The Refuge of the Toads

[Skep tickle]

Haha, Wheaton wrote an essay to explain himself:

There's no reason to read past the second paragraph.

Woah. Nearly 2000 words. Hits all the standard talking education 101 points, more than once. Feels he has to stress, repeatedly, that his choice for Sanders has nothing to do with Clinton's gender. Identifies in this line the 2 types of people (it is supposed) who support Sanders: "Bernie Bros ... a shitty group of shitty people (who I honestly can’t believe are genuine progressives like the rest of us who want Bernie to get the nomination)."

Now that you've consensually engaged me in conversation, Skep tickle, I just want to take a quick moment to acknowledge my privilege. I know that as a well-endowed cis-orange-yellowish dictionary, I'm playing life on a much lower difficulty setting than a zebra. I hope this convinces you that I'm not one of those shitty equinophobic dictionaries. Those fuckers. They're totally the out-group for both of us. See? We're part of the same in-group, after all.

I have a lot of respect for you, Guestus Aurelius, but there's a big difference between an insult & a slur rooted in oppression. "Well-endowed" carries sexist baggage that "shitty" does not. Legit surprised you don't see the difference.

[Skep tickle]

From Popehat, from a couple of weeks ago:

Lawyering Is About Service, Not Self-Actualization

...I do have a strong objection to law schools tolerating — let alone cultivating — a disdain of the nuts and bolts of competent law practice. I especially have an objection to that disdain being cultivated in the name of "social justice." People traditionally recognized as being in need of social justice are also the people in most dire need of competent legal representation. When they have a few days to contest an eviction or they've been arrested and may lose their job, they don't need someone who is exquisitely prepared to explain and denounce the racist and oppressive structures that led to their unfortunate predicament. They need someone who knows what he or she is doing. They need someone who knows all of the petty substantive and procedural rules of landlord-tenant law and how the local court actually operates. They need someone who can swiftly assess whether an arrest or interrogation was unlawful and formulate a plausible and effective plan for dealing with it. They need someone who knows how to get things into evidence in court even under pressure on their feet when the judge is being difficult and the opposing counsel is making nonsensical objections. They need a grubby little practitioner.

People are quicker to understand this in other contexts. If a hairdresser could argue movingly that gendered hairstyles are based on antiquated stereotypes, but had no idea how to cut hair, people would generally accept that he was a poor hairdresser. ...

Our system is mediocre at best at delivering justice to society's least powerful. Do you want to be able to explain why? That's fine, go do that. But if you plan to address social injustice as a lawyer by actually representing its victims, it is absolutely perverse and self-indulgent to focus on theory rather than skills and rules.

(link/citation, but not quote, also posted in Aneris' resources thread)

[Guestus Aurelius]

"Shitty" most certainly does carry sexist baggage. I just looked it up in myself. Please stop erasing the lived experiences of coprophiliacs.

[Skep tickle]

"Shitty" most certainly does carry sexist baggage. I just looked it up in myself. Please stop erasing the lived experiences of coprophiliacs.

Doubling down? You might want to reconsider and instead start to grovel, before I signal to everyone that you are, as we will then have always known, a hyperskeptical MRA rape-apologist dictionary-atheist anti-feminist dude-bro. In 3, 2, 1...

[HoneyWagon]

Fuuuuuu.... one more try....

Hilarity ensues in the Australian Skeptics Facebook group, as a few chubsters try to pretend no problems ever happen in Australian skepticism an it's all been put to bed.........


<<<<<cough Karen Stollznow? Or treatment of former member Amanda Devaus after she was kicked out for questioning Watson's being at their conferences for yet another waste of $$$$$ year of same boring mostly white males / suck up to the USA big name speakers who never return the favor?>>>

......... as the shitfest over why Dawkins is out of the NECSS event carries on regardless (with some SGU snarking as a side-dish).

Gotcha love the 'nothing to see here, why aren't you doing REAL skepticism like a REAL skeptic should' failed brush offs from the biggest hypocrites.

lynx....
facebook. com /groups/SkepticsInAustralia/permalink/10156520783555711/

I am looking over it now.
the link for others
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Skeptic ... 11/?_rdr=p

Amanda gets crap from the SJWs also because she is friends with Radford and won't out up with their shit.

[Skep tickle]

Oops. I was referring to this post of Skep Tickle's of course:

Is there "a" PC position on the preferred Democrat in the US presidential race?

Advantage Clinton on gender, with extra demerits for Sanders not only being a man but an Old White Guy (TM) to boot.

However Sanders is more liberal, and seems to be favored by BLM (AFAICT).

McEwen favors Clinton, but that's not a surprise. Just seeing what shows up on google search results page for FTB, Mano Singham seems to be posting about politics & might favor Sanders, but others seem not to be mentioning politics much if at all.

Just wondering whether diversity (of opinion) might exist but being addressed via silence.

As I said, my impression is that class analysis is seen as woeful, inferior, and of course racist and privileged when put up against 100% SocJus approved feminism.

That's my impression too. Sanders is a socialist - and therefore will see class and economic issues as being the critical factors.
This contradicts the priorities of the adherents of identity politics and so it will not do. How dare he imply that a homeless old white man might have less advantages than Beyonce or Oprah! Or indeed an entire generation of middle class career women.

