very popular quote which people pull out of context, which actually implies that she does NOT agree with that approach to feminism. She thinks it is very obnoxious.

Clearly, whether she actually is or not, she believes she is doing something different.

Or at least that's what she tells me every night.



Here's another example, although it got a decent response:
The context of that statement is that it is talking about the phase one goes through when first learning about feminist approaches to studying social systems. When first finding the view of society as systems, a sort of radical phase happens where everything is a problem and the overwhelming surge of awareness brings with it a need to share that view with others. She goes on to say that after that phase comes a better understanding and control over the ideas.

This does seem to happen, and I wouldn't say it is limited to feminisms. There are testimonies of MRAs that talk about how they started reading up on men's issues and they started to see the issues everywhere. It is an issue when more people fail to move out of that phase and the movement becomes defined by that sort of way of looking at things.
She actually talks about the need to take a larger and less individualistic approach to sexism when having feminist discussions. So it is not so much about calling an individual person a sexist or a non-sexist but examining systems which she believes contribute to sexism. Not about casting blame but examining systems. And I believe she has made it explicit that she thinks it's totally fine to enjoy something you think is sexist. She even talked about the Bechdel Test one time and reiterated that the test does not determine the quality of a film.

I do not like Anita, but I would like to make the case here that, aside from being a great fuck, there is a bit more context to many of the things people attribute to her or say that she believes. Her video series is still shit, but many of the responses are so pathetic and dishonest that they force me to tentatively take her side (even though I prefer to fuck from the rear, as the candid photographs show.)

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22395

Post by Ape+lust »

deLurch wrote:
Ape+lust wrote:Dang, shoops galore today.
Awesome :D
It has been a while. What is the method for your madness when it comes to keeping and organizing the components of your shoops. On occasion I find it useful to redo one.
HAW! I don't. I mean, I've tried, and there are a few musty cubbyholes where I've stowed stuff for future use, but never revisited. My organizing skills suck.

I do, though, have a collection of folders for the baboons. Everybody has a folder for just their images. So, if I decide to shoop PZ today, I don't have to search the net, I've got 3 years of his mug already stowed.

Beyond that, I don't have a whole lot more. I've got some odds and ends stashed, usually objects that look like they're aching to be used in something, but I don't know what at the moment.

I do, of course, have all of my previous creations stowed in folders. Those often will have objects I gathered but didn't include in the final pic. Oddly, I find it's easier to rummage through those than a dedicated repository. I'll need, say, a guitar, and I'll flash on the times I used guitars, and know where to look for them. So in a way, I do have an inventory, but it's far from organized and depends on my lousy memory :D

So in short, when I make a shoop, I grab someone's image from my collection, trawl through Google Images for components, and/or augment what I've found with leftovers from earlier projects. That's how it works for me most of the time.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22396

Post by Service Dog »

Jack Wooster wrote:
paddybrown wrote:I believe I can add another characteristic to my previous attempts to define the Social Justice Warrior, one that probably gets closer to the heart of the phenomenon: seeking personal advantage through emotional blackmail.
That pretty much hits the nail on the head.
Individuality was lionized in the 20th Century: mechanization allowed freedom from toil, urbanization allowed individuals to re-invent themselves outside their place of origin, medical advances freed women from having tons of kids or dying in childbirth, popular culture and commerce expanded self-customization, individual rebellion, individual spiritual beliefs, a prolonged teen/youth development period... all that stuff.

20th Century civil rights struggles waved the Individuality flag... freedom, independence, personal achievement, equality of opportunity, elimination of castes.

BUT... be careful what you wish for.

A level playing field for all Individuals... means sacrificing the power of being part of a group.
Women who wanted a chance to compete like men... didnt necessarily want to surrender the perks of being one-of-the-girls.

Racial minorities have to choose between being 'true' to their group/ vs. individuality which may break the mold of Mass Identity.

What Paddy calls SJWs 'winning advantage through emotional blackmail', can be seen as wanting groupwide protection. OR wanting individual protection to be provided by an external group, such as legal protection from the State. Either way, singing the tune of the self-made Individual renegade is in conflict with seeing the power & safety of the herd.

A hero rescues himself. A damsel calls for reinforcements to do her dirty work.

SJWs try to win individual freedom thru group-conformist means.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22397

Post by James Caruthers »

My eyes are white in photographs because I sold my soul to Anita. Good of the photographer to catch that.

MacGruberKnows
.
.
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22398

Post by MacGruberKnows »

deLurch wrote:
SJWwatchdog wrote:There's a Facebook group called:
FUCK SOCIETY'S PATRIARCHAL EXPECTATIONS: a smash-it-all party
No satire here. These people are beyond satire.
https://web.archive.org/save/_embed/htt ... 316921785/

Benzos, Booze, Black outs, and the self proclaimed Beyonce of Rape. What could possibly go wrong.
A PARTY SPONSORED BY FEMINIST INDIGNATION AND FRIENDSHIP!!
Make your travel plans. Pack your old shit society told you you should cherish that you do not need in your life. Bring photos to burn. Bring your old scale and crush it. Bring an effigy of your old boyfriend (because we cannot smash actual humans) and flatten it with a brick. We will be breaking all the things. And dancing. And drinking. And partying. And telling stories and hugging and there will be so much lipstick. And we will wear tiaras. And it will be glorious.

If you will be there, we will do this.
Did Elyse get mommies permission to have a party in the basement? I know I had to when I was 17. And emotionally she's like 10.

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22399

Post by Ape+lust »

deLurch wrote:
SJWwatchdog wrote:There's a Facebook group called:
FUCK SOCIETY'S PATRIARCHAL EXPECTATIONS: a smash-it-all party
No satire here. These people are beyond satire.
https://web.archive.org/save/_embed/htt ... 316921785/

Benzos, Booze, Black outs, and the self proclaimed Beyonce of Rape. What could possibly go wrong.
:lol:

What's she smashing? Lipstick, high heels, eyeliner, hosiery -- her glamor accessories.

What will she be putting on the credit card at 2am on Monday? Lipstick, high heels, eyeliner, hosiery...

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22400

Post by deLurch »

MacGruberKnows wrote:Did Elyse get mommies permission to have a party in the basement? I know I had to when I was 17. And emotionally she's like 10.
1. AirBnB.
2. And as rape survivor, there is no wrong way for her to act. I hope she uses that line with the judge.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22401

Post by Service Dog »

James Caruthers wrote: ....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.....


