The Refuge of the Toads

[gurugeorge]

I don't think you can get away from politics (generally) now, since it's become increasingly clear that Western countries are more or less governed, at the moment, by a secular quasi-religion. It's in your wheelhouse just as much as religions proper, or standard woo.

Plus, there's sure to be heaps of manure coming from the Right side in the years ahead, and fact-checking both it AND mainstream criticisms of it, without falling into any ideological traps, is going to be a valuable service.

While I myself venture into all corners of the net, and am quite capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast, and then dropping them by lunch, from my point of view what I enjoy about the Pit as an intellectual anchor of sorts, is that I think that you guys, being natural sceptics, have the valuable position of QUESTION (and if necessary mock) EVERYTHING.

Since you've "won your war" in a sense, and have set up a little corner of the net for honest, thoroughgoing scepticism, I think that's what you want to keep going regardless of the particular subjects, that essential sceptical attitude, applied to anything and everything, in a loose, free-rolling, fun, mocking way - and while politics is always going to be a part of that, the entirety of culture is your domain.

[CommanderTuvok]

It's only mid November, and today is already over 30 degrees. Ugh it's hot.

The Commander is currently shivering in Blighty and there was fucking FROST when I woke up this morning. It goes dark at 4:30PM. I also have a mate currently holidaying in Florida.

I'm LITERALLY shaking and dying of hypothermia, as SJWs would say.

:x

[AndrewV69]

Basically, after trying to fuck with the public and imagining they set the agenda (not to mention the narrative) the NY Times has decided to reform? Too little too late assholes.

[comhcinc]

Basically, after trying to fuck with the public and imagining they set the agenda (not to mention the narrative) the NY Times has decided to reform? Too little too late assholes.

Oh yeah fuck those assholes for wanting to do better job. People and organizations should never be allowed to change their ways. Once they have done something even once they have to deal with that forever.

[sp0tlight]

Basically, after trying to fuck with the public and imagining they set the agenda (not to mention the narrative) the NY Times has decided to reform? Too little too late assholes.

Pffft! :nin: ed u!

[Hunt]

Wow, I'm 20 minutes in to Greta Christina's Skepticon talk. It really is quite something, self-indulgent, morose, fanciful and straight up batshit insane. I'm not sure if I can make it through the whole hour but I'm waiting for the Nazi tank stuff before I bail.

I think of her talk as a descent into madness. The more she goes on, the more fanciful, absurd and disconnected from reality she gets. And to think, this kind of shit goes on at a conference marketed towards Skeptics.

There is little to no skepticism left at Skepticon anyway. It was pretty much all SJW preaching. No wonder so few people went there, it was the Reason Rally all over again: same SJW preaching, same levels of lunacy (at Skepticon ReGreta talking about ripping apart German tanks, at the RR George Carlin's daughter talking about hands and Dave Silverman screaming "atheist! atheist! atheist!"), same lame, toothless humor, same insane PC police, same crowds of largely white and nerdy people looking confused and largely bored.

SJWs killed the organized secular movements and are sniping at each other. FTB is sinking, Patheos is infested with banality and stupidity. The last frontier of vibrant atheism and skepticism activism is youtube, and "youtube atheists" are largely anti-SJW.

Christina used to be an engaging speaker before she took a hard left turn into Crazytown. She's a perfect example of the perniciousness of crying wolf. The left is in desperate need of an accurate assessment of the world. Instead they have Chick Littles like Greta telling them the sky is falling.

[Pseudomonas]

It's only mid November, and today is already over 30 degrees. Ugh it's hot.

Hah! We've already had our first week of over 30 degrees.

Pseudomonas

[feathers]

Turkeys exist. Especially in Canberra. :rimshot:

Turkey sexist? Why in Canberra?

[feathers]

http://imgur.com/8gZSguD.jpg

"Non-abrasive open-minded" atheists? The self-awareness, it is not here.

[InfraRedBucket]

But the C-16 bill in question has been passed.

November 18, 2016 – Ottawa, ON – Department of Justice Canada

The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, has issued the following statement:

“Today, I am very proud that Bill C-16 has passed the House of Commons. This Bill would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. It also proposes to amend the Criminal Code to add gender identity or expression to the definition of "identifiable group" for the purpose of the hate propaganda offences and to the list of aggravating circumstances for hate-crime sentencing.

All Canadians should feel safe to be themselves. Our strength as a nation lies in our diversity and our inclusiveness. It is our responsibility to recognize and reduce the vulnerability of trans and other gender-diverse persons to discrimination, hate propaganda, and hate crimes, and to affirm their equal status in Canadian society.

I am pleased that so many Members of Parliament supported this important piece of legislation and I look forward to working with the Senate as it continues through Parliament.”

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1157029

[sp0tlight]

One thing is certain, it's a perfect month for some well written "told ya so, sucka",

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/the ... sture-now/

[Spike13]

Basically, after trying to fuck with the public and imagining they set the agenda (not to mention the narrative) the NY Times has decided to reform? Too little too late assholes.

Oh yeah fuck those assholes for wanting to do better job. People and organizations should never be allowed to change their ways. Once they have done something even once they have to deal with that forever.

Comments e, I would agree if they actually wanted to do a better job, they want the appearance of wanting to do a better job. (And then keep doing what they did before.) It's all spin.

as I said about this before, the Times much like the pope were forced to admit they were wrong, and are now prepared to be infallible once again.

[Shatterface]

Oh yeah fuck those assholes for wanting to do better job. People and organizations should never be allowed to change their ways. Once they have done something even once they have to deal with that forever.

I'm seeing examples of similar comments popping up everywhere.

When I actually see an example of the kind of stories they say they should be writing appear instead of articles saying that they should I'll start taking the handwringing seriously.

