The Refuge of the Toads

[KiwiInOz]

Trans Formation's first post shorter version:
Please troll me.

Why would you troll a fifth columnist?

[Mothra's Dentist]

I'm quite happy fading into obscurity thank you very much

If I live to be 90 yrears old, your BBC interview will still make me laugh
Thanks
:clap:

[comhcinc]

Remember that forged in fire will be coming on in about an hour.

Looks like it could be a good one.

[Dave]

Remember that forged in fire will be coming on in about an hour.

Looks like it could be a good one.

Too many hammers. Now if they used screwdrivers, I might watch.

[jimhabegger]

I'm not sure anyone else here has any concerns about demonization campaigns against Muslims, but I'm not sure there's no interest, so I'll post some thoughts about it. I'm also not sure that any of that has enough credibility with enough people to even worry about it, but I'm not sure it doesn't.

My first thought is to make a clear distinction between responsible criticism of Islam, and demonization campaigns parading as criticism. Some examples of what I mean by responsible criticism would be discussions of harmful practices that are popular in some societies, and which the people doing them call "Islam." To say that those practices aren't really Islam looks like semantic nitpicking and a red herring to me. Another example of what I mean by responsible criticism would be skeptical and critical examination by Muslims of the arguments from Muslim scriptures that people use to excuse those practices. Those are just two possible examples of responsible criticism that come to mind. There might be many others. Those should be enthusiastically encouraged.

Another example of responsible criticism might be pointing out the fallacies in thinking that quoting from Muslim scriptures makes what a person is saying irrefutable, but that might not be any different from pointing out the fallacies in thinking that quoting from any other scriptures makes what a person is saying irrefutable.

One example of what I mean by demonization campaigns parading as criticism is hysterical ranting about the OMG Worldwide Muslim Conspiracy to Take Over the World and Impose the Most God-Awful Possible Interpretations of Sharia (be sure to emphasize that darky word) Law on All People Everywhere. I'm puzzling over what to do about that. I'm not sure that anyone is being fooled who doesn't want to be fooled, so I'm not sure it would make any difference to anyone to try to refute any of that. All I can think of to do is to ignore it and/or ridicule it.

I've been tempted sometimes to point out the misrepresentations and outright falsifications of opinion polls that are sometimes used in those campaigns, but the real problem I see is blind faith in opinion polls. Even if they were not being misrepresented and falsified, it would still be wrong to project them onto any Muslim population anywhere, and even more wrong to project them onto all Muslim populations everywhere. It might be worthwhile though, to expose those fallacies, because it might at least help to reduce the hysteria.

That leaves me with the question of what to do about blind faith in opinion polls, which I see as equivalent to blind faith in religious scriptures, in how it's excused and how it's used. I don't argue with followers of religions about their scriptures, or even their interpretations of them, so maybe that's the answer to my question: not to argue with people about opinion polls or their interpretations of them.

[CommanderTuvok]

Who said the orbiters weren't original content providers?

Pffft. This shit is gold. Here is Ania "Onion" Bula, orbit writer, with a hilarious and cutting satirical song aimed at Dawkins. Ladies and gentlecunts, I give you "Dick Dawk":

[youtube]fhn4t4jJIkY[/youtube]

This must be some of that "activism" that I keep hearing about. Worth every Patreon penny I'm sure.

Is this classic available on 7" vinyl? Will be worth a fortune one day!

[CommanderTuvok]

Needs to be framed.
http://i.imgur.com/m1lSjw6.jpg

Ophie only just realizing how toxic some of her ship-mates are, is just hilariously tragic. The Pit Crew noticed this in their fucking sleep five fucking years ago. We woz right. Right from the fucking start. Feels good to be on the right side of history years before everybody else.

[John D]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... rists.html

Beware of Greeks bearing GIFs.

Ok. That made me laugh. :clap:

Haha. This reminds me of when I was going around my neighborhood taking pictures of the houses. I was trying to get rid of my mortgage insurance payment by claiming my property value had gone up enough (so I had 20% equity). The mortgage company wanted me to go to all the houses that recently sold and take pictures so I could prove comparable sales.