[youtube]mHDbZ2hHtlg[/youtube]

6:40

Go on, call me a white knight. Just shows you have no argument.
:nin: :nin: :nin: :nin: :nin: :nin: :nin: :nin: :nin:
I don't usually catch-up, from pages behind, replying as I go, without first reading to the end...
:nin: :nin: :nin: :nin: :nin: :nin: :nin: :nin:
but when I do, I look forward to seeing how ninja'd I'll be by the end.
:nin: :nin: :nin: :nin: :nin: :nin: :nin:

Caruthers: You're so full of shit! Sarkeesian says they she learned that "everything is sexist".
She only says she was "annoying" for "pointing it out" =!!!=
She's not saying that she came to realize that Everything Isn't Actually Sexist
nope
She only says "you have to choose your battles".

She Still Thinks It's ALL Sexism, All the time. And her feminist panel agrees, including Germaine Greer-- bastion of pre-SJW old guard.

I think you're suffering from Dillahunty/Ra syndrome. You love your wife too much to admit feminism is more profoundly fucked than you wish it wuz. Or else----> what? ----> there be dragons.

Suet Cardigan
.
.
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:26 am
Location: England, a bastion of barbarism and cluelessness

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22402

Post by Suet Cardigan »

ATTENTION SHITLORDS:
According to this UNESCO report, all things internet are to be all about teh wimminz all the time.
Prime.png
(30 KiB) Downloaded 240 times
Also, video games turn boys into "killing zombies", so throw your consoles away.
KillingZombies.png
(55.82 KiB) Downloaded 245 times
http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Docu ... rt2015.pdf

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22403

Post by Ape+lust »

Tigzy wrote:Also, if anyone cares to check out the FB page of Elyse's hubby - poor woebegone schleb that he is - you'll see he's just come out as bisexual.

Personally, I think he's gone full gay - let's face it, a decade or two living with and shagging that demented bag of tripe would be enough to turn any red-blooded bloke onto the virtues of manluv - but Stockholm Syndrome means he still has to keep something available for the missus.

I've just had a horrible thought - that Honeybanders and 'family friend' Sasha Pixlee might actually be lovers! It could, after all, go some way to explaining why Sasha just happened to be there when he and Honeybanders turned up and bravely let Elyse's rapist get away.

Hmmm...
Sasha just happened to be there when he and Honeybanders turned up and bravely let Elyse's rapist get away.
Christ, these people are fucked up aren't they. I mean, you see that and it really hits you. Jesus Christ.
So, it's possible Pixlee is Aunt Sasha in the Anders household? :shock:

Man, Elyse's kids are in a world of shit. There's not one adult in the endless parade of freaks who traipse through their lives.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22404

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Carrrruthers wrote:
You're welcome to think whatever you wish about how she views the world, but people use that specific quote to say that Anita is telling feminists that "you have to point it all out" which is a lie. People pull that quote out of its context to lie about Anita. AKA "lying for antifeminism" which is as annoying to me as "lying for peezus."



You can just type the quote into google to find a wealth of idiots taking it out of context.
Still not one cogent example. I have to search for comments in a video or do a google search myself because you can't or won't give a real example. :bjarte:

Suet Cardigan
.
.
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:26 am
Location: England, a bastion of barbarism and cluelessness

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22405

Post by Suet Cardigan »

Whoops - forget the twitter hashtag link:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/cyberviolence?src=hash

MacGruberKnows
.
.
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22406

Post by MacGruberKnows »

Ape+lust wrote:
deLurch wrote:
SJWwatchdog wrote:There's a Facebook group called:
FUCK SOCIETY'S PATRIARCHAL EXPECTATIONS: a smash-it-all party
No satire here. These people are beyond satire.
https://web.archive.org/save/_embed/htt ... 316921785/

Benzos, Booze, Black outs, and the self proclaimed Beyonce of Rape. What could possibly go wrong.
:lol:

What's she smashing? Lipstick, high heels, eyeliner, hosiery -- her glamor accessories.

What will she be putting on the credit card at 2am on Monday? Lipstick, high heels, eyeliner, hosiery...
Much fun will be had until the enemas, and the enema fights and then the farts from the hobo chile and then the soiled panties from the hobo chile farts and then the soiled panties fight. Yeah, I'm going to take a pass on the invite.

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22407

Post by Aneris »

James Caruthers wrote:
deLurch wrote:
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.
She's not saying that at all though. If your opinion is that she thinks everything is sexist and racist, that's fine. But what she's actually saying is that she became a feminist and then was a gigantic pain in the ass to everyone around her because suddenly she saw all this sexism and racism and had to go around pointing it out. She's having a laugh at herself and the person she used to be. Of all the things Anita has said, it's definitely one of those that makes me hate(fuck) her less.

You're welcome to think whatever you wish about how she views the world, but people use that specific quote to say that Anita is telling feminists that "you have to point it all out" which is a lie. People pull that quote out of its context to lie about Anita. AKA "lying for antifeminism" which is as annoying to me as "lying for peezus."

[youtube]PL2Zmye3BkY[/youtube]

You can just type the quote into google to find a wealth of idiots taking it out of context.

The comments to the video I linked give numerous examples of antifeminists/anti-SJWs saying "oh, so you're saying, Anita, that everything is sexist and we should all point it out."

I brought the whole thing up in the first place because we were talking about Lacie Green and I think I saw someone mentioning Anita as well in the same context, as if what Lacie was saying is what Anita says too, and I wanted to clarify that Anita has a very popular quote which people pull out of context, which actually implies that she does NOT agree with that approach to feminism. She thinks it is very obnoxious.

Clearly, whether she actually is or not, she believes she is doing something different.

Or at least that's what she tells me every night.



Here's another example, although it got a decent response:
The context of that statement is that it is talking about the phase one goes through when first learning about feminist approaches to studying social systems. When first finding the view of society as systems, a sort of radical phase happens where everything is a problem and the overwhelming surge of awareness brings with it a need to share that view with others. She goes on to say that after that phase comes a better understanding and control over the ideas.

This does seem to happen, and I wouldn't say it is limited to feminisms. There are testimonies of MRAs that talk about how they started reading up on men's issues and they started to see the issues everywhere. It is an issue when more people fail to move out of that phase and the movement becomes defined by that sort of way of looking at things.
She actually talks about the need to take a larger and less individualistic approach to sexism when having feminist discussions. So it is not so much about calling an individual person a sexist or a non-sexist but examining systems which she believes contribute to sexism. Not about casting blame but examining systems. And I believe she has made it explicit that she thinks it's totally fine to enjoy something you think is sexist. She even talked about the Bechdel Test one time and reiterated that the test does not determine the quality of a film.