Right now it looks like they've just discovered another way to virtue signal.

[deLurch]

Is The Young Turks a news show?

They don't seem to mind using comedians as panelists / commentators / experts on any of the various topics they cover. But then many of the other people on the show don't seem particularly qualified for the areas they cover.

I'm not against that per se - but I think that it is sometimes beneficial to have an actual expert on an issue to come in and comment.

And of course any biases they might have should be worn on their sleeve (and perhaps examined from time to time)

It is kind of a tough mix. They seem to bring up some subjects that are not in other major news outlets. But 95% of the content from that point forward is their commentary on that information. They have very strong biases.

So what it boils down to is if I value Cenk & Anna's opinion. I personally do not. So I don't watch them.

[InfraRedBucket]

Oh yeah fuck those assholes for wanting to do better job. People and organizations should never be allowed to change their ways. Once they have done something even once they have to deal with that forever.

I'm seeing examples of similar comments popping up everywhere.

When I actually see an example of the kind of stories they say they should be writing appear instead of articles saying that they should I'll start taking the handwringing seriously.

Right now it looks like they've just discovered another way to virtue signal.

Talking of virtue signalling...

Chinese social media star faked good deeds
18 November 2016 Last updated at 00:31 GMT
A Chinese social media star, famous for live streaming himself giving away money to people in remote villages, has been revealed to have been faking his acts of generosity.
Brother Jie's deceit was uncovered when a video showing him and his assistant taking back the money from villagers in the poor Liangshan area in China's Sichuan province went viral.
Brother Jie has apologised to his fans and asked for forgiveness, but the public have remained sceptical about him.
Facing strong condemnation, Brother Jie live streamed himself apparently attempting to take his own life.

Video in link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38004545

[screwtape]

But the C-16 bill in question has been passed.

November 18, 2016 – Ottawa, ON – Department of Justice Canada

The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, has issued the following statement:

“Today, I am very proud that Bill C-16 has passed the House of Commons. This Bill would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. It also proposes to amend the Criminal Code to add gender identity or expression to the definition of "identifiable group" for the purpose of the hate propaganda offences and to the list of aggravating circumstances for hate-crime sentencing.

All Canadians should feel safe to be themselves. Our strength as a nation lies in our diversity and our inclusiveness. It is our responsibility to recognize and reduce the vulnerability of trans and other gender-diverse persons to discrimination, hate propaganda, and hate crimes, and to affirm their equal status in Canadian society.

I am pleased that so many Members of Parliament supported this important piece of legislation and I look forward to working with the Senate as it continues through Parliament.”

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1157029

So failure to use chosen personal pronouns is now a crime. A hate crime, committed by uttering hate speech. Speechcrime.

Hate speech in Canada is defined very, very broadly. The intent of the speaker doesn't matter, nor does the content of the speech. It is judged on the likelihood that it might cause hatred of an identifiable group listed in the Canadian Human Rights Act. No requirement that it be shown to have caused hatred, only that it would tend to do so. And if your group isn't on the list, no protection is offered. You can say red-haired people must die all day long, but don't try it with a skin colour instead of a hair colour.

Bill C-16 goes a little further than just including gender and presentation (as opposed to sex and orientation which are already there) in that it isn't just forbidding certain speech, it is making certain speech mandatory. We are getting very close to T H White's 'Everything not forbidden is compulsory' here. The fear that restricting speech can be the thin end of a very long wedge is obvious to all of us. But there is another side to this, and that is that by driving forbidden speech underground, we have not changed opinions. We have merely ensured that it spreads by whispers from one susceptible mind to the next, quietly rotting away the timber of society from the inside. We need to hear noxious opinions in order to counter and dispel them. Sunlight must shine into dark corners if it is to cleanse them, and laws like this prevent that from happening.

[Spike13]

Wow, with Trump as POTUS and now enforceable speech codes, Canada may be in danger of a American SJW tidal wave.

I guess time will tell as to how this is implemented/used. Although it does make me glad that the US has a constitution that forbids this kind of crap.

[deLurch]

Trump's election continues to pay great dividends. Not in annoying "liberalism is dead" so much as it is getting a national conversation going about how the Democrats & liberalism has run itself off the rails. The Republican's got their bitch slap during the primaries & and again when he actually won.

[feathers]

everything was invented by white people

Loophole: Blacks invented stealing, so it's ok when they do it.

I dare you to post this on FTB or the Orbit in a discussion thread on cultural appropriation.

[deLurch]

I dare you to post this on FTB or the Orbit in a discussion thread on cultural appropriation.

Photoshop them wearing "Make America Great Again" hats and watch them go nuts.

[Guest_6674dc67]

Isn't the compulsory pronoun thing best fought with a mutually assured destruction technique?

Just call yourself transgender ala Muscato and let your beard grow long. Now anyone who would bring suit against you likely falls to the same law breaking zhirself and must therefore be punished accordingly?

[InfraRedBucket]

Cant get the Toronto debate stream running, says I need Silverlight which I already used on other websites and
re downloaded and installed , now no matter what browser I use it keeps saying Silverlight needed.
Sileverlight is apparently incompatable with MS edge as well. How stupid is that.

Pain in the fckign a

[InfraRedBucket]

Peterson says he'll upload it later. Gonna have to wait for that.

[Kirbmarc]

So failure to use chosen personal pronouns is now a crime. A hate crime, committed by uttering hate speech. Speechcrime.

Hate speech in Canada is defined very, very broadly. The intent of the speaker doesn't matter, nor does the content of the speech. It is judged on the likelihood that it might cause hatred of an identifiable group listed in the Canadian Human Rights Act. No requirement that it be shown to have caused hatred, only that it would tend to do so. And if your group isn't on the list, no protection is offered. You can say red-haired people must die all day long, but don't try it with a skin colour instead of a hair colour.

