The Refuge of the Toads

[greylurker]

Fuck. Lsuoma has just had a mild stroke. No major impairment, but waiting for more information over the next 48 hours.

\

Best wishes for a quick recovery.

[Bhurzum]

I think it's once a year over 40.

Can I save them up and do them all at once?

[youtube]l1enmyAmpik[/youtube]

[Steersman]

Of some related relevance, an Atlantic post which argues that Islam is "resistant to secularization" and will never arrive at democracy.

The post is very simplistic. It argues that "Islam is resistant to secularization" on the basis of the nature of Jesus vs. Muhammed, and it ignores the complicated history of Christianity and Islam, and the history of secularization, to decide that "Islam will never secularize". [Weirdly enough it's the same argument that the Salafis use to say that Islam will rule the world] ....

That particular post seems to have been an abbreviated synopsis of an earlier, and more detailed one entirely by Shadi Hamid:

Is Islam ‘Exceptional’?

How events from 14 centuries ago still shape the religion’s relationship to politics, and what that means for the future of the Middle East

To understand the Middle East’s seemingly intractable conflicts, we need to go back to at least 1924, the year the last caliphate was formally abolished. Animating the caliphate—the historical political entity governed by Islamic law and tradition—was the idea that, in the words of the historian Reza Pankhurst, the “spiritual unity of the Muslim community requires political expression.” .....

Since the Ottoman Caliphate’s dissolution, the struggle to establish a legitimate political order has raged on in the Middle East, with varying levels of intensity. At its center is the problem of religion and its role in politics. ....

It is both an old and new question, one that used to have an answer but no longer does. Islam is distinctive in how it relates to politics—and this distinctiveness can be traced back to the religion’s founding moment in the seventh century. Islam is different. This difference has profound implications for the future of the Middle East and, by extension, for the world in which we all live, whether we happen to be American, French, British, or anything else. ....

The post has a point, though, in that neither invasions nor economic help are going to bring secularism to the Middle East "in a couple of decades". Secularization isn't a process that happened quickly or painlessly in "the West". It's not something that can imposed from a foreign power or bought through money. It's a slow process, full of twists and turns, and ultimately it only works if it is supported from within. ....

Haven't read all of the article yet - natch - but it seems the central thesis - that Islam is substantially different, and in many ways - is quite a credible, and important one. Something that Razib Khan objected to without, I thought, a lot of justification. You might be interested in a related discussion, and what brought Hamid's article to my attention:

The main problems with Islam anyway aren't the secularization of the Middle East: they're the influence of Salafi preachers and the political and social concessions to Muslim community in West, and the chain of alliances which has entangled the West in the Middle East quagmire.

We need to protect liberal democracy at home in the West, to be careful not to import Salafism, and to stop getting into trouble in the Middle East. The secularization of the Middle East (if it will happen) will happen in a slow, gradual fashion, lead by example and by inner cultural developments, not by wars and by power plays of dictators and strongmen.

You can't force people to be free.

Agreed. However, I think the upshot of Hamid's article, even if he's incapable of reaching the conclusion that he's provided ample evidence for, is that Islam is intrinsically antithetical to Western democracy, and that Muslims can't ever really accept the principles central to it. And if that is really the case - and the evidence seems massive and incontrovertible - then the only real solution is simply to ban Islam.

[Steersman]

Gad Saad has a new interview out. It's with one of the people that Steersman quoted above!

[.youtube]XvpWImFx020[/youtube]

Thanks - bookmarked. She's written some rather sensible articles on that topic - and others - in the last while. For example:

Tolerating hate does not help diversity
THE Australian Prime Minister doesn’t attend the repatriation of Australia’s Vietnam War dead but is happy to host an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan attended by Islamist apologists and at least one hate preacher, writes Rita Panahi ...

I may have to subscribe to the paper to be able read the articles a second time; I can read them once when she tweets a link but after that ...

[Scented Nectar]

Well, there is the "epicenter" of Mecca, the place where the rot and poison first found "fertile soil", so to speak. For which "radiation therapy" might be the most appropriate cure:

"Radiation therapy"! I'll have to remember that one. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Brive1987]

Quick Skep.

Now's your chance.

[youtube]zUKW0fL-OqY[/youtube]

[Tapir]

Fuck. Lsuoma has just had a mild stroke. No major impairment, but waiting for more information over the next 48 hours.

\

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

[Dave]

Does anyone know how often you should be having someone poke things up your arsehole? (For healths sake I mean).

I suppose that this would be the one time were it would be appropriate to post the Goatse image.

I believe that if your last check was clean, it's 5 years between check. Your doc may move things shorter if you have a history that would indicate an issue. This may get shorter as you age, but I haven't run across that yet.

[Brive1987]

Gad Saad has a new interview out. It's with one of the people that Steersman quoted above!

[.youtube]XvpWImFx020[/youtube]

Nah. I'd be happier to nod along with anything Sonia said

http://i.imgur.com/4DyuXLt.jpg

[Dave]

Fuck. Lsuoma has just had a mild stroke. No major impairment, but waiting for more information over the next 48 hours.

\

Clearly there's a minor impairment of referring to yourself in the third person. :D

Get better. I know a couple of people who have been through it and if caught early, they are very recoverable with rehab these days. But watch yourself, a minor one is often a prelude

[Hunt]

Does anyone know how often you should be having someone poke things up your arsehole? (For healths sake I mean).

I suppose that this would be the one time were it would be appropriate to post the Goatse image.

I believe that if your last check was clean, it's 5 years between check. Your doc may move things shorter if you have a history that would indicate an issue. This may get shorter as you age, but I haven't run across that yet.

As I recall the Israelis were working on a tiny camera you swallow and it passes through your bowls taking pictures. Haven't heard about it in a few years. Maybe they flushed the project.

FT, leader of Men and Women, take care and get better soon.

[Gumby]

Fuck. Lsuoma has just had a mild stroke. No major impairment, but waiting for more information over the next 48 hours.

\

Sending prayers and healing energy your way as I speak.

:P

Seriously, all the best.