I do not like Anita, but I would like to make the case here that, aside from being a great fuck, there is a bit more context to many of the things people attribute to her or say that she believes. Her video series is still shit, but many of the responses are so pathetic and dishonest that they force me to tentatively take her side (even though I prefer to fuck from the rear, as the candid photographs show.)
Sometimes when you go into a dark cave you find only what you bring, as some fictional, green-skinned philosopher observed and this is true in your case. You are the only one far and wide with issues and a huge chip on your shoulder of being perceived as this and that, white knight or social justice warrior or whatnot when I see that everybody else here doesn't care — or not much. It all comes down to reasonably backing up your points.

I wasn't aware that this Sarkessian quotation was of particular importance around here. It certainly is a minor one provided that most criticism was about her views she uttered in her various videos on video games. I also don't believe she is treated unfairly here. Not in the detail, and not in the grand sheme. The criticism is unimportant alltogether when done here: it's just us and everyone who reads along who sort things out. Sarkeesian could read as well, but that would be her own choice. She got a lot of mileage out of badly researched, amateurish and copypasted critique that bears no resemblence to serious work on the subject. It is even more badly done the more you understand about the subject — like the fundamental flaw to treat fictional representations of women as women. Bad stuff happens to fictional characters, because that is conflict and that sets the story in motion. And these characters are created to be used — as objects — in that way, and this is generally true in all forms of media. So, Sarkeesian means even more facepalm than it already looks like in the minute detail and on the surface.

I'm unsure what you want: acknowledging that she's maybe a nice person? She probably is, and I “get” her character that sometimes comes through the read-out statements. But *if* this is your concern, you don't get it.

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22408

Post by Aneris »

edit: I meant *outside* of the statements she reads out

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22409

Post by Ape+lust »

Look what Uberfeminist found:

http://imgur.com/pZP1d77.png

No surprises for anyone here, I'm sure.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22410

Post by James Caruthers »

free thoughtpolice wrote:Carrrruthers wrote:
You're welcome to think whatever you wish about how she views the world, but people use that specific quote to say that Anita is telling feminists that "you have to point it all out" which is a lie. People pull that quote out of its context to lie about Anita. AKA "lying for antifeminism" which is as annoying to me as "lying for peezus."



You can just type the quote into google to find a wealth of idiots taking it out of context.
Still not one cogent example. I have to search for comments in a video or do a google search myself because you can't or won't give a real example. :bjarte:
I gave examples and you cut them out in quoting me.



Anita is describing how the lens of feminism often creates these situations where new feminists are abuzz with this secret knowledge of noticing how shit is sexist and having to tell everyone. Particularly, I would imagine, in the academic setting from which she comes. But that's just my opinion going off my own experiences with obnoxious feminists.

Anita is actually saying that constantly pointing out sexist shit is annoying as hell. Be more tactful. Don't flip out and sperge. Which is good advice for both feminists and MRAs, and any group who has a lens through which they view the world.

Yeah, SD, maybe she does believe everything is to some extent sexist or whatever, but she also says there's nothing wrong with enjoying something that's sexist for what it is. She's not actually advocating what people using the quote like to claim she's advocating.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... censorship
“It’s both possible, and even necessary, to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects.”
^First source I could find that had the "it's ok to enjoy sexist shit" quote.

Her approach to pointing out sexist tropes is consistent with her view that feminists should take a more systemic approach and de-emphasize individuals. IE the developer of that game isn't an evil sexist; the game has sexist tropes in it. A gamer isn't a sexist for playing a game with sexist shit in it; the game just has sexist shit in it as a result of various systems of oppression or whatever nonsense (and the sexism may not be even intentional) and Anita wants less sexist shit in her games in the future.

I think the most angry Anita critics are more angry for what they perceive as her role in a grand SJW conspiracy to Destroy Everything than for what she actually says in her videos. I don't agree with her videos btw and think her points are pretty dumb, but so are a lot of her critics.

Probably the worst (stupidest) thing she ever said was about mass shootings.



By all means, rip into her for this stupid shit. ^ People are understandably emotionally invested in discussions of mass shootings and it smacks of absolute idiocy to post a blase statement like this on fucking Twitter of all places. There's enough material to unpack in what she said to fill an article, and she probably should have done that instead so maybe she wouldn't look so dumb.

Suet Cardigan
.
.
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:26 am
Location: England, a bastion of barbarism and cluelessness

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22411

Post by Suet Cardigan »

Professional Victim Awards (Fashion Show) - Part 1

[youtube]a0ceKY4mAaE[/youtube]

Richard "Spunky Monkey" Carrier makes an appearance.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22412

Post by James Caruthers »

“The reaction is like I’m trying to say that all games are bad, or all games should be taken away, or that these games shouldn’t exist, instead of ‘Hey, we are complex and intelligent creatures and we can hold multiple ideas in our heads at the same time.’ We can be critical of the things that we love. That is possible.”

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22413

Post by deLurch »

Hmmm...

Something to keep in mind.
http://consumerist.com/2015/09/23/judge ... ctor-1000/
Consumerist wrote: In this case the judge sided with the contractor. While it’s true that another company had to redo the floors, and that the contractor didn’t have the right permits to work in the reviewer’s house, she did accuse him of criminal activity in the reviews.
“Terms such as ‘scam,’ ‘con artist’ and ‘robs’ imply actions approaching criminal wrongdoing rather than someone who failed to live up to the terms of a contract,” the judge wrote.

The reviewer, for her part, plans to appeal the judge’s decision.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22414

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Caruthers wrote:
I gave examples and you cut them out in quoting me.
Wut? When?
Is that link supposed to be an example of what I asked for?
By the way James; have you played a lot of video games and subsequently developed impure or sexist thoughts about women.
If you've played video games, just answer yes. because as much as you think you haven't been affected by them, it is just more evidence that you have been.
It may explain some of this weird obsession you have with "Anita".

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8652
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22415

Post by Service Dog »

James Caruthers wrote:
...Her approach to pointing out sexist tropes is consistent with her view that feminists should take a more systemic approach and de-emphasize individuals. IE the developer of that game isn't an evil sexist; the game has sexist tropes in it. A gamer isn't a sexist for playing a game with sexist shit in it; the game just has sexist shit in it as a result of various systems of oppression or whatever nonsense (and the sexism may not be even intentional) and Anita wants less sexist shit in her games in the future.

