The Refuge of the Toads

#61561

Brive1987 wrote:Here is a masterpiece of logic.

"Some people over 100K say they are middle class. Therefore PZ is really lower middle class. Even though he isn't."

http://i.imgur.com/n7XsEpc.jpg

What on earth would PZ be doing in a laboratory in the middle of summer, unless it's Breaking Bad?

#61562

Rounding up the zebrafish?

#61563

AndrewV69 wrote:So income defines class? I ask because the first thing I noticed when I got to Canukistan was that skilled blue collar workers (such as plumbers) could make as much if not much more than white collar workers.

To some extent, skilled manual labour can be more difficult to replace than, say, an account pacification officer. Also, here in Denmark I think competition between plumbers and other handyfolk is moderate to nonexistent. Perhaps a bit on service level but hourly wages and service hours are pretty much settled.

But more importantly, I've seldom heard of a craftsman who does not moonlight quite a bit. And as you know the moonlight doesn't reflect on tax declarations, only on 4WDs.

#61564

Talking about blue collar jobs, I hear there's a vacancy at the top of PacketSled:
http://mashable.com/2016/11/15/ceo-fire ... ok-threat/

#61565

#61566

I've been looking at the SPLC web site, and I found this on their page about Islamophobia:

These groups generally hold that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion.

So saying that western societies are better than Islamic ones is hate speech? FFS.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... nti-muslim

#61567

I hope the Trump supporters have held onto their guns - Comics writer and Internet Tough Guy Mark Waid is threatening to flip tables and give them a good dressing down should he come across them in any of the 'red state' comic conventions.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/11/15/ ... omic-cons/

#61568

Suet Cardigan wrote:I've been looking at the SPLC web site, and I found this on their page about Islamophobia:

These groups generally hold that Islam has no values in common with other cultures

[citation needed]

[islam] is inferior to the West

Is like saying that apples are inferior to cobble stones. I mean, who says that in this way?

and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion.

I'd say it's both, as many if not most muslims want to make shariah the law of the land.

Where again does 'hate' come in?

#61569

feathers wrote:What on earth would PZ be doing in a laboratory in the middle of summer, unless it's Breaking Bad?

Considering some of the rumours and allegations surrounding PZ, I've got a few ideas.........

#61570

Suet Cardigan wrote:I've been looking at the SPLC web site, and I found this on their page about Islamophobia:

These groups generally hold that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion.
So saying that western societies are better than Islamic ones is hate speech? FFS.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... nti-muslim

What if you say, Japanese society is better than Islamic ones?

Obviously, societies are complex, so comparisons are subjective. Yadda, yadda, yadda, BUT.....they are not all the same and it is only logically some are "better" than others. People tend to squabble over what "better" means, but rights for LGBT, not stoning women, and societies where populations of minorities RISE rather than FALL, are good indicators of markers that are "better".

#61571

Tribble wrote:What do Bernie and Bill know, they were just Cis White Males who need to sit down and listen:

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

I read about that. The election was close enough that maybe it would have made the difference by coaxing out enough of the stay-home voters to tip things in HC's favor, but I am not completely convinced of that. One of the common refrains that you see in interviews with disaffected rust belt voters is that they are fed up with the same old pattern of a candidate pretending to care when they need votes and then apparently forgetting those states and the problem they have for the next four years.

Unfortunately, the Democrats had to run on the foundation that, although not perfect, things are still pretty great and it doesn't sound like that's the perception or experience of a lot of the states. Maybe Bernie would have been enough of a breath of fresh air, but who knows?

#61572

Countries where they don't punish rape victims are better than countries where they do.

Countries where they don't punish gay people for being gay are better than those which do.

If anybody thinks they aren't worse they lose the right to say the West can't punish rape victims and gays too.

If all cultures are equal the culture Trump is about to make is no worse than any other..

Fuck the SPLC.

#61573

Tribble wrote:What do Bernie and Bill know, they were just Cis White Males who need to sit down and listen:

During the campaign, Bill Clinton felt that he was ignored by Hillary's top advisers when he urged them to make the economy the centerpiece of her campaign.

He repeatedly urged them to connect with the people who had been left behind by the revolutions in technology and globalization.

'Bill said that constantly attacking Trump for his defects made Hillary's staff and the media happy, but that it wasn't a message that resonated with voters, especially in the rust belt,' the source explained.

'Bill always campaigned as a guy who felt your pain, but Hillary came across as someone who was pissed off at her enemy [Trump], not someone who was reaching out and trying to make life better for the white working class.'

According to the source, Bill was severely critical of Hillary's decision to reject an invitation to address a St. Patrick's Day event at the University of Notre Dame.

Hillary's campaign advisers nixed the idea on the grounds that white Catholics were not the audience she needed to reach.

'Bill also said that many African Americans were deeply disappointed with the results of eight years of Obama,' the source continued.

'Despite more and more government assistance, black weren't economically any better off, and black-on-black crime was destroying their communities. He said Hillary should have gone into the South Side of Chicago and condemned the out-of-control violence.'

