If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

rayshul wrote:OKay how many people are going to be hanging with Sargon? I may need to buy a new computer if I'm going to be on, and I want to know if there's some alts.

Who is in?

Kirbmarc wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:Thanks Phil.

............

If PZ had a sense of humour we could organise a Slymepit counter team.

If PZ had a sense of humour we could organise a Doom or Quake online death match. We could chase Nerd with a chainsaw.

But if PZ had a sense of humour he wouldn't have gotten into this FtB mess in the first place.

http://i.imgur.com/Oaeu7Cm.jpg

It really is a shame somewhat. If any of those SJW clowns had any sense of humor (unlike clowns, then) we would have resolved this whole mess years ago.

I'd be up for a resolution through AD&D, or even a Battlefront match. Won't happen. It's the same as wars. Everything could be resolved with a friendly footy match, but no, they have to kill people.

People have become violent because of football matches, even "friendly" ones.

Human nature is just too tribalistic for these peaceful solutions to work. Individuals may be convinced to see reason. This isn't the case with a group which fanatically believes that they're making the world a better place and that all their critics and rivals are horrible people (in group morality/out group hostility).

The only ways to make (temporary) peace with fanatics is to either utterly and completely defeat them (which leads to lots of casualties), make them become massively unpopular and ineffectual (which is hard), or create a mutually assured destruction situation (which only stalls the conflict and turns it into a cold war).

Fanatics don't compromise. They don't negotiate or make deals. They see every friendly gesture as a treacherous ploy at worst or as clueless naivety at best.

In the ideological fight with the SJWs we're following the second strategy: we want them to be seen as fringe loons. Our objectives are to expose their bad behavior so much that they're isolated, wait for the youngest ones to grow up, and watch the older ones fade into oblivion.

Some of them might be able to eventually realize how wrong they were,and that they could have accomplished their stated goals (gender equality, end of discrimination) if they listened to their critics every once in a while. Many of them sadly won't.

It all depends on what stage they're at. The college kids might be turned around by something as tame as mocking by Triumph the Insult Comic. Of course, there can be fanatical college age ideologues, just as there were Cultural Revolution college fanatics who denounced everyone, including their professors. SJWs and the Red Guard are similar beyond mere hyperbole. Myers often reminds me of the mature lunacy of Mao, and he takes refuge in the idle suggestibility of youth in a disturbingly similar fashion. No, Myers isn't going to be turned merely by humor, and he's going to put up defenses in just the way you describe, but others get into fanatical political correctness just by showing up at college and falling into the scene, perhaps fueled by a couple bitter reminders from childhood and the usual pompous pretensions of youth.
In the end it will all more or less die out; the pendulum will return toward center after clearing a path of destruction. The Cultural Revolution was far more radical and destructive than SJWism and in the end, even without the benefit of hindsight (that we now have, supposedly), saner minds prevailed.

Old_ones wrote:If anyone wants to listen to Mykeru ramble for ramble for a really long time about... something or other... this now exists:

[youtube]uBGTal4qsm0[/youtube]

An hour and 15 minutes? HAHAHAHA. FFS. GTFO.

free thoughtpolice wrote:If you are a muslim archaeologist and you dig up an idol you need to destroy it and shouldn't visit museums that have idols? :think:

Fatwa Date : Safar 2, 1430 / 29-1-2009
Question

Assalamu Alaykum, According to the sunnah, creating statues of living creatures is considered haram. 1-What is the ruling on the science of archeology and preserving discovered ancient civilization statues in museums? Is attending such museums haram? 2-Is preserving mummies of pharaohs haram? Thank you

If a Christian were to ask such questions on a forum, we'd say they were fundamentalist, if not cultist. But this Muslim is just mainstream, a bit devout perhaps.

If each and every step of your daily life was governed by doubt whether you're still in line with doctrine, wouldn't you at last start beheading people? This is plain insanity.

Finally saw Star Wars today in 3-D. Was amazed at how Yoda lifted Princess Leia's face with the force. :rimshot:

But seriously, just flew in from Vegas and boy are my arms tired. :rimshot:

But really seriously, very diappointed that Rey and Finn weren't snogging by the end of second hour. Guess Abrams isn't that progressive. Shame on you Hollywood, still abiding by miscegenation proscriptions of the 50's.

Did not allow the utterly inane feminist propaganda of the first twenty minutes ("Stop holding my hand!") disrupt my suspension of disbelief, though it was hard. Still, the movie was good, not great. Harrison Ford was as good as he could have been. I didn't cry when he got skewered, probably because it had already been spoiled for me. Sad to see the character go though. Had the desperate impulse to give Carrie Fisher a cigarette and shot of booze during the entire film.

rayshul wrote:I don't know if anyone else follows #gamergate, but #gamergate's RW has just withdrawn her court case.

Ya, I heard but I also heard that Eron Gjoni (and his lawyer(s)) are not going to let her get away with it.

For those wondering WTF is going on, first a timeline because this is what started #GamerGate.

The attempted coverup is what blew the whole thing up. There have been a bunch of repercussions, some include the exodus from 4chan to 8chan, Gawker admitting that #GamerGate cost them seven figures and the attention of the FTC, put DiGRA on the radar and last, but not least a courtcase, where Zoey Quinn tried to shut up Eron Gjoni over his blog Zoepost where he detailed like an obsessive Aspie his case about Quinn and her abuse.

Mostly overlooked was the court case but Eron Gjoni got funded to fight it ... see The Freeze Peach Fund

Back in my neck of the woods, that dev I had the misfortune of dating went into damage control mode. Dev's basic PR strategy amounted to: spread counter-narrative and misinformation, discredit and silence the opposition, leverage official channels in any way that might increase public perception of legitimacy. In following her usual MO of "you can be most effective by being more ruthless than anyone expects," dev took out an infamously broken type of court order to serve as a makeshift gag-order. The "hearing" for this order lasted maybe 10 minutes. Judge did not allow me to present evidence in my defense. Judge refused to hear the First Amendment objections. Judge did not even give me an opportunity to speak. My attorney was upset enough by the whole thing that he took the initiative of compiling the record and docketing the appeal pro-bono.

later on ...

