The Refuge of the Toads

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

[*]Final near-commonality is that, while people "draw the line" different places, most enjoy a fairly robust sense of humor, and value the right to question, poke fun at, or counter just about any idea[/list]

No we don't!

[jimhabegger]

I've never thought of the Pit as middle ground before, but it's starting to look more like that to me now.

Here are some tidbits we've come up with in discussions here over the prior couple of years, in case they're interesting or useful for you to fold into your musings ...

Thanks!

[paddybrown]

There's been a lot of sexual harassment suits lately in the news. So, I thought we need a primer for what sexual harassment is.

This video is a good start.

[youtube]IUNXPFI6dYU[/youtube]

LOL
If only it were that obvious.
But Sexual Harrasment (at least in the US have no idea about Europe) , having taken lots of its legal freight from MacKinnon, quickly went off the rails into a subjective never-never land based on a 'rational female' standard. In other words, it was also sexist from the get-go.

About the only things that really keep SH law in check in the US from ruining many businesses are the fact that it has to be repeated behavior in order to implicate the employer in a 'hostile work environment' and the fact that there are , in some industries, informal 'blacklists' if you bring too many complaints, complaints against really powerful people, or bring the wrong kind of complaint.

However, from an individual male worker bee's point of view this stuff is very Orwellian, very confusing, and often unfairly applied.

And in practice , we can thank this kind of precedent for bad law and super governmental intrusion into private firms for lots of the 'microagression' and SJW bullshit we have to live with today.

P.S. I'm not against SH law. But I am against a feminist or women-centric framwork, and I'd tighten it up considerably.

Workplace harassment law doesn't help people who are genuinely harassed, but is very easy to use against innocent men. It's basically a weapon that dishonest women can use against men.

My own experience was when I was a temp working for a trade union. One morning I was told to tidy up the file store. I had finished it by lunchtime. At four o'clock a female co-worker dumped her filing on me, saying she couldn't do it because I hadn't tidied the file store, and left early. I did it that once, but I sent her an email saying I didn't appreciate it and asking her not to do it again. She took that email to management, turned on the tears and told them she was terrified of me and the whole floor wasn't prepared to work with me, and I was summarily dismissed.

A friend of mine, who was single at the time, had a co-worker who was in a relationship, and who flirted with him. At first he enjoyed it and flirted back, but after a while he felt it was going too far and asked her to stop. She reported him for sexual harassment. His manager knew exactly what had been going on and told him so, but his hands were tied. She had made a complaint of sexual harassment and he had not, so he couldn't take her behaviour into consideration. Under the law he was personally liable if he took no action and another complaint was made against my friend, so he was obliged to reprimand him and put that on his file for six months. She had applied for a promotion, and if he didn't give it to her he'd likely be facing a complaint for retaliation, so she got promoted.

On the other hand, at my current workplace I had a co-worker who has since retired. He got repeatedly handsy with a young female temp. She repeatedly objected vocally. Eventually he put his hand down the back of her trousers while she was bending over a filing cabinet, and she made an official complaint against him. The solution? She was moved to another position elsewhere in the building, and told to take a different route to the smoking room so she didn't pass him. He got, you guessed it, a reprimand on his file for six months. She quit and took it to a tribunal, and won, but prospective employers will likely be wary of her because of it.

That's the extent of my anecdotage on the subject. The bad actors won every time.

[piginthecity]

Feminace's cat is going to be okay

http://the-orbit.net/seriously/2016/04/ ... hit-thank/

Can we now have a fund-raiser to buy toys for feminists to play with to keep them occupied instead of blogging ?

[Oglebart]

Islam, as a religion, cannot be "reformed". It changes, but it can never really toss out its inherent authoritarianism. Christianity hasn't "reformed" either. Secular society has "tamed" , not "reformed" Christianity. Just like a tamed tiger in a cage is still a tiger, but is far less dangerous than a tiger in the wild, a tamed religion in a cage of secularism is far less dangerous than a religion which is given a free pass and the keys to the kingdom.

Nicely put, Kirbmarc. I may borrow that in the future!

[AndrewV69]

I finally got around to reading ]Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa Paperback – March 27, 2012 . Well I just started it actually, currently on chapter one.

I have been meaning to read it for awhile now but that article linked earlier about Romeo Dallaire in Rwanda The Myth Continues finally got me off my arse to do so.

Over the years the periodic weeping of Romeo Dallaire in public as reported by various newspapers caused me to suspect that we were not being told the full story.

Reminds me of a friend who confessed to me the other day that she sometimes felt that she had wasted her life. She had spent it in many conflict zones all over the world negotiating peace treaties only to see a few years later some of them start up all over again. I really was at a loss. I did not know what to say to her.

[Steersman]

Islam, as a religion, cannot be "reformed". It changes, but it can never really toss out its inherent authoritarianism. Christianity hasn't "reformed" either. Secular society has "tamed" , not "reformed" Christianity. Just like a tamed tiger in a cage is still a tiger, but is far less dangerous than a tiger in the wild, a tamed religion in a cage of secularism is far less dangerous than a religion which is given a free pass and the keys to the kingdom.

Nicely put, Kirbmarc. I may borrow that in the future!

Not bad. But probably better:

[jimhabegger]

Most people here who have reported their Myers-Briggs personality type were INTP, with some INTJs thrown into the mix (and a few other types). INTP and INTJ are fairly uncommon (said to be 3% and 1% respectively of the population). Whether that means anything is left to the intrepid anthropologist studying the 'Pit.

"THE MEDIATOR" (INFP-A)
- DIPLOMAT
- CONFIDENT INDIVIDUALISM
70% INTROVERTED
59% INTUITIVE
75% FEELING
58% PROSPECTING
68% ASSERTIVE

I hate it when people think I'm trying to be a mediator or a diplomat.

"... the risk of feeling misunderstood is unfortunately high for the INFP personality type ..."

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I have been meaning to read it for awhile now but that article linked earlier about Romeo Dallaire in Rwanda The Myth Continues finally got me off my arse to do so.

