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

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: I am probably absolutely alone on this, but there it is. If a person will cheat on their spouse, they'll cheat on deals, money and any other form of trust. ...

I agree, and go further.... a culture which condones cheating is corrupt. I see radicals-- feminists, some gays, polyamory activists-- who see marriage as an oppressive structure... & seek to fell it by celebrating those who cheat... at least the ones deemed Punching Up. That creates a Moral Hazard encouraging wrongdoing, and inequality of consequences.

MRAs see marriage as poppressive too, but they seem to prize everyone being equally beholden to keep their promises and not harm others.

free thoughtpolice wrote:

DrokkIt wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:PZ has some interesting stock ideas in his latest fried-free speech post.

Firstly we get the reasoning behind his silo approach. He simply conflates the worst of trolls with anything he dislikes.

Sorry if this is obvious noob shit, but I have heard the term 'siloism' a few times, but can't find much concise information on it. Any pointers?

I believe it's businessspeak:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... ality.html

Aha, thanks.

DrokkIt wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:PZ has some interesting stock ideas in his latest fried-free speech post.

Firstly we get the reasoning behind his silo approach. He simply conflates the worst of trolls with anything he dislikes.

Sorry if this is obvious noob shit, but I have heard the term 'siloism' a few times, but can't find much concise information on it. Any pointers?

Not just business speak.

PZ banned me on his blog (back when it meant something) for posting a link to this.

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23777

My solution? For one thing, you can do your part by regularly visiting the opposition and showing them in conversation how reasonable you can be. There's little more upsetting to a silo than infiltration by an intelligent, persistent individual.

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

Brive1987 wrote:

DrokkIt wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:PZ has some interesting stock ideas in his latest fried-free speech post.

Firstly we get the reasoning behind his silo approach. He simply conflates the worst of trolls with anything he dislikes.

Sorry if this is obvious noob shit, but I have heard the term 'siloism' a few times, but can't find much concise information on it. Any pointers?

Not just business speak.

PZ banned me on his blog (back when it meant something) for posting a link to this.

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23777

Very interesting. It's a much more thought-out position than the often-heard term 'echo-chamber', and goes into more depth regarding how these exclusive pockets create a hierarchy. I find it a lot more useful than the simple observation that online communities coalesce around a given perspective.

I have most definitely encountered silosim, and also the accusations of being a 'sealion' when someone merely questions the in-narrative.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I saw on FB that Trump allegedly stated ISIS was the creation of Obama/Clinton. Of course, fury is deployed by Clinton supporters.

BUT, here in France it's the prevailing theory of the regressive/far Left. ISIS is solely a creation of the US and Israel (because of course, always Israel).

Fucking politics, right?

He did. 'Created' is an oversell, but Clinton definitely changed Obama's mind to intervene in Libya, despite certainly knowing that the most likely outcome would be that Al Qaeda would be the main beneficiaries. The large stockpile of weapons Gaddafi had disappeared; smuggled out of the country. Those weapons did apparently turn up in Syria and Iraq. So, it is possible to argue that poor judgement by Clinton directly helped ISIS grow.

That somewhat comes back to the neo-con idea that it's always better to topple an evil, but secular, dictator like Gaddafi, on the assumption that whoever replaces him will be better. The same idea was behind toppling Assad, which involved funding rebels without necessarily caring too much if they were better or worse than Assad.

I tend to agree with Trump that the world would, on balance, be much better off today if Gaddafi and Hussein were still alive and oppressing their relative countries.

Keating wrote:That somewhat comes back to the neo-con idea that it's always better to topple an evil, but secular, dictator like Gaddafi, on the assumption that whoever replaces him will be better.

Since when is that a neocon policy? I'd say the neocon creed is precisely to support any dictator that does 'our' bidding, no matter if he pulls out the entrails of teenage perceived victims of the regime.

feathers wrote:

Keating wrote:That somewhat comes back to the neo-con idea that it's always better to topple an evil, but secular, dictator like Gaddafi, on the assumption that whoever replaces him will be better.

Since when is that a neocon policy? I'd say the neocon creed is precisely to support any dictator that does 'our' bidding, no matter if he pulls out the entrails of teenage perceived victims of the regime.

I'm going by Douglas Murray's definition of neo-con. He literally wrote the book on it. More specifically, he says that the neo-con position is that military force can be used for humanitarian means. Toppling Gaddafi and Hussein were sold on humanitarian grounds.

[youtube]gqRvzNNOuQQ[/youtube]

What's a neocon? A new type of Pokemon?

Anyone else exited?

[youtube]frdj1zb9sMY[/youtube]

Brive1987 wrote:

My solution? For one thing, you can do your part by regularly visiting the opposition and showing them in conversation how reasonable you can be. There's little more upsetting to a silo than infiltration by an intelligent, persistent individual.

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

I was just about to say, SJW have developed a resistance to that intrusion, the Sea Lion objection. It reminds me of back when I argued with Christians. I worked forums so radical that some members thought I was an agent of Satan. I just tried to tell them that if you're operating under a belief system that has developed resistance to reason, calling it the blandishments of Satan, then you're truly lost.

I worry at times whether the pit is itself a form of information silo. If you're truly objective in your belief systems, you're constantly questioning your own, because as skeptics say, you are the easiest person for you to fool. I console myself that my objects to SJWism are far more complicated than they seem to understand. It's not that I disagree with every point they have, far from it. It's probably not something I could convey to a person like Myers in written word. At least not before he banned me.

Keating wrote:

feathers wrote:

Keating wrote:That somewhat comes back to the neo-con idea that it's always better to topple an evil, but secular, dictator like Gaddafi, on the assumption that whoever replaces him will be better.

Since when is that a neocon policy? I'd say the neocon creed is precisely to support any dictator that does 'our' bidding, no matter if he pulls out the entrails of teenage perceived victims of the regime.

I'm going by Douglas Murray's definition of neo-con. He literally wrote the book on it. More specifically, he says that the neo-con position is that military force can be used for humanitarian means. Toppling Gaddafi and Hussein were sold on humanitarian grounds.