Though Bill conceded that FBI Director Comey's decision to revive Hillary's email scandal created a problem for her campaign, he believed the issue had little impact on the outcome because it had already been baked into the decisions of most voters.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... house.html

Hillary's campaign advisers believed that Brianna Wu was worth listening to and that Lena Dunham was going to bring them votes in North Carolina. If I were a betting man I'd say that it's 4 to 1 that they're all circle-jerking SJWs.

Hillary dug her own grave. Hopefully her failure will also drag down all the SJWs in the DNC.

#61574

I dunno - I think the victim narrative is powerfully seductive (if ultimately self destructive)

The SJWs will be with us for some time.

Maybe they will find some legitimate grievances over the next few years.

#61575

Kirbmarc wrote:
Tribble wrote:What do Bernie and Bill know, they were just Cis White Males who need to sit down and listen:

During the campaign, Bill Clinton felt that he was ignored by Hillary's top advisers when he urged them to make the economy the centerpiece of her campaign.

He repeatedly urged them to connect with the people who had been left behind by the revolutions in technology and globalization.

'Bill said that constantly attacking Trump for his defects made Hillary's staff and the media happy, but that it wasn't a message that resonated with voters, especially in the rust belt,' the source explained.

'Bill always campaigned as a guy who felt your pain, but Hillary came across as someone who was pissed off at her enemy [Trump], not someone who was reaching out and trying to make life better for the white working class.'

According to the source, Bill was severely critical of Hillary's decision to reject an invitation to address a St. Patrick's Day event at the University of Notre Dame.

Hillary's campaign advisers nixed the idea on the grounds that white Catholics were not the audience she needed to reach.

'Bill also said that many African Americans were deeply disappointed with the results of eight years of Obama,' the source continued.

'Despite more and more government assistance, black weren't economically any better off, and black-on-black crime was destroying their communities. He said Hillary should have gone into the South Side of Chicago and condemned the out-of-control violence.'

Though Bill conceded that FBI Director Comey's decision to revive Hillary's email scandal created a problem for her campaign, he believed the issue had little impact on the outcome because it had already been baked into the decisions of most voters.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... house.html
Hillary's campaign advisers believed that Brianna Wu was worth listening to and that Lena Dunham was going to bring them votes in North Carolina. If I were a betting man I'd say that it's 4 to 1 that they're all circle-jerking SJWs.

Hillary dug her own grave. Hopefully her failure will also drag down all the SJWs in the DNC.

I agree entirely. To me, the whole "SJW's put Trump in the White House" concept has two ends to it..maybe even three. The first is about how people just get pushed away by asshole SJWs and just want to do something to put a thumb in their eye. The second, is that identity politics actually results in more white nationalism in our society, believe it or not. Demanding that Whites think of themselves as a class results in people wanting to protect that class. Go figure. (Not really. Totally expected)

But the third is that SJW concepts made Clinton run a shit shit shit campaign. That much is clear. They wanted identity-based tribalism to carry the day, and thought that would be more that enough. That they could demonize Donald Trump to the point that NOBODY would ever vote for him....or at least nobody of any real value. But of course that didn't go as expected.

The question isn't the number of votes Trump got, it's the lack of votes Clinton got. She ran an elitist campaign and that pushed down the vote.

#61576

Just to add on to that. The Clinton campaign seemed to be more interested in running up the score in California and New York than they were in winning North Carolina and the Rust Belt.

#61577

Suet Cardigan wrote:I've been looking at the SPLC web site, and I found this on their page about Islamophobia:

These groups generally hold that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion.
So saying that western societies are better than Islamic ones is hate speech? FFS.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... nti-muslim

The SPLC has lost any credibility it had after they included Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz in a list of anti-muslim extemists. Nawaz is a liberal muslim who advocates reforms in islam for fuck's sake. I wonder who the hell wrote that list.

Anyway nobody says that Islam has "no value" in common with other cultures. Even true anti-muslim extremist wingnuts like Walid Shoebat don't say that. As for the "inferior to West" and "a violent political ideology", yes there are some wingnuts who think that all muslim are subhuman rapists and terrorists, but "inferior" can mean many things.

The Quran and the ahadit allow slavery, sex slavery, spouse abuse, child abuse, child sexual abuse (Mohammed himself had sex with a nine year old girl) double standards in the justice and tax system (where women and non-muslims get the short end of the stick), mass murders of non-muslims if there's a "war against the faith", murders of jews, murders of gay people, murder of non-muslim prisoners of war if there's a War against the faith", rape of non-muslim prisoners of war, again if there's a "war against the faith", etc.

This is no doubt an inferior and violent standard when compared to the standards of the Geneva convention or of any western constitution or of UN chart of human rights. The "West" isn't pure as snow (just to talk about those last few years we have waterboarding, Gitmo, Abu Grahib, Snowden, Assange, Manning, drone strikes, etc.) but there is definitely a violent streak in islam, and there are many justifications for inequality and double standards and for crimes which are considered barbaric in the "west". So yes in a way islam is "inferior" to west and "a violent ideology".

Moreover certain sects of islam are worse than others. The Wahabi/Salafi schools of thought are Muslim supremacists, who interpret the Quran completely literally and pick the ahadit which suggest the idea of a world dominated by islam and of completely rejecting modern values, even though not all of them are necessary terrorists or violent: some prefer the carrot to the stick, at least until a majority of muslims lives in a specific country, then they use blasphemy laws and Sharia police as their stick and the jizya tax for "protection" of dhimmis as the carrot. The Shia in Iran aren't much better except for the fact that there's less emphasis on world domination.