Bill C-16 goes a little further than just including gender and presentation (as opposed to sex and orientation which are already there) in that it isn't just forbidding certain speech, it is making certain speech mandatory. We are getting very close to T H White's 'Everything not forbidden is compulsory' here. The fear that restricting speech can be the thin end of a very long wedge is obvious to all of us. But there is another side to this, and that is that by driving forbidden speech underground, we have not changed opinions. We have merely ensured that it spreads by whispers from one susceptible mind to the next, quietly rotting away the timber of society from the inside. We need to hear noxious opinions in order to counter and dispel them. Sunlight must shine into dark corners if it is to cleanse them, and laws like this prevent that from happening.

Hate speech laws are an incredible dumb idea at best, a deliberate authoritarian ploy at worst.

[pro-boxing-fan]

Cant get the Toronto debate stream running, says I need Silverlight which I already used on other websites and
re downloaded and installed , now no matter what browser I use it keeps saying Silverlight needed.
Sileverlight is apparently incompatable with MS edge as well. How stupid is that.

Pain in the fckign a

Its live on youtube here

[CommanderTuvok]

But the C-16 bill in question has been passed.

November 18, 2016 – Ottawa, ON – Department of Justice Canada

The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, has issued the following statement:

“Today, I am very proud that Bill C-16 has passed the House of Commons. This Bill would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. It also proposes to amend the Criminal Code to add gender identity or expression to the definition of "identifiable group" for the purpose of the hate propaganda offences and to the list of aggravating circumstances for hate-crime sentencing.

All Canadians should feel safe to be themselves. Our strength as a nation lies in our diversity and our inclusiveness. It is our responsibility to recognize and reduce the vulnerability of trans and other gender-diverse persons to discrimination, hate propaganda, and hate crimes, and to affirm their equal status in Canadian society.

I am pleased that so many Members of Parliament supported this important piece of legislation and I look forward to working with the Senate as it continues through Parliament.”

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1157029

So failure to use chosen personal pronouns is now a crime. A hate crime, committed by uttering hate speech. Speechcrime.

Hate speech in Canada is defined very, very broadly. The intent of the speaker doesn't matter, nor does the content of the speech. It is judged on the likelihood that it might cause hatred of an identifiable group listed in the Canadian Human Rights Act. No requirement that it be shown to have caused hatred, only that it would tend to do so. And if your group isn't on the list, no protection is offered. You can say red-haired people must die all day long, but don't try it with a skin colour instead of a hair colour.

Bill C-16 goes a little further than just including gender and presentation (as opposed to sex and orientation which are already there) in that it isn't just forbidding certain speech, it is making certain speech mandatory. We are getting very close to T H White's 'Everything not forbidden is compulsory' here. The fear that restricting speech can be the thin end of a very long wedge is obvious to all of us. But there is another side to this, and that is that by driving forbidden speech underground, we have not changed opinions. We have merely ensured that it spreads by whispers from one susceptible mind to the next, quietly rotting away the timber of society from the inside. We need to hear noxious opinions in order to counter and dispel them. Sunlight must shine into dark corners if it is to cleanse them, and laws like this prevent that from happening.

Ah, Canada. This is the country whose new trendy leader justified gender segregation at a recent to, where else, a mosque!

Trudeau, just another pseudo liberal regressive who has had a silver spoon in his mouth since he was sperm.

[CommanderTuvok]

Does this mean is I identify my personal pronoun as "Sir", SJWs have to refer to me as "Sir", or they get locked up or fined or summat?

Oh, and PZ Myers - I know you're reading.....so fuck off you straggle-beard.

[KiwiInOz]

It's only mid November, and today is already over 30 degrees. Ugh it's hot.

I was down your way last Tuesday - had to wear my jacket.

[feathers]

Who put all the rocks on the sand?

Banksy?

Banksy piled them up, the ghost of Robbo spread them all over the place.

[feathers]

It's only mid November, and today is already over 30 degrees. Ugh it's hot.

Check your southern hemisphere privilege.

[Wild Zontargs]

Does this mean is I identify my personal pronoun as "Sir", SJWs have to refer to me as "Sir", or they get locked up or fined or summat?

Yes. If you simply believe that someone has discriminated against you, you can have them brought before the federal or provincial Human Rights Tribunal (as appropriate, based on jurisdiction), and if the respondent is unable to prove their innocence, they can be forced to cease the offending behaviour and to pay a hefty fine. Note that the tribunals are infamous for finding in favour of "protected classes" regardless of the merits of the case, whether they are the complainant or the respondent. If they can't prove that the non-protected entity meant to do something wrong, they'll just blame "institutional -ism" and get them that way:

In November 2009, Sharon Abbott, a black female newspaper carrier, was awarded $5,000 by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) on the basis that she had been arrested by police in early 2007 only because of her skin color. Although the HRTO found no evidence that the arresting officer "consciously subscribes to any such (racist) attitudes or belief systems" and that there was "no direct evidence that the complainant's race or color was a factor in the incident," it nonetheless determined that "the officer's actions were motivated by a deep-se ted prejudice" because, as the Tribunal claimed, "a White person in a position of authority has an expectation of docility and compliance" from any non-white person they encounter.

[Tribble]

A fair day on the beach:

A stormy day on the beach

SAM_4500.JPG

Where are the pics of sea-run cutthroat trout? We can't keep any here, but they are lovely to catch accidentally while hunting bigger game.

You fly fish?