You're right, that's also how Wikipedia describes it.

Still, I'm hard pressed to see the Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld triad as doing anything more than pay lip service to democracy and human rights. Unless you count torture of prisoners, illegal abduction of foreign citizens, prolonged detention without due process, and outright hypocrisy as democratic and humanitarian values. One would almost think this Douglas Murray person is full of it.

Of course, if I think Douglas Murray is a danger to democracy, then by neocons standards the proper thing to do would be to kill him, right?

Excited*

You're so...

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Excited*

...and you just can't hide it, you're about to lose control and you think you like it?

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Anyone else exited?

[youtube]frdj1zb9sMY[/youtube]

First R rated Star Wars? If not, I'm not interested.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Excited*

No, you had it right the first time.

Really? wrote:

Cnutella wrote:
This is exactly why I am only willing to cheat on my spouse with women named "Anne Frank". My conscience is clear.

Would you bend this policy for someone named Amy Frank?

:lol:

No, that would make me a cheating sleaze.

Shatterface wrote: It's probably just a new variation on sleep paralysis. Every era interprets the phenomena its own way.

Still, the police should round up the Pokemon just in case. Gotta catch 'em all.

:clap:

Pokemon Black Lives Matter

Suet Cardigan wrote:White Cis-Heteronormative Patriarchy is doing it wrong:

African Immigrants Lead With The Highest Academic Achievements In The US

http://linkis.com/www.myafricanow.com/ZksSj

Without even looking I am willing to bet the majority are from a specific ethnic group of Nigerians. My personal experience anyway. Pretty much every single Nigerian I have met has multiple and/or advanced degrees.

Well, there was one guy who only had a M.Sc and his family thought he was a slacker. But every other member in that family was either a Doctor or had a Ph.D.

Hunt wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Excited*

No, you had it right the first time.

Oh, ok.

I'm not sure anymore. I've drank so many coffees I may start shitting Frappé. We've been waiting since 10 this morning to get a couple of infos (age, address) from Ali's witness so we could go to the town hall and fix the date for the wedding. No answers so far, and the office closes in 3 hours.

Keating wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I saw on FB that Trump allegedly stated ISIS was the creation of Obama/Clinton. Of course, fury is deployed by Clinton supporters.

BUT, here in France it's the prevailing theory of the regressive/far Left. ISIS is solely a creation of the US and Israel (because of course, always Israel).

Fucking politics, right?

He did. 'Created' is an oversell, but Clinton definitely changed Obama's mind to intervene in Libya, despite certainly knowing that the most likely outcome would be that Al Qaeda would be the main beneficiaries. The large stockpile of weapons Gaddafi had disappeared; smuggled out of the country. Those weapons did apparently turn up in Syria and Iraq. So, it is possible to argue that poor judgement by Clinton directly helped ISIS grow.

That somewhat comes back to the neo-con idea that it's always better to topple an evil, but secular, dictator like Gaddafi, on the assumption that whoever replaces him will be better. The same idea was behind toppling Assad, which involved funding rebels without necessarily caring too much if they were better or worse than Assad.

I tend to agree with Trump that the world would, on balance, be much better off today if Gaddafi and Hussein were still alive and oppressing their relative countries.

This, is a reasonable position. The former half, I expect would be unpopular with most Democrats, although many agreed latter half in the past. It is most certainly a defensible idea. The problem with Trump is he continues to bluster incoherently and who know what the fuck he actually means. Here he is on Hugh Hewitt's show when Hugh (a noted conservative) sympathetically tries to get him to clarify his comments to mean something similar to what you are stating:

HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.
DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.
HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.
DT: I don’t care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?
HH: Well, that, you know, I have a saying, Donald Trump, the mnemonic device I use is Every Liberal Really Seems So, So Sad. E is for Egypt, L is for Libya, S is for Syria, R is for Russia reset. They screwed everything up. You don’t get any argument from me. But by using the term founder, they’re hitting with you on this again. Mistake?
DT: No, it’s no mistake. Everyone’s liking it. I think they’re liking it. I give him the most valuable player award. And I give it to him, and I give it to, I gave the co-founder to Hillary. I don’t know if you heard that.
HH: I did. I did. I played it.
DT: I gave her the co-founder.
HH: I know what you’re arguing…
DT: You’re not, and let me ask you, do you not like that?
HH: I don’t. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn’t create ISIS. That’s what I would say.
DT: Well, I disagree.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:What's a neocon? A new type of Pokemon?

A "neocon" is anybody who CJ Werleman doesn't like. Which is everybody, except Islamists and PZ Myers.

I've only just got notice of this. It is kind of beautiful.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/1 ... n-exposes/

Apparently, the SJW "safety types" got the smell of blood, and thought they have uncovered the identity of a pro-GamerGater (somebody called Mumbot, of whom I am not familiar). Anyway, remember how these anti-harassment types are always going on about not doxing people, blah blah blah, well, they were tricked into thinking they had got the personal information of, then proceeded into discussing how and when to dox him. Prominent was somebody called "Iggy Galvez", who refers to himself as - get this - an "anti-abuse" employee of Amazon.

It is all like those people who constantly refer to themselves as "anti-racist", who ALWAYS turn out to be horribly bigoted or racist in some way, usually antisemism.

Anybody else keeping up with this popcorn?

AndrewV69 wrote:

Suet Cardigan wrote:White Cis-Heteronormative Patriarchy is doing it wrong:

African Immigrants Lead With The Highest Academic Achievements In The US

http://linkis.com/www.myafricanow.com/ZksSj

Without even looking I am willing to bet the majority are from a specific ethnic group of Nigerians. My personal experience anyway. Pretty much every single Nigerian I have met has multiple and/or advanced degrees.

Well, there was one guy who only had a M.Sc and his family thought he was a slacker. But every other member in that family was either a Doctor or had a Ph.D.

OK so I looked and from the article:

In 1997, 19.4 percent of all adult African immigrants in the United States held a graduate degree, compared to 8.1 percent of adult whites and 3.8 percent of adult blacks in the United States, respectively. This information suggests that America has an equally large achievement gap between whites and African/Asian immigrants as it does between white and black Americans.