An irate neighbor yelled at me and told me to stop... and that I had no right to take pictures. I explained what I was doing, but she just continued to yell at me to stop. She said she was going to call the police and I said: "OK"... The cops never came.

[CommanderTuvok]

If that's not a Pitter I'll lick Zvan's clit.

If you're wrong, how many seconds will it take to cut your tongue off with a rusty knife?

[Old_ones]

Hey yanks WTF happened in Colorado? North Korea is a dictatorship because you get to choose one person but America is a democracy because you get to choose between two people. Sheesh.

Nothing happened in Colorado. Not a damn thing. The Colorado caucuses mean nothing at this point. Not that a bunch of SJW causing righty/conservatives should be allowed to vote anyhow.

I'm even feeling sympathy for Sanders at this moment even though I think his policies are insane. He keeps winning and winning and is basically funded by his supporters and yet it is all in vain. The nomination will be handed to Hillary. The whole voting system is corrupt. It shouldn't matter if you are left or right, you should want Sanders to win the Democrat nomination and Trump to win the Republican nomination. Both the GOPe and the Dems need to be burnt to the ground.

He's still losing the Democratic party's popular vote, and the pledged (elected) delegate race by about 200 delegates, which is a significant margin. This is happening because the Democratic party awards delegates in proportion to popular vote totals, which means Hillary's blowout win in Florida means a lot more for the delegate count than Bernie's close win in similarly sized Michigan. In addition to that, Bernie's done best in the states that hold "caucuses" which are undemocratic and lead to a low turnout. I voted for Sanders, but he's not losing because the system is corrupt, he's losing because he's less popular. As much as certain mathematically challenged Bernie supporters rail against "superdelegates" (party brass who get to act as uncommitted delegates) the superdelegates aren't going to make any difference, because Sanders isn't close enough to Clinton for them to affect the overall outcome.

Here's an article for you which makes the same point I just did, but goes into more detail, if you want to know more.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ber ... delegates/

[MacGruberKnows]

Hello Pit!
What's been going on in the world? Owt or nowt?
Saw a documentary the other day on BBC, about James Randi. Storyville. It was pretty good. Saw Michael Shermer on there and DJ Grothe. Got all maudlin for you lot.

Apparently the war with FTB is over and we are now refighting WWII.

[John D]

And now for something completely different.... The Tiger Tank!

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotub ... watch.html

[comhcinc]

And now for something completely different.... The Tiger Tank!

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotub ... watch.html

Pfffft. Keep your loser tanks to yourself.

[Brive1987]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... 04RNLQpebp

A good diet will result in the faeces, the stool, sinking to the bottom of the bowl. The recommended diet is plant-based and low in fat. This is a healthy diet, and on this diet the stools generally sink.

[Billie from Ockham]

ZE RULES

[snip]

And please, y'all, Don't. Wear. Surly-Ramics. while you comment here. My tolerance for ableism is less than zero. I won't let it creep in in any shape or form. Your lame piece-'o-shit Surly tells me that you're supporting a vile ableist. You're not welcome here. Just. Stay. The. Fuck. Away. OK?

[snip]

{bold added}

Jebus F Christ. You couldn't make this shit up.

[Eskarina]

https://i.imgur.com/o8izMyN.jpg

ZE RULES

While I'm waiting to pick up the spoons that will enable me to write my first real blog post here, I thought it might be cool to posit a thing or two about my commenting rules.

You want to comment here? Wonderful. No, really. But first ask yourself: Why? Do you disagree with something I wrote? Well, tough luck. You don't get to tell me in my own safe space that I am "wrong". If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't have written what I wrote. Obvious, ain't it? So keep your asshattery to yourself, thank you very much. Just don't fucking come and 'splain to me I am wrong. I will ban your stupid ass so fast that you won't know what hit you.

Also, if you're a cishet white male, and you feel the urge to comment here, please have the decency to come out clean about that up front. Tell us you're a cishet white male before you start 'splainin'. This rule also applies if you fancy yourself an ally. No, make that: especially when you're an ally.