The twitter correction and subsequent abject apology-post by @wilw was informative: True Progressives (TM) support Sanders and are sensitive to the dangerous possibility of being seen as anti-feminist in not supporting Clinton.

Wheaton had tweeted about "Bernie Bros", which turns out to be a helpful term for finding additional explanations (& signaling). Here's The Young Turks examining the term and suggesting the Clinton campaign is trying to convince the media that it applies to all Sanders supporters:

[youtube]_dwIb9PwmhM[/youtube]

[Xenu]

God damn it. Shut up Wesley!

That was a truly painful read.

[feathers]

Pork on a Friday is a nice fuck off to 3 religions. Islam (pork and Friday is their holy day so extra bad), judaism (pork), and some christians ( the types who don't eat meat on Fridays).

And after the bacon-saturated meal, you drink beer (muslims) until the start of the Sabbath and press the elevator button to get to your room (to piss off some orthodox jews).

And piss off some feminists! :lol:

Thanks for the trip, let met expand that to:

And after the bacon-saturated meal, you drink beer (muslims) until the start of the Sabbath and press the elevator button (to piss off some orthodox jews), wait for a lone woman to enter and invite her for a coffee in your room (feminists).

[Guest_0048cc29]

Skep Tickle:

[youtube]_dwIb9PwmhM[/youtube]

Well, at some point TYT became in the bag for Bernie so while it's nice they are pointing out the flaws in the Bernie Bros argument, caveat lector of course.... Nevertheless, ...

My take on Bernie Bros is that it arose to stem, confront, and dismiss actually valid criticism of people advocating a vote for Hillary precisely because she is a women, the shorthand for that being "Vagina Voters".

"I may support Hillary strictly because she is a woman, but it's sexist to call me a Vagina Voter, in reality you are a misogynist Bernie Bro"

Contrast that to:

Kate Harding:
damemagazine.com/2015/04/14/i-am-voting-my-vagina-hillary-clinton-president

Jessica Valenti:
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/12/hillary-clinton-gender-male-politicians-campaigns-2016
Male politicians always play up gender in their races. Hillary Clinton can, too

Nancy Pelosi:
dailycaller.com/2015/04/16/pelosi-hillarys-votes-dont-matter-whats-important-is-shes-a-woman-video/

...

Well reason lays it out:

reason.com/archives/2015/05/03/meet-the-vagina-voters


---

I have many friends and relatives who are vagina voters. I love them all.

[blitzem]

They dont?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/acws-gothenbur ... 7131C2.jpg

USSailing has a somewhat mixed message on it: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2015/ ... r-sailing/

On the otherhand, Im not aware of a large push for helmets in soccer either, well, except for the Iranian womans team.

Red Bull might give you wings, but it might also give you helmet-hair.

[Skep tickle]

Skep Tickle:

[.youtube]_dwIb9PwmhM[./youtube]

Well, at some point TYT became in the bag for Bernie so while it's nice they are pointing out the flaws in the Bernie Bros argument, caveat lector of course.... Nevertheless, ...

My take on Bernie Bros is that it arose to stem, confront, and dismiss actually valid criticism of people advocating a vote for Hillary precisely because she is a women, the shorthand for that being "Vagina Voters".

"I may support Hillary strictly because she is a woman, but it's sexist to call me a Vagina Voter, in reality you are a misogynist Bernie Bro"

Contrast that to:

Kate Harding:
damemagazine.com/2015/04/14/i-am-voting-my-vagina-hillary-clinton-president

Jessica Valenti:
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/12/hillary-clinton-gender-male-politicians-campaigns-2016
Male politicians always play up gender in their races. Hillary Clinton can, too

Nancy Pelosi:
dailycaller.com/2015/04/16/pelosi-hillarys-votes-dont-matter-whats-important-is-shes-a-woman-video/

...

Well reason lays it out:

reason.com/archives/2015/05/03/meet-the-vagina-voters


---

I have many friends and relatives who are vagina voters. I love them all.

Oooh, thanks for all the links. This is fascinating, I'm learning so much. Yes, clearly TYT are pro-Sanders, even I picked up on that :) But did you notice that Kasparian conflated "female" and "women" in the first minute? :naughty:

Can't also deny anticipating :popcorn:

at feminist progressives turning out not to be a monolithic group (imagine that)...and having, at some point and in some manner, to deal with that uncomfortable fact. Will they demonize, ostracize, try to correct/educate each other over their incorrect position - or ignore each other's position ...lalala... - or (heh) actually talk about their difference of opinion?

For example, in apologizing after Jessica Valenti called him out on twitter, Wheaton groveled pretty well...but his piece assumes "genuine progressives like the rest of us {non-"Bernie Bros"} who want Bernie to get the nomination." But then you've just pointed out in a link above that Valenti supports people who decide to support a candidate, Clinton, simply because of her gender, and here's a more recent piece from her on that: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... is-a-woman So...will they ignore their differences on this part, now that Wheaton has capitulated on everything else?

[SM12]

A review of Carrier's Proving History by a real historian

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 1/issuetoc

[Cnutella]

Haha, Wheaton wrote an essay to explain himself:

There's no reason to read past the second paragraph.