Other Sunni or Shia schools are less keen on world domination (though still pretty backwards and regressive in their rules for muslims) but they're getting increasingly sidelined as they receive no money from petro-countries and are harassed out of universities and places of cult unless they bow to those with more money, power and who look more "pious".

Minor sects like the Sufi, the Ahmadi or the Ba'hai are less literal in their interpretation and more akin to religious syncretism, but the other muslims often call them "not real muslims" (and often kill them or harass them). And of course many muslims, especially among the western-educated elites which ran away from the theocratic regimes, are "cafeteria muslims", cherrypickers, or even just "nominal muslims" who don't really practice what is preached. To say nothing of the (relatively few) reformers.

There are some anti-muslim extremists: they're the ones saying that all muslims are terrorists or criminals regardless of what they do and support, that promote deportations based only on religion belief, that physically attack or harass people who "look muslim" or that say some religious bullshit like "islam is the religion of satan". And of course spreading false claims or false stories on islam/muslim, like some people do, is pretty stupid and false stories and claims need to be debunked.

But people who criticize islam, even harshly, even completely, even with strong words and with satire aren't "anti-muslim extremists" at all, no more than the Monty Pythons or George Carlin or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris are "anti-Christian extremists". Nawaz is the muslim equivalent of a Quaker or of a Unitarian Universalist. Hirsi Ali is the ex-muslim equivalent of Christopher Hitchens. Only someone who's completely ignorant of who they are or an incredibly dishonest person would classify them as "anti-muslim extremists".

#61578

Keating wrote:Why do you have to register along party lines, and why is there a different ballot available depending on who you want to vote for?

Both of those seem dumb to me.

Neither of these are true in a lot of places, including here in California. I can register as "non partisan" or "decline to state" - the specific wording varies by county. (Registering this way does prevent you from participating in some party activities - that is, party affiliation can be a condition for participation.)

And as of the passage of Proposition 14, primaries other than the presidential are completely open and the top two then compete in the general.

The result is that sometimes you end up with a general election contest between two people of the same party, which can be interesting.

#61579

More lulz.

Some SJW-type jerk posts this.

http://i.imgur.com/XLCS92r.jpg

He gets some typical "you are sending death threats" style pushback...gets a visit from the NYPD, and then...guess who pops up trying to justify his comment!

http://i.imgur.com/C7QD5H6.jpg

Yup! It is Jessica Valenti. The Guardian journo ALWAYS complaining of death threats from GamerGate, teh menz, MRAs, and just about any boogeyman she can think of. These fuckng hypocrites are hilarious.

Time for SJWs to make their minds up. When is a death threat is a joke, and when is a death threat to be taken seriously. Because you fucking SJWs have no fuckng idea.

#61580

free thoughtpolice wrote:
comhcinc wrote:
Tribble wrote: I think he's been lying. I think he's some frappuccino swilling urban hipster. I mean, it has the TransAM Firebird on the hood... So even if it didn't say PONTIAC across the top, you'd know it was the favorite car of redneck teenagers everywhere.

My favorite car from my teenage years was a 75 Toyota Celica.

The closest I ever got to a Firebird was a 75 Chevy Vega Rally edition with an exhaust leak.

Most of my teenage years was spent driving an 87 Chevy Citation.
Talk about privilege. We didn't even have 1987 Citations when I was a teenager.
I had to settle with driving our family car which was a 1968 318 Barracuda. :cry:

'66 Ford Galaxy 500
'74 Plymouth Valiant
'63 Ford F-150 (Ol' Wilma)

Were my 'family car' choices.

#61581

rayshul wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxVlzPSW8AA6P0m.jpg

Yeah. I'm dealing with a certain amount of that on Facebook.

#61582

CommanderTuvok wrote:Yup! It is Jessica Valenti. The Guardian journo ALWAYS complaining of death threats from GamerGate, teh menz, MRAs, and just about any boogeyman she can think of. These fuckng hypocrites are hilarious.

Time for SJWs to make their minds up. When is a death threat is a joke, and when is a death threat to be taken seriously. Because you fucking SJWs have no fuckng idea.

In a sense, we should be glad Valenti is something of an authority in the neofeminist world. You can be hardly more destructive to a movement than she is.

#61583

Keating wrote:Why do you have to register along party lines, and why is there a different ballot available depending on who you want to vote for?

Both of those seem dumb to me.

You don't.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/ ... jpg&w=1484

I am an independent. Traditionally I've been a ticket splitter where I vote one party for President and the other for the Legislative branches. The Neocons and the balls-to-the-wall right-wing-nuttiness of the Republicans have engaged since the 00's has pushed me to vote more Democrat with few Republican votes (only two this year at any level). But I can't help the Republican insanity and if they're going to keep pushing these ultra-conservative values candidate coupled with their idiotic economic/taxation theories bullshit, it'll be a long time before the get more than the odd 'Secretary of State' vote...