Of the African-born population in the United States age 25 and older, 86.4% reported having a high school degree or higher, compared with 78. 9% of Asian born immigrants and 76.5% of European born immigrants, respectively. These figures contrast with 61.8% percent of the total foreign-born population.

Disingenuous, forgetful or ignorant author omits to mention that the majority are either Nigerian Igbo, Yoruba or Jamaicans (Oh and I have heard that the Ashanti from Ghana are supposed to be up there also but I have never met any of those)

Fact is because the children of those immigrants do well also suggest that that we are looking at heritable traits and not to expect a regression to the mean as long as they practise endogamy as far as IQ is concerned.

Brive1987 wrote:
The report is also very concerned that a Sunni state would fuck Iraq up further ...
.

A Sunni “Islamic State” could be devastating to “unifying Iraq” and could lead to “the renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” (see last non-redacted line in full PDF view.)

So I would hesitate before you drew firm singular conclusions about the doc's purpose - let alone giving it an 'official policy' label.

“unifying Iraq”? Iraq has split into three enclaves, Shia, Sunni and Kurds and minorities are being exterminated mainly by Daesh.

But if anyone thinks that the Suni are going to submit to being ruled by the Shia, especially after being top dog over the Shia for so long you need to have your head examined.

There will be no unity. Nope nope nope nope. There is going to be a lot of blood spilled in the future.

Brive1987 wrote:

My solution? For one thing, you can do your part by regularly visiting the opposition and showing them in conversation how reasonable you can be. There's little more upsetting to a silo than infiltration by an intelligent, persistent individual.

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

Why do I get the feelling that PeeZuss Christ actually read the comment(s) by Steers before deleting it?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

To stave off Pitdeath - here's TT's comments on the state of American society.

[youtube]ZvAG5Zeuwgs[/youtube]

Hunt wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:

My solution? For one thing, you can do your part by regularly visiting the opposition and showing them in conversation how reasonable you can be. There's little more upsetting to a silo than infiltration by an intelligent, persistent individual.

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/YKbUrHg.jpg[/img]

I was just about to say, SJW have developed a resistance to that intrusion, the Sea Lion objection. It reminds me of back when I argued with Christians. I worked forums so radical that some members thought I was an agent of Satan. I just tried to tell them that if you're operating under a belief system that has developed resistance to reason, calling it the blandishments of Satan, then you're truly lost.

I worry at times whether the pit is itself a form of information silo. If you're truly objective in your belief systems, you're constantly questioning your own, because as skeptics say, you are the easiest person for you to fool. I console myself that my objects to SJWism are far more complicated than they seem to understand. It's not that I disagree with every point they have, far from it. It's probably not something I could convey to a person like Myers in written word. At least not before he banned me.

Can't be a silo until we have banned Damion.

[youtube]n3UKJq_lxcM[/youtube]

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Hunt wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Excited*

No, you had it right the first time.

Oh, ok.

I'm not sure anymore. I've drank so many coffees I may start shitting Frappé. We've been waiting since 10 this morning to get a couple of infos (age, address) from Ali's witness so we could go to the town hall and fix the date for the wedding. No answers so far, and the office closes in 3 hours.

Phil,
Relax. It can always be arranged on Monday, and it's a commonplace that when you marry in haste you can repent at leisure. I'm a bit unusual in that I met my wife 40 years ago this November, and we have been married for over 36 of them (I often mention to her that the years of living in sin were the best). This last week I have been cleaning out old photos, negatives and slides from the basement, and scanning some of the better ones. Makes me drop my jaw to see how gorgeous she was then. Oh, yes, and still is, of course.

screwtape wrote:Phil,
Relax. It can always be arranged on Monday, and it's a commonplace that when you marry in haste you can repent at leisure. I'm a bit unusual in that I met my wife 40 years ago this November, and we have been married for over 36 of them (I often mention to her that the years of living in sin were the best). This last week I have been cleaning out old photos, negatives and slides from the basement, and scanning some of the better ones. Makes me drop my jaw to see how gorgeous she was then. Oh, yes, and still is, of course.

Awkward when they suddenly start reading over your shoulder, eh?

Keating wrote:
He did. 'Created' is an oversell, but Clinton definitely changed Obama's mind to intervene in Libya, despite certainly knowing that the most likely outcome would be that Al Qaeda would be the main beneficiaries. The large stockpile of weapons Gaddafi had disappeared; smuggled out of the country. Those weapons did apparently turn up in Syria and Iraq. So, it is possible to argue that poor judgement by Clinton directly helped ISIS grow.

That somewhat comes back to the neo-con idea that it's always better to topple an evil, but secular, dictator like Gaddafi, on the assumption that whoever replaces him will be better. The same idea was behind toppling Assad, which involved funding rebels without necessarily caring too much if they were better or worse than Assad.

I tend to agree with Trump that the world would, on balance, be much better off today if Gaddafi and Hussein were still alive and oppressing their relative countries.

The "humanitarian military intervention" is largely based on assumptions about World War Two: to put it very simply and stereotypically, topple Hitler and you get German cars and not German concentration camps (substitute Mussolini with Hitler and pasta with cars for Italy, or the military junta and video games for Japan).

But this outcome only happens when there had been solid liberal and democratic institutions which were subverted by the dictator. Germany had gone through the Second Reich and the Weimar Republic (flawed as it was) and Italy had had a liberal monarchy under the Savoia family. In both cases the democratic forces could steer the country towards a modern liberal democracy (with all their problems) and towards peaceful relationships with their neighbor. In the case of Japan it was the highly hierarchical nature of the Japanese society and the decision of the Japanese emperors to modernize their country that did the trick.

No such thing has happened in the Middle East. Before Gaddafi Lybia was briefly an authoritarian monarchy, and before that it had been an Italian colony and an Ottoman province. Before Hussein Iraq had been a dictatorship under an equally authoritarian despot, and before that a Britsh colony and an Ottoman province.