This article is full of bullshit. Booh Booh was sympathetic to the Hutu regime from the start. The RPF was not responsible for the plane crash of Habyarimana. It is strongly suspected (not proven yet, but almost certain) that interahamwe was involved in the crash. The same bastards who operated the RTLM, the genocidal radio station in Rwanda at the time.

What kind of revisionist bullshit are you trying to pass here?

[Scented Nectar]

I would not be able to bring myself to piss on the Bible much less the Quran. I think this is yet another thing that Steers should give up on.

*sigh*

But somehow I doubt that he will.

Would you be able to piss on a dictionary or maybe one of Shakespeare's works? If so, why would you not be able to do that to a storybook about a magic god? It seems weird to me that you might think that those two violent religious storybooks are divine, or holy, or something to revere, and that destroying/disrespecting one copy (not some rare or valuable original) is bad or sinful.

[feathers]

Here’s the bottom line: I don’t care. Nobody knows yet, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s one gene that directly regulates “intelligence” or tens of thousands that modulate it, since you can’t even define genetically what is being measured. I suspect that there are going to be a lot of factors underlying the development and function of the brain, everything from cardiovascular health and nutrient processing and immune system effectiveness to genetic variants that affect synaptic vesicle fusion rates. Everything is pleiotropic. We’re not going to be able to sort out all the components cleanly, and in particular, we aren’t going to be able to genetically engineer a gene that has a positive contribution to intelligence without mucking up some other attribute of the organism.

Is there a difference in principle between the argument that some traits are genetically too complex to improve any further, and the creationist argument that some traits are genetically too complex to have evolved by successive small improvements, because changing even one component would inevitably "muck up" the perfect design? :think:

And even assuming that boosting intelligence will result in a disadvantage in some other trait, how is that an argument against Hsu? Fitness trade-offs are a thing.

The same argument PZ uses could be used for about any feat of gene manipulation. If that was the sole criterion for deciding whether to do an experiment or not, science would get nowhere.

[piginthecity]

I would not be able to bring myself to piss on the Bible much less the Quran. I think this is yet another thing that Steers should give up on.

*sigh*

But somehow I doubt that he will.

Would you be able to piss on a dictionary or maybe one of Shakespeare's works? If so, why would you not be able to do that to a storybook about a magic god? It seems weird to me that you might think that those two violent religious storybooks are divine, or holy, or something to revere, and that destroying/disrespecting one copy (not some rare or valuable original) is bad or sinful.

All these people going on about pissing on books should check their non-prostate-enlargement privilege.

[jimhabegger]

All these people going on about pissing on books should check their non-prostate-enlargement privilege.

"No matter how you shake and dance ..."

[blitzem]

Here’s the bottom line: I don’t care. Nobody knows yet, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s one gene that directly regulates “intelligence” or tens of thousands that modulate it, since you can’t even define genetically what is being measured. I suspect that there are going to be a lot of factors underlying the development and function of the brain, everything from cardiovascular health and nutrient processing and immune system effectiveness to genetic variants that affect synaptic vesicle fusion rates. Everything is pleiotropic. We’re not going to be able to sort out all the components cleanly, and in particular, we aren’t going to be able to genetically engineer a gene that has a positive contribution to intelligence without mucking up some other attribute of the organism.

Is there a difference in principle between the argument that some traits are genetically too complex to improve any further, and the creationist argument that some traits are genetically too complex to have evolved by successive small improvements, because changing even one component would inevitably "muck up" the perfect design? :think:

And even assuming that boosting intelligence will result in a disadvantage in some other trait, how is that an argument against Hsu? Fitness trade-offs are a thing.

Like his publishing CV?
The same argument PZ uses could be used for about any feat of gene manipulation. If that was the sole criterion for deciding whether to do an experiment or not, science would get nowhere.

[jimhabegger]

I started to read "Amoris Laetitia," but after a few pages I decided I didn't want to spend any more time on it. Not that I don't think I would get anything out of it. There might be some good thoughts in there about love, family life and raising children.

The reason I tried to read it was because I saw some discussions about its implications for gay issues, and I was curious about how much I might agree with it. I do and I don't.

In my understanding of Christian and Baha'i scriptures, the God that I see in those scriptures encourages people to produce children, and holds the biological mother and father responsible for raising them in accordance with His prescriptions; and He restricts sexual union to one man per woman, preferably for the lifetime of the man, but in any case no more than one man at a time. That arrangement is commonly called "marriage," but it seems to me to have very little to do with a lot of what people call "marriage," regardless of the sex types of the partners.

I don't agree for anyone to claim any monopoly on the word "marriage." I would agree with anyone who says that the partners in the kind of marriage that God prescribes and regulates in Christian and Baha'i scriptures can only be a man and a woman, but I would not agree that no other arrangement can rightly be called "marriage," or that any other kind of marriage is always wrong. I do think that it would needlessly restrict people's freedom, to apply the same restrictions to two women or two men, that God prescribes for a man and a woman who have joined in sexual union. In any case, I don't see that any of that has anything to do with the healthfulness or morality of attractions and physical intimacy between two men or two women, or the possibilities in marriages between them, compared to those between a man and a woman.

I do see a prohibition on some specific act that is called "homosexuality" in some Baha'i writings, but it isn't clear to me precisely what that is, other than having something to do with substituting a man in the place of a woman, in an imitation of the kind of sexual union that sometimes produces children. Again, I don't see that that has anything to do with the healthfulness or morality of attractions and physical intimacy between two men or two women, compared to those between a man and a woman.

[Oglebart]

In my understanding of Christian and Baha'i scriptures, the God that I see in those scriptures encourages people to produce children, and holds the biological mother and father responsible for raising them in accordance with His prescriptions; and He restricts sexual union to one man per woman, preferably for the lifetime of the man, but in any case no more than one man at a time. That arrangement is commonly called "marriage," but it seems to me to have very little to do with a lot of what people call "marriage," regardless of the sex types of the partners.