#61584

Karmakin wrote:Just to add on to that. The Clinton campaign seemed to be more interested in running up the score in California and New York than they were in winning North Carolina and the Rust Belt.

On a whole both Clinton and Trump won less votes than respectively Obama and Romney but this isn't true in all competitive states or the states who swung from blue to red (they're the ones that really matter). Looking at the results in those states tell us where Clinton really botched her campaign and where Trump really did well.

In Colorado Clinton lost roughly 110,000 votes compared to Obama's 2012 results and Trump lost roughly 50,000 compared to Romney. Both candidates lost votes here which shows a lower turnout in general. Understandable.

Clinton got roughly 250,000 more votes than Obama in Florida, but Trump got a whopping 420,000 more votes than Romney. Both candidates gained votes, Trump did just much better than Clinton. Clinton did comparatively well, but Trump did much better. Sort of understandable on Clinton's part, although Clinton clearly expected much more for her and much less for Trump since Trump was the anti-Latino devil.

In Georgia Trump got only 10,000 votes less than Romney. Clinton got roughly 60,000 more than Obama. Clinton did better, but Trump largely held Romney's votes and the gap was too wide to fill. Understandable.

In Iowa Clinton got 170,000 less votes than Obama, while Trump got 70,000 more than Romney. That's pretty bad.

In Michigan Clinton lost 300,000 votes, Trump gained 160,000. That's an electoral disaster. Clearly something went massively wrong here.

In Minnesota Clinton actually lost 180,000 votes, while Trump gained only a meager 2,000. Clinton won, but only because Trump didn't gain much. If he had found a way to get 40,000-50,000 votes (not impossible given that he gained much more in Michigan) he could have won. Clinton carried this state but that's another significant red flag.

In Nevada Clinton gained a meager 6,000 votes, while Trump gained a decent 50,000 votes. Clinton still won and did even a bit better than Obama, but Trump clearly was on the rise. Understandable.

In New Hampshire Clinton lost 20,000 votes and Trump gained 15,000. Clinton vote for a less than 3,000 margin. Another red flag for Clinton, even if she ultimately won.

In North Carolina Romney had won, but Trump won with an even larger margin. He got 60,000 more votes than Romney, while Clinton got 15,000 less (give or take) than Obama. Not a complete disaster for Clinton but a minor red flag.

In Ohio Trump got 110,000 votes more than Romney and Clinton got a whopping 510,000 less ones than Obama. That's roughly 1/6 less of what Obama got. Clinton did really bad here.

In Pennsylvania Trump got 230,000 more votes than Romney, while Clinton got 150,000 less than Obama. That's another disaster. Trump got more votes than Clinton lost.

Clinton won Virginia with 60,000 less votes than Obama but Trump lost 90,000 votes from Romney here. Here Clinton lost less than Trump.

And finally Wisconsin. Trump actually gained less than 2,000 votes here, but Clinton lost 240,000. Trump didn't win much, Clinton lost a lot.

From these numbers it's pretty clear that the Clinton campaign narrative that Trump didn't really win votes because he got less votes than Romney, he only got the Waycist and Muhsoggykneeists Republicans to vote for him and lost the popular vote, and Clinton lost votes because the Eeevil Misogynists in the Democrats stayed home because a Strong Womyn intimidated and emasculated them or because Eeevil White Women are fucking jealous is complete bullshit at state level.

In Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania Clinton lost and Trump gained. In Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania he likely won the states with a non-trivial number of votes of people who voted for Obama (so pretty unlikely to be racist).

Clinton also lost many votes in Minnesota, Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin. While in Virginia Trump lost even more votes and in Colorado he still lost votes (but less than Clinton) in Minnesota and in Wisconsin Trump more or less got the same votes as Romney but Clinton lost a lot, and in Wisconsin this was enough for him to win.

In Florida Clinton actually gained a lot of votes from Obama (so her campaign there had some positive effect) but Trump got a lot more than Romney.

The aggregated numbers at a national level are misleading some SJWs into thinking that they only lost because the sexists among the democrats (including some sexist white women!) didn't vote for Clinton while the usual "basket of deplorables" voted for the White Cis Het Rich Male Devil because they're racist and sexist and Islamophobic and homophobic and all the other deplorable things (also, fuck the Patriarchal electoral college).

But reality at a state level tells us a different, much more complicated story. In a lot of states Trump probably got a non-insignificant number of people who voted for Obama to vote for him. In others Clinton lost a lot and Trump didn't gain much. In others she tried but Trump got a larger momentum. And in a few others she actually did better than him. Clearly there can't be a single unifying factor for her loss, and racism can be ruled out, probably along with sexism.

The SJW narrative is a delusion and can actually hurt them even more in the next elections. It's not impossible and even particularly unlikely for Trump to win all the states he won this time plus Minnesota, New Hampshire or Nevada if he does well in his first four years and he's facing a candidate which is as weak as Clinton or more, even if this candidate isn't a Poor Womyn innocent victim of the Patriarchy. The Democrats need to seriously rethink their strategy instead of doubling down on the SJW dogmas.

#61585

Tribble wrote:
rayshul wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxVlzPSW8AA6P0m.jpg
Yeah. I'm dealing with a certain amount of that on Facebook.