[Jan Steen]

Dr. Richard Carrier PhD has an obsession with peer review. Whenever he mentions one of his own lead balloons he will reflexively add that it has been peer reviewed (which in many cases is questionable at best). He apparently believes that when some publication has passed peer review it somehow bears the stamp of approval by a higher authority. Or at least, that is the impression he wants to instill in his gullible 'fans'. In one of his recent rants against Bart Ehrman he uses the term 'peer reviewed' no less than 30 times, and adds another 14 instances in his comments for good measure.

This is looking downright unhinged. Is Sticky Dicky becoming clinically insane himself, after having accused so many of his opponents of insanity? Read and weep.

Because Ehrman stalwartly refuses to read and respond to the peer reviewed literature, he instead tries to argue a point of Greek grammar challenged in the peer reviewed literature. Indeed, challenged not only by Trudinger, but even Howard, and by several others cited by Trudinger and Betz. Ehrman refuses to read the peer reviewed literature, and thus makes responses that only expose the fact that he is ignorant of the peer reviewed literature of his own field; that he does not know the underlying Greek grammar of the Galatians passage and has not compared it with the same construction elsewhere in ancient Greek; that he does not know what experts have said in the peer reviewed literature about the underlying Greek grammar of the Galatians passage when compared with the same construction elsewhere in ancient Greek. And accordingly, he fails to respond to the peer reviewed arguments against him. He instead ignores the peer reviewed literature of his own field and arm-chairs a response to a blog post that told him to read the peer reviewed literature of his own field.

And this is only one paragraph among many. This is no longer just cringe-worthy; it goes into straight-jacket territory.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516

[Really?]

Dr. Richard Carrier PhD has an obsession with peer review. Whenever he mentions one of his own lead balloons he will reflexively add that it has been peer reviewed (which in many cases is questionable at best). He apparently believes that when some publication has passed peer review it somehow bears the stamp of approval by a higher authority. Or at least, that is the impression he wants to instill in his gullible 'fans'. In one of his recent rants against Bart Ehrman he uses the term 'peer reviewed' no less than 30 times, and adds another 14 instances in his comments for good measure.

This is looking downright unhinged. Is Sticky Dicky becoming clinically insane himself, after having accused so many of his opponents of insanity? Read and weep.

Because Ehrman stalwartly refuses to read and respond to the peer reviewed literature, he instead tries to argue a point of Greek grammar challenged in the peer reviewed literature. Indeed, challenged not only by Trudinger, but even Howard, and by several others cited by Trudinger and Betz. Ehrman refuses to read the peer reviewed literature, and thus makes responses that only expose the fact that he is ignorant of the peer reviewed literature of his own field; that he does not know the underlying Greek grammar of the Galatians passage and has not compared it with the same construction elsewhere in ancient Greek; that he does not know what experts have said in the peer reviewed literature about the underlying Greek grammar of the Galatians passage when compared with the same construction elsewhere in ancient Greek. And accordingly, he fails to respond to the peer reviewed arguments against him. He instead ignores the peer reviewed literature of his own field and arm-chairs a response to a blog post that told him to read the peer reviewed literature of his own field.

And this is only one paragraph among many. This is no longer just cringe-worthy; it goes into straight-jacket territory.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516

I love the bit of Ehrman's response that Sticky quotes:

Yeah, that’s pretty funny. I wasn’t familiar with this argument, and I wondered why he indicated that it had been shown in “peer reviewed literature.” That’s not something a scholar ever says. The only published work any scholar would ever reference is peer reviewed. So why point that out? I also didn’t know what OHJ was — I thought maybe it was a reference to an obscure academic journal. No, it refers to On the Historicity of Jesus. That’s a book. It was written by … Carrier! In other words, to support his claim he is referencing himself (and only himself).
…
By “peer reviewed” he means the book that he himself wrote. In other words, his authority is … himself!

Here's the bit Carrier snipped with that ellipsis.:

Well, I certainly don’t *mean* to be misrepresenting him. In response to my position that Paul could not be calling James simply a Christian “brother” (like all other Christians) since he is calling him this precisely to differentiate him from Cephas (and that differentiation would not work if he meant “spiritual brother” or “fellow baptized Christian” — because Cephas was as well), he says this: “Grammatically, it has already been shown in the peer reviewed literature that in Galatians 1:18-19, Paul is saying the James there referenced was not an apostle (OHJ, pp. 589-90). Thus, he is contrasting apostolic and non-apostolic Christians: he is saying the James there is merely a baptized Christian, albeit still an initiated member of the sect, but not an apostle.” (As I pointed out in my response to another comment, the “peer reviewed” authority he cites is … himself!)

It's funny that the criticism of Carrier on Ehrman's blog looks like this:

Richard Carrier is a hairsplitter who would make the most fastidious Medieval scholastic proud. Dr. Carrier, if for some reason you’re reading this comment, I have to ask you how many spiritual brothers of the Lord do you think can dance on the head of a pin?

And there's nary a mention of him getting semen on his face and hunting undergrad poon.

[Kirbmarc]

Does this mean is I identify my personal pronoun as "Sir", SJWs have to refer to me as "Sir", or they get locked up or fined or summat?

Yes. If you simply believe that someone has discriminated against you, you can have them brought before the federal or provincial Human Rights Tribunal (as appropriate, based on jurisdiction), and if the respondent is unable to prove their innocence, they can be forced to cease the offending behaviour and to pay a hefty fine. Note that the tribunals are infamous for finding in favour of "protected classes" regardless of the merits of the case, whether they are the complainant or the respondent. If they can't prove that the non-protected entity meant to do something wrong, they'll just blame "institutional -ism" and get them that way:

<snip example>

This is going to backfire badly. The system is ripe for abuse, and it will get abused. People will be more and more fed up with it, and it will drive many Canadians to the right. Race relations in Canada will get worse. Maybe you'll even have a Trump-like politician, elected by those who would vote anyone who promises them the end of political correctness gone mad.