And please, y'all, Don't. Wear. Surly-Ramics. while you comment here. My tolerance for ableism is less than zero. I won't let it creep in in any shape or form. Your lame piece-'o-shit Surly tells me that you're supporting a vile ableist. You're not welcome here. Just. Stay. The. Fuck. Away. OK?

That's about it, I guess.

Oh, yeah, there's something else I wanted to yap about. I would like you to weigh in about the name of this blog. I am not all that happy with the one I'm using right now. You know the feeling, when you think so long and hard about a word that it loses all meaning. So I cannot tell which is better. Trans Position. Trans Location. Trans Lucid. It's all a blur to me right now. Suggestions appreciated.
––

Comments

1. Ret_Nemmoc. 11/04/2016 11:06pm.
Sounds like a perfect recipe for an echo-chamber to me. And I might be wrong, but "lame" and "stupid" are considered ableist, no? Do I detect a whiff of hypocrisy?
(Cishet white male here, would rather be found dead than wearing Surly-Ramics.)

2. Dulcamara. 11/04/2016 11:58pm.
BANNED.

3. Solzhenitsyn. 12/04/2016 6:03am.
Trans Venom. Trans Siberia. Queer Ways.

4. Dulcamara. 12/04/2016 12:11pm.
You're not helping. BANNED.

Using lame and ableist in one sentence like this should be a dead giveaway.

[Billie from Ockham]

In addition to that, Bernie's done best in the states that hold "caucuses" which are undemocratic and lead to a low turnout.

I missed the bit about how one is supposed to vote in the definition of "democracy." Making people spend more time, talk to others, and then vote in public is not "undemocratic" IMO. It's just not what most people are used to.

[free thoughtpolice]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... 04RNLQpebp

A good diet will result in the faeces, the stool, sinking to the bottom of the bowl. The recommended diet is plant-based and low in fat. This is a healthy diet, and on this diet the stools generally sink.

OK I'll bite is that Kellogg/ PZ Myers study?

[Ape+lust]

...Making people spend more time, talk to others, and then vote in public and then ridicule them with ableist mockery...

Edited to reflect Peez's caucusing method.

http://imgur.com/f8mVhYU.jpg

[Service Dog]

Oddly soothing.
[youtube]o6Glkf4jwkM[/youtube]

[Skep tickle]

http://archive.is/gC9TX

19 hours left in the-orbit's kickstarter. Current total is $8805, which means they'll be obligated according to Kickstarter :liar: to make good on these promised outcomes (bolding added):

Base Goal: $5,000
Reaching this goal will cover our costs to launch and run The Orbit for a year. This includes incorporation, setup, and paying for our servers. That gives us the flexibility to control the ad experience for our readers and writers.

First Stretch Goal: $8,000
We believe in paying writers as a matter of social justice, but we're willing to kick in some extra work to sweeten the pot. When we reach our first stretch goal, we'll put on an online conference dedicated to the topics we cover. We know you can't always come see us when we talk, so we'll bring the talks and panels to you.

[MacGruberKnows]

Oddly soothing.
[youtube]o6Glkf4jwkM[/youtube]

I remember H3 Humvees with huge rims and tiny sidewall tires. A monster 4WD machine that you could not take off ashpalt -good ashpalt - and even then it would have pounded the hell out of you. You spend all that money to make yourself look like an idiot.

I'll keep my 13" rims on my tercel and not look like an idiot, except when I'm in 12" of snow thank you very much.

[Skep tickle]

...Making people spend more time, talk to others, and then vote in public and then ridicule them with ableist mockery...

Edited to reflect Peez's caucusing method.

http://imgur.com/f8mVhYU.jpg

Link, if real? Not bringing it up on a search.

[/suspicious after having been taken in for a while by Jan's Poeific parody]

[Ape+lust]

...Making people spend more time, talk to others, and then vote in public and then ridicule them with ableist mockery...

Edited to reflect Peez's caucusing method.

http://imgur.com/f8mVhYU.jpg

Link, if real? Not bringing it up on a search.