[Scented Nectar]

I understand the Baton Rouge shooter was a member of the Black Sovereign Citizens.
[youtube]BOuRE86Tl_s[/youtube]

That's hilarious! Happens every time. I used to fight with the Freetards on the Lam (aka Freemen on the Land) years ago and had a lot of fun mocking the details of their lawbreak letter, which is a useless notarized letter they send to the prime minister to inform them that they are now allowed to break laws as well as charge huge fees for any amount of time they're in custody. They believe in a legal loophole conspiracy that means if they use the right wording in police and court situations as well as sending in their lawbreak letters, that they have to be let go and be allowed to ignore modern laws and statutes. When they are not let go, they figure it's a coverup and that they are being denied their rights. Driving without licenses or insurance are one of their favourite activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land
http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=2627

[Cnutella]

We were discussing that piece Myles Powers wrote a few days ago (possibly a few years late) criticizing Rebecca Watson's smugly ill-informed talk that she gave on evolutionary psychology.

Didn't take long for Sir PEezus of Pharyngula to put on his armor and ride out to meet this recreant knave on the field of battle, where he will defend the honor of his beloved La Dame Aux Cheveux Bleus.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160718102 ... sychology/

[paddybrown]

One of these ads has appeared on a billboard near me:

http://tartanarmyboard.co.uk/forum/uplo ... 059fce.jpg

(Not the actual one. Stolen from the internet for illustration purposes. They're apparently going up all over the place.)

Seems to be the same kind of Freeman on the Land gibberish, tring to claim the law doesn't apply to you if if you don't want it o. There's a website, which, as near as I can make out, argues that the name on your birth certificate is your "legal name", which belongs to the government, and laws (or "legal") passed by the government only apply to your legal name, not to your person, which doesn't belong to the government, so all you have to do to get out of paying debts you have incurred or being convicted of offences you have comitted is to refuse to accept that your "legal name" has anything to do with you.

[Hunt]

Not to detract from the serious matter at hand, but...looks like PZ has once again sallied forth to protect the honor of his one true love, the Lady Watson. Myles Power has produced a rather good review of Watson's horrible Evo Psych roast/talk, four years late, but I'll take it. Funny how quickly Myers jettisons all principles the moment it serves him. One complaint of his is that people deride Watson's talk because she was unqualified to give it. We can already guess what PZ does next, uses Power's lack of qualification as a point of argument. Then we get to Power's criticism about how Watson claimed that Ramachandran’s satirical paper "Why do gentlemen prefer blondes?" apparently fooled the Evo Psych community. And Power's point is entirely valid, but PZ counters, how can he know this was Watson's intent? Er, I think we know where this is going. Power is entirely correct: Watson duped the audience into believing the intentionally satirical paper was accepted by the serious Evo Psych community. Myers and Watson are really duplicitous jerks.

[Scented Nectar]

Fuck. Lsuoma has just had a mild stroke. No major impairment, but waiting for more information over the next 48 hours.

\

Holy fuck. :(

[Hunt]

We were discussing that piece Myles Powers wrote a few days ago (possibly a few years late) criticizing Rebecca Watson's smugly ill-informed talk that she gave on evolutionary psychology.

Didn't take long for Sir PEezus of Pharyngula to put on his armor and ride out to meet this recreant knave on the field of battle, where he will defend the honor of his beloved La Dame Aux Cheveux Bleus.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160718102 ... sychology/

God damn it, can't I ever say something first? For once?

:nin:

[Hunt]

"La Dame Aux Cheveux Bleus"

Well, I have to admit, you said it better than I did.

[Brive1987]

We were discussing that piece Myles Powers wrote a few days ago (possibly a few years late) criticizing Rebecca Watson's smugly ill-informed talk that she gave on evolutionary psychology.

Didn't take long for Sir PEezus of Pharyngula to put on his armor and ride out to meet this recreant knave on the field of battle, where he will defend the honor of his beloved La Dame Aux Cheveux Bleus.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160718102 ... sychology/

One of PZ's many Achilles heels is his zealous loyalty to his female fans.

Benson, Watson, Caine, even that old woman Avicenna.

He would catch a grenade for ya.
(But you won't do the same)

[youtube]SR6iYWJxHqs[/youtube]

[Pseudomonas]

Fuck. Lsuoma has just had a mild stroke. No major impairment, but waiting for more information over the next 48 hours.

\

Fuck^2. Get well soon FT.

Pseudomonas

[Shatterface]

As I recall the Israelis were working on a tiny camera you swallow and it passes through your bowls taking pictures.

Fuckin' Mossad get everywhere.

[Gumby]

We were discussing that piece Myles Powers wrote a few days ago (possibly a few years late) criticizing Rebecca Watson's smugly ill-informed talk that she gave on evolutionary psychology.

Didn't take long for Sir PEezus of Pharyngula to put on his armor and ride out to meet this recreant knave on the field of battle, where he will defend the honor of his beloved La Dame Aux Cheveux Bleus.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160718102 ... sychology/

Raven cuts through to the real reason evo-psych is totally, like, you know, a fraud:

What drives the sloppier pseudoscientific versions of evo-psych is real simple.Rich white male privilege.

:roll:

[Tribble]

There's no "under" in the title, but there is a "sky". I think they were inspired to the title by Star Trek's "where no man has gone before", although maybe not? Is "under no man's sky" a thing from something else? I've been assuming the Star Trek thing.

I know nothing whatsoever about the game, but my first though is it's a play on the phrase "no man's land".

It's very sci-fi, and the player explores space, planets, meets aliens, fights, survives, etc, so, probably the Star Trek one. You didn't watch any of the 18 quintillion trailers I posted here? Maybe I didn't post enough of them. :lol:

Procedurally generated from a small asset list. So, quickly, everything will blend into a certain 'sameness' and the game will have to work on it's 'things to do' rather than it's 'look at things.' Just like every other procedural game out there. Which is why I'm avoiding it like the plague because there's nothing really to do but fight bots and fly around.