I'm sincerely worried that if the efforts of the SJWs worldwide will actually pave the way for the rise of a reactionary right. Things could get very ugly.

[feathers]

Does this mean is I identify my personal pronoun as "Sir", SJWs have to refer to me as "Sir", or they get locked up or fined or summat?

If you go that way, Tuvok, inform them that your form of address demands that they start and end each sentence with Sir.

Sir yes sir!

[Spike13]

Does this mean is I identify my personal pronoun as "Sir", SJWs have to refer to me as "Sir", or they get locked up or fined or summat?

Oh, and PZ Myers - I know you're reading.....so fuck off you straggle-beard.

Well no. As stated earlier these laws are only for the marginalized. (Ex. was you can make fun of someone with red hair, but you can't make fun of say Afro hair...) so if you are a white male(non transgender fluid blah blah blah) you're fucked, no hate speech protections for you.

[Spike13]

Does this mean is I identify my personal pronoun as "Sir", SJWs have to refer to me as "Sir", or they get locked up or fined or summat?

Yes. If you simply believe that someone has discriminated against you, you can have them brought before the federal or provincial Human Rights Tribunal (as appropriate, based on jurisdiction), and if the respondent is unable to prove their innocence, they can be forced to cease the offending behaviour and to pay a hefty fine. Note that the tribunals are infamous for finding in favour of "protected classes" regardless of the merits of the case, whether they are the complainant or the respondent. If they can't prove that the non-protected entity meant to do something wrong, they'll just blame "institutional -ism" and get them that way:

In November 2009, Sharon Abbott, a black female newspaper carrier, was awarded $5,000 by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) on the basis that she had been arrested by police in early 2007 only because of her skin color. Although the HRTO found no evidence that the arresting officer "consciously subscribes to any such (racist) attitudes or belief systems" and that there was "no direct evidence that the complainant's race or color was a factor in the incident," it nonetheless determined that "the officer's actions were motivated by a deep-se ted prejudice" because, as the Tribunal claimed, "a White person in a position of authority has an expectation of docility and compliance" from any non-white person they encounter.

Wow, if the above is true... you guys are fucked....sounds like a place Pizzy would love...till he told a Muslim that god didn't exist....

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

A fair day on the beach:

A stormy day on the beach

SAM_4500.JPG

Where are the pics of sea-run cutthroat trout? We can't keep any here, but they are lovely to catch accidentally while hunting bigger game.

You fly fish?

Indeed. Although I am a promiscuous angler, I also use other methods. I've had to teach myself to cast with my left hand, as my dominant arm has been injured.

[screwtape]

Does this mean is I identify my personal pronoun as "Sir", SJWs have to refer to me as "Sir", or they get locked up or fined or summat?

Yes. If you simply believe that someone has discriminated against you, you can have them brought before the federal or provincial Human Rights Tribunal (as appropriate, based on jurisdiction), and if the respondent is unable to prove their innocence, they can be forced to cease the offending behaviour and to pay a hefty fine. Note that the tribunals are infamous for finding in favour of "protected classes" regardless of the merits of the case, whether they are the complainant or the respondent. If they can't prove that the non-protected entity meant to do something wrong, they'll just blame "institutional -ism" and get them that way:

<snip example>

This is going to backfire badly. The system is ripe for abuse, and it will get abused. People will be more and more fed up with it, and it will drive many Canadians to the right. Race relations in Canada will get worse. Maybe you'll even have a Trump-like politician, elected by those who would vote anyone who promises them the end of political correctness gone mad.

I'm sincerely worried that if the efforts of the SJWs worldwide will actually pave the way for the rise of a reactionary right. Things could get very ugly.

I think that may have happened recently somewhere to the south of me.

[deLurch]

This used to be an easy question.

https://i.sli.mg/J9VPCp.png

[Jan Steen]

And there's nary a mention of him getting semen on his face and hunting undergrad poon.

But you can almost see him frothing at the mouth, and who knows where else.

"My peer-reviewed book was peer-reviewed by two major professors. So why does Bart Ehrman refuse to read my peer-reviewed book? Doesn't he know that a true scholar reads and comments on all the peer-reviewed literature in his field? Even if he considers the work to be laughably wrong, he is obliged to write at least 8000 words explaining why he considers this peer-reviewed work ridiculous and nonsensical. After all, it was peer-reviewed, was it not? That gives me the right to demand that Bart fucking Ehrman reads my fucking peer-reviewed book. Because if he doesn't he thereby proves that he has no arguments against it and is himself an incompetent joker. As opposed to me, Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, a peer-reviewed expert with peer-reviewed arguments in peer-reviewed books."

[comhcinc]

Oh yeah fuck those assholes for wanting to do better job. People and organizations should never be allowed to change their ways. Once they have done something even once they have to deal with that forever.

I'm seeing examples of similar comments popping up everywhere.

When I actually see an example of the kind of stories they say they should be writing appear instead of articles saying that they should I'll start taking the handwringing seriously.

Right now it looks like they've just discovered another way to virtue signal.

Of course, my point is that the behavior that Andrew was displaying is not skeptical. It's dogmatic. It's also unhelpful and at the end of the day means that you will shut down every news outlet because they will all make mistakes.

[fuzzy]

The Pit was a reaction against a certain grouping groping of people, namely those who were involved in skepticism/atheism.

FTFY

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

And there's nary a mention of him getting semen on his face and hunting undergrad poon.

But you can almost see him frothing at the mouth, and who knows where else.