[/suspicious after having been taken in for a while by Jan's Poeific parody]

Ack. Sorry. I retrieved the link from my files, but forgot about posting it :D

http://web.archive.org/web/200403210012 ... ngula.org/

[jimhabegger]

Steersman, I posted a question for you in the "Islam and Islamists" thread.

[jimhabegger]

Is there anyone here who thinks that an influential number of Muslims in Europe and North America approve of murdering people who insult Muhammad, and/or want to have all Muslim laws legally imposed on all people everywhere? If so, can you please explain why you think that? Preferably in the "Islam and Islamists" thread.

[jimhabegger]

I've been searching on the Internet for ideas about possible damaging effects of popular stereotypes and prejudices about men, on men and boys, and I found these. I'm not endorsing everything in them, and I'm not even saying that I learned much from them, but I agree with some of what they're saying, and I thought it might interest some other people here. This is mostly about stereotypes, and little or nothing about prejudices. I haven't found anything yet about the damaging effects of prejudices against men, on men and boys. I think what I'm looking for is about more than just prejudices against men. What I'm looking for is the damaging effects of demonizing men, on men and boys, and now that i think of it, on everyone.

What About the Men? Why Our Gender System Sucks for Men, Too

Gender stereotypes hurt men too

[Tony Parsehole]

http://i.imgur.com/DGHpM9C.jpg

[youtube]3yZZsALXOXg[/youtube]

[Tony Parsehole]

I'm quite happy fading into obscurity thank you very much

If I live to be 90 yrears old, your BBC interview will still make me laugh
Thanks
:clap:

[youtube]3yZZsALXOXg[/youtube]

[Dick Strawkins]

Is there anyone here who thinks that an influential number of Muslims in Europe and North America approve of murdering people who insult Muhammad

Influential number?
Meaning enough that the mainstream media will impose a de facto ban on showing images of Muhammad?

Absolutely. There is no question that this is the case and most newspapers and TV will admit that they do so for security concerns (meaning that they fear for the safety of their staff if they treat Islam the same way they treat every other religion.)

and/or want to have all Muslim laws legally imposed on all people everywhere? If so, can you please explain why you think that? Preferably in the "Islam and Islamists" thread.

In most western countries this is not a major issue because the 'influential number' in this case means enough to have laws imposing Sharia passed in parliament. There is no western country that has enough conservative muslims for this to be a danger.

In contrast, it only takes a few fundies willing to murder people they think have offended their prophet for that to be an influential number.

I would compare it to the number of stranger rapists who exist and whether this number is influential on modern life (for example influencing policing, street lighting, the habits of women in avoiding places where they might meet this tiny percentage of the population who would do them harm).

Now compare that to the number of men who want to impose extreme conservative traditionalist laws that target women (removing their right to vote, to work, to have sex outside marriage etc).

Rapists = small number but highly influential.
Conservative traditionalists = slightly larger number but not influential.

[jimhabegger]

Is there anyone here who can tell me if this is true? Is this really how "oppression," "sexism" and "racism" are commonly defined in sociology textbooks? If so, then the corruption of institutions by career and monopoly social justice interests has gone even farther than I thought.

Oppression, as defined by common Sociology textbooks, describes a relationship of dominance and subordination between groups of people in which one benefits from the systematic abuse, exploitation and injustice directed toward the other. We give names to such systems and call them sexism, racism, ageism, colonialism, classism, etc.

The Staircase of Oppression – It Begins With a Stereotype

[jimhabegger]

Is there anyone here who thinks that an influential number of Muslims in Europe and North America approve of murdering people who insult Muhammad

Influential number?
Meaning enough that the mainstream media will impose a de facto ban on showing images of Muhammad?

Absolutely. There is no question that this is the case and most newspapers and TV will admit that they do so for security concerns (meaning that they fear for the safety of their staff if they treat Islam the same way they treat every other religion.)

and/or want to have all Muslim laws legally imposed on all people everywhere? If so, can you please explain why you think that? Preferably in the "Islam and Islamists" thread.

In most western countries this is not a major issue because the 'influential number' in this case means enough to have laws imposing Sharia passed in parliament. There is no western country that has enough conservative muslims for this to be a danger.