I don't agree for anyone to claim any monopoly on the word "marriage." I would agree with anyone who says that the partners in the kind of marriage that God prescribes and regulates in Christian and Baha'i scriptures can only be a man and a woman, but I would not agree that no other arrangement can rightly be called "marriage," or that any other kind of marriage is always wrong. I do think that it would needlessly restrict people's freedom, to apply the same restrictions to two women or two men, that God prescribes for a man and a woman who have joined in sexual union. In any case, I don't see that any of that has anything to do with the healthfulness or morality of attractions and physical intimacy between two men or two women, or the possibilities in marriages between them, compared to those between a man and a woman.

I do see a prohibition on some specific act that is called "homosexuality" in some Baha'i writings, but it isn't clear to me precisely what that is, other than having something to do with substituting a man in the place of a woman, in an imitation of the kind of sexual union that sometimes produces children. Again, I don't see that that has anything to do with the healthfulness or morality of attractions and physical intimacy between two men or two women, compared to those between a man and a woman.

I have no idea why anyone would pay any heed to so called "scriptures" proscribing how people should live their lives and passing judgement on any interpersonal relations. Honestly, the fucking gall of it is staggering, pisses me off no end. It's a particular cancerous part of organised religion, and as Hitch said, we'd be better off without it.

[feathers]

Most of the American beers are brewed in Canada now too. And that pisses me off because I can still remember the different American beers being quite distinctive from Canadian beer and now there is no difference. I say that and I just bought a six-pack of Milwaukee about 45 minutes ago. Let me see, yup, brewed in Guelph Ontario, Canada by Stroh Canada.

Aren't they supposed to make rum, jawohl?

I think that most licensed beers are at the very least based on the original recipe (and if the locals like the taste, no need to adapt it), so I wouldn't expect that much of a taste difference with its local clone.

[Karmakin]

There's been a lot of sexual harassment suits lately in the news. So, I thought we need a primer for what sexual harassment is.

This video is a good start.

[youtube]IUNXPFI6dYU[/youtube]

LOL
If only it were that obvious.
But Sexual Harrasment (at least in the US have no idea about Europe) , having taken lots of its legal freight from MacKinnon, quickly went off the rails into a subjective never-never land based on a 'rational female' standard. In other words, it was also sexist from the get-go.

About the only things that really keep SH law in check in the US from ruining many businesses are the fact that it has to be repeated behavior in order to implicate the employer in a 'hostile work environment' and the fact that there are , in some industries, informal 'blacklists' if you bring too many complaints, complaints against really powerful people, or bring the wrong kind of complaint.

However, from an individual male worker bee's point of view this stuff is very Orwellian, very confusing, and often unfairly applied.

And in practice , we can thank this kind of precedent for bad law and super governmental intrusion into private firms for lots of the 'microagression' and SJW bullshit we have to live with today.

P.S. I'm not against SH law. But I am against a feminist or women-centric framwork, and I'd tighten it up considerably.

Workplace harassment law doesn't help people who are genuinely harassed, but is very easy to use against innocent men. It's basically a weapon that dishonest women can use against men.

My own experience was when I was a temp working for a trade union. One morning I was told to tidy up the file store. I had finished it by lunchtime. At four o'clock a female co-worker dumped her filing on me, saying she couldn't do it because I hadn't tidied the file store, and left early. I did it that once, but I sent her an email saying I didn't appreciate it and asking her not to do it again. She took that email to management, turned on the tears and told them she was terrified of me and the whole floor wasn't prepared to work with me, and I was summarily dismissed.

A friend of mine, who was single at the time, had a co-worker who was in a relationship, and who flirted with him. At first he enjoyed it and flirted back, but after a while he felt it was going too far and asked her to stop. She reported him for sexual harassment. His manager knew exactly what had been going on and told him so, but his hands were tied. She had made a complaint of sexual harassment and he had not, so he couldn't take her behaviour into consideration. Under the law he was personally liable if he took no action and another complaint was made against my friend, so he was obliged to reprimand him and put that on his file for six months. She had applied for a promotion, and if he didn't give it to her he'd likely be facing a complaint for retaliation, so she got promoted.

On the other hand, at my current workplace I had a co-worker who has since retired. He got repeatedly handsy with a young female temp. She repeatedly objected vocally. Eventually he put his hand down the back of her trousers while she was bending over a filing cabinet, and she made an official complaint against him. The solution? She was moved to another position elsewhere in the building, and told to take a different route to the smoking room so she didn't pass him. He got, you guessed it, a reprimand on his file for six months. She quit and took it to a tribunal, and won, but prospective employers will likely be wary of her because of it.

That's the extent of my anecdotage on the subject. The bad actors won every time.

That's the big problem, when you create a system that doesn't clearly lay out what behavior is acceptable and what behavior is unacceptable and rely on self-reporting and well...feelings...you always always always create systems where people with social and institutional power will use it against the people who don't.

It no longer is about that actual issues...it's about reinforcing those power hierarchies.

[Karmakin]

The SJW obsession with purity forces them to distance themselves from their enemies. When Donald Trump (who's the SJWs' worst nightmare) says anything about Islam in a negative way, the SJWs are terrified of being even remotely associated with him or his ideas. Any criticism of Islam as a whole becomes "microaggression".

I think that's right, but it's an interesting question as to what the 'purity' they are obsessed with actually is.

Is it purity of ideology/morality? Clearly not, given that they are happy to defend the suffering/oppression of women under Islam, and thereby explictly support a form of cultural apartheid.

What about purity of personal behaviour? The Nyberg and Stollznow incidents demonstrate that pretty much anything goes, as long as their friends are doing it. (You can probably add to that their continued exhaltation of blatant liar and thief Anita Sarkeesian.)

I agree there seems to be some form of purity test going on, but I can't work out what.

It's more about flying the right flags of that particular cultural zeitgeist than any specific issue to dedicate purity on. It's all very arbitrary, to be honest, and it can switch on a moment's notice, if that's what it takes to create a stronger division between the in-group and the out-group.

[katamari Damassi]

Feminace's cat is going to be okay

http://the-orbit.net/seriously/2016/04/ ... hit-thank/

Can we now have a fund-raiser to buy toys for feminists to play with to keep them occupied instead of blogging ?

They seem to be really into coloring books.

[katamari Damassi]

Currently Yukon bound. Dawson City!