Also both Lybia and Iraq are an artificial countries, created by British and Italian colonists who put together different populations with little in common other than being subject of the distant and loose Ottoman Empire. Italy and Germany were unified by internal movements, and Japan was unified by Japanese emperors.

Iraq and Lybia lack the building blocks of a liberal democracy, like an elite of liberal thinkers, the diffusion of liberal ideas, an independent press, the idea of public opinion, etc. Add to that the devastating effects of Salafi preaching (a reactionary, anti-liberal and anti-democratic movement which has been funded by our "allies" like Saudi Arabia) and of Shia infiltrations in Iraq and you don't get Iraqi oil or Lybian gas, but the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda (or similar violent Muslim supremacist movements).

Furthermore during the Cold War the US and the "West" have heavily supported religious movements in the Middle East and in Central Asia to stop the spread of communism. The side effect of those policies (often idiotic, like in the case of the toppling of the relatively liberal and democratic Mossadegh administration) has been the gradual substitution of leftist "anti-imperialism" with Muslim supremacy ideals.

In short it's impossible to create liberal democracy with invasions. Liberal democracy has to happen locally, slowly and gradually. It's one thing to remove a dictator who has subverted a liberal democratic country, it's another to think that a country which has never experienced a locally based liberal democracy will develop liberal ideas and democratic institutions only because you've removed the local tyrant.

It's better for liberal democracies to stay out of the Middle East and to support liberal democratic movements there by example (and by cultural influence, for example through our media and our exports) then to try ill-fated interventions in places where liberal democracy is still a long time coming. It's also good to cut, or more realistically loosen our ties with those (like Saudi Arabia and other petro-states) who preach anti-liberal and anti-Western ideas.

TL;DR: You can't export democracy with bombs where there is no fertile ground for democracy. Better to protect it at home and try to make it look appealing.

Apols if linked already. Haven't watched the video but this shoddy article by a Black Lives Matter "activist" is rightly getting slaughtered in the comments.

Black Lives Matter is a movement the UK needs – and our work here is just starting

some comments:

"In the UK we have a system where the people that end up dead after interactions with police, or immigration officers, or prison officers, are disproportionately black and brown."

Using figures taken from the actual link provided I find that by year; for the Met.

2016 total deaths 3 BAME deaths 0
2015 total deaths 7 BAME deaths 2
2014 total deaths 6 BAME deaths 2
2013 total deaths 7 BAME deaths 0
2012 total deaths 4 BAME deaths 1

So highest = 25% BAME, lowest 0%

In 2011 London had a BAME population of 40%, I think its half now.

BAME deaths would seem to be under represented.

The Inquest hyperlink shows deaths in police custody, not that 1 in 6 are killed, as the author claims.

In fact, only a tiny minority of these people could be described as having been 'killed'. The vast, vast majority will have died from overdose, heart attacks, suicide or road crash.

"we protested under banners of Mark Duggan, Jermaine Baker, and Azelle Rodney "
Indeed, rather telling as to the validity of your cause that you couldn't find anyone who wasn't a dangerous armed career criminal to act as poster boys for your campaign.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... k-starting

Hunt wrote:
I was just about to say, SJW have developed a resistance to that intrusion, the Sea Lion objection. It reminds me of back when I argued with Christians. I worked forums so radical that some members thought I was an agent of Satan. I just tried to tell them that if you're operating under a belief system that has developed resistance to reason, calling it the blandishments of Satan, then you're truly lost.

I worry at times whether the pit is itself a form of information silo. If you're truly objective in your belief systems, you're constantly questioning your own, because as skeptics say, you are the easiest person for you to fool. I console myself that my objects to SJWism are far more complicated than they seem to understand. It's not that I disagree with every point they have, far from it. It's probably not something I could convey to a person like Myers in written word. At least not before he banned me.

The reason why I keep arguing with Steersman and Jim Habegger (two people with whom I've disagreed a lot, and who disagree a lot between themselves) is that I want to avoid being confined to an information silo.

I think that the Pit is diverse enough to allow a decent flow of information: we have people in favor of Brexit and people against Brexit, people who dislike MRAs and people who see them with sympathy, people who like Trump and people who dislike him, people who dislike the UKIP and those who see it more favorably, people who think that feminism is all rotten and those who think that the core ideas of a libertarian/liberal feminism are sound, people who think that Richard Carrier is a danger and those who disagree, people who support the idea of the censorship of Holocaust denialism and those who disagree, etc.

There's a whole gamut of political and social opinion here, from Service Dog (who seems to sympathize with anarchism or libertarianism, -correct me if I'm wrong Service) to gurugeorge (who is a fan of classical liberalism) to Aneris (who is closer to the ideals of the European Union) to VickyCaramel (who supports at least some ideas of the UKIP).

I for one would be glad to see some SJWs posting here and engaging in debate. Aratina posted here a couple of times, and it was an interesting experience. If Richard Carrier wanted to join this forum I'd be happy to see him argue with Jan Steen, for example.

The problem is that many SJWs don't wish to debate or argue, they wish to be listened and believed. This place has acquired a horrible reputation in FTB circles (Greta Christina has compared us to the KKK :lol: ) and so they're avoiding us like the plague.

They're also deleting any comment which doesn't follow their guidelines, or where people ask questions they don't like or link to ideas they don't like. They dismiss every opinion which they don't like as 'splaining, or any question they don't like as "JAqing off" or "questioning their lived experience". In the most extreme cases they don't allow people to comment.

CommanderTuvok wrote:I've only just got notice of this. It is kind of beautiful.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/1 ... n-exposes/

Apparently, the SJW "safety types" got the smell of blood, and thought they have uncovered the identity of a pro-GamerGater (somebody called Mumbot, of whom I am not familiar). Anyway, remember how these anti-harassment types are always going on about not doxing people, blah blah blah, well, they were tricked into thinking they had got the personal information of, then proceeded into discussing how and when to dox him. Prominent was somebody called "Iggy Galvez", who refers to himself as - get this - an "anti-abuse" employee of Amazon.