[Kirbmarc]

Something that Razib Khan objected to without, I thought, a lot of justification. You might be interested in a related discussion, and what brought Hamid's article to my attention

Interesting article, thanks for sharing. Razib Khan is a very lucid thinker. The central point of the first part of his article is this:

people like Ben Affleck, and frankly most Left-liberals who might fall back on the term Islamophobia, don’t actually take Islam, or religion generally, seriously. This explains the rapid and strident recourse toward a racial analogy for Islamic identity, as that is a framework that modern Left-liberals and progressives have internalized and mastered. The problem with this is that Islam is not a racial or ethnic identity, it is a set of beliefs and practices

Spot on. That's the main problem with the Regressive Left. Being a Muslim isn't something intrinsic to a person's nature. It's a belief. Criticizing Islam, and wanting to deal with the issues it presents, isn't "racism", and all the leftists who believe otherwise are very wrong.

Hamid cites Michael Cook’s Ancient Religion, Modern Politics, to contend that ancient beliefs, forms, and models, echo down the generations and constrain the shape of the present. Having read Cook’s book I can say it’s interesting, but its argument for why textual constraint and ancient precedent matter are not particularly convincing. In fact, he comes close to asserting it as common sense.

I take a different view. When it comes to understanding religion you need to start with psychology. In particular, cognitive psychology. This feeds into the field of evolutionary anthropology in relation to the study of religion.

This is why I agree with Khan and disagree with Hamid. Cognitive psychology and evolutionary anthropology explain much more about the nature of religion than a philosophical/theological analysis of the "nature of the Founders and of the Holy Books".

What cognitive psychology suggests is that there is a strong disjunction between the verbal scripts that people give in terms of what they say they believe, and the internal Gestalt mental models which seem to actually be operative in terms of informing how they truly conceptualize the world. In Theological Incorrectness the author draws upon his field work in Sri Lanka and narrative interviews with religious people which don’t elicit reflexive scripts to get a sense of the internal beliefs which might shape their behavior.

Very interesting. This is easily explained if one assume that religiosity in general is an evolutionary by-product, and that all philosophical and theological considerations are cultural-specific rationalizations of a specific interpretation of religion which benefits one social group or movement (Divine Right of Kings vs. Salvation through Faith and Works- and donations to the Church- vs. Salvation Through Faith Alone - and relative independence from an overbearing church authority).

The deep problem here is understood by religious professionals: they’ve made their religion too complex for common people to understand without their intermediation. In fact, I would argue that theologians themselves don’t really understand what they’re talking about. To some extent this is a feature, not a bug. If the God of Abraham is transformed into an almost incomprehensible being, then religious professionals will have perpetual work as interpreters.

It's definitely a feature, not a bug. Keep the common people in fear of the wrath of god, then make god so complicated that only the priests can understand it, and the priests enjoy a significant amount of power. This didn't happen deliberately, but it definitely gave rise to powerful classes of "interpreters of the Words of God".

There is extensive discussion in Islamic Exceptionalism about the fact that the Quran is the literal Word of God (the recitation by Muhammad), while the Bible is inspired by God, but by and large is not in the voice of God. The standard thesis being proffered is that this means there is less flexibility in Islam, because all Muslims are by nature in some ways fundamentalists.

First, for the vast majority of history most Muslims and Christians have been illiterate. They could not read their scriptures. Second, even today most Muslims can not read the Quran. Most Muslims do not speak Arabic. Second, from what I have been told the Classical Arabic in the Quran is impenetrable to most Arabs. The point isn’t to understand, the point is that they are the Word of God, in the abstract.

Yes. This point cannot be stressed enough. Most Muslims don't know much about the Quran, and what they know is hard for them to understand. Again, feature not bug. The figure of the imam wouldn't a have a justification otherwise. Most Muslims are "culturally Muslim": they do what their fathers and grandfathers did, without really questioning why or how, and the few questions they have about their religions are easily answered by the local imam.

Second, Hamid admits the importance of the reality that Islam, like Judaism, and unlike Christianity, is an extensively orthopraxic religion. Though there is much talk about theology in Islamic Exceptionalism, it is more as a general catchall term than technical theology, because this is a domain where Christians have devoted a lot more resources than Jews and Muslims, whose ideas of God are relatively shorn of Greek philosophical sophistication (the Ismaili sect has a sophisticated Neoplatonic cosmology, but they are the exception not the rule). In contrast, Christians have neglected elaboration of religiously informed laws, while Jews and Muslims have developed an enormous corpus.

Yes, this is also true. Most Muslims sects don't have a very complicated theology, but have lots of laws. In contrast many Christian sects have a very complex theological frame, but less laws. This is especially true of some Protestant churches, though, especially the ones which are antinomians (i.e. they believe that you're saved by god's choice, not by what you do, and look for signs of his choice, not for rules to follow).

The Catholic Church has a detailed Catechism which deals with countless legal issues, and a very complex Canon Law. Luckily for the world the Catholic Church has been gradually tamed by the fight with the Holy Roman Emperors, the French Revolution and the modernization of Western Europe, and after the Second Vatican Council it had to by and large modernize (and suffered a minor schism for it).

In terms of the historical and religious narrative Islamic Exceptionalism naturally argues that Muslims are the exceptions. I take exception to this. Rather, I think the Western liberal model based on a creedal Protestant church is the exception. In The Impossibility of Religious Freedom, the author, a lawyer, argues that America’s regnant ideology of church-state separation only retains coherence if one posits religion qua religion is fundamentally similar to creedal Protestantism.

Very true. That's by and large why the Catholic Church resisted for a long time to separation of Church and State. Personally I'd go one step beyond and argue that American Protestantism was shaped, in a way, by the almost-Deist and Enlightenment ideas of the Founding Fathers, a class of educated, cosmopolitan men who had belonged to persecuted faiths and saw themselves as bringing neutrality to a set of very diverse religious ideas.

Historically all political units have exhibited a sacral dimension. Some cognitive anthropologists now argue that in fact powerful supernatural agents, active gods, were essential to the emergence of larger social and political units. King James may have asserted “no bishop, no king”, but perhaps it is more general and primal. “No god, no tribe” (or the inverse, “no tribe, no god”). The relationship in the detail between religion and polity differed in various civilizations.