Dropping the pending charges and replacing them with this new one has a pernicious effect. Even though the new charge is based on the same underlying claims, it's technically a different legal issue altogether. Which means, even if the appellate court were to rule that order was invalid, that ruling would (arguably) offer much less relief toward this new charge (depending on the wording, anyway). And since the appellate court's ruling would offer less relief, Wilmer Hale can use that forced change in circumstance to make a stronger argument in favor of mootness with one hand, while actively restricting my speech with the other (my speech would necessarily be "chilled" as the proceedings for this replacement charge are underway). The only way to get the appellate court to also chime in on this replacement charge would be to lose the new charge, then file yet another appeal (which would take yet another year or two).

If that all sounds a bit grim, it's not! The Appellate Court has not only not ruled the case moot yet, but seems to have just signaled the opposite. They've just scheduled oral argument for some as of yet to be decided date between March 1st - 18th. They might hypothetically still rule the case moot after oral argument -- but the fact that they scheduled it all given the circumstances is quite encouraging.

Zoe has a spin on this though:

Why I Just Dropped The Harassment Charges The Man Who Started GamerGate.

My ex, who we’ll call Creep Throat because seeing his name makes a knot of anxiety rise in my throat, will be notified soon that the charges were dropped, but not why. I’m sure he’ll launch another salvo of flat out lies and spun truths to make it seem like the last year and a half was a byproduct of me “asking for it”, that the courts saw through it, while making him seem like a downtrodden hero of free speech. He managed to do that with previous court dates, leaving out things like a judge flat out stating that she believed he had physically assaulted me during the last time we had sex, and that he’d gone through my friends social media feeds of the day afterward to prove that I wasn’t “acting like a victim” by spending time with friends.

You need to read the whole thing because you know by now cause I am always reminding you shitlords that I quotemine the fuck out of things.

At any rate just these two ... go grab something to drink first though. The two links you should read are:

The Freeze Peach Fund
Why I Just Dropped The Harassment Charges The Man Who Started GamerGate.

Oh and forget about DiGRA for now. It is going to be awhile before we deal with them, but no one has forgotten them. Those fuckers may think that we have. But we have not.

Posted this at Mick's but it's currently in moderation, presumably because it triggered an automatic block on the word 'retarded'. I'm expecting it will get through. Anyway:

Stephen Pinker has written about the ‘euphemism treadmill': descriptive words like ‘retarded’ become tainted by negative associations and are replaced by euphemisms which, over time, also become tainted with those associations, and the cycle goes on and on.

I think there’s also a dysphemism treadmill. Words with negative associations are blunted by overuse and new, more extreme terms are drafted in to replace them.

‘Racism’ is now shrugged off so ‘white supremacy’, ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘hate speech’ now take its place; just as ‘sexism’ became ‘misogyny’ and ‘rape apologism’, and criticism became ‘bullying’, ‘harassment’ and ‘cyber-violence’.

In each case we are moving from ‘wrongful beliefs’ to ‘wrongful actions’.

The dysphemism treadmill means that when we do meet genuine hatred and genuine intimidation we no longer have useful terms in which to counter it.

Julie Bindel doesn't like being no platformed.

The comments are a hilarious mix of SJW's and Normies arguing over Freeze Peach.

Paula Kirby is the descendant of a certain 'type' to me. They were the women who you used to meet in medicine and academia who had gone ahead and pushed their way into what was largely a man's world, admirably deciding that they would pursue their interests, regardless of the conventions of the day. They were usually bluff, cheery and totally practical. They were like Girl Guides leaders let loose on the adult world, with a strong whiff of jolly hockey sticks in there too. They didn't take 'no' for an answer and were generally loved. I'm not sure if it was lack of time or a deliberate strategy, but most of them who had kids exhibited the same laissez faire attitude to kids occupying themselves that was summed up in the famous telegram in Swallows and Amazons—"If not duffers won't drown, if duffers better drowned." They seemed to appreciate that exposure to the rough and tumble side of life was not only beneficial, but necessary to toughen that quality that people used to have, character.

Such women are hated by young women today. Look at Paula Kirby—she was appalled by the reaction to a speech in which she suggested women could make of themselves whatever they wanted simply by getting on and doing it. It's so saddening to read between the lines of the Sisterhood of the Oppressed: you can see her cringing from the reaction and disappearing from the scene after that. Her crime was to say you are only oppressed if you let yourself be oppressed. You could stand up for yourself and get what you want by hard work and persistence. Instead of being taken as a rallying cry, it was went down like a lead balloon. It didn't fit the self-pitying narrative swallowed entire by third wave feminists, who would like the recognition and success to be handed to them simply because of their claims of stifling oppression. They recognise that the older style of strong and successful women are actually damaging to their narrative, as they give the lie to it. Briefly stated, those who achieve success are disliked by those who demand it. I'd like to see Paula Kirby come back with a thicker skin and spread confusion in their blue-haired ranks with some more encouraging words of the kind that let suffragettes and second wave feminists win their battles.

Over at A+ Countess Isolde is busy flogging the corpse and is being met with the expected response.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/search.ph ... ive_topics

Guest_0048cc29 wrote:

Why not transition everybody who says she or he is the other sex? All other things being equal, it’s a lot easier on your body if you don’t try to change your sex hormones, genitals, etc. The interventions involved in sex reassignment are non-trivial.

Make no mistake: If you start hormonal sex change before your inborn-sex-directed puberty is well on its way, then you’ll end up much better off in terms of your adult sexed appearance and in terms of avoiding other interventions, and so you’ll also benefit psychologically, if it was the right choice.