I think the most angry Anita critics are more angry for what they perceive as her role in a grand SJW conspiracy to Destroy Everything than for what she actually says in her videos. I don't agree with her videos btw and think her points are pretty dumb, but so are a lot of her critics....
Yeah, the sexist "system" she's talking about is a conspiracy theory called The Patriarchy, and she's in favor of not treating people as individuals-- because she wants everyone to be sainted or demonized according to their race and sex group identity.

ALL women are victim, ALL men are co-conspirators, because Patriarchy.

She's not letting anyone off the hook by saying 'don't focus on individuals', she's saying individuals should be treated with a patronizing 'forgive them, they know-not what they do'... according to their female Virgin Birth or male Original Sin/Mark of Cain.

And none of that crap is specific to SJW feminism, as opposed to the mainstream feminism that brought us the Duluth Model of domestic violence, the Violence Against Women Act, Obama's expansion of Title IX into campus kangaroo courts.

Every fucking day, real boys & men-- largely minorities-- are dragged into a judicial gulag by these unjust feminist laws, lynching more niggers than the KKK could ever dream of. It's fucking sick. Sarkeesian is just a symptom. But her notoriety makes her useful as an object-lesson in debunking feminist bullshit.

You say:
Just admit your bias will always force you to read anything any feminist says in the most uncharitable light, even if it's an outright lie.
and
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.
You said those lines in back-to-back posts. It's a little cognitive dissonance ditty you hum to yourself.

Crimestop - Orwell's definition: "The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short....protective stupidity."

You hummed the same ditty at me, when we were discussing that obnoxious feminist who freaked-out about the obnoxious jew who didn't want to sit next to her on the plane. You said I was so anti-woman, that I couldn't see when one was right.

She wasn't right. She shares Sarkeesians 'systemic' view... she explicitly claimed that the individual religious moron wasn't the problem-- but that the male flight attendant, the other male passengers who relocated to make room for the jew, our entire society which allegedly 'expects' women to comply... the entire Patriarchy was the problem.

Basic, non-sjw garden-variety Feminism 101.

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22416

Post by deLurch »

Ape+lust wrote:Look what Uberfeminist found:
http://imgur.com/pZP1d77.png
No surprises for anyone here, I'm sure.
940.20(2)
Battery to Law Enforcement Officers, Fire Fighters or Commission Wardens
Felony H

940.20(2)
Battery to Law Enforcement Officers, Fire Fighters or Commission Wardens
Felony H
Future Court Activity
Date: 11-19-2015
Status conference
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 40/II/20/2
Statutes wrote:(2) Battery to law enforcement officers, fire fighters, and commission wardens. Whoever intentionally causes bodily harm to a law enforcement officer or fire fighter, as those terms are defined in s. 102.475 (8) (b) and (c), or to a commission warden, acting in an official capacity and the person knows or has reason to know that the victim is a law enforcement officer, fire fighter, or commission warden, by an act done without the consent of the person so injured, is guilty of a Class H felony.
http://www.mywisconsindefenselawyer.com ... l-charges/
website wrote:Class H Up to 6 years in prison and fines reaching $10,000.
It looks like they hired an attorney with the right amount of experience. Former District Attorney in that area. That is unless the county doesn't have a full time defense attorney and contracts work like this out.

Sunder
.
.
Posts: 3858
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:12 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22417

Post by Sunder »

Ape+lust wrote:
Really? wrote:Those things are thirty dollars apiece! She should sell them on SJWbay and go to rehab!

Not that I don't respect her massive level of spite.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/451665 ... pect-o.gif
Yeah, no kidding. Most people would chill for a little while if it meant a few hundred bucks in pocket. And per usual, Useless Hubby will stand by and watch cheer, though his family needs cash right now.
I refuse to believe that that crap has any secondary market value. People buy it for social signalling which they don't get by buying it from anyone but Roth.

Surlies appreciate in value like bananas left on the kitchen counter.

NoGodsEver
.
.
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 1:05 am
Location: Pacific NW

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22418

Post by NoGodsEver »

Ape+lust wrote:Look what Uberfeminist found:

http://imgur.com/pZP1d77.png

No surprises for anyone here, I'm sure.
That should be scary for anyone close to her, considering that her sister died trying to run across a highway while heavily intoxicated. Her inevitable death will be on their hands.

NoGodsEver
.
.
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 1:05 am
Location: Pacific NW

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22419

Post by NoGodsEver »


Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22420

Post by Ape+lust »

Sunder wrote:
Ape+lust wrote:
Really? wrote:Those things are thirty dollars apiece! She should sell them on SJWbay and go to rehab!

Not that I don't respect her massive level of spite.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/451665 ... pect-o.gif
Yeah, no kidding. Most people would chill for a little while if it meant a few hundred bucks in pocket. And per usual, Useless Hubby will stand by and watch cheer, though his family needs cash right now.
I refuse to believe that that crap has any secondary market value. People buy it for social signalling which they don't get by buying it from anyone but Roth.

Surlies appreciate in value like bananas left on the kitchen counter.
Haha, that's so true. Still, I'd send a pic of the lot to Bjarte and ask for $300. When he refuses, I'd start lowballing until I hit a price he'll go for. Until I'd done at least that, I wouldn't smash the stupid things. Not when my kids were getting booted from their second home in a year and no one in the family has a job. Having a smashing party in the face of all that is obscene.

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22421

Post by Ape+lust »

NoGodsEver wrote:
Ape+lust wrote:Look what Uberfeminist found:

http://imgur.com/pZP1d77.png

No surprises for anyone here, I'm sure.
That should be scary for anyone close to her, considering that her sister died trying to run across a highway while heavily intoxicated. Her inevitable death will be on their hands.
Oh, wow. I'd only seen her death referred to as an auto accident. I didn't know it was a polite fiction.

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22422

Post by Ape+lust »

deLurch wrote:http://www.mywisconsindefenselawyer.com ... l-charges/
website wrote:Class H Up to 6 years in prison and fines reaching $10,000.
It looks like they hired an attorney with the right amount of experience. Former District Attorney in that area. That is unless the county doesn't have a full time defense attorney and contracts work like this out.
Class H - Up to 6 years in prison and fines reaching $10,000.