It is all like those people who constantly refer to themselves as "anti-racist", who ALWAYS turn out to be horribly bigoted or racist in some way, usually antisemism.

Anybody else keeping up with this popcorn?

That is *very* beautiful. I noticed #ZachAttack doing the rounds on various Gamergate accounts last night, but couldn't discern much of what had happened owing to too much noise at the expense of signal - but it was clear that GG had hit some SJWs in a sting op. Good to see exactly what happened - I note that Matt Myers (no relation to our luvly Peez) has been implicated, which is splendid, as he's a right proper, po-faced little wanker.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Anyone else exited?

[youtube]frdj1zb9sMY[/youtube]

Yep. That is one fuckin incredible trailer. Have to say, that shot of the Death Star eclipsing the sun - better than anything I saw in TFA. I hope like hell that for once we get a film that goes some way towards living up to its trailer.

Tigzy wrote: I hope like hell that for once we get a film that goes some way towards living up to its trailer.

The new Ghostbusters did a great job living up to its trailer...

Is anyone else suddenly getting this with embedded YouTube on this forum?
Same with a different Browser.

http://i.imgur.com/jlO9eJk.jpg

One side of Uncanny Valley is steep and unforgiving and most real-world attempts at human simulacra end up populating the valley floor. The other side is an unthreatening slope where symbolism replaces realism; it should be really hard to screw up. Impressively, the inventors of the Indiegogo-funded Moorebot appear to have found a way...

[youtube]wBgxnRVMH8k[/youtube]

The crowdfunding ad somehow makes the robot even creepier, with its own formless sense of menace gradually building beneath the wholesome veneer. They should make a movie.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Anyone else exited?

[youtube]frdj1zb9sMY[/youtube]

Ballsy of them to use the line "there is a 97.6% chance of failure" in a trailer.

AndrewV69 wrote:
“unifying Iraq”? Iraq has split into three enclaves, Shia, Sunni and Kurds and minorities are being exterminated mainly by Daesh.

But if anyone thinks that the Suni are going to submit to being ruled by the Shia, especially after being top dog over the Shia for so long you need to have your head examined.

There will be no unity. Nope nope nope nope. There is going to be a lot of blood spilled in the future.

Iraq was created artificially. The same is true for Syria. The British got their mandate and puppet king in Iraq in 1920, while the French established their control over Syria in the same years. Both the British and the French had to fight with Islamic insurrections, especially from the Shias.

Iraq became an independent kingdom in 1932, under the Hashemites, who were Sunnis and British-friendly. Shias, Yazidis, Kurds and Assyrians never felt "Iraqi". The Kingdom of Iraq turned Nazi-friendly after a coup, but the British invaded it soon thereafter. The Kurds rebelled and were supported secretly (and later not so secretly) by the Soviets.

In the following years the Hashemite kings become less and less popular, especially because of the terms of their treaty with the UK. The Soviets financed communist insurrections, while all the non-Sunni carried on their own rebellions. In 1958, after a failed attempt at union with Syria, the Hashemite dynasty was overthrown and Abd al-Karim Qasim, a Soviet-friendly Arab nationalist, became the leader of Iraq.

Qasim became increasingly close to the Communists while his deputy Abdul Salam Arif pushed for an alliance with Gamal Nasser (the nationalist leader of Egypt) and the idea of an "Arab union". To make a long story short Qasim alienated everyone, from the West to other Arab nationalist, and was eventually overthrown in 1963 by the Ba'ath Party.

The Ba'athist killed the Communists and Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr become the rule of Iraq. He was much more of an Arab nationalist and much less of a Commie than Qasim. Al-Bakr's regime increased the standards of living in Iraq through oil money, but he didn't liberalize the country, and he ruled it as a quasi-socialist dictatorship. His cousin was the infamous Saddam Hussein, and in the 1970s Hussein seized the power for himself.

Under the Ba'ath and Hussein Sunni Muslims were the top dog in Iraq, even though only one fifth of the citizens in Iraq were Sunni. Saddam feared the radical Muslim Shia revolution in Iran for obvious reasons, namely Iranian Shia influence over Iraqi shias. He attacked Iran, and the "West" saw a potential Iraqi victory over the Iranian theocracy as a good thing.

It didn't work out very well. The Iranian launched waves and waves of fanatics against the Iraqis and managed to get the Iraqi Kurds to rebel. Saddam, not known for his respect of human rights or his tolerance, used chemical weapons against both the Iranians and the Kurds. The weapons were manufactured in West Germany and sold to Iraq by the Reagan administration.

The US didn't like Saddam but hoped to use him to smash the Iranian regime. The Iran-Iraq war was ultimately a stalemate. Interestingly enough the US had financed indirectly both Iraq and Iran (see the Iran-Contra affair). Basically this was a huge blunder on part of over-eager and overly secretive (not to mention out of control and duplicitous) American intelligence officers.

Anyway the war was over, Saddam gasses some Kurds and then decided that he needed to distract the Iraqis from the disaster by invading Kuwait. Arab nationalists in Kuwait actually preferred him to the authoritarian Kuwaiti monarchy, and he had an ambivalent position towards the US. On one hand he had received a lot of money from the US, on the other he used the situation in Israel like all Arab Nationalists did, to raise support for his regime against Israel, and saw the US as the biggest supporters of "the Zionist regime".

He invaded Kuwait, the US attacked him and defeated him, and he found himself isolated. Rebellion was already brewing among the Shias, the Kurds and many others before he was toppled in 2003.

Basically TL;DR: there was never a regime in Iraq which treated all different religious groups and ethnicities equally and fairly. They had some authoritarian monarchies then some authoritarian dictators then the present chaos, which isn't likely to end anytime soon.

CommanderTuvok wrote:I've only just got notice of this. It is kind of beautiful.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/1 ... n-exposes/

Apparently, the SJW "safety types" got the smell of blood, and thought they have uncovered the identity of a pro-GamerGater (somebody called Mumbot, of whom I am not familiar). Anyway, remember how these anti-harassment types are always going on about not doxing people, blah blah blah, well, they were tricked into thinking they had got the personal information of, then proceeded into discussing how and when to dox him. Prominent was somebody called "Iggy Galvez", who refers to himself as - get this - an "anti-abuse" employee of Amazon.