"My peer-reviewed book was peer-reviewed by two major professors. So why does Bart Ehrman refuse to read my peer-reviewed book? Doesn't he know that a true scholar reads and comments on all the peer-reviewed literature in his field? Even if he considers the work to be laughably wrong, he is obliged to write at least 8000 words explaining why he considers this peer-reviewed work ridiculous and nonsensical. After all, it was peer-reviewed, was it not? That gives me the right to demand that Bart fucking Ehrman reads my fucking peer-reviewed book. Because if he doesn't he thereby proves that he has no arguments against it and is himself an incompetent joker. As opposed to me, Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, a peer-reviewed expert with peer-reviewed arguments in peer-reviewed books."

Do you suppose it was this sort of pathetic attempt to legitimize his work that inspired Surly Amy to declare her artwork "peer-reviewed"?

Poor Richard. If he was only less arrogant, obnoxious, overbearing and generally stupid, you would have to feel pity for him. He seems to squander every chance he gets to make something of his life.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

This used to be an easy question.

https://i.sli.mg/J9VPCp.png

Bacon would be a cool pronoun, but you might get very hungry by the end of the conversation.

[CuntajusRationality]

Quick update on Carrier's lawsuit, with the latest docket entries below...

Looks like a new law firm is being brought in to represent all of the defendants, per the 11/18/16 motion below: http://randazza.com/

According to Wikipedia, "pro hac vice" means "for this occasion/event/turn," meaning they are requesting permission for Randazza and Sperlein to participate in this case, despite that they have not been admitted to practice in Ohio Southern District Court.

As for the waivers of service, there's an explanation on the signed waiver forms that reads: "Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of serve, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure."

10/20/16: WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to Amy Frank-Skiba on 9/20/2016, answer due 11/19/2016. (Perry, Jeffrey) Modified by correcting dates on 10/20/2016 (mas).

10/24/16: WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to Paul Z. Myers, PHD on 9/20/2016, answer due 11/21/2016. (Perry, Jeffrey)

10/24/16: WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to The Orbit on 9/20/2016, answer due 11/21/2016. (Perry, Jeffrey)

10/24/16: WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to Stephanie Zvan on 9/20/2016, answer due 11/21/2016. (Perry, Jeffrey)

11/10/16: Set/Reset Deadlines: Skepticon, Inc. answer due 11/19/2016. (mas)

11/10/16: WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to Skepticon, Inc. on 9/20/2016, answer due 11/19/2016. (Perry, Jeffrey) Modified dates on 11/10/2016 (mas).

11/18/16: MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee of $400 paid, receipt number 0648-5738748) of Marc J. Randazza, Dennis Gill Sperlein by Defendants Amy Frank-Skiba, FreethoughtBlogs Network, Lauren Lane, Paul Z. Myers, PHD, Skepticon, Inc., The Orbit, Stephanie Zvan. Responses due by 12/12/2016 (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing Randazza, # (2) Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing Sperlein) (Nye, Jeffrey)

11/18/16: NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey Michael Nye for Defendants Amy Frank-Skiba, FreethoughtBlogs Network, Lauren Lane, Paul Z. Myers, PHD, Skepticon, Inc., The Orbit, Stephanie Zvan (Nye, Jeffrey)

[deLurch]

What creeps me out the most about that cartoon, is that they have babyish figures, but then slam a pair of big jugs on the girl.

[comhcinc]

What creeps me out the most about that cartoon, is that they have babyish figures, but then slam a pair of big jugs on the girl.

Why are you looking at the girl's gams?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I'm still catching up on Cracked articles (I've missed all of last year), and I found a long but very well put comment in one article that I will copy/paste here:

Mister_Z said:

I don't have a problem with you (as in, Cracked columnists and bloggers) tackling political subjects, the problem I have is that you guys really suck at it.

First, to put it as honestly as I can, you're real assholes about it. You keep acting like angsty teenagers who are discovering their ability to get outraged: you make emphatic and overdramatic comments about topics you claim to be oh-so passionate about (and to be fair, you probably genuinely are) yet the content of your work shows how superficial your understanding of these problems is.

Seriously, some of the stuff you put out shows such a basic lack of understanding of the problems at hand it’s getting surreal. Just recently we had those Adam Tod Brown articles that not only claim that Donald Trump is exactly the same as Hitler but where a major argument is that he's trying to appeal to minorities… just like Hitler?

I really don’t understand how you can write s**t like this and then be surprised that people would question the legitimacy of your analysis. (Paradoxically, now that Trumps has suggested a mandatory registration for Muslim citizens, something that actually is straight out of the Nazi handbook only with Muslims instead of Jews, there isn’t a single mention of it on Cracked)

Same thing with that time one columnist said that not finding vaginas terrifying is misogynistic and that he's right because Amanda Mannen exists (and apparently if she agrees with him that means that all women do because I guess he believes women are a hive mind), because as we all know one of the worst hardships that women face today is that people are just too damn positive about their sexuality. Of course, while the author mentioned that article in a later one, he did not acknowledge the multiple female users who said they weren’t impressed with having their privates compared to torture devices.

Yet you act like you've got it all figured out and like you're the only ones who truly understand these issues, and in fact like you're the only ones who care about them, as if until you came around, no-one else ever considered issues like gender equality, LGBT rights or race relationships.

In turn, this fallacy that you are the only ones who care about these topics causes the next problem: your inability to differentiate between people disagreeing with you personally and people disagreeing with your opinions.

You, like many slacktivists (and I'm sorry to say, Cracked but most of your writers really are slacktivists), seem to be under the impression that - because you're convinced that no-one else in the World cares about equal rights - if anyone disagrees with you that something is offensive, it must mean that they disagree with you that sexism, homophobia or racism even exist or that they’re problems. It’s a convenient way to not only dismiss but also vilify any deviation from your personal morals by declaring it to be part of an agenda to keep everyone but White males down.