In contrast, it only takes a few fundies willing to murder people they think have offended their prophet for that to be an influential number.

I would compare it to the number of stranger rapists who exist and whether this number is influential on modern life (for example influencing policing, street lighting, the habits of women in avoiding places where they might meet this tiny percentage of the population who would do them harm).

Now compare that to the number of men who want to impose extreme conservative traditionalist laws that target women (removing their right to vote, to work, to have sex outside marriage etc).

Rapists = small number but highly influential.
Conservative traditionalists = slightly larger number but not influential.

Thanks. I like that response very much.

The first part of my question was poorly worded, because I added that as an afterthought. In fact, now that I think of it, the whole question was poorly worded.

In some Internet discussions I've seen some people saying or insinuating that large percentages of Muslims approve of murdering people who insult Muhammad and/or want to have all Muslim laws legally imposed on all people everywhere. I was wondering it anyone here believes any of that, and if so, why.

[jimhabegger]

Sorry. I left out "in Europe and North America."

In some Internet discussions I've seen some people saying or insinuating that large percentages of Muslims in Europe and North America[/i] approve of murdering people who insult Muhammad and/or want to have all Muslim laws legally imposed on all people everywhere. I was wondering it anyone here believes any of that, and if so, why.

[jimhabegger]

Now I'm getting somewhere.

And while we’re all tackling different problems from different angles, one of the common themes that emerges when we talk is the strength of opposition we have faced when advocating for men and boys to have better access to help and support.

Do We Collectively Demonize Men and Boys?

[feathers]

O ye of short memory. Have you forgotten that one of the Pharyngulanhas had become an Orbitter?

viewtopic.php?p=346910#p346910

Yes yes, now I remember, but you had me searching again, you bastard Dutch Master.

[feathers]

Apparently the war with FTB is over and we are now refighting WWII.

We're at war with the Orbit. The Pit has always been at war with the Orbit.

[Kirbmarc]

I'm not sure where to start. Before I try to respond to that, could you please examine your argument as critically as you would an argument coming out of FtB?

Apart from that, have you done any investigation to see how the Arbitration Act 1966 is most often used by Muslims and other people? Have you searched for the most reasonable arguments for and against abolishing the Islamic Sharia Council? Would you abolish that and the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal both, or only the Islamic Sharia Council?

Have you even read the article I posted?

If you need more evidence of awful consequences of Sharia Courts, read this and this for example.

The social context of tight-knit communities where religious leaders have a huge amount of informal power makes it possible for them to abuse that power beyond the letter of the law.

There is an assumption that those who attend sharia courts do so voluntarily and that unfair decisions can be challenged. Since much of sharia law is contrary to British law and public policy, in theory they would be unlikely to be upheld in a British court. In reality, women are often pressured by their families into going to these courts and adhering to unfair decisions and may lack knowledge of their rights under British law. Moreover, refusal to settle a dispute in a sharia court could lead to to threats, intimidation or isolation.

According to the Arbitration Act of 1996 (not 1966) the duties of the arbitration tribunal require to "act fairly and impartially as between the parties".

This simply isn't true in any tribunal which is based on Sharia laws, because Sharia laws aren't impartial:

Under sharia's civil code, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. A man can divorce his wife by repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications, some of which are difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age; women who remarry lose custody of their children even before then; and sons inherit twice the share of daughters.

How precisely would modify the Arbitration Act, or create special legislation, for that purpose, without violating your principles of equality?

The Family Statue Law Amendment Act of 2006 has introduced (among many others) this amendment:

“family arbitration” means an arbitration that,

(a) deals with matters that could be dealt with in a marriage contract, separation agreement, cohabitation agreement or paternity agreement under this Part, and

(b) is conducted exclusively in accordance with the law of Ontario or of another Canadian jurisdiction; (“arbitrage familial”)

The part in bold is very important. Arbitration is possible on if conducted exclusively according to the laws on Ontario or another Canadian jurisdiction, which means that arbitration courts must operate exclusively according to secular laws.

