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

Kirbmarc wrote:
....
You seem to think that males were targeted as a gender, instead of this result being simply a side effect of focusing on crimes which are more likely to be committed by men.

That is exactly what I think, and you think so too: you concede that the opposing the gendered provisions of the Duluth Model and the Violence Against Women Act is 'very important'.

The solution you propose-- "activism to raise awareness" does nothing to help the individual man who is on trial Right Now, without access to Equal Protection Under The Law: a phrase engraved across the front of the US Supreme Court building & enshrined in the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.

US courts have no legal authority to apply laws unequally: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Paul Elam is on solid Constitutional ground... asserting that individual male rape defendants should be afforded the same protections as every-other accused person, or summarily set free. You may not realize it, but you are parroting the Duluth Model here, treating males as collectively-guilty of original gender-sin:

Kirbmarc wrote:
In general evolutionary psychology and socio-biology have proposed many explanations for different rates of aggressiveness and anti-social behavior (which are likely to lead to crimes and misdemeanor) between men and women. Upper-body strength is lower in women than in men. Men have evolved to be more aggressive and competitive. The "Male Warrior" hypothesis suggests that human psychology has been shaped by conflicts between groups and by competition for resources.

There is evidence that in primates (chimpanzees, gorillas) males are more aggressive and reckless, as well.

Regardless of why it happens, men are more likely to engage in violent, anti-social, reckless behavior. This doesn't mean that women are more ethical than men, but that they resolve conflicts and frustrations in ways (social ostracism, gossiping, stigmatization) that are less likely to lead to crime, or at least to the crimes targeted by "Broken Window" laws.
....
I'd like to see some evidence of this systemic disparity....Again, it'd be interesting to see some evidence of this.

A Voice For Men remedies your ignorance with evidence: http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/ge ... nal-court/

Kirbmarc wrote:
While there is the potential for misuse of these laws, the intent behind their creation was to counter an irrational social bias. They should be amended, or corrected, but it's hard not to understand the reasons why the were created in first place.

The same could be said of every shithead reverse-discrimination policy every implemented by SJWs!... from the Occupy Wall Street 'progressive stack' to Missou's protesters racially-segregating their own group... to campus diversity officer Bahar Mustafa banning white cis males from her 'anti-racism' event! Why are you justifying it? I was right: you're more SJW than you realize.

I said, "The same Mary Koss who spawned the 1-in-4 rape college rape stat in the 1980s now advises the FBI & CDC that males forced to penetrate females should not be counted as 'rape' victims, but should be categorized in a separate 'other' category. The number of males reporting having been forced to penetrate-- is higher than the number of females reporting being penetrated. No 'rape is rape', if you're male."

Kirbmarc wrote:
I find this rather hard to believe. Any evidence for this claim?

Go floosh yourself, Nerdmarc of Redhead: http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

Kirbmarc wrote: Of course lunatic SJW activism must be countered. But doing it in an equally gender politics-based, extremist and frankly insane way is incredibly counterproductive.

Classical liberalism-- the values of the US founding fathers-- with its emphasis on individual justice and rights-- has been maligned by critics as empowering Colonialism, Imperialism, Patriarchy, Genocide of other equally-valid social systems.

I think the Jeffersonian way is the best way-- to carve society's 'cake' into fair pieces. Hence my citing the Constitution as authoritative. Yet I am magnanimous-enough to entertain alternatives, because no system is without downsides. The feminists have proposed an alternative. The MRAs have accepted the feminists' premises-- wage gap, genital mutilation, rape culture, whatever-- and convincingly argued that females aren't the golden victims as was expected/ but rather males are deserving of a greater number of noble meowmeowbeans which were to be heaped upon the females.

Basic fairness dictates that an honest feminist must thus: 1. either abandon her critique-- and become a Jeffersonian individual-equality proponent, or 2. follow her feminism to its unexpected conclusion and bow to the MRAs. :clap:
Those are the 2 intellectually-honest options. Remaining a kirbmarc-style feminist is not viable-- it requires willful denial of reality, or changing the rules you created-- as soon as your realized you were losing the game.

Suet Cardigan wrote:

Shoe is 24, and she only met Armoured Skeptic last year. There is no way they could have had a sexual relationship when Shoe was only 17.
Like I said, McDermott is insane.