I don't know if Dreger mentions it or not, and I am not an MD, nor am I particularly well read in this, but my understanding is that while the above seems certainly to be true, what is not true is that the drugs involved in delaying puberty are harmless, side-effect free, OR reversible.

I have one friend who transitioned M->F, and he said that the hormone treatment he got was not handled by the internists who normally deal with these matters, because they could not see the medical necessity while they are certain there can be side effects- including cancer.

Honestly, what if this child would have changed preference after puberty? How can one be sure of a child's innermost feelings and their persistence?

Hunt wrote:Finally saw Star Wars today in 3-D...
But really seriously, very diappointed that Rey and Finn weren't snogging by the end of second hour. Guess Abrams isn't that progressive. Shame on you Hollywood, still abiding by miscegenation proscriptions of the 50's.

Maybe they don't want to make the same mistake Lucas made. Have you considered that Rey and Finn may be brother and sister? Have you?!?!

***SPOILER ALERT***

comhcinc wrote:So I just got around to watching this too.

[youtube]W014KhaRtik[/youtube]



I don't see what everyone else is seeing. Dawkins doesn't seem upset or annoyed just mildly uninterested.

You need to watch the other videos to see how he reacts to the other speakers as a control.

When he is listening to Ra he leans back in he chair and relaxes, he puts his hands on his head in a very open relaxed posture.
When listening to Watson, he leans back and crosses his arms in a closed posture.... now this is actually not all that conclusive, people do just cross their arms, EXCEPT that his doesn't just fold his arms in a relaxed manner, you can see how tightly he has his right hand under his arm. He is visibly tense, and leaning back is an attempt to try and relax. He does this immediately after the heel tapping. People do this to burn off excess adrenalin, and this is the real give-away. This happens when she mentions Kirby and isn't repeated.

I would advise Dawkins never to play poker.

dogen wrote:So, on a completely different note: tomorrow, there's going to be a big annoucement by the LIGO consortium. The expectation is that they will report the direct detection of gravitational waves -- a first, and on the 100th anniversary year of their prediction by Einstein. This is a Big Thing.

Rumor has it that the source of the waves is a merger between a pair of ~30-solar-mass black holes. As the black holes orbit one another, they emit gravitational waves (ripples in the fabric of space-time) which propagate outward. These waves carry away orbital energy, meaning that over time the BH's spiral toward one another and eventually merge.

Exciting! I'm getting a science boner!

Another plausible hypothesis for the source of the waves is that Lindy West uncrossed her legs.

:bjarte:

jet_lagg wrote:So, I reported for jury duty today. Wasn't selected, alas,

I guess coming in with "So where's the nigger who's on trial?" is an effective way of getting out.

I like how Zoe fails to mention that she had a legal team from WilmerHale in her corner ($750 per hour), whereas EronG had lawyers working pro-bono (albeit with some funding from KiA).

He has responded to her pity-post, including her claim that one of the judges said that they believe Eron had been physically abusive:

When? When did this happen? When did any judge anywhere say this?

feathers wrote:

jet_lagg wrote:So, I reported for jury duty today. Wasn't selected, alas,

I guess coming in with "So where's the nigger who's on trial?" is an effective way of getting out.

That or 'fuck the police'.

Brive1987 wrote:I have briefly met Dawkins. I have spoken to people more connected to him than me. He is an arrogant shit. And he would view Rebecca like a half consumed crumbed dog-turd. Anything you think you may have seen is tip of the icebeg stuff.

But he is still a cool Atheist Sturmbannführer to whom I swear my allegiance.

Dawkins is hard, but he is fair. You will not like him. But the more you hate him, the more you will learn.

VickyCaramel wrote:

comhcinc wrote:So I just got around to watching this too.

[youtube]W014KhaRtik[/youtube]



I don't see what everyone else is seeing. Dawkins doesn't seem upset or annoyed just mildly uninterested.

You need to watch the other videos to see how he reacts to the other speakers as a control.

When he is listening to Ra he leans back in he chair and relaxes, he puts his hands on his head in a very open relaxed posture.
When listening to Watson, he leans back and crosses his arms in a closed posture.... now this is actually not all that conclusive, people do just cross their arms, EXCEPT that his doesn't just fold his arms in a relaxed manner, you can see how tightly he has his right hand under his arm. He is visibly tense, and leaning back is an attempt to try and relax. He does this immediately after the heel tapping. People do this to burn off excess adrenalin, and this is the real give-away. This happens when she mentions Kirby and isn't repeated.

I would advise Dawkins never to play poker.

I found that fascinating, because that week was her shot. Had she done a bit more work, she could have been a somebody today.

Instead - and I acknowledge this is harsh - you witness a groupie out of her depth, winging it, and nobody buying it.

Brive1987 wrote:

comhcinc wrote:So I just got around to watching this too.

[youtube]W014KhaRtik[/youtube]



I don't see what everyone else is seeing. Dawkins doesn't seem upset or annoyed just mildly uninterested.

I have briefly met Dawkins. I have spoken to people more connected to him than me. He is an arrogant shit. And he would view Rebecca like a half consumed crumbed dog-turd. Anything you think you may have seen is tip of the icebeg stuff.

But he is still a cool Atheist Sturmbannführer to whom I swear my allegiance.

I had dinner with him once when he came to speak at Bristol University in 1981. He wasn't an arrogant shit then. Very nice bloke.