The Arbitration Act 1996 has no such requirement:

The provisions of this Part are founded on the following principles, and shall be construed accordingly—
(a)the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense;

(b)the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest;

(c)in matters governed by this Part the court should not intervene except as provided by this Part.

"Public interest" is far too vaguely defined and leaves too much room to potential for abuse. This could be amended as such:

The provisions of this Part are founded on the following principles, and shall be construed accordingly—
(a)the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense;

(b)the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, with the provision that this is done exclusively in accordance with the law of the United Kingdom or of another legislative body which has jurisdiction in the United Kingdom;

(c)in matters governed by this Part the court should not intervene except as provided by this Part.

This amendment would exclude any tribunal which doesn't apply secular laws, since no legislative body which is based on religious laws has jurisdiction in the United Kingdom.

[HoneyWagon]

https://i.imgur.com/o8izMyN.jpg

ZE RULES

While I'm waiting to pick up the spoons that will enable me to write my first real blog post here, I thought it might be cool to posit a thing or two about my commenting rules.

You want to comment here? Wonderful. No, really. But first ask yourself: Why? Do you disagree with something I wrote? Well, tough luck. You don't get to tell me in my own safe space that I am "wrong". If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't have written what I wrote. Obvious, ain't it? So keep your asshattery to yourself, thank you very much. Just don't fucking come and 'splain to me I am wrong. I will ban your stupid ass so fast that you won't know what hit you.

Also, if you're a cishet white male, and you feel the urge to comment here, please have the decency to come out clean about that up front. Tell us you're a cishet white male before you start 'splainin'. This rule also applies if you fancy yourself an ally. No, make that: especially when you're an ally.

And please, y'all, Don't. Wear. Surly-Ramics. while you comment here. My tolerance for ableism is less than zero. I won't let it creep in in any shape or form. Your lame piece-'o-shit Surly tells me that you're supporting a vile ableist. You're not welcome here. Just. Stay. The. Fuck. Away. OK?

That's about it, I guess.

Oh, yeah, there's something else I wanted to yap about. I would like you to weigh in about the name of this blog. I am not all that happy with the one I'm using right now. You know the feeling, when you think so long and hard about a word that it loses all meaning. So I cannot tell which is better. Trans Position. Trans Location. Trans Lucid. It's all a blur to me right now. Suggestions appreciated.
––

Comments

1. Ret_Nemmoc. 11/04/2016 11:06pm.
Sounds like a perfect recipe for an echo-chamber to me. And I might be wrong, but "lame" and "stupid" are considered ableist, no? Do I detect a whiff of hypocrisy?
(Cishet white male here, would rather be found dead than wearing Surly-Ramics.)

2. Dulcamara. 11/04/2016 11:58pm.
BANNED.

3. Solzhenitsyn. 12/04/2016 6:03am.
Trans Venom. Trans Siberia. Queer Ways.

4. Dulcamara. 12/04/2016 12:11pm.
You're not helping. BANNED.

You have a link? I can't find it.

[jimhabegger]

I'm not sure where to start. Before I try to respond to that, could you please examine your argument as critically as you would an argument coming out of FtB?

Apart from that, have you done any investigation to see how the Arbitration Act 1966 is most often used by Muslims and other people? Have you searched for the most reasonable arguments for and against abolishing the Islamic Sharia Council? Would you abolish that and the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal both, or only the Islamic Sharia Council?

...

According to the Arbitration Act of 1996 (not 1966) the duties of the arbitration tribunal require to "act fairly and impartially as between the parties".

This simply isn't true in any tribunal which is based on Sharia laws, because Sharia laws aren't impartial:

...

How precisely would modify the Arbitration Act, or create special legislation, for that purpose, without violating your principles of equality?

The Family Statue Law Amendment Act of 2006 has introduced (among many others) this amendment:

...

This amendment would exclude any tribunal which doesn't apply secular laws, since no legislative body which is based on religious laws has jurisdiction in the United Kingdom.

Well done! Thank you! I may or may not have other questions, after I consider all that some more.