She is insane, but I doubt deluded enough not to know that what she is saying is just false.
Jenny has some weird relationship thing going on with "Bewildered Ape" who she has admitted is scripting some of her videos. Like her, he is an intensely hateful asshole.
His schtick is to slander people, like he did to Tf00t, and then claim it's satire or performance art and then buttress it with this childish excuse that a fictional creature called Bewildered Ape said it and it even says don't trust the ape on the video. (He thinks that is funny) :doh:
Since he was doxed a few months ago he has stopped making his own videos and basically uses McDerp as his mouthpiece and probably as a foil so if consequences come down she will take the hit and not him. This happened in the Laughing Witch thing, where he actually wrote the letter and she got the blowback.
Some of the motive for this is to drum up clicks for her videos, but the hateful, spiteful thing going on is part pathetic as well as nasty. She really likes going after the younger prettier women like shoe and jjtalkz that have more popular channels. As for men, she likes to flirt with them, lead them on and later trash them, as she did with Dick Coughlan and Armoured Skeptic.
Bewildered Ape IRL is a self styled post modernist philosopher that apparently has repeatedly failed his courses and had to retake them. He has a huge chip on his shoulder, possibly because of the years of ribbing he likely suffered with his weak effeminate voice and having to work to control his lisp.

[/i]

some guy wrote:Well, at the risk of getting into an analogy battle, it more like the police requiring a disinterested neighbor to open the door so they can get in because he happens to have the ability to hack the lock (Lets assume the lock explodes and destroys the property if 3 failed attempts are made to enter the right code). The neighbor is free to assist, but IMO should not be compelled (under the thread of prison) to expend his time and effort to do so.

And how do you define "less valid situations"? Remember, its the government making that call, not Apple. Suspected pedophelia? Drug dealing? Alleged domestic abuse? Petty burglary? Insider trading? Selling non-taxed cigarettes? Criticising the mayor? Once Apples gives the governement the tools to unlock this phone, they will be able to unlock any similar phone they might want to in the future. And can other governments compel Apple to give them this tool? And to use for whatever "situation" they decide is "valid"?

Another point here, is that Apple is standing on principle. What the FBI is asking for is only possible because of the particular iPhone model in question. They're not actually asking Apple to unlock it, which Apple already can't do, but just to load on a crippled version of the operating system that will not automatically wipe the hard disk if more than 10 attempts are made to guess the password. The FBI themselves will then brute force the password by trying all possible combinations.

Newer iPhones have different security hardware and even if Apple were to load a different operating system onto them, the decision to wipe the data is no longer made by the operating system, but by the hardware. Thus, in the future there would be nothing even Apple could do in a similar situation.

Unless, of course, the US government requires all technology companies to cripple their hardware with backdoors. Note that China has been wanting companies to do this for some time, but so far hasn't been strong enough to require that. Be sure they're watching this with interest, and if the FBI succeeds, that's the beginning of the end for digital privacy not just from the FBI, but from all governments around the world.

Next hangout is next Saturday. Let me know what time we need to do it.

Shatterface wrote:The shit Nugent has to deal with:

Bob February 21, 2016 at 6:35 pm

“I don’t use that interpretation of the word ‘ally’. I see allies as equal partners with a shared goal and equal standards of reciprocity.”

An ally can never be an “equal partner” with someone who is actually a member of a marginalized group. You occupy fundamentally different statuses with respect to the oppression in question, and the failure to recognize that makes you a bad ally to that extent.

And:

Becca Ryan February 21, 2016 at 7:08 pm
You, as a cishet white dude, don’t get to define allyship. It is not an equal partnership as allies tend to come from the oppressive majority. If you allyship is dependent on what, marginalised and oppressed people being nice and fitting into whatever standards you hold them to, then we don’t want your allyship or your support.

She already has the support that lifts and separates, judging from her underwear selfies on her blog.
"Allyship?" Ah, in looking up this malaprop I've discovered the "anti-oppression network."

An active, consistent, and arduous practice of unlearning and re-evaluating, in which a person of privilege seeks to operate in solidarity with a marginalized group of people. Allyship is not an identity—it is a lifelong process of building relationships based on trust, consistency, and accountability with marginalized individuals and/or groups of people.

The thing goes on for a long page (here if you want: https://theantioppressionnetwork.wordpr ... /allyship/): "we do this out of responsibility, not guilt; we don't expect to be educated by others (rich, that!); we listen more and speak less," etc.
And then Aiden wants Michael to speak.
But Becca doesn't need him as an ally.
They (meaning both of them) really ought to get their agendas straigh- uh, consistent.

Also maybe on Thursday because I am sure that is going to be an depressing ass day.

some guy wrote:

Shatterface wrote:... Apple already records a shit-load of its customers data and sells it to third parties.

iPhones can track their customers movements, purchases, even the amount of exercise you take.

Yes, but customers have consented to this. An important distinction.

There is, of course, more to the issue than even that. It's certainly true that phones can "track" your movements. GPS is incredibly useful as a feature, but also means that your location is known and available. Even without GPS, the way mobile phone technology works, means that the particular cell tower you're connected to indicates your approximate location. It isn't too hard to triangulate someone's position even if they have a mobile phone that doesn't have a GPS chip in it. Add to that, modern mobile phones that make data requests to the Internet very frequently, to keep mail and other notifications up-to-date, and it isn't hard to see how the data the telecommunication companies have on you is fairly extensive, even if they can't (or won't) read the raw data you're transmitting. Even if you don't have access to the contents of an email, you can learn a hell of a lot from the server logs that tell you to whom you're been communicating with.