[feathers]

Can we now have a fund-raiser to buy toys for feminists to play with to keep them occupied instead of blogging ?

They seem to be really into coloring books.

For cats.

[Old_ones]

Should we deport Christians, unless they swear to "piss" on the Bible? If so, where to? Should we also ban Christianity?

So because we haven't yet cured cancer that means we shouldn't be trying to reduce the carnage on our highways? That many Christians have rather problematic beliefs that motivate violence in no way precludes considering solutions to the fact that many more Muslims subscribe to more odious beliefs and consequential actions.

I've been trying to ignore the great Koran piss debate, but reading this comment gave me a thought.

You are missing the point completely, steers. The point isn't that we shouldn't ban Islam because we haven't "cured" Christianity yet. The point is that to ban a religion or ideology is an act of moral cowardice anathema to free societies and enlightenment values. The point is that even if you could stop all the violence associated with Islam by resurrecting the Spanish inquisition and forcing people to desecrate their holy books (you can't - the suggestion is idiotic) you still shouldn't do it. Because in creating a class of thoughtcrime you will have effectively murdered the society you were trying to protect.

Its surprising and appalling that this would need to be explained on this board. Isn't this same push for the creation of thoughtcrime the raison d'etre of the SJWs, for fuck's sake? Aren't most of us here because we are pissed off at the censorship mongers and safe space crybullies?

Safe spaces are fundamentally wrong and incomparable with free and open societies. We don't need a US or a Britain or a Sweden that is a safe space from the icky people with backwards beliefs. If that's what you want, why don't you go sell your great solution to Big Red and PZ Myers? Those are the kind of people who are into solutions like yours and you'll probably have less difficulty convincing them that Islam is an evil ideology than you will convincing me that criminalizing wrongthink is a good strategy.

[Skep tickle]

Most people here who have reported their Myers-Briggs personality type were INTP, with some INTJs thrown into the mix (and a few other types). INTP and INTJ are fairly uncommon (said to be 3% and 1% respectively of the population). Whether that means anything is left to the intrepid anthropologist studying the 'Pit.

"THE MEDIATOR" (INFP-A)

<snip>

I hate it when people think I'm trying to be a mediator or a diplomat.

"... the risk of feeling misunderstood is unfortunately high for the INFP personality type ..."

LOL it doesn't seem that far off, if that's your "type":

INFP personalities are true idealists, always looking for the hint of good in even the worst of people and events, searching for ways to make things better. ... ...the risk of feeling misunderstood is unfortunately high for the INFP personality type – but when they find like-minded people to spend their time with, the harmony they feel will be a fountain of joy and inspiration.

... When deciding how to move forward, they will look to honor, beauty, morality and virtue – INFPs are led by the purity of their intent, not rewards and punishments. People who share the INFP personality type are proud of this quality, and rightly so, but not everyone understands the drive behind these feelings, and it can lead to isolation.

... INFPs will focus their attention on just a few people, a single worthy cause – spread too thinly, they’ll run out of energy, and even become dejected and overwhelmed by all the bad in the world that they can’t fix. ...

If they are not careful, INFPs can lose themselves in their quest for good and neglect the day-to-day upkeep that life demands. INFPs often drift into deep thought, enjoying contemplating the hypothetical and the philosophical more than any other personality type. ...

[Skep tickle]

Should we deport Christians, unless they swear to "piss" on the Bible? If so, where to? Should we also ban Christianity?

So because we haven't yet cured cancer that means we shouldn't be trying to reduce the carnage on our highways? That many Christians have rather problematic beliefs that motivate violence in no way precludes considering solutions to the fact that many more Muslims subscribe to more odious beliefs and consequential actions.

I've been trying to ignore the great Koran piss debate, but reading this comment gave me a thought.

You are missing the point completely, steers. The point isn't that we shouldn't ban Islam because we haven't "cured" Christianity yet. The point is that to ban a religion or ideology is an act of moral cowardice anathema to free societies and enlightenment values. The point is that even if you could stop all the violence associated with Islam by resurrecting the Spanish inquisition and forcing people to desecrate their holy books (you can't - the suggestion is idiotic) you still shouldn't do it. Because in creating a class of thoughtcrime you will have effectively murdered the society you were trying to protect.

Its surprising and appalling that this would need to be explained on this board. Isn't this same push for the creation of thoughtcrime the raison d'etre of the SJWs, for fuck's sake? Aren't most of us here because we are pissed off at the censorship mongers and safe space crybullies?

Safe spaces are fundamentally wrong and incomparable with free and open societies. We don't need a US or a Britain or a Sweden that is a safe space from the icky people with backwards beliefs. If that's what you want, why don't you go sell your great solution to Big Red and PZ Myers? Those are the kind of people who are into solutions like yours and you'll probably have less difficulty convincing them that Islam is an evil ideology than you will convincing me that criminalizing wrongthink is a good strategy.

Well said. QFT. ^^This. Eleventy11. Etc.

[Clarence]

Should we deport Christians, unless they swear to "piss" on the Bible? If so, where to? Should we also ban Christianity?

So because we haven't yet cured cancer that means we shouldn't be trying to reduce the carnage on our highways? That many Christians have rather problematic beliefs that motivate violence in no way precludes considering solutions to the fact that many more Muslims subscribe to more odious beliefs and consequential actions.

I've been trying to ignore the great Koran piss debate, but reading this comment gave me a thought.

You are missing the point completely, steers. The point isn't that we shouldn't ban Islam because we haven't "cured" Christianity yet. The point is that to ban a religion or ideology is an act of moral cowardice anathema to free societies and enlightenment values. The point is that even if you could stop all the violence associated with Islam by resurrecting the Spanish inquisition and forcing people to desecrate their holy books (you can't - the suggestion is idiotic) you still shouldn't do it. Because in creating a class of thoughtcrime you will have effectively murdered the society you were trying to protect.

Its surprising and appalling that this would need to be explained on this board. Isn't this same push for the creation of thoughtcrime the raison d'etre of the SJWs, for fuck's sake? Aren't most of us here because we are pissed off at the censorship mongers and safe space crybullies?