True. And again feature, not bug. Political leaders need some justification for their leadership, and what better justification than being the supreme source of morality and social stability, or even better the source of universal order and natural stability? If without your rule the world shatters few people will question your authority. They may not like your ministers (it's not a chance that in all old stories kings tend to be good and ministers evil schemers) but they'll never question the idea of you.

King-slaying has always been frowned upon, and it emerged as an idea only in the intellectual circles of the Humanism/Enlightenment, which inherited it from the writers of the late Roman republic, which justified the murder of tyrants due to the peculiar nature of the Roman institutions (codified, written, explicit, with precise terms for service) which was amplified by the Greek ideas about the politeia (the administration of the city). It's interesting to notice that both Rome and Athens were cities of mixed origin and devoted to commerce, and so less tied to the idea of a single tribe and more to the idea of citizenship by service, which inspired the idea of a republic as a council of all citizens who elect a leader.

In Jay Winik’s Great Upheaval there is extensive discussion of the controversy after the independence of the colonies from Britain that the federal government did not have a state religion. The original settlers were by this point not a particularly churched people, and free thinking was common, from top to bottom. But never had there been a state in the history of the world which disavowed the need for favor from the gods. In The Godless Constitution the authors argue that the lack of a national religion was quite conscious, and a radical move on the part of a coterie of founders.

Yes. The role of free thinking, humanism, and the ideas of the Enlightenment in the shaping of the United States shouldn't be underestimated. The US were a nation of immigrants, with many different religions, where conversions and discussions about the nature of religion were widespread. A national religion would have created rebellions and tensions, and the Founding Fathers knew that.

The theoretical scaffold here is not too surprising or novel, as the author himself admits, though it may be to Americans. In short, liberalism and individualism do not always go hand in hand with democracy.

A very important point. This is why pure direct democracy is bad. Institutions need to steer democracy in order not to have a popular tyrant come into power and oppress minorities while the crowds sing his praise. After all Hitler did, by and large, take advantage of a weak democracy to come into power, and we all know how it ended.

Limits to presidential or congressional powers are a safeguard against a popular tyranny. The fact that the US presidents and the federal government have acquired more and more power isn't a good thing for liberalism and individualism.

In Switzerland there's a lot of direct democracy, but it's mediated by the relative independence of cantons. This, incidentally, is why it's so hard to become a Swiss citizen. The cantons don't want an influx of immigrants who might vote (for example) for Tessin/Ticino to secede and join Italy.

Hamid’s contention seems to be that if democracy is going to come to the Arab Middle East in the near future then it must make peace with the pious majority. He has no grand solutions, but definitely offers a diagnosis. Though liberalism has percolated through Western society, I would point out that the expansion of suffrage was almost always met with the diminishment of the liberal faction to becoming a “third force,” as a more populist party took its spot in opposition to the conservatives.

This is also an interesting point. It's true that at the very least in the next century democratic countries with a Muslim majority are at risk of becoming more and more theocratic, or at the very least theodemocratic, and that this means that a secularization of the Middle East cannot happen through democratic means. However it also can't happen through authoritarian means: a secular authoritarian elite only risks making secularism less and less palatable to the majority, who will then rebel against both the elite and secularization in general (as we're seeing in Egypt).

This book posits explanations for the nature of Islamic polities, but the reality is that this only even applies to the core Islamic nations which were part of the Abbasid caliphate. Islam’s role in maritime Southeast Asia or South Asia was far different than in the core Islamic lands, as it was contested and its period of ascendancy curtailed.

Also true. There's the issue of the influence of Middle Eastern-inspired and heavily funded Salafites, though, and of the role they play even in Southeast Asia or South Asia. Too many people underestimate the role of Salafites in radicalizing Sunni Muslim communities against all non-Muslims or different sects of Muslims. The only Muslim-majorities countries where Salafites aren't systematically displacing local imams and substituting with their own are Iran (which is Shia, and the natural enemy of the Sunni Salafites) and the former Soviet republics with a Muslim majority (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan) where the authorities see the Middle Eastern Salafites as a threat, largely because of their ties with Russia.

The "West" has helped Salafites to take over Afganistan (by heavily financing anti-Russian Islamic volunteers from the Arabic peninsula and paving the way to the rise of the Talebans) and has allowed them to settle and displace many older Muslim communities in Western Europe and the US. The Salafites are Sunni Muslim supremacists, who despise Ahmadi, Shia (including Ismailis), Sufis, Alawites and Druzes as much as they despise Westerners, Christians in general and Jews. The Shias of Iran support a theocratic dictatorship, but they can't afford to preach their ideas in the West, so right now they're the lesser evil, largely because they're too busy fighting against the Saudis and their allies in the big, silent Middle Eastern civil war.

[Cnutella]

One of these ads has appeared on a billboard near me:

http://tartanarmyboard.co.uk/forum/uplo ... 059fce.jpg

(Not the actual one. Stolen from the internet for illustration purposes. They're apparently going up all over the place.)

Seems to be the same kind of Freeman on the Land gibberish, tring to claim the law doesn't apply to you if if you don't want it o. There's a website, which, as near as I can make out, argues that the name on your birth certificate is your "legal name", which belongs to the government, and laws (or "legal") passed by the government only apply to your legal name, not to your person, which doesn't belong to the government, so all you have to do to get out of paying debts you have incurred or being convicted of offences you have comitted is to refuse to accept that your "legal name" has anything to do with you.

:lol: I kinda wish a court would accept that defense (fat chance) because presumably anyone who won a case based on that would instantly become a non-person. Any bank accounts they thought they owned would have been created fraudulently, any property they owned would be in someone else's name, and I would think even their citizenship could be called into question, as their birth certificate could presumably be called into question.Even their driver's license would become instantly invalid. And good luck changing your name to something of your choice if you are suddenly left without an identity..