It is all like those people who constantly refer to themselves as "anti-racist", who ALWAYS turn out to be horribly bigoted or racist in some way, usually antisemism.

Anybody else keeping up with this popcorn?

There is also this paper on the subject https://www.allthink.com/1561533

Mombot successfully pulled a long con. Congrats to her!

InfraRedBucket wrote:Is anyone else suddenly getting this with embedded YouTube on this forum?
Same with a different Browser.

http://i.imgur.com/jlO9eJk.jpg

I have the same problem.

Eskarina wrote:

InfraRedBucket wrote:Is anyone else suddenly getting this with embedded YouTube on this forum?
Same with a different Browser.

I have the same problem.

Dido

Some woman (Ayama Almaz) just broke a dodgy, drug-fuelled world record by 17 seconds at the Olympics. A WR many said was unbreakable........

A former athlete, Sonia O'Sullivan, is a bit suspicious on Irish TV and although she stopped short of saying she is doping, it was clear she thinks something is up. Some on Twitter don't like her suspicion, others applaud her bravery. Remember the grief that US swimming coach got when that female Chinese swimmer swam a length quicker than the men's champ, in 2012? That Chinese swimmer's form has dropped off quite a bit, BTW!

The cynic in me says she could be right. A real pity that brilliant displays in track and field always have a question mark next to them. I guess it has been that way for 40 years, however.

Uh oh!!! LOL. Looks like Snarkeesian is going to host a NMS stream
What's funny, is that all the humanoid aliens seem to have male bodies. Snarky might not like that. Also, there is a game icon that looks like an outline of a man somewhere. Also, analysis of animals displays info like gender, but what they call gender are silly things that seem nothing to do with what sex organs they have or think they should have or their reproductive role - sjws'll probably think it's a mockery. I wonder if the sjws will freak out? Who cares though. This game is already showing itself to be wildly successful. It's not like they can fuck up its release at this point. They better not try and pressure them to add female aliens or acceptable genders. At least they can't cry "violence against women!" or "Objectification!" if there are no females in the game. HA HA feminists!

I notice that even though the stream is on her own twitch channel, she's having two other people do the playing. Probably would embarrass the fuck out of herself if she tried bumbling around in there herself.

Thing is though, one of the programmers is a trans who retweets Snarky et al. I was hoping that she was at least maybe of the "truscum" belief system since they are rational about their transgenderness (if that's a word), but whatever. Seems sjw instead of truscum by some of her tweets. I hope there's no secret sjw message in the game that appears at the end. Up front it seems quite clear that the "No Man's Sky" in the title is a reference to Star Trek and the fact the players are all going to outer space where no man has gone before. Please, please, please, don't be some surprise at the end where there's a feminist tale explaining WHY there are no women 'in the sky', and then you have to go out and save the women or some such barf. Probably not, but I worry a bit, because of that one programming team member who retreets some severely crazy sjws. He (formerly she) seems like a great programmer though from the 2 talks I saw.

VR Guy wrote:

Eskarina wrote:

InfraRedBucket wrote:Is anyone else suddenly getting this with embedded YouTube on this forum?
Same with a different Browser.

I have the same problem.

Dido

Dildo, I mean, ditto!

MarcusAu wrote: Dazzling!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

Anyone want to talk tanks?

There is a land warfare version of Dazzle which is now called Caunter and it is a very controversial subject!

I will give you the short version of the controversy.

First I need to point out that that you could print an endless amount of history books on an endless amount of different subjects and nobody would buy any of them because there is no interest. However there are two large markets to tap into, reenactors and modelers. So go to any military book store and you will find 90% of the books are aimed at those two markets. But these people want accuracy and details, so you end up with controversies over really mundane details like paint colours.

Very few reenactors own tanks, and personally I couldn't give a fuck what colour modelers paint their tanks, but these things do exist in museums so there is a legitimate problem here, and frankly I find puzzles like this interesting.
All over the world, museums have painted tanks in colours very similar to that shown in the photo above.

Apparently this scheme was invented by Col. Caunter of the 4th Armoured Brigade and popular wisdom is that it is inspired by the dazzle scheme of ships, but seen through a heat-haze of Sahara desert, the blue helped it blend into the sky as well as the sand.

Now comes the controversy. Were they actually painted blue?

On the one hand you have the paperwork which includes paint codes which indicates they were actually shades of painted green. (This in itself requires a hell of a lot of research as although we might have British Standard paint codes for these colours, we might not have paint formulas or swatches). Over the years various documents have shown up, all indicating that they were painted in colours such as "silver Grey" which is actually a shade of green.

On the other hand you have anecdotal evidence, much of which describes them as being painted in sky blue.

This is the evidence on which most of the arguments are fought over. Documents vs anecdotal, prescriptive vs descriptive.

There is a large contingent of people who are very technically minded that say we should go with the paperwork and the paint codes, and frankly we all know that anecdotal evidence is unreliable. However they do seem to be ignoring some important evidence (because they never mention it) which is contemporary watercolour paintings done in the field.

Over the years some colour photos have shown up, some of which indicate that the green theory is correct, some indicate that the colour was actually grey. However, eventually one photo showed up clearly showing a nice bright blue.
http://s13.photobucket.com/user/Saduria ... 3.jpg.html

So then the argument changed to, how prevalent was the use of blue? The green camp argue that it was rare, but was so striking that it stuck in people's minds. Another theory is that the green faded to look blue in certain light.

There are many similar controversies to this, another very similar one is the colour of Afrika Korps vehicles. German camouflage theory at the time was based on the idea of hiding tanks in the shadows which is why they painted their tanks a Blue-Grey. This translated to the african campaign as a shadowy shade of sand with a darker grey-brown disruptive colour. This is what the directives and paint-chips indicate but there is absolutely zero evidence it was ever used and some physical evidence that they were painted in a colour approximating sand.