Safe spaces are fundamentally wrong and incomparable with free and open societies. We don't need a US or a Britain or a Sweden that is a safe space from the icky people with backwards beliefs. If that's what you want, why don't you go sell your great solution to Big Red and PZ Myers? Those are the kind of people who are into solutions like yours and you'll probably have less difficulty convincing them that Islam is an evil ideology than you will convincing me that criminalizing wrongthink is a good strategy.

Well, just from reading this, you seem to be confused about what an SJW Safe Space is.
A Safe Space is a Free From Thought place, where nothing can be challenged.

This has nothing to do with expecting that your streets will be physically safe, and, unfortunately when it comes to certain rather prevalent strains of Islam, if you are infidel, or someone from a minority religious community, or someone who has sinned by, say, holding hands with an unapproved love partner, or heck, if you've even drawn a picture of The Prophet for an Encyclopaedia let alone a satirical religious cartoon , then suddenly your physical safety is an issue.

A country doesn't have to import or provide shelter for people whose culture contrasts sharply with its own , esp when that clash leads to violations of its laws.
And lots of what certain Muslim Clerics preach goes beyond mere sexism or racism or religious bigotry to calling for out and out violence,and I have no problem with throwing those clerics out on their ears.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Meyers is a fool.

Is he really this self-unaware? Does anyone want to tweet a link to his childish fucking dungeon list of yesteryear?

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

[Eskarina]

I've been trying to ignore the great Koran piss debate, but reading this comment gave me a thought.

You are missing the point completely, steers. The point isn't that we shouldn't ban Islam because we haven't "cured" Christianity yet. The point is that to ban a religion or ideology is an act of moral cowardice anathema to free societies and enlightenment values. The point is that even if you could stop all the violence associated with Islam by resurrecting the Spanish inquisition and forcing people to desecrate their holy books (you can't - the suggestion is idiotic) you still shouldn't do it. Because in creating a class of thoughtcrime you will have effectively murdered the society you were trying to protect.

Its surprising and appalling that this would need to be explained on this board. Isn't this same push for the creation of thoughtcrime the raison d'etre of the SJWs, for fuck's sake? Aren't most of us here because we are pissed off at the censorship mongers and safe space crybullies?

Safe spaces are fundamentally wrong and incomparable with free and open societies. We don't need a US or a Britain or a Sweden that is a safe space from the icky people with backwards beliefs. If that's what you want, why don't you go sell your great solution to Big Red and PZ Myers? Those are the kind of people who are into solutions like yours and you'll probably have less difficulty convincing them that Islam is an evil ideology than you will convincing me that criminalizing wrongthink is a good strategy.

Well said. QFT. ^^This. Eleventy11. Etc.

+1

[Sunder]

I've never thought of the Pit as middle ground before, but it's starting to look more like that to me now.

Here are some tidbits we've come up with in discussions here over the prior couple of years, in case they're interesting or useful for you to fold into your musings:

• Most people here are or identify as, liberal (though not all).
• In particular, many people who reported their political leanings in this thread fall into the lower left corner of the Political Compass test, meaning Left libertarian (left vs right, libertarian vs authoritarian).
• Quite a few people here have commented with varying degrees of surprise, confusion, or disgust on finding that right-wing media often now seems to be more useful (better investigation or analysis, more level-headed, whatever) than left-wing or even 'mainstream' media
• Many/most people here seem to be egalitarian, pro-equality, etc, which also means equally few kid gloves & eggshells
• In particular, this thread shows a generally pro-equality bent, and in the comments you'll see that some people answered "no" to the poll because they don't identify as "feminist" with all the baggage that term carries.
• While many people here are presumably cis het white males, not everyone is. You don't have to fit that demographic to be concerned about how people are being treated - to the injustice in resorting to sexism, racism, litmus tests, exclusion, and demonization to supposedly improve society - and the hypocrisy that that improvement is supposed to make society more inclusive, more tolerant, etc.
• Most people here who have reported their Myers-Briggs personality type (and yes some think that's like astrologic signs) were INTP, with some INTJs thrown into the mix (and a few other types). INTP and INTJ are fairly uncommon (said to be 3% and 1% respectively of the population). Whether that means anything is left to the intrepid anthropologist studying the 'Pit.
• People at the 'Pit come from a wide range of fields, not just blue collar & white collar but also military (background at least) and farming, and wide range of educational backgrounds. I haven't looked back for that discussion - it was in the endless thread, quite a while back - but recall it was quite interesting to see the variety of experience & expertise.
• Final near-commonality is that, while people "draw the line" different places, most enjoy a fairly robust sense of humor, and value the right to question, poke fun at, or counter just about any idea

I recall the Bush years fairly well and the rise of the liberal "reality-based community" in response to the current regime's arrogance. I was fairly well convinced by Al Franken's argument that media has a lazy bias rather than a liberal one. I also recall Colbert's coining of the "reality has a liberal bias" meme.

It all went wrong in much the same way atheism and skepticism went wrong. You start off with people who are actually clever and capable. They make fools of their opponents and enemies call them smug despite it being an earned smugness, a confidence in the correctness of their positions based 99 having examined them thoroughly.

Then the coattail riders show up. They have the correct position on some issues but only arrived at them through following the lead of others and without a lot of deep reflection. They learn to recite the appropriate memes and act like they fit in. Before long they swallow some bunk or another and start regurgitating new memes alongside the old.

I still believe primarily in the lazy bias, but at the moment it's definitely working in the SJWs' favor, because they've done a decent job til lately of couching their awful ideas in humanitarian language. But righties who've been banging the liberal bias drum have more of an excuse than ever before.

[Sunder]

That should say "based on," not 99.

[jet_lagg]

I've been trying to ignore the great Koran piss debate, but reading this comment gave me a thought.

You are missing the point completely, steers. The point isn't that we shouldn't ban Islam because we haven't "cured" Christianity yet. The point is that to ban a religion or ideology is an act of moral cowardice anathema to free societies and enlightenment values. The point is that even if you could stop all the violence associated with Islam by resurrecting the Spanish inquisition and forcing people to desecrate their holy books (you can't - the suggestion is idiotic) you still shouldn't do it. Because in creating a class of thoughtcrime you will have effectively murdered the society you were trying to protect.