[Tribble]

Not the best quality, but this is what you call a full 'ass blasting:'


[youtube]tkw5Hbv-t8Y[/youtube]

[Kirbmarc]

If we leave aside the problem of secularization from a purely pragmatic standpoint in order to reduce violence in Islam it might be useful to target the Salafites, to reduce their power by gradually abandoning the historical western alliance with Saudi Arabia and by opening up diplomatic channels with Iran instead. The ideal way to deal with this would be to develop technologies that would allow us to be less reliant on Middle Eastern oil in general.

This of course need to be done carefully, in an orderly fashion, and without giving too much to Iran, either. A diplomatic solution over the issues about the control of OPEC could gradually slow down the momentum of the Salafites IF "we" make clear to the Saudis that they need to behave like real allies if we want us to treat them as such.

The problem is that the Saudis (and their satellite small kingdoms: Kuwait, Qatar, EAU, Bahrein, Oman) know this, and have bought off many politicians and assets in the West in order to control "our" policies through lobbying, economic influence and various kinds of shilling and politics. People like CJ Werleman or Nathan Lean are obvious (direct or indirect) Saudi shills.

The Regressive Left is used as a tool by the Saudis and their allies to protect the Salafites. The Salafites in turn radicalize the Muslim communities in the West and use them as tools to control the policies of the West, and to infiltrate them with fertile grounds for terrorist groups which aim to present the West with the dichotomy between accepting the Salafites (who present themselves as "moderate Muslims" and as the only force to hold back the terrorists, what with their "terrorist recovery plans") and dealing with increasingly hostile Muslim communities.

We should be careful not to play in their hands. By lumping together all Muslims with the Salafites you actually give the Salafites more power in Muslim communties, which is definitely not what we want. A better approach would be for Western authorities to educate themselves about the "community leaders" they're meeting, by knowing who they are, where they come from, who finances them and what they think, and by avoiding to recognize or give power or give special concessions to those imams whose ideas are incompatible with "Western" ideals. Also we should always keep an eye on those we've decided to trust, and cut off their fundings and possibly exile them if they reveal themselves not to be trustworthy.

Moreover the progressives should freely criticize Islam, point out its problems, offer help to LGBT people or women or former Muslims who are threatened by conservative Muslims and defend the "Western" values of freedom of choice, opinion and lifestyle and of equality of people regardless of gender, race and other features without ifs or buts. Having one secular law for all and repealing acts which institute legally biding religious arbitration is also a good move. Religion in the West should be a private choice, not the law of a "community".

Agreed. However, I think the upshot of Hamid's article, even if he's incapable of reaching the conclusion that he's provided ample evidence for, is that Islam is intrinsically antithetical to Western democracy, and that Muslims can't ever really accept the principles central to it. And if that is really the case - and the evidence seems massive and incontrovertible - then the only real solution is simply to ban Islam.

The evidence isn't as massive and incontrovertible as you think, but that's beside the point. The point is that what we should do is preserve liberalism and individualism, not use authoritarian means to fight against authoritarianism.

By all means we should freely criticize Islam, not give it any special concession or law, and expel people who actively preach hate and subversion of Western institutions, or engage in crimes, but if we ban Islam we might as well start lumping together all forms of conservative thought antitethical to liberalism and individualism and ban most of Christianity, all devoted Communists and reactionaries, Scientology, orthodox Jews and countless others.

Either that or make explicit anti-Muslim laws, which are clearly discriminatory and go against the majority of the Western constitutions.

But hey, why should you approach a complex problem with nuanced solutions when it's easier to shout "Ban Islam! Ban Islaaaaam!"?

Oh, and leaving aside liberal values, the US constitution, our legal system and other small matters which clearly do not concern you, from a pragmatic point of view you can never "ban all Muslims" without saying bye bye to cheap oil and getting a petrol shock that might eclipse 1973's first shock, since the Middle Eastern, Muslim-majority states control a large part of the world's oil supplies, and they're not likely to react well to the idea that their citizens are no longer welcome.

But I suppose that you run on a solar battery and so don't give a damn.

[deLurch]

Despite his strange habit of talking about himself in the third person - I still love the old bastard (Lusoma that is).
[youtube]12XY5nsjH5A[/youtube]

I suspect that is someone else posting for him (unless that stroke is more severe that any of us {Lusoma included} are aware of at this point).

[Mr. X, Indeed]

Fuck. Lsuoma has just had a mild stroke. No major impairment, but waiting for more information over the next 48 hours.

\

Yikes! I hope that goes as well as it can go. I generally recommend against them, but people rarely listen to me.

Good luck.

[Bhurzum]

One of these ads has appeared on a billboard near me:

[img]http://tartanarmyboard.co.uk/forum/uplo ... ce.jpg[img]

(Not the actual one. Stolen from the internet for illustration purposes. They're apparently going up all over the place.)

Seems to be the same kind of Freeman on the Land gibberish, tring to claim the law doesn't apply to you if if you don't want it o. There's a website, which, as near as I can make out, argues that the name on your birth certificate is your "legal name", which belongs to the government, and laws (or "legal") passed by the government only apply to your legal name, not to your person, which doesn't belong to the government, so all you have to do to get out of paying debts you have incurred or being convicted of offences you have comitted is to refuse to accept that your "legal name" has anything to do with you.

You'll notice that "legal fiction" is only a dirty word when the bill arrives or they're expected to take responsibility for their actions. They've got zero problem with the concept when it comes to taking out loans, getting hire purchase/store credit or a new car on tick.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Fuck. Lsuoma has just had a mild stroke. No major impairment, but waiting for more information over the next 48 hours.

\

Best wishes for a quick recovery.

Katamari has booked his first appointment for September 2157.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Fuck. Lsuoma has just had a mild stroke. No major impairment, but waiting for more information over the next 48 hours.

\

Best wishes for a quick recovery.

Katamari has booked his first appointment for September 2157.

whoops.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

I think it's once a year over 40.

Can I save them up and do them all at once?

Katamari has booked his first appointment for September 2157.

[deLurch]

Take it easy and get well soon Lsuoma.

[youtube]oK6xCaN4YpY[/youtube]

[Aneris]

Fuck. Lsuoma has just had a mild stroke. No major impairment, but waiting for more information over the next 48 hours.