He somehow managed to drag Gamergate into his apologetic:

I heard from a lot of women on Twitter today who knew someone, or who had been attacked themselves by someone claiming to be a Sanders supporter. These attacks always used gendered slurs that seemed to be ripped straight out of a typical GamerGater’s swamp of awfulness. Are all of these women telling the truth?

Spoiler: he thinks they are.

Gamergate is the wellspring of all misogyny that is even able to somehow infect loyal democrats. Quite impressive, as I thought the official SJW narrative was that GG are a bunch of Breitbart-loving libertarians and conservatives.

Maybe they're secret Hillary supporters trying to make Sanders look bad? After all, some of her supporters seemed willing to say anything in support of their candidate back in 2008.

[youtube]VeGPzk8Oca8[/youtube]

Better memory-hole that before someone busts all the glass in Weaton's greenhouse.

[Tapir]

Haha, Wheaton wrote an essay to explain himself:

There's no reason to read past the second paragraph.

I’m going to acknowledge my privilege right now, before I get into this. Because I’m a middle-aged white dude, I don’t have the same experience in life that … well, pretty much everyone else who isn’t has. I know that the world is set up to make life for people like me as easy as possible (Scalzi’s “lowest difficulty” setting), and even though I try to see from outside of my own limited perspective, I don’t always succeed.

This secular genuflection really is cringe inducing. Acknowledge your original sin Wesley; only then may your voice be heard.

[Skep tickle]

A review of Carrier's Proving History by a real historian

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 1/issuetoc

No paywall! Link to the full paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 10791/full

THE REVEREND BAYES VS. JESUS CHRIST by Aviezer Tucker

The abstract:

The Bayesian perspective on historiography is commonsensical: If historiography is not certain like a priori knowledge or sense data, and it is not fiction, historiography is probable. Richard Carrier's book argues for a Bayesian, probabilistic interpretation of historiography in general and of the debate about the historicity of Jesus in particular. Jesus can be interpreted as a historically transmitted reference of “Jesus,” as a bundle of properties, or literally. Carrier devotes too much energy to debating literalism that confuses evidence with hypotheses. But evidence preserves information to different degrees; it is true or not. Carrier proposes to apply objective, frequentist Bayesianism in historiography despite the difficulties in assigning values. He argues that ranges of values can determine historiographical hypotheses. Carrier does not analyze in Bayesian terms the main method for Bayesian determination of posterior probabilities in historiography: inference from multiple independent sources. When the prior probability of a hypothesis is low, but at least two independent evidential sources, such as testimonies, support it, however unreliable each of the testimonies is, the posterior probability leaps. The problem with the Synoptic Gospels as evidence for a historical Jesus from a Bayesian perspective is that the evidence that coheres does not seem to be independent, whereas the evidence that is independent does not seem to cohere. Carrier's explanation of some the evidence in the Gospels is fascinating as the first Bayesian reconstruction of structuralism and mimesis. Historians attempted to use theories about the transmission and preservation of information to find more reliable parts of the Gospels, parts that are more likely to have preserved older information. Carrier is too dismissive of such methods because he is focused on hypotheses about the historical Jesus rather than on the best explanations of the evidence. I leave open questions about the degree of scholarly consensus and the possible reasons for it.

[Guest_0048cc29]

Most of those links were from the reason article, it seems the links I was looking for have been lost in time.

None of this is new, IIRC, all of it was brought to the fore when women started splitting for Edwards and Obama, all along similar lines, namely older women and NOW were demanding women vote for Clinton because of her gender, while younger women who didn't know her (or possibly did know here but weren't as enthralled by her) split for Edwards and Obama on the basis of Clinton's apparent partnership with wall street, hedging on gay marriage, etc.

In that sense Bernie Bro is very much like the atheist schism or the liberal / sjw schism or gamergate.

The message is that it's misogynists, sexists, (conservatives) vs. liberals, but it's very much a fight within liberal space over control of liberal space where the majority are not misogynists or sexist but merely disagree.

Some links from a google search of Vagina Voter Clinton between 1/2006 and 1/2009

I can't find many articles where NOW, etc., demand fealty to Clinton because she is a women, but then my search was narrow: vagina voter, which almost certainly brings up anti-Clinton, or articles about the misogyny of the label.

On the other hand, I think it's a case of where the negative proves the positive. If there hadn't been many calls to vote for Clinton along chromosomal lines, there wouldn't be these articles decrying the label.

thenation.com/article/what-women-see-when-they-see-hillary/

What Women See When They See Hillary
Some of the same feminists who loved Hillary as First Lady are now fiercely opposing her bid for the White House.

thestranger.com/seattle/hillary-clinton-has-a-vagina-and-so-do-i/Content?oid=428389

Hillary Clinton Has a Vagina and So Do I
Am I Obligated to Support Hillary Clinton Based on Her Gender Alone?

seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/hillary-hatred-finds-its-misogynistic-voice/
Hillary hatred finds its misogynistic voice

----

Amanda Marcotte chimes in at Salon. Now Amanda was one of the original Edwards not Clinton girls but now she's all for Clinton because I guess Sanders is a savior figure who promises the impossible and won't get things done. Clinton in contrast only mildy over promises, and she knows where the bodies are buried.