Some instant messaging clients get around that problem by having a centralised server. That way, no one who's looking at the communication logs learns anything about who you're talking to, because all they'll say is you're talking to the centralised server. The problem there is you have to trust that the centralised server itself isn't compromised.

I think people should be entitled to the right to privacy, even digital privacy. However, I think that depends on having a population that has high social cohesion and social trust. Both of which are harmed by mass immigration (among other things). So this all comes back to requiring muslims to piss on the koran.

Tigzy wrote:

Stout wrote:If Aidan Rowe is supposed to be a woman then how come xe refers to ximself as a "man" on this page ?

http://www.last.fm/music/Kanellos

Kanellos is the one-man experimental electronic music project of Aidan Rowe.

Enquiring minds and all......

That appears to be Aiden's dead...uh, gender. Things have been recified in 'their' more recent last.fm page: http://www.last.fm/music/Pink+Circles

Cheers, thanks. Xe xhould xeally xdit xhat, xow xhat xe's a xirl.

I love these new pronouns, I hope they become legitimate words in Scrabble.

Service Dog wrote:US courts have no legal authority to apply laws unequally: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And, yet, civil forfeiture has made it to the Supreme Court at least three times and survived them all....

Aneris wrote:The term "Freedom Feminism" makes me cringe, though.

Agreed. I think we should get back to calling it by it's proper name "French Feminism".

N.B. I only think that this is funny because I'm drunk.

comhcinc wrote:Next hangout is next Saturday. Let me know what time we need to do it.

Whenever. I'll be asleep anyway!

piginthecity wrote:

Aneris wrote:The term "Freedom Feminism" makes me cringe, though.

Agreed. I think we should get back to calling it by it's proper name "French Feminism".

N.B. I only think that this is funny because I'm drunk.

French Feminism is actually Belgian. ;)

As long as it's not Danish.

Kristine is now blue! \o/


(dear old friend of mine. Librarian too. Disgusting)

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Serious question:

Is racismisbaddude a Slymepitter trolling around?

Because if so, it's neither constructive nor funny. It's tedious and hinders whatever talk may be infected.

racismisbaddude is no Godfrey Elfwick, that's for sure.

Godfrey Elfwick is no Godfrey Elfwick these days.

deLurch wrote:

Oglebart wrote:This story is doing the rounds too, about a SJW 25 year old Yelp employee that thought it would be a good idea to write a scathing letter to her CEO condemning her awful working conditions and inadequate pay. The entitlement is strong with this one, and as seems to be increasingly common, all her problems are somebody else's fault. It won't come as a surprise to find out that she has since been relieved of her position, but that should make her happy right? I'm sure there will be a long queue of blue chip employers waiting to snap her up now, I mean how better to advertise yourself than this masterpiece?

So, English major pulling in minimum wage for the area notorious for high rents.

She choose the degree.
She choose the minimum wage job.
She choose to work in a city that is expensive to live in.
She choose to get her own apartment spending 85% of her income, instead of getting a place with room mates.

From the comments:

The funny thing is she complains she’s starving, but her twitter feed is littered with restaurant food and tons of kitchen baking experiments, complete with $100 hand mixer, Nielsen-massey extracts, etc. Not to mention a number of bottles of thirty-dollar-a-pop bourbon and gin. All artfully photographed with a 700-dollar iphone.

If this girl is starving, it’s because she hasn’t the first idea how to budget.

Does she wear Fluevogs, by any chance? :think:

So I heard Brive1987 talking about The Orbit on the Sargon of Akkad podcast, but does anyone know what's happening with the Burning Bridges network ? Their FB page seems to be updated regularly enough but there doesn't seem to be any site up and running.

free thoughtpolice wrote:Suet Cardigan wrote:

Shoe is 24, and she only met Armoured Skeptic last year. There is no way they could have had a sexual relationship when Shoe was only 17.
Like I said, McDermott is insane.