Its surprising and appalling that this would need to be explained on this board. Isn't this same push for the creation of thoughtcrime the raison d'etre of the SJWs, for fuck's sake? Aren't most of us here because we are pissed off at the censorship mongers and safe space crybullies?

Safe spaces are fundamentally wrong and incomparable with free and open societies. We don't need a US or a Britain or a Sweden that is a safe space from the icky people with backwards beliefs. If that's what you want, why don't you go sell your great solution to Big Red and PZ Myers? Those are the kind of people who are into solutions like yours and you'll probably have less difficulty convincing them that Islam is an evil ideology than you will convincing me that criminalizing wrongthink is a good strategy.

You're talking to the A.I. that believes nigger is not a racist slur and menopause literally negates womanhood. You shouldn't ever be surprised that you'd have to explain something ;)

But yes, well put.

[Tigzy]

Meyers is a fool.

Is he really this self-unaware? Does anyone want to tweet a link to his childish fucking dungeon list of yesteryear?

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

Not even the slightest mention of the blockbot either, in the post or the comments. :lol:

Peez, from way back, on block lists:

Another twist on the excuses, though, is that they’re objecting to the categorization of names on block bots.

Why is it necessary for these blockbots to label its lists as lists of horrible people who are bigots, harassers, or otherwise “bad people?”

Well, if the description fits…

But OK, let’s imagine a list with a blanket condemnation of its members — say, an autoblock list that the creator labels “Fat ugly evil people”, and I’m on it. Would this bother me? Not in the least. If you feel it’s unjust, then it says more about the creator than the people on it. Or I might feel like it’s a fair cop.

It’s rather ironic, though, that #gamergaters, who are so ready to dismiss other people’s reactions to insults, are so delicate that they find being on a list labeled “harassers” traumatic.

Come on, people. These are voluntary lists. They don’t prevent anyone from expressing themselves. They do let people avoid others they don’t like. It seems like a good idea to me.

https://archive.is/YVSC9

Myers seems to be rapidly approaching peak inconsistency. Give it a month or two and we'll have the vegetarian feminist Myers hunched over his laptop, pumping out his drivel, while his missus serves him steak sandwich after steak sandwich. With her floppy old tits hanging out, as per her master's request. Probably.

[Ape+lust]

Repugnant white Peez agrees with dog-fucking pedophile Sarah Nyberg: It's embarrassing to be associated with slymebros.

http://imgur.com/09LEU8u.jpg

[Old_ones]

I've been trying to ignore the great Koran piss debate, but reading this comment gave me a thought.

You are missing the point completely, steers. The point isn't that we shouldn't ban Islam because we haven't "cured" Christianity yet. The point is that to ban a religion or ideology is an act of moral cowardice anathema to free societies and enlightenment values. The point is that even if you could stop all the violence associated with Islam by resurrecting the Spanish inquisition and forcing people to desecrate their holy books (you can't - the suggestion is idiotic) you still shouldn't do it. Because in creating a class of thoughtcrime you will have effectively murdered the society you were trying to protect.

Its surprising and appalling that this would need to be explained on this board. Isn't this same push for the creation of thoughtcrime the raison d'etre of the SJWs, for fuck's sake? Aren't most of us here because we are pissed off at the censorship mongers and safe space crybullies?

Safe spaces are fundamentally wrong and incomparable with free and open societies. We don't need a US or a Britain or a Sweden that is a safe space from the icky people with backwards beliefs. If that's what you want, why don't you go sell your great solution to Big Red and PZ Myers? Those are the kind of people who are into solutions like yours and you'll probably have less difficulty convincing them that Islam is an evil ideology than you will convincing me that criminalizing wrongthink is a good strategy.

Well, just from reading this, you seem to be confused about what an SJW Safe Space is.
A Safe Space is a Free From Thought place, where nothing can be challenged.

This has nothing to do with expecting that your streets will be physically safe, and, unfortunately when it comes to certain rather prevalent strains of Islam, if you are infidel, or someone from a minority religious community, or someone who has sinned by, say, holding hands with an unapproved love partner, or heck, if you've even drawn a picture of The Prophet for an Encyclopaedia let alone a satirical religious cartoon , then suddenly your physical safety is an issue.

A country doesn't have to import or provide shelter for people whose culture contrasts sharply with its own , esp when that clash leads to violations of its laws.
And lots of what certain Muslim Clerics preach goes beyond mere sexism or racism or religious bigotry to calling for out and out violence,and I have no problem with throwing those clerics out on their ears.

This whole post is a red herring. If Steers were merely arguing for better background checks for immigrants, and fewer new immigrants to be let in, then I wouldn't have written that. He's not arguing for those things. He's arguing that Muslims who aren't willing to piss on the Koran should be deported. That isn't a saner approach to Islam, its effectively a ban on the observance of Islam. I have friends who wouldn't piss on the Koran, who are decent, law abiding citizens, who don't wave around AK-47s and behead people for drawing cartoons.

Also, you are the one who is confused about safe spaces. We already have laws against violent actions, inciting violence, and providing material support to terrorist organizations. We already have laws protecting the cartoonists who draw Muhammad. If people are persisting in breaking those laws, we have a law enforcement issue. We already have the "safe space" that you are talking about.

Steers is not arguing for reforms in law enforcement, he is arguing for getting rid of people who rigorously observe Islam. He wants to be safe from people who hold a particular opinion or ideology. Where have we seen that before?

.
.
.

http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/ ... aclick.jpg

[jet_lagg]

<snip>

This has nothing to do with expecting that your streets will be physically safe, and, unfortunately when it comes to certain rather prevalent strains of Islam, if you are infidel, or someone from a minority religious community, or someone who has sinned by, say, holding hands with an unapproved love partner, or heck, if you've even drawn a picture of The Prophet for an Encyclopaedia let alone a satirical religious cartoon , then suddenly your physical safety is an issue.