That is a whole lot more serious than I thought it was. Sheesh.

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22423

Post by deLurch »

There is not a minimum.

On page 7, it appears that 6 years refers to a maximum combination of Prison + Parole or Extended Supervision. The actual maximum prison time is 3 years. On Page 8, table 3, the maximum Extended Supervision is 3 years.
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/publicat ... bation.pdf
Sentencing Guidelines wrote:Sentencing Guidelines, and Consideration of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. During sentencing, the court must decide whether to impose a bifurcated sentence or place the person on probation, the length of sentence or probation, and the amount of a fine, if any. When making a sentencing decision for an offense committed on or after February 1, 2003, a court is required to consider all of the following:

1. Felony sentencing guidelines adopted by the Sentencing Commission or any applicable temporary sentencing guideline adopted by the Criminal Penalties Study Committee created under 1997 Wisconsin Act 283.
2. Protection of the public.
3. The gravity of the offense.
4. The rehabilitative needs of the defendant.
5. Any applicable mitigating factors and any applicable aggravating factors.

Guidelines generally evaluate the severity of an offense and the risk factors associated with an offender, and then provide a range of sentence lengths based on those factors. Courts are not required to make a sentencing decision that is within any range or consistent with a recommendation specified in the guidelines. Further, statutes specify that there is no right to appeal a court's sentencing decision based on the court's decision to depart in any way from any guideline.
So if they really hate Elyse, she could serve back to back sentences for a total of 6 years in jail and 6 years on probation. If they really like her, they could tell her she is a naughty girl and not to do it again.

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22424

Post by Ape+lust »

Has anyone watched this Dave Rubin guy? He's actually staked out opposing Justice Warriors and PC culture as a core purpose of his new show. His first two interviews were with Professor Gad Saad and Sam Harris, and true to his word, they smacked baboons around for a couple of hours. It's heartening to see a media guy who isn't afraid being branded racist, misogynist, and the other inevitable shit they'll throw at him. He's not afraid of pissing off his mentor Cenk Uygur, either.

Here's a short video he put up talking about the reaction he got to his Gad Saad interview. He's stoked and thinks there may be at long last an "awakening" among liberals that could marginalize the authoritarian cynics.

[youtube]1JhhBHD0PDo[/youtube]

His video channel:

https://www.youtube.com/user/RubinReport/videos

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22425

Post by deLurch »

http://www.livestrong.com/article/20784 ... ith-xanax/
Memory Loss and Behavior
Consuming too much alcohol by itself may cause a person to "black out," or experience a period he does not recall after sobering up. When Xanax is introduced into the mix, the risk for this dangerous occurrence is greatly enhanced. Alcohol also enhances Xanax's ability to cause confusion, greatly impair judgment and produce unusual behavior, making drinking with the drug a recipe for a potentially disastrous experience.

The Department of Health and Human Services states that Xanax has even replaced fellow benzodiazepine Rohypnol--flunitrazepam, otherwise known as "Ruffies," as a date rape drug in some parts of the U.S. due to Xanax's amnesiac properties when mixed with alcohol.
So Elyse ruffied herself?

NoGodsEver
.
.
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 1:05 am
Location: Pacific NW

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22426

Post by NoGodsEver »

Ape+lust wrote:
deLurch wrote:http://www.mywisconsindefenselawyer.com ... l-charges/
website wrote:Class H Up to 6 years in prison and fines reaching $10,000.
It looks like they hired an attorney with the right amount of experience. Former District Attorney in that area. That is unless the county doesn't have a full time defense attorney and contracts work like this out.
Class H - Up to 6 years in prison and fines reaching $10,000.

That is a whole lot more serious than I thought it was. Sheesh.
Pshaw, Elyse could do 6 years in prison standing on her head. Did you know she's a Badass Mofo? I know this because she has described herself as such. That's how you can tell a true Badass Mofo. They are aways talking about how Badass they are.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22427

Post by Kirbmarc »

James Caruthers wrote:
<snip>
Anita is describing how the lens of feminism often creates these situations where new feminists are abuzz with this secret knowledge of noticing how shit is sexist and having to tell everyone. Particularly, I would imagine, in the academic setting from which she comes. But that's just my opinion going off my own experiences with obnoxious feminists.

Anita is actually saying that constantly pointing out sexist shit is annoying as hell. Be more tactful. Don't flip out and sperge. Which is good advice for both feminists and MRAs, and any group who has a lens through which they view the world.

Yeah, SD, maybe she does believe everything is to some extent sexist or whatever, but she also says there's nothing wrong with enjoying something that's sexist for what it is. She's not actually advocating what people using the quote like to claim she's advocating.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... censorship
“It’s both possible, and even necessary, to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects.”
^First source I could find that had the "it's ok to enjoy sexist shit" quote.

Her approach to pointing out sexist tropes is consistent with her view that feminists should take a more systemic approach and de-emphasize individuals. IE the developer of that game isn't an evil sexist; the game has sexist tropes in it. A gamer isn't a sexist for playing a game with sexist shit in it; the game just has sexist shit in it as a result of various systems of oppression or whatever nonsense (and the sexism may not be even intentional) and Anita wants less sexist shit in her games in the future.

I think the most angry Anita critics are more angry for what they perceive as her role in a grand SJW conspiracy to Destroy Everything than for what she actually says in her videos. I don't agree with her videos btw and think her points are pretty dumb, but so are a lot of her critics.

Probably the worst (stupidest) thing she ever said was about mass shootings.



By all means, rip into her for this stupid shit. ^ People are understandably emotionally invested in discussions of mass shootings and it smacks of absolute idiocy to post a blase statement like this on fucking Twitter of all places. There's enough material to unpack in what she said to fill an article, and she probably should have done that instead so maybe she wouldn't look so dumb.
I agree that Sarkeesian isn't as dumb and obnoxious as many Tumblrinas, and so she doesn't want to claim that all gamers and video game developers are sexist shitbags like many idiots on Twitter. After all that's not a good policy if you want to promote yourself in the field. She wants to be able to talk with people like Joss Whedon or Stephen Colbert, so she can't just attack them like the rabid trans activists or Suey Park (respectively) did. She has to keep a sane(r) profile if she wants to be taken seriously.

I also agree that the SJWs (at least the smarter ones) do not support a Great Conspiracy to Censor Everything (although they can be "useful idiots" to some politicians who want to have more control on the Internet). Their aims are subtler and more long-term. They don't want to "ban that sick filth", they want to influence popular culture and society at large into accepting their ideas and changing to accommodate for their aims.