Not a mention of her vagina or feminism anywhere, but I do like how politically pragmatic Amanda makes the perfect argument for the triangulating positions that turned Barry Goldwater, Reagan, and Nixon into liberals left of what we currently think we can achieve.

archive.is/H5CZK

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

A few friends of mine actually like Marcotte for her political pieces. I haven't asked them yet if they've read her feminist tripe. But if she's as good as they say on the subject of US politics, I'm happy there's at least one area where she's not a crazy fuck.

[Keating]

Kneel before Zod!

The whole Kneel before Zod thing is fucking stupid. Attack her methods and beliefs but for fuck sake a picture of Zod doesn't mean shit.

Oh shit I knew I'd forgotten something.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/ ... 07/zod.gif

[youtube]cZ9yYpUooiw[/youtube]

[Guest_0048cc29]

She has mellowed a very little bit as she has gotten older (she's now 38) and as younger more extreme columnists grow up through the pink mafia. But for her mellowing, she is mostly just a fountain of warmed over common progressive opinion that she read elsewhere and is repeating. There's nothing new or insightful in this column of hers. It's hard to be outraged by what she says when she is not saying much of anything.

[Dick Strawkins]

Will Wheaton:

I’m going to acknowledge my privilege right now, before I get into this. Because I’m a middle-aged white dude, I don’t have the same experience in life that … well, pretty much everyone else who isn’t has. I know that the world is set up to make life for people like me as easy as possible (Scalzi’s “lowest difficulty” setting), and even though I try to see from outside of my own limited perspective, I don’t always succeed.

This secular genuflection really is cringe inducing. Acknowledge your original sin Wesley; only then may your voice be heard.

Will Wheaton has been rich and famous since childhood.
Scalzi has a front lawn that's about the same size as Central Park and has a position of power in the SciFi publishing world that forces others to genuflect before him.
Does Wheaton serious believe that these "lowest difficult settings" are somehow shared by all people who happen to be 'middle-aged white dudes'?
Apparently he does!

Or, alternatively, he knows that economic factors are a huge part of the picture but mentioning that will ruin the SJW identity politics narrative and set the twitter mutaween on his tail.

[HunnyBunny]

A review of Carrier's Proving History by a real historian

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 1/issuetoc

No paywall! Link to the full paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 10791/full

THE REVEREND BAYES VS. JESUS CHRIST by Aviezer Tucker

Carrier is wetting himself over at his blog.

As I recently mentioned, a Harvard University philosopher, Aviezer Tucker, just published a review of my book Proving History for the academic journal History and Theory (Vol. 55, February 2016, pp. 129-140), titled, The Reverend Bayes vs. Jesus Christ. Tucker is an expert in the methods and philosophy of history, so his review carries some weight. It’s significant, therefore, that he endorses the program of my book—that historians need to start using Bayes’ Theorem, as effectively as they can, to resolve questions in their field—and that in fact even when he criticizes my book, he does so by suggesting improvements that are either already in that book (and he merely overlooked them) or in my subsequent application of its program in its sequel, On the Historicity of Jesus. This is almost the best assessment one could expect. It lacks merely noticing that much of what he suggests, I already did. What I provide below is an analysis of his review that helps understand his points, and relates them to what I’ve already written.
...
So I have to count this review as a uniform win for my project. Tucker says nothing that contravenes anything argued in Proving History or On the Historicity of Jesus. Everything he says actually in fact verifies them. In all he voiced only one genuine criticism, which is that I could have added a section assisting historians with cases where multiple independent testimonies actually do exist (and even how to identify them). And with that I agree.

I expect Carrier now has the review printed out & pinned to the wall with a fresh supply of kleenex boxes on hand. The ladies will be going without for some time.

:cdc:

[Guest_0048cc29]

okay, one more:

google.com/search?q=Susan+Sarandon+vagina+politics

Susan Sarandon has been telling women not to vote with their vaginas since 2013 (if not earlier) which is more of my weak argument that evidence of the opposite is evidence of the thing itself.

[Dick Strawkins]

A few friends of mine actually like Marcotte for her political pieces. I haven't asked them yet if they've read her feminist tripe. But if she's as good as they say on the subject of US politics, I'm happy there's at least one area where she's not a crazy fuck.

Marcotte has to be careful in this area.
A few years back John Edwards, the democrat candidate for president in 2008, hired several feminist bloggers to work on his campaign. Edwards was, of course, involved in a scandal soon after in which he fathered a child with a reporter who was covering him during this campaign and then lied about it and tried to have someone else take the blame - all during a time when his wife was dying of cancer.
Well the two feminist bloggers hired by Edwards were names very familiar to us - Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. Edwards was forced to fire them because they were too extreme for mainstream voters..
Anyway, the fact that she was a big Edwards supporter is something that Marcotte would probably not like to be tied to in perpetuity. Jumping straight to Hillary Clinton (which, as a feminist you might expect) risks charges of hypocrisy - she could have supported Clinton in 2008, why didn't she?
Her only real solution is to try to be somewhat objective about things.

[VickyCaramel]

Damion's saving all the fun for himself -- the amazingly retarded Matthew Facciani lists Two Big Reasons atheists should be feminists. I compare that to ReGreta's black outreach program:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/accordingt ... 2494993321

"Please be a poe!"

Who me?

Fucker.