Just for a giggle, here is a 2012 article suggesting an election for the empty position of fourth horseman. Read the comments......even Carrier is suggested quite seriously. Times have changed, and for the better in that regard.

screwtape wrote:Paula Kirby is the descendant of a certain 'type' to me. They were the women who you used to meet in medicine and academia who had gone ahead and pushed their way into what was largely a man's world, admirably deciding that they would pursue their interests, regardless of the conventions of the day. They were usually bluff, cheery and totally practical. They were like Girl Guides leaders let loose on the adult world, with a strong whiff of jolly hockey sticks in there too. They didn't take 'no' for an answer and were generally loved. I'm not sure if it was lack of time or a deliberate strategy, but most of them who had kids exhibited the same laissez faire attitude to kids occupying themselves that was summed up in the famous telegram in Swallows and Amazons—"If not duffers won't drown, if duffers better drowned." They seemed to appreciate that exposure to the rough and tumble side of life was not only beneficial, but necessary to toughen that quality that people used to have, character.

Such women are hated by young women today. Look at Paula Kirby—she was appalled by the reaction to a speech in which she suggested women could make of themselves whatever they wanted simply by getting on and doing it. It's so saddening to read between the lines of the Sisterhood of the Oppressed: you can see her cringing from the reaction and disappearing from the scene after that. Her crime was to say you are only oppressed if you let yourself be oppressed. You could stand up for yourself and get what you want by hard work and persistence. Instead of being taken as a rallying cry, it was went down like a lead balloon. It didn't fit the self-pitying narrative swallowed entire by third wave feminists, who would like the recognition and success to be handed to them simply because of their claims of stifling oppression. They recognise that the older style of strong and successful women are actually damaging to their narrative, as they give the lie to it. Briefly stated, those who achieve success are disliked by those who demand it. I'd like to see Paula Kirby come back with a thicker skin and spread confusion in their blue-haired ranks with some more encouraging words of the kind that let suffragettes and second wave feminists win their battles.

They're still around. I know a Manchester-based developer that is exactly like that, and she is in her early 30s. A lot of strivers are puzzled by the victim cult; as in they don't understand it at all.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:Thanks Phil.

............

If PZ had a sense of humour we could organise a Slymepit counter team.

If PZ had a sense of humour we could organise a Doom or Quake online death match. We could chase Nerd with a chainsaw.

But if PZ had a sense of humour he wouldn't have gotten into this FtB mess in the first place.

http://i.imgur.com/Oaeu7Cm.jpg

It really is a shame somewhat. If any of those SJW clowns had any sense of humor (unlike clowns, then) we would have resolved this whole mess years ago.

I'd be up for a resolution through AD&D, or even a Battlefront match. Won't happen. It's the same as wars. Everything could be resolved with a friendly footy match, but no, they have to kill people.

How about a Battle Royale? FTB gets the explosive collars.

Brive1987 wrote:

rayshul wrote:OKay how many people are going to be hanging with Sargon? I may need to buy a new computer if I'm going to be on, and I want to know if there's some alts.

Who is in?

I already PMd everyone incliding Sargo on Monday. I can no longer make since my employer is sending me to Beijing and I'll be in the air at that time. I cane make 08.00-10.00 PST/16.00-18.00 GMT on Saturday.

screwtape wrote:Paula Kirby is the descendant of a certain 'type' to me. They were the women who you used to meet in medicine and academia who had gone ahead and pushed their way into what was largely a man's world, admirably deciding that they would pursue their interests, regardless of the conventions of the day. They were usually bluff, cheery and totally practical. They were like Girl Guides leaders let loose on the adult world, with a strong whiff of jolly hockey sticks in there too. They didn't take 'no' for an answer and were generally loved. I'm not sure if it was lack of time or a deliberate strategy, but most of them who had kids exhibited the same laissez faire attitude to kids occupying themselves that was summed up in the famous telegram in Swallows and Amazons—"If not duffers won't drown, if duffers better drowned." They seemed to appreciate that exposure to the rough and tumble side of life was not only beneficial, but necessary to toughen that quality that people used to have, character.

Such women are hated by young women today. Look at Paula Kirby—she was appalled by the reaction to a speech in which she suggested women could make of themselves whatever they wanted simply by getting on and doing it. It's so saddening to read between the lines of the Sisterhood of the Oppressed: you can see her cringing from the reaction and disappearing from the scene after that. Her crime was to say you are only oppressed if you let yourself be oppressed. You could stand up for yourself and get what you want by hard work and persistence. Instead of being taken as a rallying cry, it was went down like a lead balloon. It didn't fit the self-pitying narrative swallowed entire by third wave feminists, who would like the recognition and success to be handed to them simply because of their claims of stifling oppression. They recognise that the older style of strong and successful women are actually damaging to their narrative, as they give the lie to it. Briefly stated, those who achieve success are disliked by those who demand it. I'd like to see Paula Kirby come back with a thicker skin and spread confusion in their blue-haired ranks with some more encouraging words of the kind that let suffragettes and second wave feminists win their battles.

There is something about this stereotype which sounds familiar, but not quite. I certainly don't know any famous scientists!
So I had a think about my own family and where they would have been in the 50s & 60s before Women's Lib in the 70s.
By the early 1960s they are high ranking nurses, they are running schools, they are in the theater. They own chains of stores and agencies... and in addition to this they are political activists, involved in unions, boards and charities. A few others were housewives raising fairly large families.

Feminism is not a subject that came up often, but of those still living, I know they are staunchly anti-feminist.
I am now determined to go and find out where they came from and what their mothers were doing in the 20s & 30s.

Sulman wrote:

screwtape wrote:Paula Kirby is the descendant of a certain 'type' to me. They were the women who you used to meet in medicine and academia who had gone ahead and pushed their way into what was largely a man's world, admirably deciding that they would pursue their interests, regardless of the conventions of the day. They were usually bluff, cheery and totally practical. They were like Girl Guides leaders let loose on the adult world, with a strong whiff of jolly hockey sticks in there too. They didn't take 'no' for an answer and were generally loved. I'm not sure if it was lack of time or a deliberate strategy, but most of them who had kids exhibited the same laissez faire attitude to kids occupying themselves that was summed up in the famous telegram in Swallows and Amazons—"If not duffers won't drown, if duffers better drowned." They seemed to appreciate that exposure to the rough and tumble side of life was not only beneficial, but necessary to toughen that quality that people used to have, character.