She is insane, but I doubt deluded enough not to know that what she is saying is just false.
Jenny has some weird relationship thing going on with "Bewildered Ape" who she has admitted is scripting some of her videos. Like her, he is an intensely hateful asshole.
His schtick is to slander people, like he did to Tf00t, and then claim it's satire or performance art and then buttress it with this childish excuse that a fictional creature called Bewildered Ape said it and it even says don't trust the ape on the video. (He thinks that is funny) :doh:
Since he was doxed a few months ago he has stopped making his own videos and basically uses McDerp as his mouthpiece and probably as a foil so if consequences come down she will take the hit and not him. This happened in the Laughing Witch thing, where he actually wrote the letter and she got the blowback.
Some of the motive for this is to drum up clicks for her videos, but the hateful, spiteful thing going on is part pathetic as well as nasty. She really likes going after the younger prettier women like shoe and jjtalkz that have more popular channels. As for men, she likes to flirt with them, lead them on and later trash them, as she did with Dick Coughlan and Armoured Skeptic.
Bewildered Ape IRL is a self styled post modernist philosopher that apparently has repeatedly failed his courses and had to retake them. He has a huge chip on his shoulder, possibly because of the years of ribbing he likely suffered with his weak effeminate voice and having to work to control his lisp.

Good summary FTP, it seems that we have both been paying similar amounts of attention to this little offshoot of The Great Current YouTube Drama ShowTM!

I find Jenny to be quite an interesting lolcow, she is generating a decent sized thread over at KiwiFarms too, and participating in it too of course. It certainly seems as though she is desperate for attention, and it doesn't really matter where it comes from, and whether it is positive or negative. The point about her going after Shoe and JJTalkz is spot on, she really bites when that is mentioned, she seems to hate the fact that she isn't 25 anymore. It makes for some sort of entertainment for me anyway, but I find petty internet drama amusing, I think I may need a new hobby perhaps, get out more!!

Kristine wrote: "Allyship?" Ah, in looking up this malaprop I've discovered the "anti-oppression network."

An active, consistent, and arduous practice of unlearning and re-evaluating, in which a person of privilege seeks to operate in solidarity with a marginalized group of people. Allyship is not an identity—it is a lifelong process of building relationships based on trust, consistency, and accountability with marginalized individuals and/or groups of people.

The thing goes on for a long page (here if you want: https://theantioppressionnetwork.wordpr ... /allyship/): "we do this out of responsibility, not guilt; we don't expect to be educated by others (rich, that!); we listen more and speak less," etc.
And then Aiden wants Michael to speak.
But Becca doesn't need him as an ally.
They (meaning both of them) really ought to get their agendas straigh- uh, consistent.

Even radical leftists are getting tired of this shit:

I will always believe in “The Revolution”. But I am becoming very frustrated with modern “activist” culture.

First of all, I’m tired of watching people turn into pretentious assholes who think their activism makes them better than everyone else, even those oppressed and marginalized groups with whom they claim “allyship”.

Speaking of Fascism, there is also a disturbing trend on the left nowadays that involves rejecting free speech/freedom of expression as a core value, because that speech could possibly be hurtful to someone, somewhere. This is not only dangerous but it also works against us, because as leftists we are often labelled as threats by the state and at the very least, we are unpopular by society in general. Does this not mean that freedom of thought and expression are crucial to our struggles? That we should always defend our right to question what we’re taught, our right to be different?

Folks, do the world a favour…stop with the safe spaces and trigger warnings, and get serious about changing the world. It is not always going to be fun and pleasant. We are not always going to feel liberated. It is going to hurt. It is going to scare the shit out of us at times. But if the struggle is worth it to you, if activism is not just a trendy thing for you to be involved with so you can convince yourself that you’re not complacent in injustices, then you will step out of your comfort zone and finally understand that comfort is in itself a sign of the power and privilege you wish to challenge.

Kirbmarc wrote:

Tigzy wrote:Kirb

He's also a 'queer shapeshifter'. Whatever the fuck that is.

That's a new one.

Shapeshifter or shirtlifter?

Oglebart ; I think the both of us need to get a life :lol:
I find some of the drama coming out of the crazies like McDerp and baboons to be highly entertaining.
Maybe it's like watching a horror movie, there is a fascination with watching awful stuff from a safe vantage point like behind a computer monitor.

...and nothing more wrote:So I heard Brive1987 talking about The Orbit on the Sargon of Akkad podcast, but does anyone know what's happening with the Burning Bridges network ? Their FB page seems to be updated regularly enough but there doesn't seem to be any site up and running.

They reached $750 of a $3000 target - which barely met their $300 utterly basic setup requirement which itself relied on the JasonT free labour caveat. Their Twitter is quiet (@burningblogs). I'd say a decent nosh up was had by the gang and a toast to fallen ideas was drunk.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Kristine is now blue! \o/


(dear old friend of mine. Librarian too. Disgusting)

Witchcraft!

Even an old fart like me has heard about librarians and their "conferences"—nudge, nudge, wink, wink!

The idiot who has taken point for the SJW side in Mick Nugent's last couple of posts, who goes this time by the name of Bob, has got stuck on the idea of being a good ally. This, apparently, involves assuming those you would support know so much more about their oppression that you must take them at their word in all respects, have no opinion of your own and simply become a mindless supporter of whatever they say or do. To me, this denies one a basic facet of being human: intellectual freedom. I'll support a cause I believe in, but I will not do it by mindlessly cheering on others. I will not be dehumanised by becoming that kind of ally, as it means taking on the role of a subservient slave to all their dogma. He needs to read Animal Farm with an open mind to see what he is advocating.