\

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

aaand Banned! Good luck Lsuoma, may you retain the ability to sing.

[Scented Nectar]

One of these ads has appeared on a billboard near me:

http://tartanarmyboard.co.uk/forum/uplo ... 059fce.jpg

(Not the actual one. Stolen from the internet for illustration purposes. They're apparently going up all over the place.)

Seems to be the same kind of Freeman on the Land gibberish, tring to claim the law doesn't apply to you if if you don't want it o. There's a website, which, as near as I can make out, argues that the name on your birth certificate is your "legal name", which belongs to the government, and laws (or "legal") passed by the government only apply to your legal name, not to your person, which doesn't belong to the government, so all you have to do to get out of paying debts you have incurred or being convicted of offences you have comitted is to refuse to accept that your "legal name" has anything to do with you.

LOL, they love to play name nonsense to do with birth certificates and legal names vs person names. The leader (or former leader? I haven't kept up) of the Canadian freetards, Rob Menard, calls himself "Rob of the family Menard". I read that nowadays they do some hyphen thing too. Here's Rob's youtube channel. http://www.youtube.com/user/mrmitee where it looks like he's back to using "Rob Menard" again in his channel page header. Maybe he's ok with that one since it's not "Robert" which is probably on his birth certificate name.

I know the US sovereign types are violent, but I have to say, the Cdn ones that I used to argue with were very laid back and took mocking well. Well, most of them. There were a few stark raving ones. Most though, were probably laid back because they were heavy pot smokers. I used to argue with them over at a pot forum mostly. Probably too mellow to actually go out and steal gov't land for their own mini-countries like they wanted. Plus, Rob's outlined plan for their new societies was probably too much work for any of them to actually do. Most of them were just idealistic layabouts. Rob used to drift from one follower's couch to another, and maybe still is for all I know.

Hey Rob, if you're vanity searching, how's it going, eh? :D

And I just found over at his channel, that he disagrees with the people who put up the poster. At least that's what I gather from the title of this video and some of the pseudo-legalese woo he's babbling about:

"Illegal to use Legal Name??? NO!"
[youtube]N3v7s7pO-Is[/youtube]

[Brive1987]

http://i.imgur.com/LbK1KJH.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/4ZHMoAK.jpg

Chigau - not the sharpest pencil in the tin.

Didn't they turn out to be old cranky woman?

[MarcusAu]

Just answer the question. Is "Scented Nectar" your legal name or not?

[InfraRedBucket]

One of these ads has appeared on a billboard near me:

http://tartanarmyboard.co.uk/forum/uplo ... 059fce.jpg

(Not the actual one. Stolen from the internet for illustration purposes. They're apparently going up all over the place.)

Seems to be the same kind of Freeman on the Land gibberish, tring to claim the law doesn't apply to you if if you don't want it o. There's a website, which, as near as I can make out, argues that the name on your birth certificate is your "legal name", which belongs to the government, and laws (or "legal") passed by the government only apply to your legal name, not to your person, which doesn't belong to the government, so all you have to do to get out of paying debts you have incurred or being convicted of offences you have comitted is to refuse to accept that your "legal name" has anything to do with you.

Never seen these around, first I saw of this was an article on the BBC website last month.

Does this interpretation of the law have any validity? "Absolutely not. Absolutely none at all," says barrister, law blogger and lecturer Carl Gardner. "It's a kind of brew of pseudo-legal ideas. It's the equivalent of thinking Harry Potter is science."
The website includes numerous quotes by "Kate of Gaia" as well as articles and videos by her. It links to another website, which gives her full name as Kate Renee Thompson and provides a Canadian email address.
Gardner says legalnamefraud.com's arguments are similar to those of the "Freemen-on-the-Land" movement - a group of individuals who argue they are bound by laws only if they consent to them, often in the hope of escaping debts and criminal charges - and the related "Sovereign Citizen" movement. In 2012 a Canadian judge issued a 192-page judgement dismissing Freemen-style arguments.
The same year, Keith William Thompson - who, it was reported, preferred the name Katherine - from Guelph, Ontario, was described as a a "self-proclaimed" Freeman following an appearance in a Canadian court. In 2010, Thompson reportedly used a Freeman-style defence when charged with a parking offence.
When I emailed Kate of Gaia, she replied asking to be addressed as "JANE DOE-755" and urged me to "google legal name fraud and read the essays like millions of others did....be a real journalist vs. a talking B-B.C. talking pair-rot" (sic). She didn't reply to my enquiry about who funded the billboard posters.
A search on Whois.net, which lists the registered owners of websites, doesn't reveal any information about legalnamefraud.com. On the similarly named legalnamefraud.org, however, the owner is listed as "Dohm Teewatt" at an address in Quebec, Canada. A Dohm Teewatt Twitter page includes lots of posts about "legal name fraud". An email address is also provided by Whois.net, but when I sent it a message I received a reply from a "D-ohm T-Wat" consisting of nothing more than Kate of Gaia's email address.
None of this means that Kate of Gaia paid for the billboards - which potentially cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. It's also not clear why they appear across the UK when she appears to be based in Canada.
There are several videos on YouTube about the billboards, including one made in January in which a man with a north-of-England accent says there are "definitely another couple of hundred on the way".