Such women are hated by young women today. Look at Paula Kirby—she was appalled by the reaction to a speech in which she suggested women could make of themselves whatever they wanted simply by getting on and doing it. It's so saddening to read between the lines of the Sisterhood of the Oppressed: you can see her cringing from the reaction and disappearing from the scene after that. Her crime was to say you are only oppressed if you let yourself be oppressed. You could stand up for yourself and get what you want by hard work and persistence. Instead of being taken as a rallying cry, it was went down like a lead balloon. It didn't fit the self-pitying narrative swallowed entire by third wave feminists, who would like the recognition and success to be handed to them simply because of their claims of stifling oppression. They recognise that the older style of strong and successful women are actually damaging to their narrative, as they give the lie to it. Briefly stated, those who achieve success are disliked by those who demand it. I'd like to see Paula Kirby come back with a thicker skin and spread confusion in their blue-haired ranks with some more encouraging words of the kind that let suffragettes and second wave feminists win their battles.

They're still around. I know a Manchester-based developer that is exactly like that, and she is in her early 30s. A lot of strivers are puzzled by the victim cult; as in they don't understand it at all.

Yeah.... I think we just read a disproportionate amount of what the victim-complex people have to say.... because all they do is communicate their issues. They spend all of their time bitching on the interblogs. Hard working, dedicated, intelligent men and women are off writing term papers, and working a job, and meeting with friends. My girls and almost all of their friends are not victims... but I can name two of their friends who are SJWs. They are slipping down a rabbit hole and it is hard to pull them out.

Lsuoma wrote: since my employer is sending me to Beijing

Best of luck, 007.

He hasn't said anything yet, but the epicenter of lulz and outsized reactions to Zoe Quinn's collapse will probably be from Arthur Chu.

@arthurchu

Chu has been Quinn's hagiographer and personal suicide bomber for 2 years, the guy who unironically defended the #JeSuisZoe counter to #JeSuisCharlie. He'll have to repress volcanic impulses to stay out of this one.

http://imgur.com/rqtvpRs.png

rayshul wrote:I don't know if anyone else follows #gamergate, but #gamergate's RW has just withdrawn her court case.

I thought that she had withdrawn her court case in regards to the restraining order a long time ago. However Enron & his lawyers were opting to proceed forward in an effort to set a precedent for the future.

In other words, she tried to walk away from the court fight she started, but Enron isn't going to let her get away with it.

Lsuoma wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:

rayshul wrote:OKay how many people are going to be hanging with Sargon? I may need to buy a new computer if I'm going to be on, and I want to know if there's some alts.

Who is in?

I already PMd everyone incliding Sargo on Monday. I can no longer make since my employer is sending me to Beijing and I'll be in the air at that time. I cane make 08.00-10.00 PST/16.00-18.00 GMT on Saturday.

Oh great, the Chinese will have all our logins.

Countess Isolde over at A+ forum:

"I think it might just be a slump. Happens to communities all the time."

Lolllolol.

Yes, because forums with over 3000 members routinely go through slow periods where no one posts for weeks.

The denial is strong in this one, Obi-Wan.

You reap what you sow, motherfuckers. Enjoy the crickets.

Brive1987 wrote:

rayshul wrote:OKay how many people are going to be hanging with Sargon? I may need to buy a new computer if I'm going to be on, and I want to know if there's some alts.

Who is in?

If you and Rayshul are in, I say it is a go. Screwing things up 2 weeks in a row is an embarrassment. If other top rated are up for it, then add them in.

Sulman wrote:

Lsuoma wrote: since my employer is sending me to Beijing

Best of luck, 007.

I am indeed the Man with the Golden Eyeball.

rayshul wrote:I don't know if anyone else follows #gamergate, but #gamergate's RW has just withdrawn her court case.

Minor set-back. Worthless hacks like Nick Visser still exist. See first sentence of:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/zoe ... 0245c56102

Shatterface wrote:I don't get the whole international convention scene at all.

I mean, local organisations meeting up because they have a specific goal to achieve is one thing but why would anyone spend 24 hours and thousands of dollars travelling from Australia to Dublin just to spend a few hours with another bunch of people who don't believe in gods?

It's the ball pits.

Weren't Matt C and ERV also going to be on the chat?

Cnutella wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:

Brive1987 wrote: Who is in?

I already PMd everyone incliding Sargo on Monday. I can no longer make since my employer is sending me to Beijing and I'll be in the air at that time. I cane make 08.00-10.00 PST/16.00-18.00 GMT on Saturday.

Oh great, the Chinese will already have all our logins.

FTFY.

Sulman wrote:

VickyCaramel wrote:

comhcinc wrote:So I just got around to watching this too.

[youtube]W014KhaRtik[/youtube]



I don't see what everyone else is seeing. Dawkins doesn't seem upset or annoyed just mildly uninterested.

You need to watch the other videos to see how he reacts to the other speakers as a control.

When he is listening to Ra he leans back in he chair and relaxes, he puts his hands on his head in a very open relaxed posture.
When listening to Watson, he leans back and crosses his arms in a closed posture.... now this is actually not all that conclusive, people do just cross their arms, EXCEPT that his doesn't just fold his arms in a relaxed manner, you can see how tightly he has his right hand under his arm. He is visibly tense, and leaning back is an attempt to try and relax. He does this immediately after the heel tapping. People do this to burn off excess adrenalin, and this is the real give-away. This happens when she mentions Kirby and isn't repeated.

I would advise Dawkins never to play poker.

I found that fascinating, because that week was her shot. Had she done a bit more work, she could have been a somebody today.

Instead - and I acknowledge this is harsh - you witness a groupie out of her depth, winging it, and nobody buying it.