Of course this can't be done yelling, cursing and whining, Big Red or Peezus style. Sarkeesian is smart enough to realize that being an obnoxious cunt is counterproductive in the long run. And we've seen what happens to the most obnoxious cunts: they go the FTB way. Not a very good business plan.

However while she's not an idiotic screaming harpy, or an agent of the Illuminati censors, she still promotes the same extreme feminist ideas about society:

http://www.viralglobalnews.com/wp-conte ... olence.png

The image above shows that she has some pretty dumb ideas about fictional violence. Even some SJWs have frowned at her for saying this.

http://i.imgur.com/VphhiBg.png

This is an authoritarian idea, and a pretty sexist and dumb one, to boot.

http://www.viralglobalnews.com/wp-conte ... helter.jpg

She leaves no space for satire. That's pretty dumb, too.

https://feelsandreals.files.wordpress.c ... 1024&h=611

"Prejudice+power". That's the same old SJW meme.

https://angelwitchpaganheart.files.word ... =281&h=300

This is some A-grade dumbass neo-Marxist nonsense. Many feminists disagree with that. Many feminists want more freedom of choice, not an abstract "collective liberation" which doesn't treat them as individuals with rights but only as cogs in the machine of the Glorious Revolution.

To say nothing of Sarkeesian's contempt for sex workers and porn stars. She's a patronizing sex negative ideologue, and many sex workers activists and pron stars have repeatedly told her to go to Hell.

I really don't see a lot of difference between Sarkeesian and the Atheism Plus forum folks like Alex Seanchai. They, just like Sarkeesian, said that you should be able to enjoy things while seeing how "problematic" they are. They, just like Sarkeesian, also said that using sexist tropes in a work of art or enjoying a sexist work of art doesn't make you sexist.

I appreciate what you're doing and I agree that taking her "everything is problematic" quote out of context is intellectually dishonest. She's not as dumb as some of her critics think, and she's certainly not promoting explicit censorship, if only because that would alienate her friends in the entertainment business. She's no Sarah Butts or Suey Park.

I don't think she's "just a shitty critic" as you say, and I think she's far more authoritarian than she lets on. She's a disciple of the same school of insane radical feminism that praises loons like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon. She's just subtler and smarter about the way she presents her ideas. That's why she, and not Sarah Butts or Suey Park, is the one who's invited to take selfies with Joss Whedon and to be interviewed by Stephen Colbert. I dare to say that she's probably the one who sponsored Zoe Quinn and Randi Harper to Google, since she's far more famous and a far better speaker and ideologue than those two.

I agree that many her critics are morons who have little to no nuance and critical thinking and just whine about a problem (direct censorship) which very likely doesn't exist. However I still think that Sarkeesian is, in the long run, a promoter of dangerous, stupid, authoritarian ideas, and that her efforts could be used as an excuse by some politicians to enact some (subtly) authoritarian laws.

She's probably aware of that. It wouldn't surprise me if she's been in contact with people like Elizabeth Warren or Jerry Brown.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22428

Post by Kirbmarc »

James Caruthers wrote:
“The reaction is like I’m trying to say that all games are bad, or all games should be taken away, or that these games shouldn’t exist, instead of ‘Hey, we are complex and intelligent creatures and we can hold multiple ideas in our heads at the same time.’ We can be critical of the things that we love. That is possible.”
Of course she doesn't want to "take away all video games" or make it so that "those games didn't exist". That'd be idiotic, and pretty much impossible in a free market. She wants to subtly encourage people to feel ashamed of, or embarrassed by, some tropes which she thinks are "harmful".

I, and many others with me, including many feminists, happen to disagree with her standards of criticism and with the idea that fictional violence or fictional depictions of prostitutes and of "sexist" tropes are "harmful".

I disagree with her about fictional violence because I think that fictional violence is actually necessary to achieve a cathartic release.

I disagree with her about satire of sexism, because I think that intelligent people can use extreme satire and humor to deconstruct some ideas in a far more efficient way than a treatise about the evils of sexism.

I disagree with her about prostitution and porn because I think that anyone should be free to pursue a career in those fields if they want to, and I also think that sex is a commodity just like any other service.

I disagree with her idea that sexism in media encourages sexism in the real world, and I also disagree with her ideas about what's sexist and what isn't.

I agree with her that we can be critical of things we love, and I want her to be able to express her criticism. I just think that she doesn't deserve the praise and success she gets, and that her ideas should be frowned upon by anyone who is interested in freedom of expression, freedom of choosing one's career, and freedom of satire.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22429

Post by Steersman »

Dave wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Shatterface wrote:The descriptivists and the prescriptivists are in pretty much agreement as to whether women get pregnant.
:lol: But while the descriptivist/prescriptivist dichotomy seems like a useful one - and I found the Stack Exchange post on it quite informative, I'm not entirely sure that it has much relevance to the question of definitions. My general and frequently argued point is that going hog-wild in creating inconsistent and contradictory definitions for words is a recipe for disaster: As Alice said to Humpty Dumpty, "The question is ... whether you can make words mean so many different things".
And as Humpty Dumpty LousyCanuck would reply, "The question is who is to be Mistress, thats all."

The answer is obviously Ophelia.
:-) Though I kind of doubt he would select Benson; seems either Zvan or PZ Hisself should be tagged for the role of the Queen of Hearts:
The Queen of Hearts is a character from the book Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by the writer and mathematician Lewis Carroll. She is a foul-tempered monarch, that Carroll himself pictured as "a blind fury", and who is quick to decree death sentences at the slightest offense. Her most famous line, one which she repeats often, is "Off with their heads!"

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22430

Post by Steersman »

Aneris wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Shatterface wrote:The descriptivists and the prescriptivists are in pretty much agreement as to whether women get pregnant.
:lol: But while the descriptivist/prescriptivist dichotomy seems like a useful one - and I found the Stack Exchange post on it quite informative, I'm not entirely sure that it has much relevance to the question of definitions. My general and frequently argued point is that going hog-wild in creating inconsistent and contradictory definitions for words is a recipe for disaster: As Alice said to Humpty Dumpty, "The question is ... whether you can make words mean so many different things".
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.
Yes, I quite agree, largely in any case, that the question is about “who determines what words mean”, and will argue that Thibeault is playing fast and loose with the whole corpus of lexicography – not surprising given his SJW “credentials”. However, while I’ll also agree, to some extent, that it is “not entirely false” for him to do so – we’re all entitled to press words into different applications and roles – I think there also has to be some rhyme and reason – and consistency – to the result. And while it might be somewhat moot to what extent language qualifies as a formal system, I still think it rather important to at least make some attempt to ensure that crippling inconsistencies don’t find their way into it.