Im really getting tired of it all going to 11.

Is Bannon a concerning choice for chief advisor? Yes. But its also no surprise given his role in the campaign. And while he may be a skeevy conspiracy monger with racist tendencies, I think its a bit soon to be calling him "Goebbels and Goring rolled into one" as I saw on FB.

Im also a bit lost what calling my Congresscritter about it will do, particularly since "Counsel to the President" doesnt require Congressional approval, as far as Im aware.

Fuck. Im not even sure that his election is all that "Unprecedented."

#61586

Karmakin wrote: I agree entirely. To me, the whole "SJW's put Trump in the White House" concept has two ends to it..maybe even three. The first is about how people just get pushed away by asshole SJWs and just want to do something to put a thumb in their eye. The second, is that identity politics actually results in more white nationalism in our society, believe it or not. Demanding that Whites think of themselves as a class results in people wanting to protect that class. Go figure. (Not really. Totally expected)

But the third is that SJW concepts made Clinton run a shit shit shit campaign. That much is clear. They wanted identity-based tribalism to carry the day, and thought that would be more that enough. That they could demonize Donald Trump to the point that NOBODY would ever vote for him....or at least nobody of any real value. But of course that didn't go as expected.

The question isn't the number of votes Trump got, it's the lack of votes Clinton got. She ran an elitist campaign and that pushed down the vote.

Related to Clinton not getting votes is that one thing I don't find talked about much is that this election had the second greatest turn-out in US History with only 2008 being higher. Yet Clinton & Trump, combined, only pulled about 123 million votes while Obama-McCain pulled in 129 million votes and Obama-Romney pulled in about 127 million. OTOH, third parties and write-ins, or just 'abstentions' for President, were (from what I've read) all up.

#61587

CommanderTuvok wrote:More lulz.

Some SJW-type jerk posts this.

http://i.imgur.com/XLCS92r.jpg

He gets some typical "you are sending death threats" style pushback...gets a visit from the NYPD, and then...guess who pops up trying to justify his comment!

You know what's hilarious? When the Black Panthers were buying guns in Oakland the NRA was Pro Gun Control. So, his idiot tweet isn't as idiotic to those with more history.

#61588

Kirbmarc wrote: Minor sects like the Sufi, the Ahmadi or the Ba'hai are less literal in their interpretation and more akin to religious syncretism, but the other muslims often call them "not real muslims" (and often kill them or harass them). And of course many muslims, especially among the western-educated elites which ran away from the theocratic regimes, are "cafeteria muslims", cherrypickers, or even just "nominal muslims" who don't really practice what is preached. To say nothing of the (relatively few) reformers.

Just a few minor quibbles:

Sufis: what you say is broadly true, but it should be noted that Sufism itself is a fairly broad church, in terms of sub-sects - and one notable sub-sect, the Deobandis, are Salafi/Wahabis in all but name. There's quite a lot of them in the UK, alas.

Ahmadis: No real syncretism here: the essential difference from mainstream Islam is that Ahmadis* maintain that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet successive to Mohammad, albeit not a law-giving one; however, I don't think there are any significant 'borrowings' from other religions there. It should be noted that Ahmadis place great stock in Jihad - but with one important caveat: the believe in the Jihad of the pen as opposed to the sword. Follow a few Ahmadis on Twitter sometime, and note how much they proselytise and engage in islamic apologetics - they're dead keen on that 'striving for islam' bit, albeit through the peaceable means of debate and rhetoric.

Ba'hai: Not really sure if they can be described as muslims, tbh. They seem more an outgrowth of islam in the same way that Christianity was an outgrowth of Judaism - albeit with more recorded history.

*Though note that the Lahori Ahmadis hold that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wasn't a prophet, but a kind of venerable reformer and teacher. Other than that, their general practices are pretty much the same as mainstream Ahmadis, AFAIA.

#61589

Dave wrote:Fuck. Im not even sure that his election is all that "Unprecedented."

It isn't.

The two precedents that I can think of for electing a populist of Trump's ilk are him getting nominated (against the wishes of his party) and someone like him winning sometime before. Well, he got nominated and populists have occasionally won the Presidency going as far back as Andrew Jackson. Not even the failure of anyone to predict the outcome correctly was unprecedented.

ps. while enjoy conversations about cars as much as the next guy, I will not join in because you are taking the turbo-Trans-Am seriously

#61590

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/16/technol ... spensions/
.

#61591

Keating wrote:Why do you have to register along party lines, and why is there a different ballot available depending on who you want to vote for?

Both of those seem dumb to me.

As other has pointed out you don't have to and it depends from state to state. I tend to pop from republican to democrat depending on who is on the primary ballot. All I have had to do is say "give me that one". I do agree that the best way is to let every person vote on every ballot.

As an aside in Alabama you have to option to "vote a party" which means you check on box and your vote counts for all races on the ballot for the person in that party.

#61592

Tribble wrote:
CommanderTuvok wrote:More lulz.

Some SJW-type jerk posts this.

http://i.imgur.com/XLCS92r.jpg

He gets some typical "you are sending death threats" style pushback...gets a visit from the NYPD, and then...guess who pops up trying to justify his comment!

You know what's hilarious? When the Black Panthers were buying guns in Oakland the NRA was Pro Gun Control. So, his idiot tweet isn't as idiotic to those with more history.

There is a great piece on that somewhere. Yeah here it is. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ns/308608/

It's actually a pretty gun run down on the history of gun control in the U.S.

#61593

Billie from Ockham wrote: Not even the failure of anyone to predict the outcome correctly was unprecedented.

http://cdn.bridgemi.com/wp-content/uplo ... 22e70a.jpg

#61594

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/16/technol ... spensions/
.

Lol let the rage continue!

Heidi Beirich, spokeswoman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, told USA TODAY that the center had asked Twitter to remove more than 100 accounts of white supremacists who violated Twitter's terms of service. She also pointed to two alt-right accounts that had been verified by Twitter, including Spencer's.

Twitter says it verifies an account by giving it a blue check mark when "it is determined to be an account of public interest." Twitter launched the feature in 2009 after celebrities complained about people impersonating them on the social media service.

"We are encouraged by the decisions taken by Twitter. Now it is a matter of whether they are carried out," Beirich said. "Obviously, well-known white supremacists violate these terms of service and we are glad it appears that Twitter has chosen to step up on these issues."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news ... /93943194/

#61595

The red polo just tweeted this video. The lolz!

#61596

CommanderTuvok wrote:
feathers wrote:What on earth would PZ be doing in a laboratory in the middle of summer, unless it's Breaking Bad?
Considering some of the rumours and allegations surrounding PZ, I've got a few ideas.........

Perhaps he is doing this?

"PZ, what would you like to do FIRST (wink, wink) "

"Dye your hair orange, and put on these 'problomatic glasses' "

#61597

Misogyny in Slate, Quartz and the New York Daily News. White women who voted for Donald Trump are envious of Hillary Clinton, they're sister punishers, gender traitors who "sold out the sisterhood":

#61598

I expect that we'll soon see similar articles about how black people who voted for Trump are Uncle Toms and gay people who voted for Trump are Aunt Marys. Peezus forbids that people might have agency instead of being a Borg collective.

#61599

Billie from Ockham wrote:
Dave wrote:Fuck. Im not even sure that his election is all that "Unprecedented."
It isn't.

The two precedents that I can think of for electing a populist of Trump's ilk are him getting nominated (against the wishes of his party) and someone like him winning sometime before. Well, he got nominated and populists have occasionally won the Presidency going as far back as Andrew Jackson. Not even the failure of anyone to predict the outcome correctly was unprecedented.

I havent seen anyone claim that the election of a populist is unprecedented. Frankly, most of the time, "unprecedented" seems just another vague word to hype up the fear quotient, without any real intent as to what is unprecidented. The specific claims of unprecedented-ness seem to be (a) his lack of prior public service -- and as far as I can tell, tRump is the first person elected President without some prior public service, although there are a couple of cases (such as his immediate predecessor) who's prior public service was entirely legislative. And (b) the extent of his potential conflicts of interest, often using the number of lawsuits he has as evidence, which seems likely true, but hard to really show. The question is how relevant is any of it? After all, he is probably the first person elected President who has been called a "short fingered vulgarian" but who cares?

#61600

We've had a jail break. Fucking corn snake decided to go for a hike. I wouldn't worry too much if it weren't for the cats. I wonder who we'll find dead first...

#61601

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:We've had a jail break. Fucking corn snake decided to go for a hike. I wouldn't worry too much if it weren't for the cats. I wonder who we'll find dead first...

Good luck finding him. Would it help to raise or lower the heat to attract the snake somewhere?

I've seen cats battle snakes before. Unless the snake is huge, cat generally uses them as a play toy. Growing up we had a cat that regularly killed large snakes.

#61602

Kirbmarc wrote:
But reality at a state level tells us a different, much more complicated story. In a lot of states Trump probably got a non-insignificant number of people who voted for Obama to vote for him. In others Clinton lost a lot and Trump didn't gain much. In others she tried but Trump got a larger momentum. And in a few others she actually did better than him. Clearly there can't be a single unifying factor for her loss, and racism can be ruled out, probably along with sexism.

Shows what you know.

#61603

Tigzy wrote:

Sufis: what you say is broadly true, but it should be noted that Sufism itself is a fairly broad church, in terms of sub-sects - and one notable sub-sect, the Deobandis, are Salafi/Wahabis in all but name. There's quite a lot of them in the UK, alas.

Chechens were primarily sufis that have become indistinguishable from the salafi/jihadists.
Probably the most peaceful and progressive muslim sect now are the Ismailis. They tend to make good citizens of western societies and promote secular education and women's rights all over the world unlike other religious muslims. At one time however they were feared, because of their creation of the assassins or hashishans.
Even Muhammad the rapist murderer preached peace until he gained military power.

#61604

Apparently my eldest has triggered everybody in her world history college class by suggesting that Islam isn't liberating to women and that Mohammed screwed a child. This was counter to the propaganda of the instructor, who was also triggered. Because my daughter is a minor, I get to sit in on the meeting to discuss my eldest's departure from the acceptable narrative. I am honestly looking forward to it. Gonna be a whole lota triggered.

#61605

jet_lagg wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
But reality at a state level tells us a different, much more complicated story. In a lot of states Trump probably got a non-insignificant number of people who voted for Obama to vote for him. In others Clinton lost a lot and Trump didn't gain much. In others she tried but Trump got a larger momentum. And in a few others she actually did better than him. Clearly there can't be a single unifying factor for her loss, and racism can be ruled out, probably along with sexism.

Shows what you know.
<snips a lot of insane tweets trying to argue that Hillary Clinton was more of a challenge to "white supremacy" than Barack Obama"

Is this a real person with real thoughts? Peezus wept.

#61606

Bhurzum wrote:
screwtape wrote: Our new UPS driver was in the Paras and stationed in Medicine Hat
I spent many months in Medicine hat over the years - BATUS (British Army Training Unit Suffield) is just up the road and Medicine hat, due to proximity, was the R&R location of choice. It's a nice enough place, hard working folks who're friendly, plenty to see/do and it was a really fun place to blow your wages after a month on the prairie.

Then again, after a month living in a ditch and eating compo...

Hah, I lived at Suffield for a year while growing up. My Dad was one of the safety officers. Fucking cold in the winter, eh?

#61607

Just asking the question:

#61608

Came across a photo today that made me think of all you tank experts. A knocked out Cromwell in Villers-Bocage, the gent examining was said to be Michael Wittman - his action on 13th June 1944 will be well-known to all tank students. But it was really the tank's name I wanted to share:

Shufti Cush.jpg: (64.91 KiB) Downloaded 189 times

Shufti - a quick look - came from arabic via the army in Egypt. My father always referred to reconnaissance aircraft as shufti kites, but he failed to explain this other usage. Cush or kush meant cunt, and the phrase shufti kush was famously used in a rude song about Farouk's queen, Farida. Anyway, the 4th County of London Yeomanry lost 20 Cromwells and 4 Fireflys that day and the remnants were amalgamated with the 3rd CLY. They had been in north Africa and Sicily and no doubt picked up some arabic slang in Egypt. I was looking them up as my father with 50th Div. had been in their tracks, as it were, since Mersa Matruh.

Next time someone feels inspired to infiltrate the comments at Pharyngula, please do feel free to use the nym Shufti Kush....

#61609

jet_lagg wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
But reality at a state level tells us a different, much more complicated story. In a lot of states Trump probably got a non-insignificant number of people who voted for Obama to vote for him. In others Clinton lost a lot and Trump didn't gain much. In others she tried but Trump got a larger momentum. And in a few others she actually did better than him. Clearly there can't be a single unifying factor for her loss, and racism can be ruled out, probably along with sexism.

Shows what you know.

...

Starr has a bachelor's degree in English from Philander Smith College and an M.S. in Editorial Journalism and M.A. in Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

He is also Fulbright Journalism Scholar (Ukraine 2009-2010)

https://personaldemocracy.com/terrell-j-starr

He should go out and talk to these working class people and explain their problems to them. Working people always appreciate having their middle class betters tell them what's what.

#61610

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Apparently my eldest has triggered everybody in her world history college class by suggesting that Islam isn't liberating to women and that Mohammed screwed a child. This was counter to the propaganda of the instructor, who was also triggered. Because my daughter is a minor, I get to sit in on the meeting to discuss my eldest's departure from the acceptable narrative. I am honestly looking forward to it. Gonna be a whole lota triggered.

Bwahahah - get pre briefed by Steers. Is that high school? Do you really get called in for what's a relatively uncontentious counter view?

#61611

That disturbance in the force was Zinnia leaving Twitter. Apparently:

At the height of it, I realized I had been unknowingly chewing sores into my lips and tongue while coping with days of targeted harassment.

If only you could turn off the sponsored adverts.

#61612

Kirbmarc wrote:
jet_lagg wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
But reality at a state level tells us a different, much more complicated story. In a lot of states Trump probably got a non-insignificant number of people who voted for Obama to vote for him. In others Clinton lost a lot and Trump didn't gain much. In others she tried but Trump got a larger momentum. And in a few others she actually did better than him. Clearly there can't be a single unifying factor for her loss, and racism can be ruled out, probably along with sexism.

Shows what you know.
<snips a lot of insane tweets trying to argue that Hillary Clinton was more of a challenge to "white supremacy" than Barack Obama"
Is this a real person with real thoughts? Peezus wept.

He's for real. I've had an exchange or two with him on twitter and the guy sees racism under every rock. He's completely obsessed with the idea of life as a struggle between the white and black class, and completely oblivious to what a bad idea it is to call for open conflict when you belong to the really small group.

#61613

From Coyne's WEIT - a free online course on the Hobbit (homo floresiensis, not the Tolkien kind): https://www.mooc-list.com/course/homo-f ... uturelearn

#61614

Ok - have to go to work and can't figure out how to fix it, but here's the link to Coyne's:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... /#comments

#61615

Brive1987 wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Apparently my eldest has triggered everybody in her world history college class by suggesting that Islam isn't liberating to women and that Mohammed screwed a child. This was counter to the propaganda of the instructor, who was also triggered. Because my daughter is a minor, I get to sit in on the meeting to discuss my eldest's departure from the acceptable narrative. I am honestly looking forward to it. Gonna be a whole lota triggered.