Anywhoo, I think the debate is interesting in it's impotency. You have one side pouring over old documents looking for official orders. The other side looking over anecdotal accounts or trying to colour correct old photos.

I did my own research and found some interesting things. Firstly that people's attitude to standardization right up to the 1960s was "Close enough", "That'll do", and "Good enough for government work". Paint was mixed up in big vats by a "bloke" adding a bit of this and a bit of that until it looked about right. If it wasn't quite right.... tough luck.
I found out that both sides constantly complained about the colour of equipment being too light or too dark, and in the name of "battlefield efficiency" would make their own corrective measures (e.g. Staining uniforms with tea).
I found out that there was a general shortage of green pigments for paint and the air force was given priority, leading to British tanks in Europe being painted shades of brown for the first half of the war.
British paints were supplied as a concentrate to be diluted with petrol, paint destined for the airforce and navy came through the same ports and supply depots... if the merchant ships carrying them weren't sunk. They often turned to local producers to make up the shortfall, and in the case of the Germans, paint was produced nearer the theater in Italy and Tunisia.
And somehow it has been forgotten that officers were trained to disobey orders... it was an essential part of German military doctrine, and British officers were encouraged to get creative. This lead to the creation of Jock Columns and the creation of a half dozen "Special Forces" groups, some of which painted their vehicles pink and purple.
I also discovered that boredom in the desert, the harsh conditions, the fact that some of these guys had been posted in the Middle east since before the war meant that on all sides they thought of themselves as a breed apart, separate from the rest of the forces. They had their own culture, own vocabulary, even their own fashion, and made their own rules, sometimes out of boredom, sport or spite.

So how do you apply Bayes theorem to this problem? :rimshot:

Hmm, I just tried to google image search nms animal descriptions through the analysis visor to see some of the crazy gender descriptions I saw in earlier gameplay, and I only found "indeterminate" and "male". I hope they have changed them to appease the sjws.

The game will be downloadable in less than an hour. I heard a few different release times today, but this one's for real. So, see you all after I've logged a few captain's logs. :)

Brive1987 wrote:Annnnnd he is gone

Farewell August. What timing.

Well, well, what a surprise. I hope Carrier is grovelling in his apology for having caused such difficulties for his fuck-buddy's husband.

However, in light of a couple of snippets of info from the SSA FB page & releases, chiefly:

the scope of the investigation is not focused on the original harassment claim

Facebook SSA page 17/06/16

the SSA as an organization cannot litigate the validity of claims in the public domain

https://secularstudents.org/node/6679

There is only one place Carrier was getting his his intimate knowledge of the investigation that allowed him to make this claim:

The Secular Student Alliance retained a professional investigator who consulted documents and interviewed witnesses pertaining to this. He did not conclude any sexual harassment or assault had occurred. But the SSA has not disclosed any of his findings. I know personally that multiple eyewitnesses do not corroborate Frank’s new claims, and that harassment and physical contact were not part of her original complaint to the SSA last year, and also, based on what I was told by the SSA at the time, contradicted her own original statements conveyed to the SSA and to other witnesses

So either Carrier is a lying sack of shit, or August has been loose with his talk as well as his wife, because not disclosing any findings means not telling the accused fuckwit who started all this by being a sleazy creep. He has not been the consummate professional leader and has rightly resigned for dragging his screwy private life into a student organisation.

I await news of Carrier's document serving on all the nasty people who said mean things about him.

Speaking of awaiting news, has Heina said anything about the upcoming publication of her book? The digital copies she promised her kickstarter donators will be out next month. With so many pre-funded projects now ending with calls for fraud investigations, many of those for much less than Heina's 10k, I'm sure she'll be relieved to finally complete all the project promises after 4 years. :liar:

MarcusAu wrote:Dazzling!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

Finally, after 33 years, I get the meaning of OMD's Dazzle Ships.

I don't know if this has already been discussed, but Skepticon appears to have decided Carrier isn't so icky after all. The announcement of his ban has been removed:

https://skepticon.org/keeping-skepticon ... be-banned/

If this is to avoid being taken to court I wonder if there will be a public apology to follow?

Myer's post on Carrier remains in place.

VickyCaramel wrote:

MarcusAu wrote: Dazzling!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

Anyone want to talk tanks?

It's not that I'm unwilling, just that after reading through your comment, I'm not sure I have much to add!

HunnyBunny wrote:If this is to avoid being taken to court I wonder if there will be a public apology to follow?

Myer's post on Carrier remains in place.

By now, Paul must be getting mad for not being sued, after all the work he's put into it over the years; not the Evangelicals, not the Catholics, not the insulted fellow academics, nay not even the people falsely accused of rape will get through with it and drag him to court! Enraging it is!

MarcusAu wrote:It's not that I'm unwilling, just that after reading through your comment, I'm not sure I have much to add!

She's talking Tanks of Colour, so you'd have to check your panzer privilege first.

feathers wrote:

MarcusAu wrote:Dazzling!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

Finally, after 33 years, I get the meaning of OMD's Dazzle Ships.

33 years, eh?

VickyCaramel wrote:

MarcusAu wrote: Dazzling!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

Anyone want to talk tanks?

There is a land warfare version of Dazzle which is now called Caunter and it is a very controversial subject!

I will give you the short version of the controversy.

First I need to point out that that you could print an endless amount of history books on an endless amount of different subjects and nobody would buy any of them because there is no interest. However there are two large markets to tap into, reenactors and modelers. So go to any military book store and you will find 90% of the books are aimed at those two markets. But these people want accuracy and details, so you end up with controversies over really mundane details like paint colours.

Very few reenactors own tanks, and personally I couldn't give a fuck what colour modelers paint their tanks, but these things do exist in museums so there is a legitimate problem here, and frankly I find puzzles like this interesting.

Matilda08.jpg

All over the world, museums have painted tanks in colours very similar to that shown in the photo above.