Which is largely my objection to the definition for “woman” apparently being peddled by various SJWs & transgender activists who have been suprisingly reluctant to offer anything very precise, even when I’ve challenged them on it. But “Lesbian Catnip” in that thread of Thibeault’s rose to the challenge by offering this, supposedly from the OED: “The nature, characteristics, or feelings often attributed to women; womanliness”. Which covers a lot of ground and is thereby, I think, virtually useless: if every last possible attribute of women – which includes most if not all of those of men – constitutes one of the many definitions for "woman" then it seems to encompass every last one of us, and to thereby have a very limited utility in differentiating between us.

Further, I think it conflates “sex” and “gender” which leads to the fallacy of equivocation as in the question put to Benson – i.e., “do you believe transwomen (trans women) are women, yes or no?” – where “women” is doing double duty as both a gender and a sex: “trans women” – the gender – might, at a stretch, be a subset of the gender “women”, but an oxymoron to assert a gender is a sex.

In any case, you might be interested in this article I ran across a while ago on the derivation or coining of the word “scientist”:
In debates, the Whewell-Coleridge debate was a debate launched in 1833 between English science historian William Whewell and English romantic philosopher Samuel Coleridge revolving around the question of what exactly someone who works ‘in the real sciences’, as Coleridge had phrased it, should be called, and what exactly are the real sciences, in the context of the tree of knowledge? A result of this debate is that the term "scientist" was coined (1834). ....

... Whewell then again in his 1840 Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences advocated the use of the term:
“We need very much a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a scientist. Thus we might say, that as an artist is a musician, painter, or poet, a scientist is a mathematician, physicist, or naturalist.”
This, to note, was also the first coining of the term ‘physicist’. In 1840, the term ‘scientist’ made its way into the OED. Whewell used the term scientist again in his 1851 “Inaugural Lecture” to the Great Exhibition.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22431

Post by Steersman »

Kirbmarc wrote:
James Caruthers wrote:
“The reaction is like I’m trying to say that all games are bad, or all games should be taken away, or that these games shouldn’t exist, instead of ‘Hey, we are complex and intelligent creatures and we can hold multiple ideas in our heads at the same time.’ We can be critical of the things that we love. That is possible.”
Of course she doesn't want to "take away all video games" or make it so that "those games didn't exist". That'd be idiotic, and pretty much impossible in a free market. She wants to subtly encourage people to feel ashamed of, or embarrassed by, some tropes which she thinks are "harmful".

I, and many others with me, including many feminists, happen to disagree with her standards of criticism and with the idea that fictional violence or fictional depictions of prostitutes and of "sexist" tropes are "harmful".

I disagree with her about fictional violence because I think that fictional violence is actually necessary to achieve a cathartic release.
Yea, I'll agree that "fictional violence" can have that effect - however, I expect that it is like many "drugs" - a little bit can be therapeutic, a lot can be lethal: moderation in all things - including moderation.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22432

Post by Scented Nectar »

AndrewV69 wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote: Why do you even do it at all? Is it to fit in better with muslim friends/family/etc? Or maybe a personal hardship challenge of some sort? Sometimes you puzzle me, Andrew.
I wanted to see what it was like and as an act of self discipline. I figured that it could be a useful at some point.

There are no Muslims living near me and most of my many relatives who live in Canukistan now are at least 2,000 klicks away from me since I moved.

Finally, the look of consternation on some peoples face when I told them I was observing Ramadan was worth it all by itself. :lol:
Different strokes, I guess. But, without any others doing it too, who do you feast with after sundown? :think:

Mmm, feasts. I might make cookies today. 8-)

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22433

Post by Kirbmarc »

Steersman wrote:Yes, I quite agree, largely in any case, that the question is about “who determines what words mean”, and will argue that Thibeault is playing fast and loose with the whole corpus of lexicography – not surprising given his SJW “credentials”. However, while I’ll also agree, to some extent, that it is “not entirely false” for him to do so – we’re all entitled to press words into different applications and roles – I think there also has to be some rhyme and reason – and consistency – to the result. And while it might be somewhat moot to what extent language qualifies as a formal system, I still think it rather important to at least make some attempt to ensure that crippling inconsistencies don’t find their way into it.
The purely prescriptivist view that the meaning of a word can be determined in a precise way independent and irrespective of context and use has been completely disproved. Natural languages aren't formal systems. They are subject to some physiological and psychological restraints, but they're largely shaped by use. They're social tools for communication.

Of course in order to make communication possible (i.e. participants can follow each other's discourses) and felicitous (i.e. the meaning that the speaker/writer intended to express is also the same meaning which the hearers/readers recollect from the discourse) all the participants in a conversation should have a degree of common semantic understanding.

It's impossible for a communication to be 100% felicitous: something is always "lost in translation" in the passages from the thoughts and words of speakers/writers and from the words of the conversation (oral or written) and the thoughts of the hearers/readers. However it's possible for a communication to be at least partly felicitous if speakers/writers and hearers/readers share some "common ground".

All words are polysemic, i.e. they carry across more than one meaning. Contexts (communicative, textual, social, cultural, etc.) help "grounding" the meaning of a word. Sometimes contexts aren't enough for the communication to be felicitous enough to ground the meaning of a word (or a sentence, or an entire text) and what happens is a misunderstanding.

Misunderstandings are much more likely when a word is used with different meanings in the same context. I think that this is the case of the word "woman" in the contexts where SJW operate.
Which is largely my objection to the definition for “woman” apparently being peddled by various SJWs & transgender activists who have been surprisingly reluctant to offer anything very precise, even when I’ve challenged them on it. But “Lesbian Catnip” in that thread of Thibeault’s rose to the challenge by offering this, supposedly from the OED: “The nature, characteristics, or feelings often attributed to women; womanliness”. Which covers a lot of ground and is thereby, I think, virtually useless: if every last possible attribute of women – which includes most if not all of those of men – constitutes one of the many definitions for "woman" then it seems to encompass every last one of us, and to thereby have a very limited utility in differentiating between us.
The definition of "woman" provided by Lesbian Catnip is largely useless because it's incredibly hard to ground in a specific context. If "woman" is a "nature", a "feeling" of "womanliness" often "attributed to women" the meaning of "woman" in a context where those feelings and nature aren't specified is left not grounded and substantially open to the personal interpretation of the hearers/speakers.