It is interesting to view in hindsight. The first Q&A question was about translating YouTube videos into Arabic.
I remember this prompting a discussion i was involved with about the importance of the internet and social media, mostly about different approaches and what was more effective... dry education, debates, or humour and 'being a dick'.
There was a wide variety of views back then about the best way to proceed... but at least many of us were thinking about how to proceed. We can be sure this was first and foremost in Dawkins mind as it was pretty much his job, especially when it comes to combating Institutionalized Creationism (Which makes Ra right on point}. Watson must have seemed like a terrible distraction.

Cnutella wrote:Weren't Matt C and ERV also going to be on the chat?

The list was Brive1987, ERV, rayshul, Kirbmarc, and FT.

Hunt wrote:Finally saw Star Wars today in 3-D. Was amazed at how Yoda lifted Princess Leia's face with the force. :rimshot:

But seriously, just flew in from Vegas and boy are my arms tired. :rimshot:

But really seriously, very diappointed that Rey and Finn weren't snogging by the end of second hour. Guess Abrams isn't that progressive. Shame on you Hollywood, still abiding by miscegenation proscriptions of the 50's.

Did not allow the utterly inane feminist propaganda of the first twenty minutes ("Stop holding my hand!") disrupt my suspension of disbelief, though it was hard. Still, the movie was good, not great. Harrison Ford was as good as he could have been. I didn't cry when he got skewered, probably because it had already been spoiled for me. Sad to see the character go though. Had the desperate impulse to give Carrie Fisher a cigarette and shot of booze during the entire film.

I avoided all the previous pit discussion as I hadn't seen it yet, so I'm sure it's been gone over ad nauseum, but Rey really killed the movie for me. Not that I didn't enjoy it at all. The opening act was fantastic, really bringing me back to the originals (no doubt because it was essentially a remake of the original). I started to squirm when Rey pilots the Millenium Falcon as skillfully as Lando with no training whatsoever. They actually go out of their way to mention it. But whatever. I'm enjoying myself. I let it slide. Then we hit the second act and things start to drag for me. Then a death star shows up (only bigger! Yeah!), and I'm really not feeling it. Then Rey out mind probes the mind-probing sith lord, and I'm like "really? Ugh. Fine, whatever." Then Rey uses a jedi mind trick it's not even clear she should have known existed, and I'm about ready to revolt. Then Rey uses the force to grab a lightsaber at extreme distance, under extreme stress with a fucking trained sith lord actively opposing her, something Luke was only able to do at short range after training under two jedi masters over the course of three films and even then without Vader trying to stop him. THEN REY WHO HAS NEVER HELD A LIGHTSABER BEFORE DEFEATS THE FUCKING SITH LORD IN A DUEL.

At which point I realize Abrams, in his desperation to achieve "girl power", has created an textbook Mary Sue character that will likely ruin the rest of the trilogy (seriously, why bother even letting Kylo Ren live? It's established he's zero threat to the protagonist. Fucking SJWs, man. Everything they touch turns to shit.

Sulman wrote:I found that fascinating, because that week was her shot. Had she done a bit more work, she could have been a somebody today.

Instead - and I acknowledge this is harsh - you witness a groupie out of her depth, winging it, and nobody buying it.

I don't agree. She was given several more chances to actually do the required work and give a real talk at a conference, but failed to do so every time, with the anti-evo-psych talk being the worst, IMO. How many men would have been given additional chances to redeem themself after bullshitting their way through an invited/expenses-paid talk?

Rey's powers are set up as a mystery, they're not just thrown in because Abrams has forgotten she's not been trained yet. That's why the film directly refers to her skills being well beyond what we'd expect.

There's a mystery about her parents that has also been set up. Maybe she's Luke's daughter: that would make her a third generation Jedi.

This is the first in a projected series. It's not Star Wars where everything is answered, it's Empire where it's seeding mysteries to be answered in future movies.

Cnutella wrote:Weren't Matt C and ERV also going to be on the chat?

I wasn't invited, and now I have a date that night.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Cnutella wrote:Weren't Matt C and ERV also going to be on the chat?

I wasn't invited, and now I have a date that night.

Show off.

Aneris wrote:

Kirbmarc wrote:Also, I found this piece of blatant dishonesty in Svan's letter:

That is where you injured us, the victims. You have made one more space blatantly unsafe to us. We don't mean safe as in free from any kind of sexual interest. We're not asking for that, and we don't want it. We mean that you, a leader in our community, made free with a woman's experience and rewrote it to suit your own ends.

How did Dawkins "rewrite it [Rebecca's experience] to suit [his] own ends"? He simply compared her concern to other concerns. He reportedthe event exactly as Rebecca described it: an uncomfortable encounter in an elevator. When did he misrepresent what happened? When did he "rewrite" it? Or is just saying "this isn't even remotely as bad as other things" "rewriting"?

I've dropped a few walls of texts on this, but in a nutshell: there are several versions what “Elevatorgate” means and to which what was a response. This is exploited all the time. Sometimes the argument goes like this: “misogynists make a mountain of a molehill, strawman Rebecca to make her look bad”. In this case, it's just her offhand remark “guys don't do that” and Dawkins and all these people went nuts over nothing. I recall Carrier describes it like this in his atheism-feminism post. Related to that, her boycott is often disputed as well — it “did not happen” (PZ Myers).

But then again, Rebecca Watson in fact introduced rape victims together with the lift incident (in her CFI talk) and coupled this also with “bad form” against McGraw, as well as accusations against a) anonymous atheists active on YouTube b) conference attendees at atheist-skeptics conferences, and c) people in the audience. This is suddenly a very different story. And let's be clear, it's not another incident — it is the exact same (!) context. Reason: most people had no idea about the “elevator” offhand remark (guys don't do that), or indeed the video where it was buried. This became widely known with the CFI talk, and here it explicitly features the whole rape culture angle.