:lol:

It is lazy atheist bloggers who need feminism. Going out and finding some atheist issues to blog about and form an opinion about might be hard work, but jumping on today's feminist talking point is as easy as setting up a google alert.

[Guest_0048cc29]

If we don't vote for Hillary, we may never have a female president.

slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/02/the_secret_to_bernie_sanders_success_he_s_not_a_woman.html

One Weird Trick to Bernie Sanders’ Success
He’s not a woman.

...

Perhaps. The obvious problem is that we have so little data: Only twice in American history has a woman been a serious presidential contender; both times, that woman was Hillary Clinton. The paucity of data itself speaks volumes. Why don’t we have other women to compare Clinton to? Could it be because most women, facing the challenges that Clinton faces now, are not allowed to rise to the top tier of candidates? Is it because any woman powerful enough to run for president will quickly become undone by the image of power she projects? Are women simply hesitant to put themselves through the indignities that Clinton has suffered? I don’t know the answers, but the questions worry me. They suggest that no female candidate, however qualified, can ever be strong enough to fight back a challenge from a Sanders-type male rival. In other words, in any given race featuring a female candidate, there will always be a Bernie Sanders who can do what she can’t do and say what she can’t say. And if there will always be a Bernie Sanders, then there may never be a female president of the United States.

That's from Slate Double XX (written by a man (written by a gay man)) but it is pretty much the definition of a vagina voter. People vote for Bernie because they hate Hillary (and women.)

He acknowledges all of Clinton's baggage, but only says:

I have no doubt that some Sanders supporters legitimately favor his policies over Clinton’s, and that they might vote for a woman with Sanders’ ideology. But my strong suspicion is that, in any nominating race featuring a female candidate, there will always be a Bernie Sanders—a male alternative whose gender allows him to do everything his female opponent cannot. And the key question for Democratic voters, post-Iowa, is whether they will allow themselves to be so wooed by Sanders’ gendered appeal that they abandon the woman who seemed poised to make history.

It's not her issues, it's her vagina.

[Keating]

As a non-USian, Clinton makes me hope against hope that the email scandal has legs. I may even start believing in a god if she's perp walked immediately after she gets the nomination.

[Hunt]

Haha, Wheaton wrote an essay to explain himself:

There's no reason to read past the second paragraph.

He somehow managed to drag Gamergate into his apologetic:

I heard from a lot of women on Twitter today who knew someone, or who had been attacked themselves by someone claiming to be a Sanders supporter. These attacks always used gendered slurs that seemed to be ripped straight out of a typical GamerGater’s swamp of awfulness. Are all of these women telling the truth?

Spoiler: he thinks they are.

Gamergate is the wellspring of all misogyny that is even able to somehow infect loyal democrats. Quite impressive, as I thought the official SJW narrative was that GG are a bunch of Breitbart-loving libertarians and conservatives.

Maybe they're secret Hillary supporters trying to make Sanders look bad? After all, some of her supporters seemed willing to say anything in support of their candidate back in 2008.

[youtube]VeGPzk8Oca8[/youtube]

Better memory-hole that before someone busts all the glass in Weaton's greenhouse.

Big White?

[Steersman]

As a non-USian, Clinton makes me hope against hope that the email scandal has legs. I may even start believing in a god if she's perp walked immediately after she gets the nomination.

Haven't followed much of the goings-on with her but it seems that the email scandal itself- using unsecure servers, I think - is less an issue than how she handled the whole Bengazi affair. And that she seems to have her hands in the Saudi cookie jar. Although, maybe arguably, it seems the Saudi lobby has had some highly questionable dealings with more than a few other politicians - with the apparent exception of Sanders who I saw in a recent tweet was questioning our changing "allies" in that neck of the woods.

Maybe I'm reading more into that situation on the basis of very limited information than is justified, but something sure seems rotten in Denmark.

[Steersman]

screwtape: "Concrete thinking at its finest, Steers, old boy. Read the cartoon speech bubble and you will see why MarcusAu posted it. I suspect your CoreEmpathySimulation process has crashed. Please reboot."

:-) If I ever get around to writing some AI software I'll be sure to consider that as an appropriate label for some modules. But saw that one robot was calling itself Hammerstein but that still seemed a non sequitur, although maybe it was too late to be firing on all cylinders.

Hammerstein is one of the ABC warriors. A comic book from the same guys who gave us Judge Dredd.

Hammerstein first appeared in RoBusters in the comic Starlord. He was an ex-military robot with a hammer in place of one hand (hence Hammerstein) who constantly banged on about his war days to his partner Ro-Jaws (Ro-Jaws & Hammerstein, geddit?). ABC Warriors stood for Atomic, Bacterial & Chemical.

Starlord was absorbed into 2000ad when the British comic market contractedand they retconned his backstory (as told in ABC Warriors) into the same timeline as the earlier 2000ad story Invasion!

Ah, the light dawns. :-) Thanks for the history lesson, though it was way after my time - maybe part of the reason for not getting the reference.

[Steersman]

I still wanna know how Steersman plans to deal with those people who voluntarily convert to islam after all the 'already muslim' lot have been deported.

Look, all you got to do is watermark all our currency with bacon fat. Job done.

:-) Sepoy Mutiny, Reboot.