Other videos narrated by the same voice appear to have been shot in Lancashire, including one which identifies the town as Preston. Although the voice appears not to belong to "Kate of Gaia", the videos were posted using the name Jane Doe-755, suggesting at least some level of co-operation. Another video posted by Jane Doe-755 appears to be narrated by an English woman.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) confirmed to me that it had received seven complaints about the posters on the basis that they were ambiguous or misleading.
"Some questioned whether it would lead law-abiding people into thinking they've committed fraud or a crime by having a name," a spokesman said.
However, the ASA said it did not consider there were grounds for further investigation. While it acknowledged the advert "may appear somewhat confusing to consumers and it wasn't initially clear what it was for or what it means", its message "was not particularly harmful, misleading or likely to cause widespread offence, and unlikely to cause consumers confusion regarding their own name".
For this reason, the ASA had not made contact with the advertiser and cannot shed any light on their identity.
I also drew a blank when I rang Primesight, which owns many of the billboards. A spokeswoman told me that client confidentiality prevented her from disclosing who had paid for the advertising space or how much they had been charged.
Regardless of who funded it, the campaign has won attention for a hitherto fringe theory. David Allen Green, the legal commentator and solicitor at Preiskel & Co LLP who blogs as Jack of Kent, says it is "complete tosh" and warns people against relying on it in court.
He adds: "It is nothing about law, and it is not harmless. Taking this daftness seriously can be legally dangerous. If people try to use such things to avoid their legal obligations they can end up with county court judgments or even criminal convictions. You may as well walk into court with a t-shirt saying 'I am an idiot'."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36499750

[Karmakin]

Not the best quality, but this is what you call a full 'ass blasting:'


[youtube]tkw5Hbv-t8Y[/youtube]

I don't agree with every detail he says...but the broad concept is correct.

That's one thing that really pisses me off about SJW/Goon/Hipster/Whatever culture. They spend so much time talking about how video games and movies can affect the way that people act and think...then utterly deny that activism has any effect when push comes to shove, and they might have to take personal responsibility for something.

Activism is designed to affect the way that people act and think. Non-Fiction is more influential...exponentially...than fiction. That's fucking common sense. Yet they spend so much time on the latter and next to nothing on the former.

When I'm "activating", I basically parse every word carefully. I want to give the right impression to it. Yet, SJW's entirely reject that, and view it as oppressive (honestly, it kind of is, but that's the price we pay).

Presenting cops as an existential threat to the black community has resulted in violence. Probably in both directions. And we're no closer to actually fixing the issue.

P.S. Get well FT

[jimhabegger]

Now that I've learn not to be too bothered by being killed in Minecraft, and I've collected stacks of cobblestone, gravel, granite, ores, gems, and plant and animal products; learned to explore without getting hopelessly lost; and made a bed, a bucket, a bowl, some slabs, some steps, and some dies; I don't know what to do next. I've looked at some Web sites and videos, but I haven't seen anything to do that looks interesting to me. It all looks a little pointless to me now.

[Guestus Aurelius]

It's 'tone policing' to say muslims should air their grievances using words, not trucks.

Quibbling over peaceful protests vs. shooting cops is a 'tone argument' against BLM.
It imposes white standards of what's civilized and what's savage, on black expression.

Yup: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ce/391640/

The article seems to get at the nub of the matter - why are the police protected so much from the consequences of their actions? In al the cases mentioned it seems the police had no real reason to use the force they did. If this is "tone policing" then there needs to be more of it. The only exception is the guy who ran and was found with a knife. However in the UK the likely result would be a caution.

Oh, I agree that there's a problem, but I think you've missed what Service Dog and I were talking about regarding "tone policing." The issue I have with Coates is that here and elsewhere he basically calls white people racist for condemning rioting, looting, arson, and violence when the perps are (justifiably angry) black protesters. The idea being more or less what Service Dog was saying—that it imposes privileged white standards on oppressed blacks. "Don't you tell us how to protest, whitey!" Tone-policing is an exaggeration, but it's not far from the mark.

Of course, the vast majority of those black protesters protest peacefully and wouldn't have it any other way, but somehow it's racist to support the cause but condemn the (non-representative) violence if you're white. Like white Americans aren't allowed an opinion on what happens in their country, in their cities, if the few people shooting cops and setting buildings on fire happen to be black.

It's the bigotry of low expectations.

But yes, the US has a serious problem with police brutality and accountability, and for various reasons (not just bigotry) it affects black Americans in particular.

[jimhabegger]

Non-Fiction is more influential...exponentially...than fiction.

I dunno ... I'm not so sure about that. I think stories can have a lot of influence on personality, character development, attitudes and behavior, and I'm not sure it really makes any difference whether they actually happened or not; or if it does, which would have more influence. I can see it going either way. It might depend on how the story is told, more than on whether it actually happened or not. Besides, some parts of any fictional story might have actually happened to someone, and stories told from experience are always partly fictional.

[Scented Nectar]

I know nothing whatsoever about the game, but my first though is it's a play on the phrase "no man's land".

It's very sci-fi, and the player explores space, planets, meets aliens, fights, survives, etc, so, probably the Star Trek one. You didn't watch any of the 18 quintillion trailers I posted here? Maybe I didn't post enough of them. :lol:

Procedurally generated from a small asset list. So, quickly, everything will blend into a certain 'sameness' and the game will have to work on it's 'things to do' rather than it's 'look at things.' Just like every other procedural game out there. Which is why I'm avoiding it like the plague because there's nothing really to do but fight bots and fly around.

There's a ton more to do. I'd go into it here, but I've already done so a zillion times and I'd just be repeating myself. Although, obviously, no game is the perfect one for everyone. No Man's Sky is perfect for me though.

Here's a video about the procedural generation Hello Games (the makers of NMS) has done in regards to avoiding similar looking random messes and repeating stuff. The programmer here is one I respect so much that I'm willing to use his new pronouns, and you all know how much I'm reluctant to do that usually. I totally consent to use whatever pronoun he likes in his case. What the team has done with this whole thing, and especially the uniqueness from place to place, blows my mind. I would call any of them anything they like. Anyways, here's the video of Innes McKendrick (formerly Hazel McKendrick) giving a talk about a year ago about keeping the different things in NMS unique:

"No Man's Sky | nucl.ai Presentation: Procedural Generation (June 2015) [English] [HQ]"
[youtube]-KHLwQ9IY-s[/youtube]

[Scented Nectar]

Just answer the question. Is "Scented Nectar" your legal name or not?

Depends. Are you thinking of suing me? If so, then yes, yes it is. That's the name you should put on the papers that are served to me. :lol:

[Guestus Aurelius]

Get well, FT.

[dogen]

Fuck. Lsuoma has just had a mild stroke. No major impairment, but waiting for more information over the next 48 hours.

\

Shit, man. Hope you're OK.