This guy on Twitter is always a treat :lol:

Part of a good longer conversation but I am too lazy to storify or what

Brive1987 wrote:Just watched a few JenDurp vids - having avoided her till now. I had written her off as a shorthand squiggle for "idiot".

Now, having watched her 'content', I feel my life has been made sadder and yet my opinion of her remains unchanged.

Somehow I have been had. :x

It was just last year that PZ was singing her praises. McDerp made a stupid video where she said she was " quitting atheism". PZ immediately took to his blog to lament that McDerp had been driven out of atheism by "harassment" and "sexism". It is so predictable that she ended up being one of the worst online harassers of all. She is quite typical of the type of person that PZ white knights for.

http://i.imgur.com/g0PTCYU.jpg

http://archive.is/aiZ3c

Oglebart wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:Suet Cardigan wrote:

Shoe is 24, and she only met Armoured Skeptic last year. There is no way they could have had a sexual relationship when Shoe was only 17.
Like I said, McDermott is insane.

She is insane, but I doubt deluded enough not to know that what she is saying is just false.
Jenny has some weird relationship thing going on with "Bewildered Ape" who she has admitted is scripting some of her videos. Like her, he is an intensely hateful asshole.
His schtick is to slander people, like he did to Tf00t, and then claim it's satire or performance art and then buttress it with this childish excuse that a fictional creature called Bewildered Ape said it and it even says don't trust the ape on the video. (He thinks that is funny) :doh:
Since he was doxed a few months ago he has stopped making his own videos and basically uses McDerp as his mouthpiece and probably as a foil so if consequences come down she will take the hit and not him. This happened in the Laughing Witch thing, where he actually wrote the letter and she got the blowback.
Some of the motive for this is to drum up clicks for her videos, but the hateful, spiteful thing going on is part pathetic as well as nasty. She really likes going after the younger prettier women like shoe and jjtalkz that have more popular channels. As for men, she likes to flirt with them, lead them on and later trash them, as she did with Dick Coughlan and Armoured Skeptic.
Bewildered Ape IRL is a self styled post modernist philosopher that apparently has repeatedly failed his courses and had to retake them. He has a huge chip on his shoulder, possibly because of the years of ribbing he likely suffered with his weak effeminate voice and having to work to control his lisp.

Good summary FTP, it seems that we have both been paying similar amounts of attention to this little offshoot of The Great Current YouTube Drama ShowTM!

I find Jenny to be quite an interesting lolcow, she is generating a decent sized thread over at KiwiFarms too, and participating in it too of course. It certainly seems as though she is desperate for attention, and it doesn't really matter where it comes from, and whether it is positive or negative. The point about her going after Shoe and JJTalkz is spot on, she really bites when that is mentioned, she seems to hate the fact that she isn't 25 anymore. It makes for some sort of entertainment for me anyway, but I find petty internet drama amusing, I think I may need a new hobby perhaps, get out more!!

They agree

I like how 'its about ethics in journalism' became a throwaway mockery line early in the GG timeline, but basically every damn time the mainstream media has covered it they seem to strive mightily at making that self fulfilling prophesy

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2016/0 ... nterviews/

Nugent gets his answer.

http://i.imgur.com/Y4J7U50.jpg

Nasty business.

Ah. That gem was "Bob" #8

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2016/02/21 ... /#comments

Is Audible hires Morgan Freeman to read Pride & Prejudice, is it being objectifyingly mannarrated and so the themes she writes about are no longer Jane Austin's?

Brive1987 wrote:Ah. That gem was "Bob" #8

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2016/02/21 ... /#comments

Heh, yeah. It's a gem all right. Now he's in that same position with me, and he doesn't even get the irony.
How does it feel, Bob?

The quickest way to drive yourself nuts is to try to find consistency and logic in SocJus. It is all feels, all the time.

Scented Nectar wrote:

some guy wrote: Well, he doesn't address what I think is the real issue. IMO it is this: can a government force someone to do something to assist them (for whatever reason, but lets concede it is a compelling reason), when that person or entity did nothing wrong or illegal in the first place?

This is not a case where Apple is being asked to turn over things in their possession (like that data being sought, or even tools that they already have that would unlock the phone). The government is asking Apple to expend effort and resources to help the government do what the government wants, and at the same time to forever destroy what Apple considers to be a valuable (and completely legal) feature of their products.

I think it is a very important principle to defend. I'd have no problem if Apple decided to help them (even if backdoor- hush hush), but that should be their choice to make voluntarily.