[Steersman]

Last time they rebooted Steers he started agreeing with the National Front. I believe there is concern another reboot may result in an endless loop of Mein Kampf / Stalin quotes.

Sheesh. Link to one neo-Nazi site, and that might be debatable, and one is forever tainted - at least in the eyes of some who seem to have less commitment to the principles of skepticism than they apparently claim ....

*snip*
Islam simply isn't going to change unless the countries Muslims wish to immigrate to draw a line or two in the sand. Apropos of which:
[.tweet][/tweet]
https:/ /twitter.com/MaryamNamazie/status/693766987529469953

I wasn't suggesting you agree with the national front because you linked to a far right source. I am saying you agree with the National Front because of what you say.

"Repudiate Islam, piss on the quran, deport the fucking lot of them" is far right ideology.

And you are just wrong, your mantra has no basis in reality and repeating it will mark you out as a bigoted fanatic.

I'll readily agree with you that it's rather "problematic" that many on the far-right are making political hay out of the immigration crisis. But deportation is hardly an idea that I've cut from whole cloth as those Wikipedia articles on population transfer, and the partitions of India and Pakistan (1947, 1957?), illustrated. You might take a look at this article on the views of the Czech president: Muslims are "impossible to integrate " into Western European society says Czech president in anti-migrant rant. One might wonder how many more "genocides" like what happened with those partitions, and that for Yugoslavia, before we realize the truth of that argument. Ounce of prevention and all that.

I linked you a book last night on twitter that Maryam Namazie mentioned, I urge you to read it. Secularism is the way forward, the marginalisation of ideas, not inhumane treatment of people.

Saw that - thanks for the link. Though I seem to recollect that the author was/is a secular Muslim which caused me to raise an eyebrow. Great that he supports secularism - apparently as I haven't more than glanced at the article - but it will be interesting to see if he's doing much to convince "fundamentalist" Muslims to do likewise.

Governments have much to answer for in this current groundswell of support for the far right. The Western European governments are treating the majority of their citizens as bigots, racists, islamaphobes, and deciding that they must ignore the people's complaints in favour of those claiming being anti-immigration is racist.

It is far more about resources and preservation of secular way of life that exists in most EU countries than it is about xenophobia. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy though, because the far right are the only ones listening to the people, and so more gravitate to them.

[.tweet][/tweet]

You won't get much of an argument from me on what various governments have to answer for - think I tweeted a link to you on the heavy hand that Merkel has been laying on the press to keep quiet about the problems with immigration. But when the New York Times posts an article - by Douthat - questioning conventional wisdom on immigration then one might reasonably suggest there's likely to be some fire behind the smoke.

[Satan]

It's almost like SJWs/feminists having seen the example of Islamist outrage have felt the release of some sort of inhibition in themselves, maybe like some sort of unconscious mirroring phenomenon or something like that.

"Fatwa envy" is, IIRC, the term some pitters used for that phenomenon.

[Satan]

At least here in the US, we cant specifically ban religiously based arbitration because of the 1st Amend. So either we allow ADL or we dont.

Between abuses by religious courts and the erosion of access to legal redress due to creeping binding arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts I think it would be in the public interest to sink the entire ADL system in favor of providing better access to the courts. ADL doesn't offer anything positive that a functioning court system cannot.

[Dick Strawkins]

It's almost like SJWs/feminists having seen the example of Islamist outrage have felt the release of some sort of inhibition in themselves, maybe like some sort of unconscious mirroring phenomenon or something like that.

"Fatwa envy" is, IIRC, the term some pitters used for that phenomenon.

I think 'Fatwa envy' was first used to describe Bill Donohue.
Remember him and the kerfuffle with PZ Myers over 'Crackergate'?

We are talking about an authoritarian demagogue, in thrall to his faith based ideology, who pronounces anyone who opposes him as an unspeakable bigot.






And Bill Donohue isn't much better!

:rimshot:

[Satan]

Certainly Elevatorgate was not the first instance of SJW tactics being used - the Wiscon incident was another and that occurred several years before Elevatorgate too. In that one we have the full use of doxxing, job targeting and death threats being made against a woman who committed the terrible crime of mildly mocking some feminists.

These tactics are seemingly nothing new to feminism. I've heard stories of social shunning tactics, physical intimidation, vandalism, and death threats being used by feminists to enforce internal orthodoxy at least as far back as the 1960s. The sea change with events like Wiscon is that new generations of feminists are now willing to use these tactics against outsiders and have the backing of both social media and the real media.

[Steersman]

It's almost like SJWs/feminists having seen the example of Islamist outrage have felt the release of some sort of inhibition in themselves, maybe like some sort of unconscious mirroring phenomenon or something like that.

"Fatwa envy" is, IIRC, the term some pitters used for that phenomenon.

I think 'Fatwa envy' was first used to describe Bill Donohue.
Remember him and the kerfuffle with PZ Myers over 'Crackergate'?

We are talking about an authoritarian demagogue, in thrall to his faith based ideology, who pronounces anyone who opposes him as an unspeakable bigot.

And Bill Donohue isn't much better!