[Scented Nectar]

It's very sci-fi, and the player explores space, planets, meets aliens, fights, survives, etc, so, probably the Star Trek one. You didn't watch any of the 18 quintillion trailers I posted here? Maybe I didn't post enough of them. :lol:

Procedurally generated from a small asset list. So, quickly, everything will blend into a certain 'sameness' and the game will have to work on it's 'things to do' rather than it's 'look at things.' Just like every other procedural game out there. Which is why I'm avoiding it like the plague because there's nothing really to do but fight bots and fly around.

There's a ton more to do. I'd go into it here, but I've already done so a zillion times and I'd just be repeating myself. Although, obviously, no game is the perfect one for everyone. No Man's Sky is perfect for me though.

Here's a video about the procedural generation Hello Games (the makers of NMS) has done in regards to avoiding similar looking random messes and repeating stuff. The programmer here is one I respect so much that I'm willing to use his new pronouns, and you all know how much I'm reluctant to do that usually. I totally consent to use whatever pronoun he likes in his case. What the team has done with this whole thing, and especially the uniqueness from place to place, blows my mind. I would call any of them anything they like. Anyways, here's the video of Innes McKendrick (formerly Hazel McKendrick) giving a talk about a year ago about keeping the different things in NMS unique:

"No Man's Sky | nucl.ai Presentation: Procedural Generation (June 2015) [English] [HQ]"
[youtube]-KHLwQ9IY-s[/youtube]

Oops, I might have posted the wrong video. I'll look for the right Innes video.

[Scented Nectar]

Here it is...

"PROCJAM 2014 - Procedural Doesn’t Mean Random: Generating Interesting Content - Hazel McKendrick"
[youtube]xJRXNesI9f4[/youtube]

[Cnutella]

One of FTB's new bloggers, Gestaltz, has bailed and gone back to his Wordpress site. There's a hint that the new move did nothing for his readership and may have actually tanked it. Also looking through his posts, it seems that FTB wasn't a great ideological fit. Although, who knows? Maybe he was revolted by something gross in the backchannel.

Here's what he posted on his FTB blog:

Return to gestaltz.wordpress.com

I shall no longer be blogging on Freethoughtblogs.com. My few readers that followed me across please return to original site. Sorry for the inconvenience.

And here's what he posted on his Wordpress blog:

Return to Gestaltz
by George Hatjoullis

By popular assent i shall be returning to this site. All posts will be seen here from now on. The Freethoughtblog.com was an experiement which failed.

https://gestaltz.wordpress.com/2016/07/ ... -gestaltz/

[Scented Nectar]

Hey, was it a Pitter who first introduced me to No Man's Sky a couple years ago? If so, THANK YOU!!!!!!! Who was it? I want to know so that in case I'm not really in menopause, I'll go out and get preggers just so that I can name the baby after you. :D

[Scented Nectar]

Hey, was it a Pitter who first introduced me to No Man's Sky a couple years ago? If so, THANK YOU!!!!!!! Who was it? I want to know so that in case I'm not really in menopause, I'll go out and get preggers just so that I can name the baby after you. :D

[Scented Nectar]

That double post was because I actually double clicked on the submit button by accident.

[Tigzy]

Not to detract from the serious matter at hand, but...looks like PZ has once again sallied forth to protect the honor of his one true love, the Lady Watson. Myles Power has produced a rather good review of Watson's horrible Evo Psych roast/talk, four years late, but I'll take it. Funny how quickly Myers jettisons all principles the moment it serves him. One complaint of his is that people deride Watson's talk because she was unqualified to give it. We can already guess what PZ does next, uses Power's lack of qualification as a point of argument. Then we get to Power's criticism about how Watson claimed that Ramachandran’s satirical paper "Why do gentlemen prefer blondes?" apparently fooled the Evo Psych community. And Power's point is entirely valid, but PZ counters, how can he know this was Watson's intent? Er, I think we know where this is going. Power is entirely correct: Watson duped the audience into believing the intentionally satirical paper was accepted by the serious Evo Psych community. Myers and Watson are really duplicitous jerks.

Heh. I hope the flash of the Pilsner Doughgirl's chubby thigh was worth it, Peez.

It's as funny as fuck to see Peez act as though he were entitled to Myles' time:

He did not get back to me. Instead, he came out with a video titled "Rebecca Watson’s Dishonest Representation of Evolutionary Psychology". It did not use a single scrap of the information I sent him.

He wrote that on the 14th. Not once has he contacted me about “organizing” a debate [...] I’m not at all impressed with Myles Power’s honesty so far.

Peez, as you're so fond of saying - the dude doesn't owe you a platform. Now shut your waah and go have your sad wank.

[Cnutella]

I wonder if Powers was trying to set up a debate between PZ and Gad Saad? My money would have been on the Gadfather. A pity we'll probably never see that match-up...

[Cnutella]

We were discussing that piece Myles Powers wrote a few days ago (possibly a few years late) criticizing Rebecca Watson's smugly ill-informed talk that she gave on evolutionary psychology.

Didn't take long for Sir PEezus of Pharyngula to put on his armor and ride out to meet this recreant knave on the field of battle, where he will defend the honor of his beloved La Dame Aux Cheveux Bleus.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160718102 ... sychology/

God damn it, can't I ever say something first? For once?

:nin:

Heh, I feel your pain bro. I've been there too.

[HunnyBunny]

Fuck. Lsuoma has just had a mild stroke. No major impairment, but waiting for more information over the next 48 hours.

\

:(

I blame 2016, it's a cunt of a year so far.

FT, I hope the news is as good as one can hope for in such circumstances, and the recovery speedy. On the bright side, at least you're not a lowlife prick like Peezus.

[feathers]

You raise a question that had my wife and me confused. Did school-girls in Australia in the 1970s wear their panties (knickers) under or over their panty-hose? Under, yes?

This is actually an important question if you're discussing the details of Walkabout.

I'm certain there must be Pitters who are Australian and old enough to have had a peek for themselves.

[Tigzy]

Quite shocked that the FT has had a mild stroke. He's always struck me as the kind who prefers a vigorous tug.