[feathers]

19 hours left in the-orbit's kickstarter. Current total is $8805, which means they'll be obligated according to Kickstarter :liar: to make good on these promised outcomes (bolding added):

First Stretch Goal: $8,000
We believe in paying writers as a matter of social justice, but we're willing to kick in some extra work to sweeten the pot. When we reach our first stretch goal, we'll put on an online conference dedicated to the topics we cover. We know you can't always come see us when we talk, so we'll bring the talks and panels to you.

Does anyone think there are Orbitters capable of dragging themselves through a conference presentation, albeit online? That certainly takes a "stretch" of the imagination.

[feathers]

You have a link? I can't find it.

No one can, because... Teh Jansteen has done it again!

not even a donkey falls over the same stone twice but I did

[Kirbmarc]

You have a link? I can't find it.

No one can, because... Teh Jansteen has done it again!

not even a donkey falls over the same stone twice but I did

The references to his Pharyngulanhas comic and the dates of the comments broke the illusion, but other than that it's hard to call it "a parody" of the Orbit, more like a facsimile.

[Brive1987]

I thought it was quite a reasonable comment policy.

For the orbit.

[Keating]

I thought it was Alex Gabriel's blog when I first read it.

[Brive1987]

Apparently the war with FTB is over and we are now refighting WWII.

We're at war with the Orbit. The Pit has always been at war with the Orbit.

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

[Brive1987]

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

[Brive1987]

fucking alternating blue/grey back grounds.

[feathers]

Why thank you to Minitruth. Don't forget to prepare the other, in case we've always been at war with FTB.

[Brive1987]

Why thank you to Minitruth. Don't forget to prepare the other, in case we've always been at war with FTB.

Be prepared.

http://i.imgur.com/48aH7Lg.png

[Brive1987]

Too bad.

So sad.

http://i.imgur.com/bMthd1E.jpg

[Guestus Aurelius]

Is there anyone here who can tell me if this is true? Is this really how "oppression," "sexism" and "racism" are commonly defined in sociology textbooks? If so, then the corruption of institutions by career and monopoly social justice interests has gone even farther than I thought.

Oppression, as defined by common Sociology textbooks, describes a relationship of dominance and subordination between groups of people in which one benefits from the systematic abuse, exploitation and injustice directed toward the other. We give names to such systems and call them sexism, racism, ageism, colonialism, classism, etc.

The Staircase of Oppression – It Begins With a Stereotype

A couple years ago I took a cursory look at "racism" in sociology texts: viewtopic.php?p=172569#p172569

Looks like some of the links are now dead, but the Google Books previews are still available (in the US, anyway).

In short, I found that "racism" seemed to be defined broadly and that the kind of thing you're talking about (what SJWs always call the "sociological definition") was usually deemed "institutional" or "structural" racism, like a subcategory.

[Skep tickle]

Now I'm getting somewhere.

And while we’re all tackling different problems from different angles, one of the common themes that emerges when we talk is the strength of opposition we have faced when advocating for men and boys to have better access to help and support.

Do We Collectively Demonize Men and Boys?

Good find, thanks for the link.

(No need to acknowledge this post, jim - it's okay to keep your reaction on your own side of the screen & scroll on by)

[Skep tickle]

Okay so the-orbit will be distributing at least some of the Kickstarter funds amongst themselves as support for bloggers. (At least one of them said so. Haven't gone back to find that.)

Wonder how they'll split it up, & how they'll decide on an approach they can all agree is fair.

Will they distribute it evenly, giving those with only 1 post as much as those with multiple post-launch posts?

Or, if not, how will worthiness be determined? Will they dole funds out in proportion to post-launch blogpost output?

Or perhaps by measuring contribution to the site in other ways. By readership (comments, hits)? (Clickbait & pre-orbit popularity FTW?) By effort expended in setting up the site, including their blogmaster & their partner who set up the Kickstarter that brought the funds in?

Or by need? After all, having a place to live presumably provides a significant advantage toward blogging regularly and getting more comments & clicks, and it would further disadvantage one already struggling with homelessness to receive only a small portion of the proceeds.