:rimshot:

:lol: You saw that recent post of Jerry Coyne's on "fundamentalist atheists"? Can't see that not causing a bit of a burn for old PZ. And I remember one of Pigliucci's old posts on the same phenomenon, and the same character: PZ Myers is a witless wanker who peddles pablum

Done for the day though ("All in all Maggie Muggins, it was quite a day"). Night all.

[feathers]

At least here in the US, we cant specifically ban religiously based arbitration because of the 1st Amend. So either we allow ADL or we dont.

Between abuses by religious courts and the erosion of access to legal redress due to creeping binding arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts I think it would be in the public interest to sink the entire ADL system in favor of providing better access to the courts. ADL doesn't offer anything positive that a functioning court system cannot.

+1.

[Aneris]

A few friends of mine actually like Marcotte for her political pieces. I haven't asked them yet if they've read her feminist tripe. But if she's as good as they say on the subject of US politics, I'm happy there's at least one area where she's not a crazy fuck.

Some movies were quite good, too. Edge of Tommorow was the last one I saw and it was an interesting take.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Edge of Tomorrow was very good, even if it was only Groundhog Day on steroids. I usually like Marcotte's acting in general (Collateral was ace).

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

<---------------------------------------------------------------


http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/spo ... 0718224913

[feathers]

Besides, if you allow sectarian courts based on religion, can I also have one for atheists? Pastafarians? Fans of Death Metal, pigeon keepers, cleptomaniacs?

Yes, yes you can. Thats what makes trying to ban religious courts seem so ridiculous to me. If a group of people agree to abide by the rulings of the court of their choice... how would the state even know let alone be able to stop it.

Fair question, but by that token the state cannot "know, let alone stop" the gentlemen's agreement between Luigi Vercotti (Cosa Nostra, inc.) and John Backwater (Tobacconist, 4th St West) re. transfer of 10% of Mr Backwater's proceeds to Mr Vercotti in return for protection of the former's store from catastrophic events like fires.

However, should Mr Backwater muster the courage to report to the police that he was drawn into this venture involuntarily, the police would be forced to investigate and the judge would likely rule in favour of annulment of the contract.

Something which Fatima Salaam may well forget if the religious court denies her divorce on basis of shariah, because the law recognises this 'arbitration' court's decisions as binding.

[Brive1987]

work in progress

http://i.imgur.com/AndFsC1.png

[MarcusAu]

work in progress

*snip*

Fucking Bonza Mate!

[Spike13]

work in progress

http://i.imgur.com/AndFsC1.png

From what I can see it looks great!
Unfortunately, when I increase the size of the page in this phone, it reloads the page. Stupid I-phone.....

[Karmakin]

If we don't vote for Hillary, we may never have a female president.

slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/02/the_secret_to_bernie_sanders_success_he_s_not_a_woman.html

One Weird Trick to Bernie Sanders’ Success
He’s not a woman.

...

Perhaps. The obvious problem is that we have so little data: Only twice in American history has a woman been a serious presidential contender; both times, that woman was Hillary Clinton. The paucity of data itself speaks volumes. Why don’t we have other women to compare Clinton to? Could it be because most women, facing the challenges that Clinton faces now, are not allowed to rise to the top tier of candidates? Is it because any woman powerful enough to run for president will quickly become undone by the image of power she projects? Are women simply hesitant to put themselves through the indignities that Clinton has suffered? I don’t know the answers, but the questions worry me. They suggest that no female candidate, however qualified, can ever be strong enough to fight back a challenge from a Sanders-type male rival. In other words, in any given race featuring a female candidate, there will always be a Bernie Sanders who can do what she can’t do and say what she can’t say. And if there will always be a Bernie Sanders, then there may never be a female president of the United States.

That's from Slate Double XX (written by a man (written by a gay man)) but it is pretty much the definition of a vagina voter. People vote for Bernie because they hate Hillary (and women.)

He acknowledges all of Clinton's baggage, but only says:

I have no doubt that some Sanders supporters legitimately favor his policies over Clinton’s, and that they might vote for a woman with Sanders’ ideology. But my strong suspicion is that, in any nominating race featuring a female candidate, there will always be a Bernie Sanders—a male alternative whose gender allows him to do everything his female opponent cannot. And the key question for Democratic voters, post-Iowa, is whether they will allow themselves to be so wooed by Sanders’ gendered appeal that they abandon the woman who seemed poised to make history.

It's not her issues, it's her vagina.

Yeah, the fact that basically all of Sanders supporters would insta-support if it was say, Elizabeth Warren running in Sanders place is meaningless.

[VickyCaramel]

Besides, if you allow sectarian courts based on religion, can I also have one for atheists? Pastafarians? Fans of Death Metal, pigeon keepers, cleptomaniacs?

Yes, yes you can. Thats what makes trying to ban religious courts seem so ridiculous to me. If a group of people agree to abide by the rulings of the court of their choice... how would the state even know let alone be able to stop it.

Fair question, but by that token the state cannot "know, let alone stop" the gentlemen's agreement between Luigi Vercotti (Cosa Nostra, inc.) and John Backwater (Tobacconist, 4th St West) re. transfer of 10% of Mr Backwater's proceeds to Mr Vercotti in return for protection of the former's store from catastrophic events like fires.

However, should Mr Backwater muster the courage to report to the police that he was drawn into this venture involuntarily, the police would be forced to investigate and the judge would likely rule in favour of annulment of the contract.