I think of it like a search warrant. Even though those are sometimes misused, the terrorist in question is a valid search. It's way outside of being a basic privacy issue. It's like a landlord refusing to open a high-tech lock on a tenant's door when there's a search warrant, with the tenant being the terrorist in question, who has already murdered people. I doubt Apple would have to try hard to do it, or expend too much effort or resources. They know their products. And it wouldn't open the door to other people's privacy being at risk. Apple could simply refuse for any less valid situations, such as only open phones of terrorists who have murdered, like this guy, but not those who are merely suspected. I really think they are just scared of being considered islamophobic.

However, to look at it more charitably, maybe they are just making terrorists feel comfortable using their phones while in reality it's being monitored on the sly. That would be good. :)

I don't give much weight to the argument that compliance would be onerous for Apple - and Apple haven't themselves raised that as an issue, so far as I'm aware.

Subpoenas to Produce on individuals and corporations can require teams of persons and forests of paper to comply with. 'Conduct Money' must be paid, but the amount prescribed it usually only is notional ($50, if that) and once paid the onus shifts back on the subpoenaed party to make application to the court for additional conduct money.

There's a jurisprudential concept called the 'burden of litigation' which basically is an attempt to rationalise why the courts should be permitted to make onerous requests - for assistance, information and documents - of disinterested parties to court proceedings. The theory goes that we all in the end benefit from civil and criminal litigation, that it makes the rule of law function in society and if, from time to time, you're lent upon to put yourself out to grease the wheels a little, tough titties! We all benefit so all need to contribute.

My take on the present kerfuffle is Apple knows it will have to comply and it has made a very smart move socialising it's conundrum as a precursor to painting itself as the victim before it inevitably bows to either or a combination of political pressure or a court order. Win-win.

Finally, I wouldn't be discharging my obligations as the Pit's Official Shill for Harris ('POSH') without point you to SH's latest from yesterday which includes his take on the issue - which boils down to a position that data is information and property and if the courts can compel a bank to open a safety deposit box, why not Apple a phone (he doesn't use that exact analogy, but would of had he thought of it).

https://www.samharris.org/podcast

Mary P. Koss was the author of the 1980 research published in Ms. Magazine, which concluded 1 in 4 college women had been raped. Koss arrived at this number by disregarding the vast majority of those women's own assesment-- that the sex they had while drinking, or while 'held down', etc.-- had been pleasurable normal consentual orgasmic fun-- and they had continued to voluntarily have sex with the same men Koss deemed rapists. Koss failed to examine whether male college students experience similar drunk sex, or sex with a partner on top.

More recently Koss advised the Center for Disease Control against including men who reported having-been forced to penetrate-- as rape victims. One reason this matters: CDC stats are cited by the FBI.

I alluded to this in my exchange with Kirbmarc. Kirbmarc expressed disbelief in my allegation that parity in the fequency of rape of males and females had been covered-up, and asked me to substantiate the claim. I provided a link to a Time Magazine article by Cathy Young.

Just now, I came-across another link-- this one at MRA Allison Tieman's site, which provides damning examples from "Detecting The Scope Of Rape: A Review Of Prevalance Research Methods" by Mary Koss:

Koss:Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.

p. 206

Allison: Note how she uses the word “engage”. A man being made to penetrate a woman either by force, threats or coercion is engaging in sex with her? He is the actor.

On screening for rape using adopted colloquial or euphemistic language (like “Has anyone ever tried to make you have sexual relations with them against your will”):

Koss: Among men, the terms “sex” and “sexual relations” may activate schemas for situations where they penetrated women. Clarification is necessary to ensure that male respondents realize that the situations of interest are those in which they were penetrated forcibly and against their will by another person, and not situations where they felt pressure or coercion to have sexual relations with a woman partner.

p. 208

Allison: Note how she uses terms like “forcibly” and “against their will” when talking about the men being penetrated while when she talks about men penetrating women she uses terms like “felt pressure” and “coercion”.

She concludes with a set of recommendations, here is one of them:

Koss: 2. If men and boys are to be included, care must be taken to ensure that their data are accurate counterparts of rape prevalence among women. This means that men must be reporting instances where they experienced penetration of their own bodies (or attempts).

p. 218

http://www.genderratic.net/?p=2551


The sexist anti-male double standard couldn't be clearer.

Couch wrote: ....
Finally, I wouldn't be discharging my obligations as the Pit's Official Shill for Harris ('POSH') without point you to SH's latest from yesterday which includes his take on the issue - which boils down to a position that data is information and property and if the courts can compel a bank to open a safety deposit box, why not Apple a phone (he doesn't use that exact analogy, but would of had he thought of it).

https://www.samharris.org/podcast

I listened to that this morning & appreciated that Sam Harris was so clear and forthright in his stupid opinion, that he provides the listener with everything required to refute it.