A country doesn't have to import or provide shelter for people whose culture contrasts sharply with its own , esp when that clash leads to violations of its laws.
And lots of what certain Muslim Clerics preach goes beyond mere sexism or racism or religious bigotry to calling for out and out violence,and I have no problem with throwing those clerics out on their ears.

I do have a problem with it. I don't think I'll have any trouble convincing the members here that people believe what they believe independently of what they are bullied into professing in public. I'd rather have people telling me how they really feel then touting some false virtue. At least then I know, and more importantly law enforcement knows, where there really dangerous people are.

[Ape+lust]

Wikipedia vandalism. It's nothing special, just the first time I've bumbled on some without being directed to it :D

http://imgur.com/I5b7G7q.jpg

[jet_lagg]

Anjuli is really taking it to Islam over at FTB. She hasn't gone full Steersman, but her position is far more hardass than my own. I'd have expected a mini schism to form by now, but Great American Satan hasn't the intellect to form an offensive against her by his lonesome, and the SJW tendency to eat their own seems to have lowered their strength in numbers.

[Sunder]

If Peez is ashamed of his whiteness, his maleness, and his atheism, then good. He deserves to feel deep shame and at this point I don't even care if it's over the things he actually should be ashamed of doing.

[Steersman]

I would not be able to bring myself to piss on the Bible much less the Quran. I think this is yet another thing that Steers should give up on.

*sigh*

But somehow I doubt that he will.

Would you be able to piss on a dictionary or maybe one of Shakespeare's works? If so, why would you not be able to do that to a storybook about a magic god? It seems weird to me that you might think that those two violent religious storybooks are divine, or holy, or something to revere, and that destroying/disrespecting one copy (not some rare or valuable original) is bad or sinful.

Exactly right. :clap: :handgestures-thumbupleft: :handgestures-thumbupright: :flags-canada: Couldn't have said it better myself - at least in anything less than 3000 words. ;-) :-)

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Steers has already had all of this explained to him in the Islam thread. viewtopic.php?f=29&t=484. He has budged exactly as much as one would suspect, which is not at all. He is still the unknowing troll.

[Shatterface]

Muslims are 'not like us' and we should just accept they will never integrate, says former racial equalities chief Trevor Phillips

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... llips.html

[Steersman]

Steers has already had all of this explained to him in the Islam thread. viewtopic.php?f=29&t=484. He has budged exactly as much as one would suspect, which is not at all. He is still the unknowing troll.

That you "explain" to me that two plus two equals five doesn't make it so. You have to demonstrate to me - and every one else - that that is actually the case: the scientific method, the proof is in the pudding and all that.

[Shatterface]

Repugnant white Peez agrees with dog-fucking pedophile Sarah Nyberg: It's embarrassing to be associated with slymebros.

http://imgur.com/09LEU8u.jpg

Myers really needs to take a razor to his skin and cut the white out of himself.

[Steersman]

Steers has already had all of this explained to him in the Islam thread. viewtopic.php?f=29&t=484. He has budged exactly as much as one would suspect, which is not at all. He is still the unknowing troll.

And to call me a troll is of the same order, the same obnoxious ploy, as "feminists" calling someone a misogynist, as Islamists calling someone an islamophobe, to shutdown the conversation. Dickhead.

[Sunder]

Western values sacralize free speech. You cannot ever defend Western values by undermining them.

[Tigzy]

This video sums up precisely what it's like when trying to get Steersman to consider a viewpoint even slightly at variance with his own.

[youtube]rb3awRfTSs8[/youtube]

[free thoughtpolice]

Anjuli is really taking it to Islam over at FTB. She hasn't gone full Steersman, but her position is far more hardass than my own. I'd have expected a mini schism to form by now, but Great American Satan hasn't the intellect to form an offensive against her by his lonesome, and the SJW tendency to eat their own seems to have lowered their strength in numbers.

They are afraid of her. She isn't going to just shut up and go away like Jamila Bey did when she had someone disagree with her. Also PZ hasn't criticized her and on top of that she isn't hetero-white privileged.
From a comment on Joe Sands blog that may give some insight why she isn't under siege:

That said, to me her most problematic article, which I admit fueled my negative bias towards her, was “Let me say some things about migrants,” which immediately begins accepting the right-wing narrative regarding the incidents at Cologne (“Following the organised and coordinated mass rapes of women by gangs of Muslim men in Cologne and several other European cities at New Year”,) and then goes on to make broad generalizations about migrants based on anecdotal evidence (her story about her work with asylum-seekers in the UK.) I didn’t need to post my opinions in the comments because Great American Satan and Giliell had already done that for me, and had been already dismissed.

I’m also not too fond of some of her jabs at what seems, to me, to be the “regressive left:”

* “Why I am not an apostate,” second comment (coincidentally, addressed to you:) Remember Cologne and those ten other cities and the north African and Middle Eastern men that everyone was too coy to mention?

* “Even if it’s true, it’s a total non-starter:”“There is a position on the left that would make the truth hostage to political convenience in this way.”

* “Calling a spade a spade:”“It used to be mainly the clergy and the “scholars” who enforced this ignorance of the Qur’an and its doctrine. Today it is apologists for Islam, liberals and leftists sensitive to charges of racism and imperialism, ex-Muslims sensitive to the feelings of peaceful Muslims, realpolitik policy-makers who want to avoid “driving moderate Muslims into the arms of the extremists,” and Muslims propagandists, who, by denying any link between terrorism perpetrated by Muslims and the doctrine that inspires them to terrorism, continue and extend the work of the clergy in shielding the Qur’an and Islam from scrutiny.”

Why not communicate that directly to her?

Because,

That said, I understand that I’m in no position to outright judge or accuse Anjuli of anything

I fully admit that my position is not rational and easily dismissable; all I have are gut feelings, and you can’t confront facts and data with them.

https://archive.is/AhMAB

[Steersman]

Western values sacralize free speech. You cannot ever defend Western values by undermining them.

Except we don't. "Four legs good; two legs bad"; "54-40 or Fight"; "Remember the Alamo"; "Close cover before striking": great slogans but frequently not worth a tinker's damn. Likewise with the supposed absolute of free speech. Which is clearly contradicted by the fact that some speech is criminalized - as with libel. And yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when it is clearly false. There is, you know, the other side of the coin that's labeled "responsibility".