Something which Fatima Salaam may well forget if the religious court denies her divorce on basis of shariah, because the law recognises this 'arbitration' court's decisions as binding.

I was once told that you can put anything you like into a legal contract, but that doesn't mean a court will enforce it. UK courts only enforce UK law, anything coming from a religious court that contradicts UK law will be ignored.

[Spike13]

What I learned today:

Voting for dark skin is good/progressive :clap:
Voting for female genitalia is good/ progressive :clap:

Voting for white skin bad/racist :naughty:
Voting for male genitalia bad/misogyny :naughty:

Once again it's ok when they do it!

( voting for anyone based on anything outside of the issues and that particular persons integrity as well as ones own interest is pretty stupid.)

[Dick Strawkins]

work in progress

http://i.imgur.com/AndFsC1.png

Very good!
A few things are missing though.

1. oolon trolling the slymepit and then getting banned by PZ for talking about the pit too much on pharyngula.
2. The blockbot gets started by oolon and aratina cage to automate attacking pitters on twitter.
3. PZ allows oolon back.
4. Skeptickle confronts Myers in person at a conference by asking him a question and he promptly soils himself.
5. Lousy and Myers both admit to having faced 'false!' sexual assault accusations (don't believe the victims in these cases!).
6. Myers former promotion of hentai rape porn is revealed.

There's probably a lot more that people can remember.

[Shatterface]

Haha, Wheaton wrote an essay to explain himself:

There's no reason to read past the second paragraph.

He somehow managed to drag Gamergate into his apologetic:

I heard from a lot of women on Twitter today who knew someone, or who had been attacked themselves by someone claiming to be a Sanders supporter. These attacks always used gendered slurs that seemed to be ripped straight out of a typical GamerGater’s swamp of awfulness. Are all of these women telling the truth?

Hearing - on Twitter - from someone who knows someone who was attacked, or maybe they were attacked thselves, by someone claiming to support someone using language typical of what you've heard this other group might say is slam dunk evidence in my book.

[Brive1987]

Ta. I shall continue to fill yhe white spaces !

[Spike13]

Willy sounds afraid that the eye of the witch-finder may be upon him.

That message read like a stuttering proclamation of innocence.

[Spike13]

Ta. I shall continue to fill yhe white spaces !

RACISM!!!!!!!!!

[feathers]

I was once told that you can put anything you like into a legal contract, but that doesn't mean a court will enforce it. UK courts only enforce UK law, anything coming from a religious court that contradicts UK law will be ignored.

I'm pretty certain that also holds in other jurisdictions, but there may be nothing in the arbitration court's verdict that violates the law per se. If the sharia court denies a divorce initiated by a woman because she's pregnant, or because she can't repay the dowry, I'm not certain any national law is broken. But keeping in mind that her husband would have been granted divorce if only he pronounced his intention to divorce her three times (often without waiting period), I see something horribly skewed with the woman's legal status.

As long as arbitrage courts stay in the realm of, for example, consumer goods, they're more or less acceptable. But in cases involving life, career and offspring, I'd say it's a very slippery slope.

[VickyCaramel]

I was once told that you can put anything you like into a legal contract, but that doesn't mean a court will enforce it. UK courts only enforce UK law, anything coming from a religious court that contradicts UK law will be ignored.

I'm pretty certain that also holds in other jurisdictions, but there may be nothing in the arbitration court's verdict that violates the law per se. If the sharia court denies a divorce initiated by a woman because she's pregnant, or because she can't repay the dowry, I'm not certain any national law is broken. But keeping in mind that her husband would have been granted divorce if only he pronounced his intention to divorce her three times (often without waiting period), I see something horribly skewed with the woman's legal status.

As long as arbitrage courts stay in the realm of, for example, consumer goods, they're more or less acceptable. But in cases involving life, career and offspring, I'd say it's a very slippery slope.

We have no fault divorce here, if she wants a divorce, she'll get a divorce.

[feathers]

We have no fault divorce here, if she wants a divorce, she'll get a divorce.

In the Netherlands, you need to have 'irreconcilable differences' which is when... either party states irreconcilable differences.

But not in islam you don't.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Religious courts should not be allowed in secular countries. Even as arbitrators. Right now Islam is trying to get a strong foothold in Western countries, and accepting sharia courts is yet another way of giving them that foothold.

If other religious courts have to suffer from stopping the expansion of Islam, so be it.

[Lsuoma]

Haha, Wheaton wrote an essay to explain himself:

There's no reason to read past the second paragraph.

http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/429300/a ... 4-2013.jpg

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Trigger Warning please?

Gold ring on a muslim! Tss...

[Service Dog]

Brive:

Dillahunty's undercover atheism+ foray, Greg Laden making threats & doxing, Harriet Hall's t-shirt, Zvan targets Vacula's secular appointment, Zvan vs. Chill girls & sister punishers, Zvan mistakes conference affair for harassment, PZ onstage sexual harassment card game...

[Cnutella]

Ta. I shall continue to fill yhe white spaces !

Big Ed's ragequit and Ophelia gets burned as a witch.

Gelato guy?


I saw you had Jamila bay in there, but you might want to add that she also quit following the backlash against her pro-republican wrong-think.