This allows the exact opposite angle: this time they mismatch “slightly bad” responses (e.g. from Richard Dawkins) and couple this with rape victims. Effect is again: people are misogynists etcetera

Not to be picky, but... actually, yes to be picky, Dawkins' comments referred to the polite coffee offer as "zero bad", not "slightly bad".

Here are all three from PZ's (now memory-holed) EG comment threads:

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/D ... ntEG-1.png

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/D ... ntEG-2.png

http://www.scentednectar.com/slimepit/D ... ntEG-3.png

We heard it here first:

Gravitational waves from black holes detected

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35524440

Shatterface wrote:Rey's powers are set up as a mystery, they're not just thrown in because Abrams has forgotten she's not been trained yet. That's why the film directly refers to her skills being well beyond what we'd expect.

There's a mystery about her parents that has also been set up. Maybe she's Luke's daughter: that would make her a third generation Jedi.

This is the first in a projected series. It's not Star Wars where everything is answered, it's Empire where it's seeding mysteries to be answered in future movies.

I'm not buying it. It's the same reasoning that was rolled out for Prometheus when everyone complained it made no sense. "They're setting up the sequel." I say that's shit, and that it's not only possible but necessary for a good film to be self-contained while establishing itself in a larger story. Empire had clear arcs and a standalone story. You can watch that movie not knowing there were any other Star Wars films and it would still be fantastic. But setting aside that line of thought, I'd still think Rey being a complete Mary Sue was bad even if they had clearly explained why she was so powerful, simply because characters without any serious obstacle to overcome aren't very interesting.

Why draw attention to her excessive powers if they aren't going to be addressed? Why raise the question of what happened to her parents if that isn't significant?

And no, Empire didn't have a standalone story. It ends with a cliffhanger concerning Han's fate, questions about whether Vader is really Luke's father and who the 'other' is that Yoda refers to.

The problem with Prometheus isn't that it leaves questions unanswered, it's that it answers the mysteries of Alien in a massively disappointing way.

Shatterface wrote:Why draw attention to her excessive powers if they aren't going to be addressed?

In fairness, although TFA was not Lindelof, the above was a trait of his: This tendency to normalise a vague narrative. There's a strong association with J.J. Abrams and viewers will not shake that easily.

If you think Empire didn't make it clear Vader was Luke's father, we simply watched two different movies. And you're wrong about Prometheus. Everyone complained about it not answering questions.

I'm not saying you can't end a film in an ambiguous way (think Beowulf where it's an open question as to whether or not the cycle continues, paralleling the bitter ending of Empire where they're off to go rescue Han, but you don't know if they succeed). But there's a huge difference between that and just straight up not answering glaring questions.

Again though, that's a tangent to my main point that Mary Sues are inherently shitty. I think this rewrite of A New Hope with Luke as Rey is appropriate.

https://jedijones77.wordpress.com/2015/ ... e-rewrite/

Abrams is primarily known for stretching a narrative too far:, Alias, Lost, Fringe, etc. It seems bizarre to think that he broke the habit of a lifetime by attempting a closed narrative while accidentally drawing attention to a plot hole concerning Rey's powers.

Also I don't get the objection to having a strong female character. My objection to SJW feminism is that it does precisely the opposite by presenting women as pathetic victims. If Rey is setting the bar too high it's not as if there aren't enough male heroes doing precisely the same.

The maddening insistence of mystery for the sake of mystery is definitely a Lindelof trait, but Abrams shares it. He's obsessed with what he calls the mystery box, and I think almost all of his films suffer for it.

jet_lagg wrote:If you think Empire didn't make it clear Vader was Luke's father, we simply watched two different movies. And you're wrong about Prometheus. Everyone complained about it not answering questions.

I'm not saying you can't end a film in an ambiguous way (think Beowulf where it's an open question as to whether or not the cycle continues, paralleling the bitter ending of Empire where they're off to go rescue Han, but you don't know if they succeed). But there's a huge difference between that and just straight up not answering glaring questions.

I think it's just lazy to expect spoon feeding in the first of a projected series. Who does that these days?

Whether you like it or not most series pose questions to keep audiences guessing. Half of it is geared towards discussion boards. If you want to object to that go ahead but it seems far more likely, given Abrams past form, that's what he's doing.

re. Watson/Dawkins video.

The best way to watch these kinds of videos is with the sound off and, if you're lucky, without knowing the topic beforehand. That changes everyone's posture. A lot.

However, most of us are unlucky enough to know too much about Watson to watch anything she does out without prejudice and prejudged strong bias even with the sound off.

VickyCaramel said:

You need to watch the other videos to see how he reacts to the other speakers as a control.

Ah, I see, that old "previous special knowledge" ploy. Pass.

When he is listening to Ra he leans back in he chair and relaxes, he puts his hands on his head in a very open relaxed posture.

Except Ra doesn't speak, so Dawkins cannot listen to him -- not to mention that he adopts this posture a few times during Watson's blather, but then, apparently, it's a nervous ploy. Huh?

When listening to Watson, he leans back and crosses his arms in a closed posture.... now this is actually not all that conclusive, people do just cross their arms, EXCEPT that his doesn't just fold his arms in a relaxed manner, you can see how tightly he has his right hand under his arm [testing his musculature, were you?]. He is visibly tense, and leaning back is an attempt to try and relax [erm: "... he leans back in he chair and relaxes...."]. He does this immediately after the heel tapping [Ooh! Heel tapping!]. People do this to burn off excess adrenalin, and this is the real give-away. This happens when she mentions Kirby and isn't repeated.

Presumptions and self-confirmation bias built up with creative description and some form of semi-magical thinking, with a smidge of possible truth.

Making such judgement calls on a video is, except under exceptionally clear and obvious instances, ludicrous. Far too many circumstantial unknowns and interpretative variables.