For example: one actual analogy Harris employed-- was to compare encrypted iPhones to a hypothetical drug which could render a person's DNA pattern undetectable, so the person could not be identified by dna evidence at a crime scene.

He treated it as patently absurd-- that anyone would find production and use of such a drug justifiable.

However, that conclusion relies on only telling half of the story... leaving out the legitimate competing value which makes the issue difficult to decide. Harris's analogy would be more useful if he added that the govt in his scenario was also pre-emptively spying on everyone's DNA, categorizing everyone by racial markers, and oversight of the program was administered by Dr Josef Mengele's brain in a jar.

Service Dog wrote:

Couch wrote: ....
Finally, I wouldn't be discharging my obligations as the Pit's Official Shill for Harris ('POSH') without point you to SH's latest from yesterday which includes his take on the issue - which boils down to a position that data is information and property and if the courts can compel a bank to open a safety deposit box, why not Apple a phone (he doesn't use that exact analogy, but would of had he thought of it).

https://www.samharris.org/podcast

I listened to that this morning & appreciated that Sam Harris was so clear and forthright in his stupid opinion, that he provides the listener with everything required to refute it.

For example: one actual analogy Harris employed-- was to compare encrypted iPhones to a hypothetical drug which could render a person's DNA pattern undetectable, so the person could not be identified by dna evidence at a crime scene.

He treated it as patently absurd-- that anyone would find production and use of such a drug justifiable.

However, that conclusion relies on only telling half of the story... leaving out the legitimate competing value which makes the issue difficult to decide. Harris's analogy would be more useful if he added that the govt in his scenario was also pre-emptively spying on everyone's DNA, categorizing everyone by racial markers, and oversight of the program was administered by Dr Josef Mengele's brain in a jar.

I am all over the map on my thoughts regarding this issue, but right now I am falling in line with Harris. The key here is that the government has secured a court order. Indeed, sometimes the safeguards of a court order are trampled upon... but then the court order process should be fixed.

A comment from Gregory Greenwood in that archive of PZ's post about Jenny McDermott is pretty funny:

Atheism + has been suggested as a way of slavaging the atheist label, and while I greatly admire the concepts and values behind atheism +, what worries me is that all too many people will see the atheism part, associate it with people like Dawkins and other prominent atheist jerks, and never even get so far as considering what the mathematical symbol might stand for, leaving us still tainted by association with the bigoted boys club that high profile atheism has already largely become. Unless that changes, non-believers of conscience may have to jettison the atheist label entirely lest we be seen as lending support to misogynists and other stripes of bigot by our silence and ongoing association with them.

It wasn't atheism that was the downfall of Atheism+, it was the plus.

Couch wrote:... if the courts can compel a bank to open a safety deposit box, why not Apple a phone?

How about because, in the case of a safety deposit box, the bank 1) owns the box 2) the box is in their possession, 3) which is on bank property, 4) the rental contract surely included a clause that permitted them to deliver the contents in response to subpoena, and 5) the act of drilling open the box would not have to be done by a bank employee?

Whereas Apple 1) does not own the phone, 2) does not have possession/control of the data on it, 3) does not have a contract where the owner gave Apple the right to hack their phone to look at his stored data, and not only that, 4) advertised the feature the government wants them to defeat as a positive feature of the phone (i.e., an implied contract that Apple would break by hacking it to let the government get access to the data), and 5) Apple would have to actually perform more than mere ministrial/clerical/document-processing work to comply with the subpoena. (They would have to write, test/debug, and deploy a variant of their operating system for this specific purpose.)

So Blackberry or Apple should just roll over if Pakistan or Russia says so?

some guy wrote:

Couch wrote:... if the courts can compel a bank to open a safety deposit box, why not Apple a phone?

How about because, in the case of a safety deposit box, the bank 1) owns the box 2) the box is in their possession, 3) which is on bank property, 4) the rental contract surely included a clause that permitted them to deliver the contents in response to subpoena, and 5) the act of drilling open the box would not have to be done by a bank employee?

Whereas Apple 1) does not own the phone, 2) does not have possession/control of the data on it, 3) does not have a contract where the owner gave Apple the right to hack their phone to look at his stored data, and not only that, 4) advertised the feature the government wants them to defeat as a positive feature of the phone (i.e., an implied contract that Apple would break by hacking it to let the government get access to the data), and 5) Apple would have to actually perform more than mere ministrial/clerical/document-processing work to comply with the subpoena. (They would have to write, test/debug, and deploy a variant of their operating system for this specific purpose.)

Plus, I promise you that if they give into this request, there will be many, many others. Governments all over the world, the NSA. You would open Pandora's box. This is not a one-time thing. Any assurances that it is are bald-faced lies.

free thoughtpolice wrote:So Blackberry or Apple should just roll over if Pakistan or Russia says so?