[jimhabegger]

If you need more evidence of awful consequences of Sharia Courts ...

I'm still considering what you said in that post. It all makes good sense to me. I'm not sure what to think about all of it, but I see that you really are promoting equality, which is what I was wondering about.

[Ape+lust]

Okay so the-orbit will be distributing at least some of the Kickstarter funds amongst themselves as support for bloggers. (At least one of them said so. Haven't gone back to find that.)

Wonder how they'll split it up, & how they'll decide on an approach they can all agree is fair.

Will they distribute it evenly, giving those with only 1 post as much as those with multiple post-launch posts?

Or, if not, how will worthiness be determined? Will they dole funds out in proportion to post-launch blogpost output?

Or perhaps by measuring contribution to the site in other ways. By readership (comments, hits)? (Clickbait & pre-orbit popularity FTW?) By effort expended in setting up the site, including their blogmaster & their partner who set up the Kickstarter that brought the funds in?

Or by need? After all, having a place to live presumably provides a significant advantage toward blogging regularly and getting more comments & clicks, and it would further disadvantage one already struggling with homelessness to receive only a small portion of the proceeds.

If they do it the same as with their ad revenue, it'll be 50% equal-share, 50% click-share.

http://imgur.com/hE86Iu3.jpg

http://the-orbit.net/godlessness/2016/0 ... fferently/

[Tony Parsehole]

I thought it was quite a reasonable comment policy.

For the orbit.

:laughing-rollingyellow:

[Brive1987]

Okay so the-orbit will be distributing at least some of the Kickstarter funds amongst themselves as support for bloggers. (At least one of them said so. Haven't gone back to find that.)

Wonder how they'll split it up, & how they'll decide on an approach they can all agree is fair.

Will they distribute it evenly, giving those with only 1 post as much as those with multiple post-launch posts?

Or, if not, how will worthiness be determined? Will they dole funds out in proportion to post-launch blogpost output?

Or perhaps by measuring contribution to the site in other ways. By readership (comments, hits)? (Clickbait & pre-orbit popularity FTW?) By effort expended in setting up the site, including their blogmaster & their partner who set up the Kickstarter that brought the funds in?

Or by need? After all, having a place to live presumably provides a significant advantage toward blogging regularly and getting more comments & clicks, and it would further disadvantage one already struggling with homelessness to receive only a small portion of the proceeds.

If they do it the same as with their ad revenue, it'll be 50% equal-share, 50% click-share.

http://imgur.com/hE86Iu3.jpg

http://the-orbit.net/godlessness/2016/0 ... fferently/

I have a very strong memory of Lousy saying that some of the kick starter money would be coming his way to pay for the design *cough* work he did.

I'm sure that pact will be honoured in the same spirit shown to the Treaty of London in 1919.

:fpig:

[piginthecity]

Apparently the war with FTB is over and we are now refighting WWII.

We're at war with the Orbit. The Pit has always been at war with the Orbit.

... and Ophelia Benson is our ally and Opelia Benson has always been our ally.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

[Billie from Ockham]

I thought it was Alex Gabriel's blog when I first read it.

Me, too.

[Billie from Ockham]

I just watched the (entire) 18" vs 19" tire video. It was interesting, but left out a crucial issue: the size of the brakes that will fit. In the past, the rule of thumb was to run the smallest wheels that clear the brakes. Thus, you first decide how large the rotors need to be for what you'll be doing with the car. Then you get the smallest wheels that clear. Serious people never put larger wheels on a car than were needed to clear the brakes and those of us who instantly analyze every car that we see would have to suppress a giggle when we see "dubs" over brakes that would fit inside 16" ot 17" wheels. (Caddy Escalades with "dubs" make me giggle the most, but I try to do this quietly, as Caddy Escalades on "dubs" often have drivers with short fuses and handguns ... at least around here.)

If sidewall technology keeps getting better, maybe the rule of thumb will be changed. I haven't been paying much attention since switching from pavement to gravel and snow. The first thing that I did to my current car was to shrink the brakes, dump the OE 18" wheels and get some 15"s.