You really do come across like it never even enters your mind that maybe; just maybe your interpretation of things isn’t indisputably true just because you think it is, you never seem to consider that other people’s interpretations are just as valid. You don’t bother listening to their arguments; you immediately dismiss them as bigoted because hey, they disagree with only people in the World who care about equality so they MUST be prejudiced! No good person would ever disagree with you, would they?

That’s the problem right there, you really need to learn that there is a difference between saying “I don’t think this is misogynistic” and saying “I think misogyny is right. All women should go in the kitchen and make me a sandwich”.

And the best part? There’s nothing saying that just because someone disagrees with you means YOU are wrong either and by all means you should make your case and explain why you think something is offensive or oppressive if you genuinely believe it to be. All we’re asking is that you please, for the love of God stop being so obnoxious about it by immediately going for the “y’all who disagree with me are assholes because I’m for equal rights and you disagree with me therefore you disagree with equal rights” rhetoric.

That’s what I keep trying to explain to people on the Internet and I’m running out of ideas on how to make them understand it: I’m pretty sure the vast majority of people around the World agree that all people should be treated as equal, so please stop saying that people who disagree with you on the way to accomplish it are trying to oppress the rest of Humanity. And don’t act shocked that people don’t like it when you do that.

This brings me to the next problem, the “you’re either with us or you’re against us” attitude, which surprisingly common on Cracked considering how many times Wong himself has criticized this behaviour. And yet I keep seeing articles going on and on about how anyone who disagrees with Cracked’s beliefs is sexist/racist/homophobic/etc because, say it with me now, they think they’re the only ones who care about equal rights. Just look at this passage from this very article:

"If you write about pop culture and never write about, say, racial stereotypes in movies, then you're making a strong political statement (specifically, that racial stereotypes in movies aren't worth noticing or worrying about)"

I’m sorry but how does that make any sense? If these themes aren’t relevant to the work being discussed, how is not mentioning them supporting them? To say that is forcing people to pick a side because if they don’t and try to show some perspective and not be partisan, then it’s not as easy to slap a label on them and treat them as either friend or foe. No open-mindedness allowed, pick a side, we’re at war!

In fact, it’s worse than that; it’s not just forcing them to pick a side; it’s forcing one ONTO them. “You didn’t blindly agree with me therefore you support everything I disagree with” (funny how this anti-logic only applies to stuff the person saying it disagrees with, huh?).

This is an especially bad one as it creates a very unhealthy if not downright toxic attitude where people must not only agree with you on the general principle, they must agree with you on every single detail and any deviation from your own morals is an inacceptable affront that must be removed; you MUST follow the dogmas of the group or suffer the consequences.

Think I’m exaggerating? Check out the frankly disturbingly vitriolic reactions to Brianna Wu, one of the main victims of GamerGate, having the audacity to meet an outspoken pro-GG man and having conversation with him, going so far as saying afterwards that it was rather pleasant and that even though they disagree, he is not a bad man. Oh the hate she got for refusing to vilify an “enemy” and actually do something constructive.

Something else you can look up, a young fanartist who calls herself “Zamii” who f*****g ATTEMPTED SUICIDE after she was bullied by a bunch of hashtag activists for publishing “problematic” fanart (is there any non-ironic use of the word “problematic” on the Internet that isn’t followed by massive douchbaggery?). And she didn’t overreact to one or two nasty comments, OVER 40 BLOGS were created for the sole purpose of insulting her.

Now obviously Cracked isn’t nearly at this point but, as this article further attests, they really do have this “us vs them” mentality. Just go back through their articles and take a shot for every time they use such adjectives as “awful”, “terrible” and “horrible” to describe opinions that differ from them, let alone any criticism they might get. You can’t keep this kind of confrontational and aggressive attitude and be shocked that people aren’t super thrilled about it when you basically tell them that if they don’t blindly agree with you, they’re supporting racism, sexism, homophobia and hatred in general.

Now to be fair, Wong did specify “if you NEVER write” about such topics. Okay, fair enough. I still disagree but I can see the point that if you frequently write about pop culture, it seems odd that you’d never come across an opportunity to discuss the subject.

However, the problem is that Cracked (and again, many other Internet “activists”) has this really bad tendency to nitpick details and twist and stretch them until they find something, anything to harp on and get outraged over and then shame the author for it as if it was their plan all along because coincidences can’t exist (even when you have to perform Olympics levels of stretching to make it offensive).

I'm sorry but no, not everything has a subtext (in fact, I would argue that most things don't). This is the core problem with many Cracked articles on social and political issues and indeed the problem with slacktivists/hashtag activists/SJWs/whatever you want to call them. You guys are so obsessed with “implications”, most of which only exist in your mind, that you no longer give any attention to what is actually being said and done, the facts right in front of your eyes.

You’re not listening to what people tell you, you’re listening to what YOU are making people say. It’s like you just found the glasses from “They Live” and you’re so busy trying it on everything you see that you don’t notice the person being stabbed right in front of you. And you won’t accomplish anything constructive as long as you keep that mindset.

Once you develop some humility and start actually listening to what people say instead of what you want to hear, realize that no, just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re either stupid or evil or both and that facts and principles are more important than sides, THEN you will genuinely be doing something constructive and then people will respect you as people who are genuinely trying to make the world a better place.

But as long as you keep up the partisan bullshit and care more about defending a side than defending the principles it claims to represent then I’m sorry but there won’t be anything respectable about what you’re doing.

And I think what I find most annoying about this kind of stuff is that if any site should know better, it’s you because you have these POV articles which are almost always incredibly eye-opening, especially since the whole point of it is that they’re (mostly) written from the point of view of people who actually experienced those things first-hand.