Bear, I've always liked you. Why must you ninja me?

Users browsing this forum: DaveDodo007 and 9 guests.

Are guest toilet slaves or allies, I don't care which as I just want some information on my minions.

I really am part of that entitled generation, it's just that my family are fiscally responsible. -.- But I see these 25 year olds acting like I probably would have if I didn't have friends and family with money.

Also Paddy Brown that music is great, glad your show was a success.

Can you imagine, DaveDodo007 how scary the Slymepit must be if those SJWs browsing here are too timid to venture a post?






BOO!

About the Apple thing.

Really the only information the feds are looking for is about who bought the guns. The call data has already been collected. The phone actually wasn't the suspects but belong to his employer so should that complicates it.

Also from what I understand what is being ask of Apple will only apply to this one phone. As in if they want it to do with any other phone it will require unique code every time.

Also it seems that they are only even able to do this because of the age of the phone and the os.


I could have all my information wrong.

Skep tickle wrote:Salman Rushdie: Iranian state media renew fatwa on Satanic Verses author with $600,000 bounty

I can only assume that Skep tickle is promoting this bounty because she wants to see Salman Rushdie dead. /jk

Iran just received an deals from the US to allow them to sell oil on the open market again, along with other easing of restrictions on that nation.

Seeing them renew the call for the open assassination of someone not living in their country makes me think we should reconsider our deals. If Iran wants to play ball with the rest of civilization, I expect them to behave in a more civilize way.

-Soylent f98

To me, the whole Apple thing seems like nothing more than some marketing of the "brand". I fully expect to see them comparing themselves to the usual array of media appropriate cultural "heroes" in a forthcoming advert.

Guest_84d94f98 wrote:

Skep tickle wrote:Salman Rushdie: Iranian state media renew fatwa on Satanic Verses author with $600,000 bounty

I can only assume that Skep tickle is promoting this bounty because she wants to see Salman Rushdie dead. /jk

Iran just received an deals from the US to allow them to sell oil on the open market again, along with other easing of restrictions on that nation.

Seeing them renew the call for the open assassination of someone not living in their country makes me think we should reconsider our deals. If Iran wants to play ball with the rest of civilization, I expect them to behave in a more civilize way.

-Soylent f98

Total agreement. If that's the way they want to play, then fatwas for the whole Iranian clergy.

Richard Dworkins wrote:To me, the whole Apple thing seems like nothing more than some marketing of the "brand". I fully expect to see them comparing themselves to the usual array of media appropriate cultural "heroes" in a forthcoming advert.

They actually are, in their way. There is the fact that thete brand would be horribly damaged overseas if they gave in, especially in totalitarian regimes, but also because this is not a one-time deal, no matter what the govt is saying now.

Their brand.

Imagine trying to sell an Apple phone once they're cracked. China demands that Apple opens a cell phone of a suspected dissident. Legally, they have just as much to do so as the USA or UK. Russia wants info on a journalist. Iran finds a cell phone on a businessman. NSA needs info, they always do.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Total agreement. If that's the way they want to play, then fatwas for the whole Iranian clergy.

Funny you should say that. I was thinking that one of the more effective ways to gum up the works on the whole fatwa/bounty issue would be to dish out bogus fatwas/bounties towards the people & people considered important to those issuing the fatwas/bounties.

Not that I recommend here do that. But if my ass was in the cross hairs, I might consider fighting fire with fire.
- Soylent f98

Tapir wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Kristine is now blue! \o/


(dear old friend of mine. Librarian too. Disgusting)

Witchcraft!

No doxxing!!!

comhcinc wrote:About the Apple thing.

Really the only information the feds are looking for is about who bought the guns. The call data has already been collected. The phone actually wasn't the suspects but belong to his employer so should that complicates it.

Also from what I understand what is being ask of Apple will only apply to this one phone. As in if they want it to do with any other phone it will require unique code every time.

Also it seems that they are only even able to do this because of the age of the phone and the os.


I could have all my information wrong.

So my understanding is this auto-encryption feature requires hardware of iPhone 5 and up, and software of iOS8 and up. I frankly had no idea of the feature until last few days of media reports.

My initial reaction was 'Awesome, Apple!' But then I began to think through the implications and it all gets a bit murkier. Sam Harris's analogies weren't exactly spot on as gas been pointed out above, but he does raise the essential point of whether us all having a digital place the courts can't go is a good thing.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Kristine is now blue! \o/


(dear old friend of mine. Librarian too. Disgusting)

You mean you are a librarian?

feathers wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Kristine is now blue! \o/


(dear old friend of mine. Librarian too. Disgusting)

You mean you are a librarian?

No. the "too" was to emphasize the relationship between "friend" and "librarian" for the joke fail "disgusting" bit.