Bwahahah - get pre briefed by Steers. Is that high school? Do you really get called in for what's a relatively uncontentious counter view?

She is taking college courses through a program called Running Start. She finished up her high school requirements, so the school district is paying her college tuition for the next two years. Good deal, and she has a scholarship for several more years. I just have to fork out for books, supplies and transport.

The instructor has to notify parents because my daughter is currently 15. I'm choosing to sit in, because already having met this instructor, I know she is a poorly educated vindictive cunt. She refuses to hand back graded student work or tests, and there is speculation that her grades are entirely capacious. My daughter is concerned that speaking out will tank her grade, so my presence is to ensure that there is no attempted coercion or bullying.

I have to wonder how this instructor ever got a teaching position. She is poorly informed on history, and looked blank when I mentioned Etruscans and Sabines. She is peddling the oppression olympics, and even though she is a christian, defends islam with a blithering passion.

Young people are not being taught history, just propaganda for "social justice." Were I a wealthy man, I would set up a online resource where kids and college students could inform themselves of the real history, devoid of any social agenda.

#61616

Brive1987 wrote:That disturbance in the force was Zinnia leaving Twitter. Apparently:

At the height of it, I realized I had been unknowingly chewing sores into my lips and tongue while coping with days of targeted harassment.
If only you could turn off the sponsored adverts.

Yeah, Zinnia's decision to hit eject on Twitter was pretty funny because she fell foul of her fellow SJWs, who proceeded to predictably eat their own. The only surprising thing was that Zinnia expressed a reasonable and non-batshit opinion, I.e. that communism is a dangerous and failed ideology but that was too much for the harder left SJWs and Zinnia, who had shrugged off a considerable amount of trolling from b-tards and the like, caved in within a few weeks.

#61617

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Apparently my eldest has triggered everybody in her world history college class by suggesting that Islam isn't liberating to women and that Mohammed screwed a child. This was counter to the propaganda of the instructor, who was also triggered. Because my daughter is a minor, I get to sit in on the meeting to discuss my eldest's departure from the acceptable narrative. I am honestly looking forward to it. Gonna be a whole lota triggered.

Haha. My youngest is studying to become an early education teacher. She has a class called "Urban Studies." Just the title smacks of pretentious SJW BS. Why is the urban poor any different than the rural poor. Why a specific class about teaching in an urban environment? But... that's not the story.

The story is that when the kids were talking about "privilege" my daughter said that she had certain privileges for being a woman. Her specific example is how she gets out of speeding tickets by crying. The room went quiet... and then everyone denied that being a woman could ever give you any privileges. They actually think there is NO privilege that comes from being a woman. Holy fucking fuck... they are this stupid. I told my daughter that her prof has drunk the Koolaid and to be cautious about fighting with her. My daughter is very pragmatic so she will just play the game... she has learned some very useful stuff in the class... so it is not a total waste.

#61618

jet_lagg wrote:He's for real. I've had an exchange or two with him on twitter and the guy sees racism under every rock. He's completely obsessed with the idea of life as a struggle between the white and black class, and completely oblivious to what a bad idea it is to call for open conflict when you belong to the really small group.

Let me guess, since he's apparently an expert on Russia and Eastern Europe, does he think that the Russian will help the oppressed blacks in the US to revolt?

#61619

Noel Plum takes Steve Shives to task for his video "Donald Trump is Rape Culture", in which Steve attempts some shamefully bush-league statistical assfuckery to try to prove the US really is a rape culture.

Steve is now pulling the same shit that some of the more egregious creationists have pulled to make an ideological point at the expense of the actual data. The same shit he would have ripped them for the years ago.

Dear oh dear.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=anSg2A4Y3tY

#61620

John D wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Apparently my eldest has triggered everybody in her world history college class by suggesting that Islam isn't liberating to women and that Mohammed screwed a child. This was counter to the propaganda of the instructor, who was also triggered. Because my daughter is a minor, I get to sit in on the meeting to discuss my eldest's departure from the acceptable narrative. I am honestly looking forward to it. Gonna be a whole lota triggered.
Haha. My youngest is studying to become an early education teacher. She has a class called "Urban Studies." Just the title smacks of pretentious SJW BS. Why is the urban poor any different than the rural poor. Why a specific class about teaching in an urban environment? But... that's not the story.

The story is that when the kids were talking about "privilege" my daughter said that she had certain privileges for being a woman. Her specific example is how she gets out of speeding tickets by crying. The room went quiet... and then everyone denied that being a woman could ever give you any privileges. They actually think there is NO privilege that comes from being a woman. Holy fucking fuck... they are this stupid. I told my daughter that her prof has drunk the Koolaid and to be cautious about fighting with her. My daughter is very pragmatic so she will just play the game... she has learned some very useful stuff in the class... so it is not a total waste.

The problem is that these social agendas are both pernicious and refuse to engage. I used to be able to disagree with my professors back in the day. You could trot out an argument if you could support it with facts. The idea that we have to smother discourse to protect feelings is so prevalent as to be nearly ubiquitous. Teachers, instructors and professors are so unused to having their ideas challenged that they seem shocked when it happens.