If you concede those exceptions then it is entirely justified to ask whether barbaric manifestos, particularly those carrying the supposed imprimatur of "God Himself", that clearly promote hate speech should likewise be criminalized.

[Sunder]

I'll go put on a limb and say something I don't think everyone will agree with: I think flag burning is a moral wrong. Not for precisely the same reasons as nationalists and conservatives though. I think burning, destroying, or pissing on symbols is the same as doing it to books. And the reason all of these are wrong is that it is combating ideas with violence, not other, better ideas. It's following the letter of free speech, but not the spirit.

That said, it's never possible nor desirable to outlaw these acts. People are free to burn flags as well as to protest the very society that protects their freedom to do so. It's something a liberal society has to tolerate in order not to betray its values but shouldn't condone.

[Sunder]

By the way, while I'm firing off these extemporaneous thoughts in response to what others are saying, I won't be engaging directly. No ROI.

[Lsuoma]

Repugnant white Peez agrees with dog-fucking pedophile Sarah Nyberg: It's embarrassing to be associated with slymebros.

http://imgur.com/09LEU8u.jpg

Myers really needs to take a razor to his skin and cut the white out of himself.

Or emulate John Howard Griffin.

[Sunder]

Myers and his Titter twits--sorry, Twitter tits--are doing the same old song and dance with anti-Hillary liberals: "Erhmagerd you don't want REPUBLICANS to win do you?" It's literally their only fallback to any substantive criticism of her vote for the Iraq War or other right-leaning policies. That they will be indirectly aiding Bad People. Which is supposed to be worse somehow than supporting a bad person directly.

They're even hypocrites on this. Myers claims to support Sanders even though he has no chance of winning. What right does he have to castigate anyone who votes their conscience in the general election and allies with the Greens or some other third choice?

It's always fucking OK when I do it, but not you.

[welch]

[*]Final near-commonality is that, while people "draw the line" different places, most enjoy a fairly robust sense of humor, and value the right to question, poke fun at, or counter just about any idea[/list]

No we don't!

Shitlords, the both of you

[welch]

I would not be able to bring myself to piss on the Bible much less the Quran. I think this is yet another thing that Steers should give up on.

*sigh*

But somehow I doubt that he will.

Would you be able to piss on a dictionary or maybe one of Shakespeare's works? If so, why would you not be able to do that to a storybook about a magic god? It seems weird to me that you might think that those two violent religious storybooks are divine, or holy, or something to revere, and that destroying/disrespecting one copy (not some rare or valuable original) is bad or sinful.

So it seems weird to you. How does that make it something that must be questioned, or proved wrong. It's one of Andrew's things. He won't piss on someone else's holy book. I don't even know if they're his or not, just that it's something he wouldn't do.

Everyone has things they will or won't do that seems odd to someone else. why is an explanation required?

[Dan]

Gad Saad talks With Jerry Coyne about Peezus

[youtube]LGzvinJki_k[/youtube]

[welch]

Should we deport Christians, unless they swear to "piss" on the Bible? If so, where to? Should we also ban Christianity?

So because we haven't yet cured cancer that means we shouldn't be trying to reduce the carnage on our highways? That many Christians have rather problematic beliefs that motivate violence in no way precludes considering solutions to the fact that many more Muslims subscribe to more odious beliefs and consequential actions.

I've been trying to ignore the great Koran piss debate, but reading this comment gave me a thought.

You are missing the point completely, steers. The point isn't that we shouldn't ban Islam because we haven't "cured" Christianity yet. The point is that to ban a religion or ideology is an act of moral cowardice anathema to free societies and enlightenment values. The point is that even if you could stop all the violence associated with Islam by resurrecting the Spanish inquisition and forcing people to desecrate their holy books (you can't - the suggestion is idiotic) you still shouldn't do it. Because in creating a class of thoughtcrime you will have effectively murdered the society you were trying to protect.

Its surprising and appalling that this would need to be explained on this board. Isn't this same push for the creation of thoughtcrime the raison d'etre of the SJWs, for fuck's sake? Aren't most of us here because we are pissed off at the censorship mongers and safe space crybullies?

Safe spaces are fundamentally wrong and incomparable with free and open societies. We don't need a US or a Britain or a Sweden that is a safe space from the icky people with backwards beliefs. If that's what you want, why don't you go sell your great solution to Big Red and PZ Myers? Those are the kind of people who are into solutions like yours and you'll probably have less difficulty convincing them that Islam is an evil ideology than you will convincing me that criminalizing wrongthink is a good strategy.

Related to this, I think it's fairly obvious that Steerzo has bought into the core, fundamental belief of the SJWs he claims to hate:

"It's okay when *I* do it"

[welch]

Western values sacralize free speech. You cannot ever defend Western values by undermining them.

Yep. If you're going to have standards, especially standards you want others to live up to, then you have to lead the way in doing so. Steers is all for the idea of freedom of speech/religion/etc. but the instant it becomes inconvenient, then he hides behind "well, times are different, we have to deal with things differently. Once things are back to normal, these measures won't be necessary."

It's the justification used by every person in power to strip away rights from the populace. I guess Steerzo missed that whilst wikipedia wanking.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Gad Saad talks With Jerry Coyne about Peezus

[youtube]LGzvinJki_k[/youtube]

:popcorn:

[dog puke]

An interesting off-topic article about an esoteric part of French Music.

http://www.futuresymphony.org/the-cloth ... o-emperor/

@ Phil and/or any PoF (Person of Frenchness), and/or anyone who knows of, cares about (or disdains) Pierre Boulez.

Any opinions on this piece? I am curious about both the musical and political side of the article. Personally I am a bit ambivalent regarding Boulez's contribution, but recognize some good things he had contributed.

Also the term "collaborator" - is it thrown about like SJW's use racist/sexist? Is there still any weight to it in this day and age?

[Old_ones]

Gad Saad talks With Jerry Coyne about Peezus

[youtube]LGzvinJki_k[/youtube]

:popcorn:

Seriously. Cue the Peezus meltdown in 5... 4... 3...