Apparently this scheme was invented by Col. Caunter of the 4th Armoured Brigade and popular wisdom is that it is inspired by the dazzle scheme of ships, but seen through a heat-haze of Sahara desert, the blue helped it blend into the sky as well as the sand.

Now comes the controversy. Were they actually painted blue?

On the one hand you have the paperwork which includes paint codes which indicates they were actually shades of painted green. (This in itself requires a hell of a lot of research as although we might have British Standard paint codes for these colours, we might not have paint formulas or swatches). Over the years various documents have shown up, all indicating that they were painted in colours such as "silver Grey" which is actually a shade of green.

On the other hand you have anecdotal evidence, much of which describes them as being painted in sky blue.

This is the evidence on which most of the arguments are fought over. Documents vs anecdotal, prescriptive vs descriptive.

There is a large contingent of people who are very technically minded that say we should go with the paperwork and the paint codes, and frankly we all know that anecdotal evidence is unreliable. However they do seem to be ignoring some important evidence (because they never mention it) which is contemporary watercolour paintings done in the field.

Over the years some colour photos have shown up, some of which indicate that the green theory is correct, some indicate that the colour was actually grey. However, eventually one photo showed up clearly showing a nice bright blue.
http://s13.photobucket.com/user/Saduria ... 3.jpg.html

So then the argument changed to, how prevalent was the use of blue? The green camp argue that it was rare, but was so striking that it stuck in people's minds. Another theory is that the green faded to look blue in certain light.

There are many similar controversies to this, another very similar one is the colour of Afrika Korps vehicles. German camouflage theory at the time was based on the idea of hiding tanks in the shadows which is why they painted their tanks a Blue-Grey. This translated to the african campaign as a shadowy shade of sand with a darker grey-brown disruptive colour. This is what the directives and paint-chips indicate but there is absolutely zero evidence it was ever used and some physical evidence that they were painted in a colour approximating sand.

Anywhoo, I think the debate is interesting in it's impotency. You have one side pouring over old documents looking for official orders. The other side looking over anecdotal accounts or trying to colour correct old photos.

I did my own research and found some interesting things. Firstly that people's attitude to standardization right up to the 1960s was "Close enough", "That'll do", and "Good enough for government work". Paint was mixed up in big vats by a "bloke" adding a bit of this and a bit of that until it looked about right. If it wasn't quite right.... tough luck.
I found out that both sides constantly complained about the colour of equipment being too light or too dark, and in the name of "battlefield efficiency" would make their own corrective measures (e.g. Staining uniforms with tea).
I found out that there was a general shortage of green pigments for paint and the air force was given priority, leading to British tanks in Europe being painted shades of brown for the first half of the war.
British paints were supplied as a concentrate to be diluted with petrol, paint destined for the airforce and navy came through the same ports and supply depots... if the merchant ships carrying them weren't sunk. They often turned to local producers to make up the shortfall, and in the case of the Germans, paint was produced nearer the theater in Italy and Tunisia.
And somehow it has been forgotten that officers were trained to disobey orders... it was an essential part of German military doctrine, and British officers were encouraged to get creative. This lead to the creation of Jock Columns and the creation of a half dozen "Special Forces" groups, some of which painted their vehicles pink and purple.
I also discovered that boredom in the desert, the harsh conditions, the fact that some of these guys had been posted in the Middle east since before the war meant that on all sides they thought of themselves as a breed apart, separate from the rest of the forces. They had their own culture, own vocabulary, even their own fashion, and made their own rules, sometimes out of boredom, sport or spite.

So how do you apply Bayes theorem to this problem? :rimshot:

Answer: paint the tank whatever shade of Blue you think is pretty/ then claim you painted it the exact Grey/Green officially specified... & the discrepancy is merely the camo "working".

I think you'll enjoy nerding-out on this:

As my health has improved, from keto diet & a little concerted exercise, many physical annoyances which I had come to regard as Normal are now revealed to be fixable problems: morning headaches, mid-day energy crashing, tuba farts, belly fat, weaker erections, craving of sugarjunk.

Early side-effects of the diet are sorted now: moments of brainfog, prickly appendages 'falling asleep', ammonia breath.

But I currently have a problem with staring off into space in a stupor, without initiative, no sense of urgency. Previously I'd have thought it was a character flaw, 'being lazy', or body constantly trying to recover from life being taxing.

Given how many other things turned out to be fixable nutrition & health issues... I wonder if this is, too. Something missing, like Iron, Potassium or a specific micronutrients. Maybe inflammation from Omega 6 to 3 ratio. Or a gut-bacteria imbalance.

Feels good to be sooo close that only one little thing might be Off. But frustrating not to have an obvious culprit.

HunnyBunny wrote:I don't know if this has already been discussed, but Skepticon appears to have decided Carrier isn't so icky after all. The announcement of his ban has been removed:

https://skepticon.org/keeping-skepticon ... be-banned/

If this is to avoid being taken to court I wonder if there will be a public apology to follow?

Myer's post on Carrier remains in place.

I for one think that there should be an investigation in to the allegation that Lauren Lane abused her position of power by being sexually aggressive to a speaker and forcing him to cheat on his wife.
If they want Skepticon to be a safe space for everyone, including speakers, Lane has to go. :snooty:

HunnyBunny wrote:So either Carrier is a lying sack of shit, or August has been loose with his talk as well as his wife, because not disclosing any findings means not telling the accused fuckwit who started all this by being a sleazy creep. He has not been the consummate professional leader and has rightly resigned for dragging his screwy private life into a student organisation.

Of note:
Richard Carrier announces insider information as to the going-ons of the Secular Student Association, making allegations as to what they found, and generally being a litigious fuck-wit, thus making it legally wise for the SSA to not say anything at all about Richard Carrier, but instead to just carry out their policies.

Also of interest, Richard Carrier proclaims that their investigation did not find him guilty. But the SSA explicitly stated they were not investigating the allegations against Richard Carrier.

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE! The FBI's recent probe into the Hillary Clinton emails did not find me guilty of speeding!!!!! But they are not releasing or announcing the results! Those bastards. I am totally innocent!