What's even worse is that different "characteristics and feelings" are attributed to women in different social and cultural contexts. For example some social groups in some nations. see working for a salary, or being promiscuous, or wearing blue jeans as a characteristic which don't belong to "womanliness", while for most "Westerners" those characteristics do not contradict the "nature" of being a woman.

So according to Lesbian Catnip's definition someone could be coherently described as a woman in the "West" and "not a woman" in other socio-cultural groups. This surely isn't what SJWs want to communicate.
Further, I think it conflates “sex” and “gender” which leads to the fallacy of equivocation as in the question put to Benson – i.e., “do you believe transwomen (trans women) are women, yes or no?” – where “women” is doing double duty as both a gender and a sex: “trans women” – the gender – might, at a stretch, be a subset of the gender “women”, but an oxymoron to assert a gender is a sex.
The polysemy of "woman" included both definitions which are related to biological attributes (sex) and to socio-cultural roles (gender).

"Trans woman", as you wrote, refers to a socio-cultural role and therefore to a definition of a "woman" which is related to gender. In order to have a felicitous communication in the question “do you believe transwomen (trans women) are women, yes or no?” you have to specify whether you're using "woman" in the context of sexual or gender characteristics.

"“Do you believe transwomen are women as a sex, yes or no?” and “do you believe transwomen (trans women) are women as a gender, yes or no?” are two very different questions, which may have different answers (i.e. one can believe that trans women perform socially as the gender "woman" while not believing that they belong the biological sex "woman").

The SJW pose the question in a way that creates multiple misunderstandings, very likely deliberately so.

dogen
.
.
Posts: 2585
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22434

Post by dogen »

James Caruthers wrote:
ffs wrote:
They're not mutually exclusive though.
That's why you have two hands, shitlord. #PushTheButtons

Søren Lilholt
.
.
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:41 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22435

Post by Søren Lilholt »

Kirbmarc wrote:
Is preventable suffering of animals inherently immoral?

Is it possible to talk about morality when you talk about the suffering of non sapient animals?
People have no difficulty seeing that maltreatment of dogs or cats is clearly wrong, and to be avoided - these species may be pretty stupid by our standards, but it's equally clear that they are conscious agents with the capacity to experience joy, pain, etc.

If we were to be balanced in our attribution of moral concern, surely we should be applying the same level of consideration to all animals of a similar capacity?

Søren Lilholt
.
.
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:41 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22436

Post by Søren Lilholt »

NoGodsEver wrote:
John D wrote:
The surest way to reduce the suffering of millions and millions of animals is to sterilize all the animals on earth. Let the living animals die with as pleasant a life as possible, and then be happy in the fact that there are NO MORE ANIMALS SUFFERING EVER AGAIN!!!!! This is our moral imperative fucking shitlords!
Surely there's more that we can do. All available resources must be put into a working time machine, so we can go back and snuff out the first self-replicating cell. It's the only way to be sure no suffering ever takes/took place.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but the clear moral case against doing something like this is not immediately obvious.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22437

Post by Kirbmarc »

Søren Lilholt wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
Is preventable suffering of animals inherently immoral?

Is it possible to talk about morality when you talk about the suffering of non sapient animals?
People have no difficulty seeing that maltreatment of dogs or cats is clearly wrong, and to be avoided - these species may be pretty stupid by our standards, but it's equally clear that they are conscious agents with the capacity to experience joy, pain, etc.

If we were to be balanced in our attribution of moral concern, surely we should be applying the same level of consideration to all animals of a similar capacity?
Mistreatment of cats and dogs is seen as morally wrong when it's done by human beings, who are seen as moral agents, for no rational reason. And the amount of "mistreatment" to be considered morally wrong depends on context: spaying a cat may cause it some suffering but it's not seen as morally wrong because this is a situation where the suffering isn't gratuitous but done to reduce suffering in the future. We also eat some animals, no doubt causing them some suffering, for the rational reason to support our diet.

If two cats or two dogs fight we might stop them if we care about the safety of one (or both) of them, but we can't describe the situations in terms of morality. Non sapient animals aren't considered morally responsible for their actions. Also, in the case of predators, they have a pretty good reason to cause suffering in their preys, namely to support themselves by getting food.

So the suffering caused by predators who eat their preys is a) done by entities which aren't moral agents and b) done for an understandable reason. Predators are selected by evolution to have instincts which lead them to cause suffering to their prey.

Shatterface
.
.
Posts: 5898
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22438

Post by Shatterface »

I can't believe anyone thinks human beings have a duty to defend wild animals from each other. If one is on the verge of extinction, maybe, but preventing predators from hunting prey goes against their nature. You are essentially changing it into another animal.

What next - imposing democracy on pack animals? Teaching ducks not to rape?

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22439

Post by AndrewV69 »

Scented Nectar wrote: Different strokes, I guess. But, without any others doing it too, who do you feast with after sundown? :think:

Mmm, feasts. I might make cookies today. 8-)
I "feast" by myself. If feast is the right word. Which reminds me of my very 1st Ramadan. I was so hungy when the sun finally went down I overate. Then I could not sleep because my stomach was rebelling, and I felt bloated, and generally uncomfortable and finally fell asleep at around 5:00 am.

When I woke up, the sun was shining and it was around 10:30 so I had missed suhur (morning meal before sunrise) and I was hungry, and thirsty, and missing my morning coffee and as a consequence suffering from caffeine withdrawal. All I could think of was I NEED MA COFFEE!!! and I was so thirsty it was not funny, then the hunger pangs set in which was also not funny.

That was an "interesting" day and was nearly the end of Ramadan for me :lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyway, I learned my lesson and managed to pace myself at iftar at the end of the day. I also went to bed early and fell asleep immediately so I had no trouble getting up in time for suhur and first thing was to have a coffee, then two more.

After that it was a breeze relatively speaking. But my very first day of my first Ramadan was very nearly my last. LMAO

WaxNapoleon
.
.
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 3:50 am

Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#22440

Post by WaxNapoleon »

Gumby wrote:It's about time everyone realized Caruthers is worse than Hitler. :whistle:
https://i.imgur.com/lXfqG6V.jpg

Locked