Shatterface wrote: I think it's just lazy to expect spoon feeding in the first of a projected series. Who does that these days?

Whether you like it or not most series pose questions to keep audiences guessing. Half of it is geared towards discussion boards. If you want to object to that go ahead but it seems far more likely, given Abrams past form, that's what he's doing.

Complete bullshit that most film series do that (perhaps a case could be made for serialized television, but that's a completely different medium), especially not to the extent seen in TFA. It's not not spoonfeeding. It's just being lazy and saying "oh we'll address it in the sequels." And I never suggested Abrams wasn't doing it on purpose (seriously, look at what I just linked to). I'm saying he's doing it on purpose, and it's shit.

Likewise, what are you on about with "strong female characters"? I'm objecting to Mary Sue's, not "strong female characters". Superman wouldn't become any more shitty of a character if you gender-swapped him. Not having obstacles to overcome is simply inherently boring. It's as analogous to a physical law as I think you can get in storytelling.

Dave wrote:

Billy The Hillbilly wrote:CONFESSION: I'm Elevator Guy. Look, I was all horned up and I needed someone...anyone. Apologies for all the drama. :obscene-drinkingchug: :text-imsorry: :text-imsorry: :text-imsorry: :text-imsorry: :text-imsorry: :text-imsorry:

Ill forgive you all the drama, but you need to seek help for your potato-fetish.

Attending a conference in Ireland is further evidence of this fetish.

jet_lagg wrote:

Shatterface wrote: I think it's just lazy to expect spoon feeding in the first of a projected series. Who does that these days?

Whether you like it or not most series pose questions to keep audiences guessing. Half of it is geared towards discussion boards. If you want to object to that go ahead but it seems far more likely, given Abrams past form, that's what he's doing.

Complete bullshit that most film series do that (perhaps a case could be made for serialized television, but that's a completely different medium), especially not to the extent seen in TFA. It's not not spoonfeeding. It's just being lazy and saying "oh we'll address it in the sequels." And I never suggested Abrams wasn't doing it on purpose (seriously, look at what I just linked to). I'm saying he's doing it on purpose, and it's shit.

That's precisely what Disney have been doing with the Marvel universe films. Why would they suddenly decide that business model wouldn't work for Star Wars?

Likewise, what are you on about with "strong female characters"? I'm objecting to Mary Sue's, not "strong female characters". Superman wouldn't become any more shitty of a character if you gender-swapped him. Not having obstacles to overcome is simply inherently boring. It's as analogous to a physical law as I think you can get in storytelling.

Rey's no more of a Mart Sue than Luke Skywalker. Poor farmer boy suddenly discovers he's the centre of the universe? That his real father was a superhero? That a princess falls for him? (This before the Empire revelations). Why is it worse when it's a woman?

Kirbmarc wrote:I'm getting really sick of people who argue that "no platforming" is "criticism" and it isn't censorship, or blackballing, because "you have other avenues to talk".

I guess that the Hollywood blacklist wasn't that bad, either, because the "Communist sympathizers" could always work in jobs which weren't related to the movie industry. Or work and don't get any credit for it. Why were they complaining about it again, were they so thin-skinned?

And most of all I'm getting really sick of people using this XKCD comic to support this idea.

Especially because there is a much better comic which shows why Randall Munroe is an idiot.

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/frie ... 2486839801

Shatterface wrote: The problem with Prometheus isn't that it leaves questions unanswered, it's that it answers the mysteries of Alien in a massively disappointing way.

Major disappointment.

But the one question I left with was -- You have this spaceship that you can fly wherever you like, all the way to some alien planet, so how come you park half a mile away from the giant alien structure you want to explore, then ride dune buggies to it?

jet_lagg wrote:

Shatterface wrote:Rey's powers are set up as a mystery, they're not just thrown in because Abrams has forgotten she's not been trained yet. That's why the film directly refers to her skills being well beyond what we'd expect.

There's a mystery about her parents that has also been set up. Maybe she's Luke's daughter: that would make her a third generation Jedi.

This is the first in a projected series. It's not Star Wars where everything is answered, it's Empire where it's seeding mysteries to be answered in future movies.

I'm not buying it. It's the same reasoning that was rolled out for Prometheus when everyone complained it made no sense. "They're setting up the sequel." I say that's shit, and that it's not only possible but necessary for a good film to be self-contained while establishing itself in a larger story. Empire had clear arcs and a standalone story. You can watch that movie not knowing there were any other Star Wars films and it would still be fantastic. But setting aside that line of thought, I'd still think Rey being a complete Mary Sue was bad even if they had clearly explained why she was so powerful, simply because characters without any serious obstacle to overcome aren't very interesting.

They are setting up a sequel. In fact they are setting up two sequel and about 7 spin off movies. TFA has a normal 3 part beat but it is also more concerned with being beat one of the larger story. These movies were guaranteed from the start. They were never not going to get made.

I am not going to talk of your characterization of Rey because outside of the writer stating it, whether she is a Mary Sue is just an opinion and valid as any think else. It's the Kylo Ren part where you are really really off.

First off Kylo Ren is not a trained Sith Lord. A Sith Lord is not just a Jedi that becomes evil. Secondly Kylo Ren was not even a Jedi. He came under the influence of Snoke while training. He is has an awesome amount of force control but it's mostly raw talent. He is an immature child. The movie goes out of it's way to show you that. He has a position of power despite this and that is made clear how upsetting that is to the people around him.

As for the final battle. Kylo Ren was shot by Chewy. The movie made a point to let us know how powerful that stupid laser crossbow is of his and Ren gets a solid hit right in his side. There would be loss of blood plus I am sure at least his kidney is fucked. His core muscles are going to be fucked too. So even if he had great fighting skills, and the movie never said he did, he is a supreme disadvantage by the time he meets Rey in battle.