And you know what else makes these articles great? The persons writing them or being interviewed for them DON’T subscribe to any of that “if you disagree with me you’re a terrible person” bullshit and feel far more open to people disagreeing with them. And yet you, the people publishing these articles, never seem to learn from them and keep this frankly pedantic attitude.

Don’t get me wrong, Cracked, I still like you and I understand that you mean well. It’s just… hot damn do I wish you’d drop the holier-than-thou crap. Please, quit being the angsty high-school kid who can’t stop going on about how everything sucks and is corrupt and anyone who says otherwise is just a sheep working for The Man and become the relaxed college kid who’s still passionate about these subjects but learned to lighten the f**k up.

Ooh boy, even by my standards that was a long one. If any of you actually stuck with me through the whole thing, thanks a lot. For real. Even if all my doorstopper of a comment did was make you want to rip out my eyes and testicles and put my testicles where my eyes were and my eyes where my testicles were, I genuinely thank you for taking the time to read it all. I hope I managed to keep it at least semi-coherent and that I succeeded in giving people food for thought.



TL;DR version: we don’t hate you being political, Cracked (well, most of us anyway). We hate that you're being dicks about it.

http://www.cracked.com/article_23364_9- ... ed_p2.html

[Really?]

Quick update on Carrier's lawsuit, with the latest docket entries below...

Looks like a new law firm is being brought in to represent all of the defendants, per the 11/18/16 motion below: http://randazza.com/

According to Wikipedia, "pro hac vice" means "for this occasion/event/turn," meaning they are requesting permission for Randazza and Sperlein to participate in this case, despite that they have not been admitted to practice in Ohio Southern District Court.

As for the waivers of service, there's an explanation on the signed waiver forms that reads: "Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of serve, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure."

10/20/16: WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to Amy Frank-Skiba on 9/20/2016, answer due 11/19/2016. (Perry, Jeffrey) Modified by correcting dates on 10/20/2016 (mas).

10/24/16: WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to Paul Z. Myers, PHD on 9/20/2016, answer due 11/21/2016. (Perry, Jeffrey)

10/24/16: WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to The Orbit on 9/20/2016, answer due 11/21/2016. (Perry, Jeffrey)

10/24/16: WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to Stephanie Zvan on 9/20/2016, answer due 11/21/2016. (Perry, Jeffrey)

11/10/16: Set/Reset Deadlines: Skepticon, Inc. answer due 11/19/2016. (mas)

11/10/16: WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to Skepticon, Inc. on 9/20/2016, answer due 11/19/2016. (Perry, Jeffrey) Modified dates on 11/10/2016 (mas).

11/18/16: MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee of $400 paid, receipt number 0648-5738748) of Marc J. Randazza, Dennis Gill Sperlein by Defendants Amy Frank-Skiba, FreethoughtBlogs Network, Lauren Lane, Paul Z. Myers, PHD, Skepticon, Inc., The Orbit, Stephanie Zvan. Responses due by 12/12/2016 (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing Randazza, # (2) Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing Sperlein) (Nye, Jeffrey)

11/18/16: NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey Michael Nye for Defendants Amy Frank-Skiba, FreethoughtBlogs Network, Lauren Lane, Paul Z. Myers, PHD, Skepticon, Inc., The Orbit, Stephanie Zvan (Nye, Jeffrey)

Thanks for the update. So it looks as though the FTBOrbits have arranged for representation by an expensive and prominent free speech/defamation firm. (Pro bono?) And the FTBOrbits are starting to work out when they will do depositions and so on.

Correct?

[Lsuoma]

What creeps me out the most about that cartoon, is that they have babyish figures, but then slam a pair of big jugs on the girl.

She even looks as though she has a bit of camel toe...

[CuntajusRationality]

Thanks for the update. So it looks as though the FTBOrbits have arranged for representation by an expensive and prominent free speech/defamation firm. (Pro bono?) And the FTBOrbits are starting to work out when they will do depositions and so on.

Correct?

I'll defer to actual attorneys (or anyone else who knows better), but I believe the next step is for the defendants to file their answers or responses to Carrier's complaint. I'll keep an eye on PACER and will post any new filings or updates whenever there is something interesting.

[free thoughtpolice]

A stupid asshole makes a video about some stupid assholes trolling other stupid assholes. No rectums were damaged in the making of this video.

[fuzzy]

Jordan Peterson debate about xie, xirs, and s/h/it later today

[fuzzy]

A stupid asshole makes a video about some stupid assholes trolling other stupid assholes. No rectums were damaged in the making of this video.
[yout00b]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsObFDbnSc[/yout00b]

"When they go low, we get high."

[pro-boxing-fan]

Jordan Peterson debate about xie, xirs, and s/h/it later today

I watched parts of the debate on the livestream and i found it to be meh. None of the panelist were good debater. Peterson was quite good in some parts but a bit dull at others. At least the sjw debater lacked enough self awareness to prove Peterson points several time by just being a sjw.

[Shatterface]

This used to be an easy question.

https://i.sli.mg/J9VPCp.png

Bacon would be a cool pronoun, but you might get very hungry by the end of the conversation.

Bacon is haram.

Sticking the label on a black dude is Islamophobic.

They should have gone with something less racist - like fried chicken.

[comhcinc]

A stupid asshole makes a video about some stupid assholes trolling other stupid assholes. No rectums were damaged in the making of this video.
[youtubehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsObFDbnSc[/youtube]

A Military Assault Vehicle also known as an old supply truck.

[free thoughtpolice]

A stupid asshole makes a video about some stupid assholes trolling other stupid assholes. No rectums were damaged in the making of this video.
[yout00b]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsObFDbnSc[/yout00b]

"When they go low, we get high."

I'm a bit more versatile. I get high whether they go low or high. :banana-stoner: