The Refuge of the Toads

[Sunder]

Took a peek at Hemant's place for the first time in a while. Seems to be back to normal over there (which isn't too complimentary) although there's an abortion thread that's exactly the sort of shitshow you'd expect.

I am eager to see how it looks over there in about a week. Inauguration Day will probably blow up several sites with sizable SJW readerships.

[MacGruberKnows]

Took a peek at Hemant's place for the first time in a while. Seems to be back to normal over there (which isn't too complimentary) although there's an abortion thread that's exactly the sort of shitshow you'd expect.

I am eager to see how it looks over there in about a week. Inauguration Day will probably blow up several sites with sizable SJW readerships.

Still the same. Islamicists kill a bunch of people. Mehnta posts about Christian bumper stickers on some cop-cars in some hick county. Or some idiot preacher saying idiot things. An actual post on Islamicism? Aholes give you a history lesson about what Christians were doing 500 years ago. When I mention that it seems with Christians it's about marginalized idiots saying shit that the vast majority of Christians don't believe, or that it's a history lesson from 500 years ago, and the Muslim shit is current affairs and it's what the vast majority of Muslims believe, I get run of the board.

And these same idiots can't understand how Trump could have won.

Because you are idiots who can only obscure reality with history lessons when we are talking about current affairs and try to put up irrelevant posts about some idiot Christian as if that represents all of Christianity while putting forth MAINSTREAM muslim beliefs as bigotry that colors all Muslims with bigotry while the vast majority of Muslims accept the bigotry.

[Sunder]

I did see a thread about that Galen bloke where a few people ask if being a "secular celebrant" isn't just providing a useless religious-inspired but conspicuously irreligious ritual service that, presumably, you charge for (basically the tofurkey version of faith) . So not everyone who passes through there has lost their minds.

[Sunder]

Still browsing and there's a thread laughing at a religious family because, get this, they started their car in cold weather and then left it running while they went back inside the house (to pray, according to the post, although I've got a hunch this would be less likely to occur during warm weather) and get this, someone stole their car! Hilarious! Vehicular theft is the funniest shit when the victims think differently than you do, amirite?

At least some commenters are calling out the rest.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

I've been gone for several weeeks, not that I post much, but I do read everything and weirdly feel like I know a lot of you sad sacks.

So, I've had to bury my brother; who at 54 died snorkeling for lobsters at dusk, as was his thing, down in front of mum's place. Seems like he had another of the seizures he'd been having in recent weeks since they changed his medication - he's battled mental illness since his teens.

The coroner actually rings me with updates. she's taken an interest as it looks like they might be having a swing at my bro's psychiatrist at the private hospital I'd put him into; who it turns out was using a rip-the-bandaid-off appracoh to my bros's thirty year addiction to benzodiazepines, in the face of the mortality risks now a well know sequalae of too-rapid benzo withdrawl.

So, anyway, that's two boys down and five siblings remaining, I'm the youngest; but we're tight, and mum has handled it bettter than expected. I think she realised her boy had had a rough trot and died doing probably the one thing he still got some pleasure from. The old man died a dozen years back.

Anyway, I've had to skim, but I think the upshot of the last hundred and fifty-odd pages is PZ'z gone full red; as in you-USAians-prob-need-to-reform-the-House-Committee sort of Red;

That, and I was intending to launch into a full-throated treatise as to why lawyers (as arguably opposed to Engineeers or any of the other professions) are, and make, good skeptics; then forced myself to reflect on how actually many of my professional friends and colleagues, whether in academia, private practice, or in-house, seem to fall for her most obvious crap; as evidenced by their cheerfully post and re-tweet Icke, Wolfe, Mercola and the like. So no defence of lawyers-as-better-innate-skeptics from me.

Good to be back reading here. I hope everyone is well and your lives are sprinkled with good bits.

Couch.

Sorry for your brother, truly. Good on him for being in a place he loved. Drop me a pm if you wanna talk.

[Sunder]

Amending that, ONE commenter is calling out the rest. And getting shouted down for showing excess empathy to the Outside Group.

[Aneris]

In "nothing to do with Islam" news...

:popcorn:

You believe retarded infowars? I checked it, the court actually said they believe in Bigfoot.

In reality, they were sentenced by the book, but the court found that their motivation was based on the Israel-Palestine conflict, because they were from the region. I guess the article had already spin, and Watson spins it furher, making it seem they got away scots-free. Don't be an idiot.

[Keating]

Sorry to hear that Couch, best wishes.

[Keating]

In reality, they were sentenced by the book, but the court found that their motivation was based on the Israel-Palestine conflict, because they were from the region. I guess the article had already spin, and Watson spins it furher, making it seem they got away scots-free. Don't be an idiot.

Regardless, it does the raise the question of what would happen if someone decided to protest the policies of Saudi Arabia.

[Aneris]

In "nothing to do with Islam" news...



:popcorn:

Insanity. UK and US troops will soon have to fight their way out of Germany, an unexpected route reversal.

From the linked article...

What’s next? A statue of Hitler at the Brandenburg Gate? […] The attack caused €800 damage to the synagogue. The original synagogue in Wuppertal was burned by Germans during the Kristallnacht pogroms in 1938. Wuppertal has a population of nearly 344,000 and is located in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia.

Eight-hundred euro damage, that's about repainting a wall — that's totally like the holocaust!? I can't even. What happened here? Also, since they were drunk, according to the same article, the Muslim-angle is dubious, too. And how does Hitler fit in here? How can anyone even consider sharing or believing such utter rubbish?

[fuzzy]

Eight-hundred euro damage, that's about repainting a wall — that's totally like the holocaust!? I can't even. What happened here? Also, since they were drunk, according to the same article, the Muslim-angle is dubious, too. And how does Hitler fit in here? How can anyone even consider sharing or believing such utter rubbish?

Some people feel the sentence of probation seems lenient and the logic of separating the motivation specious. What part of the facts are you saying is dumb to believe, or makes people of that opinion "idiots"?

[Aneris]

In reality, they were sentenced by the book, but the court found that their motivation was based on the Israel-Palestine conflict, because they were from the region. I guess the article had already spin, and Watson spins it furher, making it seem they got away scots-free. Don't be an idiot.

Regardless, it does the raise the question of what would happen if someone decided to protest the policies of Saudi Arabia.

What would make the ruling harsher would be if they were nazi arsonists. Something Right Wingers (of the Prison Planet / Infowars crowd) complain about at any other time. Now that the court found the guys didn't quite fit that profile, the complaint is that these rules weren't applied? You got to be kidding me.

[MacGruberKnows]

In reality, they were sentenced by the book, but the court found that their motivation was based on the Israel-Palestine conflict, because they were from the region. I guess the article had already spin, and Watson spins it furher, making it seem they got away scots-free. Don't be an idiot.

Regardless, it does the raise the question of what would happen if someone decided to protest the policies of Saudi Arabia.

What would make the ruling harsher would be if they were nazi arsonists. Something Right Wingers (of the Prison Planet / Infowars crowd) complain about at any other time. Now that the court found the guys didn't quite fit that profile, the complaint is that these rules weren't applied? You got to be kidding me.

I was going to post the video where the black kid and his mother soak him in lighter fluid and sets himself on fire, and then runs out of the shower but apparently youtube has deleted all videos showing it. I wanted to prove the point that if bad things can happen from a few squirts of lighter fluid even worse things can happen from molotov cocktails being tossed around. Idiot went up like a torch. Anyone got a link for the biggest idiot mother and idiot son ever?

[Kirbmarc]

What would make the ruling harsher would be if they were nazi arsonists. Something Right Wingers (of the Prison Planet / Infowars crowd) complain about at any other time. Now that the court found the guys didn't quite fit that profile, the complaint is that these rules weren't applied? You got to be kidding me.

Regardless of the opinions of InfoWars, is there room to believe that the relatively lenient sentence would have been harsher if the perps hadn't been "POCs"? German courts usually punish anti-semitic attacks harshly when they're committed by neo-nazis, it seems that there's a doble standard here. Not a huge scandal, but possibly evidence of the judges were concerned about not being called "racist" or "islamophobic".

[Sunder]

Aneris has some fair criticism here. This is the right doing what we've recently been on the left's case over. If they're concerned about the subtle nuances of the case like how these perpetrators might theoretically have received more lenient treatment than skinheads would have under the same circumstances, well, it's hard to tell over their flat-out lying about what happened and stating or implying that the court found the arson "justified" and didn't punish anyone.

Spinning a story that already supports your position into a lie is more brazen and infuriating than spinning a lie from whole cloth.

[Kirbmarc]

The American political left tried to win a cultural victory..to paint anything and everything even approaching Trump as being entirely beyond the pale and completely unacceptable in any way shape or form. Electing Clinton wasn't the goal...destroying Trump and salting the earth he walks on was the goal.

The problem is that there's a lot of people out there who are not 100% Clinton supporters. A LOT of them. And you're going to alienate a good chunk of the people who don't want to be demonized because *gasp* to them there are pros and cons to weigh on both sides. Even THAT was portrayed as being unacceptable.

That's what all the "disqualify" nonsense was about. They wanted people to be 0% for Trump in any way, shape or form. But that's not realistic at all.

That's dumb. Very dumb. That's how you lose touch with the electorate, especially if Trump turns out to be bad but not worse than Dubya. People tend to lose faith in you if you portray your enemy as the devil incarnate but he turns out to be simply a lousy politician.

[Kirbmarc]

Aneris has some fair criticism here. This is the right doing what we've recently been on the left's case over. If they're concerned about the subtle nuances of the case like how these perpetrators might theoretically have received more lenient treatment than skinheads would have under the same circumstances, well, it's hard to tell over their flat-out lying about what happened and stating or implying that the court found the arson "justified" and didn't punish anyone.

Spinning a story that already supports your position into a lie is more brazen and infuriating than spinning a lie from whole cloth.

That's true. But that's how propaganda works on all sides of aisle. Partisan commentators are dishonest by nature. This is InfoWars we're talking about, they're complete nutters who believe in chemtrails and used to be supporter 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[Steersman]

Aneris has some fair criticism here. This is the right doing what we've recently been on the left's case over. ....

Indeed. Somewhat apropos, The Blank Slateism of the Right. While I haven't read much of it, seems there is more than some justification for the argument that there are many similarities between "the right" and "the left"; frequently a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Seems there's more than a little justification for both to consider the wisdom of the adage about motes and eyes.

[feathers]

Both have done deals with the Mafia.

In the case of [any Italian politician in power] I'd say it's quite likely

I parameterised that sentence for you, so you can reuse it in the future, indefinitely.

[Aneris]

Eight-hundred euro damage, that's about repainting a wall — that's totally like the holocaust!? I can't even. What happened here? Also, since they were drunk, according to the same article, the Muslim-angle is dubious, too. And how does Hitler fit in here? How can anyone even consider sharing or believing such utter rubbish?

Some people feel the sentence of probation seems lenient and the logic of separating the motivation specious. What part of the facts are you saying is dumb to believe, or makes people of that opinion "idiots"?

1. Rigth Wingers complaining about extra harsh laws for Third Reich related offence, but now whine that pro-palestinian middle-easterns aren’t treated by these rules.
2. Comparing a damage of 800€ to “[w]hat’s next? A statue of Hitler at the Brandenburg Gate?” – it should be obvious why a centipede facepalm is not enough for this one, especially when the same people otherwise complain about 1.
3. Giving the impression as if the court was sympathetic to their ideology. Actually, the court actually found they weren’t anti-semtists as the German law usually imagines them, but nonetheless they found that this has a “highly [negative] symbolic value” because of the Holocaust.
4. Giving the impression as if the court was lenient or they got away scots-free. In fact, the defense wanted it ruled as criminal property damage, but the court found it was “severe attempted arson”, and stated that the perpetrators had hazard the consequence of burning the building down.
5. I do not know whether the final sentence is typical or lenient in the grand scheme of things, and none of the sources make a fuss about that, so I assume this is by the book. We do have different sentences than Common or US Law.

[Bhurzum]

You believe retarded infowars?

So, if infowars reports on something, it automatically didn't happen or it is not to be believed? Well, that seems to be a fair and balanced approach.

In reality, they were sentenced by the book, but the court found that their motivation was based on the Israel-Palestine conflict, because they were from the region.

Hang on a minute, infowars reported on this so that means it...didn't happen? Wait, what?

I guess the article had already spin, and Watson spins it furher, making it seem they got away scots-free.

Um, I hate to break it to you , sparky, but not everyone arrives at the same knee-jerk conclusion(s) that you do. When I read the tweet, I assumed nothing - I waited until I read the article itself before the cogs turned and my (half) opinion begun to germinate. Also, at the time of writing, we still don't know enough for me (personally) to arrive at a solid conclusion.

Don't be an idiot.

After you, boxhead.

[Kirbmarc]

And I'd also point out that Hillary kinda benefited from the same thing. She's been on the receiving end of so many manufactured scandals like Benghazi that whenever something with some actual meat comes along like the email scandal people are already inured to it all. Ultimately just being a Gore-tier charisma vacuum hurt her far more than any crap her political opponents or sensationalist media could come up with.

That was huge.

Why she ignored the advice of Bill in favor of the morons who ran her campaign is beyond me.

Almost one billion dollars right down the crapper.

Because Hillary is too SJW-friendly. She started to drink some of the "It's 2016, I'm a woman, it's my turn" kool-aid. She was surrounded by incompetent people chosen not because of their skills, but because of their ethnicity, gender or sexuality, who kept repeating that only the "deplorables" were going to vote for the Nightmare in Orange, and that her "rainbow coalition" was going to carry all the states Obama won and even more. I remember when people said that Clinton was likely to turn Georgia and Texas into swing states. She did better there than Obama but ultimately she lost, and she lost touch with many who voted Obama in traditionally blue states because she didn't even care about them, she thought that they weren't going to vote for Trump no matter what. Actually many of them didn't even switch sides, they just stayed home.

[HunnyBunny]

Sorry to hear about your brother Couch, condolences to your family.

[Kirbmarc]

Rigth Wingers complaining about extra harsh laws for Third Reich related offence, but now whine that pro-palestinian middle-easterns aren’t treated by these rules.

Yes, that's hypocritical on their part, but is there a double standard?

Comparing a damage of 800€ to “[w]hat’s next? A statue of Hitler at the Brandenburg Gate?” – it should be obvious why a centipede facepalm is not enough for this one, especially when the same people otherwise complain about 1.

Yes, that's dumb. But it's part of the game of twitter outrage.

Giving the impression as if the court was sympathetic to their ideology. Actually, the court actually found they weren’t anti-semtists as the German law usually imagines them, but nonetheless they found that this has a “highly [negative] symbolic value” because of the Holocaust.

The problem is that the synagogue is a place of cult, not a political symbol of Israel. All I'm asking is: would neo-nazis, or anyone who's not a "POC" be punished more harshly if they did the same thing? The court seems to have focused on the political vs. racial motivation of the attack, but it's hard to think that there's not a double standard at work if the same act is punished in different ways just for a different alleged motivation.

Giving the impression as if the court was lenient or they got away scots-free. In fact, the defense wanted it ruled as criminal property damage, but the court found it was “severe attempted arson”, and stated that the perpetrators had hazard the consequence of burning the building down.

In order to know if the court was lenient, we need to know if probation is typical sentence for "severe attempted arson", not what the defense wanted.

[Sunder]

When I read the tweet, I assumed nothing

Well you did better than most of the Twitter replies, then.

I think it's at least as misleading as the topic raised a few pages back about the "Women's March." Most people are just going to read the headline and reporters know (or ought to know) that.

[Keating]

I don't support Hate Speech laws. I think all hate speech laws should be taken off the books. That said, if they do exist, I support them being applied equally. A good recent example was the 4 black 'youths' who beat up that mentally handicapped white kid with obvious racial motivation given in the film they themselves posted.

The absolutely worst thing any legal system can do is have laws that apply differently to different groups. A large part of the problem with feminism, for example, is the way that sentencing affects men and women differently, leading to unnecessary conflict and antagonism between the sexes. Racial or religious based legal discrimination is no different in the long run. If you want to see Europe descend into civil war, I can't think of a better way to do it than giving minorities special protections or benefits under the law. Indeed, it doesn't even matter if such benefits actually exists, all that matters is the perception that they do.

[Steersman]

I've been gone for several weeeks, not that I post much, but I do read everything and weirdly feel like I know a lot of you sad sacks.

So, I've had to bury my brother; who at 54 died snorkeling for lobsters at dusk, as was his thing, down in front of mum's place. Seems like he had another of the seizures he'd been having in recent weeks since they changed his medication - he's battled mental illness since his teens.

<snip>

Good to be back reading here. I hope everyone is well and your lives are sprinkled with good bits.

Couch.

That sucks; my condolences, Couch: life's a bitch and all that. We're a dying breed - something like 1% of us, about 70 million on average, shuffle off this mortal coil every year ("Shocking! Why isn't there something being done?"). But decidedly moot question, one that has vexed us through the millennia, as to what is the answer to "life, the universe, and everything" - other than 42. Maybe part of the answer:

Though it does kind of "beg (or beget) the question" as to what that thing is that is "bigger and more more profound" than our own self interest - maybe simply the survival of the species, "the greatest good for the greatest number". Though even there, there's something of the question of "what's in it for me?" A puzzle.

[feathers]

It's very hard for past movies to rate given the development in film making - 2 second cuts, special effects, narrative thru action. Break that approach and you get panned for being "boring" like Batman vs Superman.

So no. The exorcist hasn't aged well compared to modern options like (say) the Blair Witch remake. The tropes have been done to death in a far more sophisticated fashion.

Unless you abhor the current ADHD film style and prefer, say, Once upon a time in the West.

[Kirbmarc]

I've found this piece of news: A young neonazi was charged with attempted arson of a synagogue in 2000. It doesn't say what the sentence was. Is there a way to find out?

[paddybrown]

Zoe Quinn has decided she doesn't have a gender. She's not a girl, but she's not a boy either. Which is, let's face it, such a girl thing to do. Straight women with dyed hair and piercings hijack "queer", cis women with dyed hair and piercings hijack "trans", from the people who actually are those things, for attention (so link is to archive.is, not to Quinn's Tumblr).

This seems to be another area where the regressive left are taking us backwards. Feminism used to say that just because you're a woman, that doesn't mean you have to fulfil the traditional role that's expected of you if you're not comfortable with that. Now it says if you're not comfortable with what's expected of you as a woman, you're not a woman, you're something else.

[paddybrown]

Couch, so sorry to hear about your brother. It's good you have your family around you. Take care of each other.

[Steersman]

Zoe Quinn has decided she doesn't have a gender. She's not a girl, but she's not a boy either. Which is, let's face it, such a girl thing to do. Straight women with dyed hair and piercings hijack "queer", cis women with dyed hair and piercings hijack "trans", from the people who actually are those things, for attention (so link is to archive.is, not to Quinn's Tumblr).

This seems to be another area where the regressive left are taking us backwards. Feminism used to say that just because you're a woman, that doesn't mean you have to fulfil the traditional role that's expected of you if you're not comfortable with that. Now it says if you're not comfortable with what's expected of you as a woman, you're not a woman, you're something else.

Maybe there's some justification for falling back on the biological definition, i.e., man: produces sperm, woman: produces ova? In which case, Zoe is, presumably, female, i.e., a female human, i.e., a woman. If she can't produce either then she is neither.

[Kirbmarc]

I don't support Hate Speech laws. I think all hate speech laws should be taken off the books. That said, if they do exist, I support them being applied equally. A good recent example was the 4 black 'youths' who beat up that mentally handicapped white kid with obvious racial motivation given in the film they themselves posted.

The absolutely worst thing any legal system can do is have laws that apply differently to different groups. A large part of the problem with feminism, for example, is the way that sentencing affects men and women differently, leading to unnecessary conflict and antagonism between the sexes. Racial or religious based legal discrimination is no different in the long run. If you want to see Europe descend into civil war, I can't think of a better way to do it than giving minorities special protections or benefits under the law. Indeed, it doesn't even matter if such benefits actually exists, all that matters is the perception that they do.

Yep, this is an issue. Many seem to consider the sentence of the Palestinian youths who set fire to the synagogue too lenient and the attribution of motivation as "a protest of Israel" likely spurious. It's not just right wingers or InfoWars. This website called Everyday Anti Semitism (very, very unlikely to be related to neo-nazi groups) shares the same opinion:

Volker Beck said that the judgment was in error, saying the “attack on the synagogue was motivated by antisemitism”, asking “what do Jews in Germany have to do with the Middle East conflict? Every bit as much as Christians, non-religious people or Muslims in Germany, namely, absolutely nothing. The ignorance of the judiciary toward antisemitism is for many Jews in Germany especially alarming”

Mr Beck is entirely correct in his analysis. The International Definition of Antisemitism states that “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel”. It is beyond belief that an attempt to set fire to a Synagogue has been minimised as merely “criticism of Israel” by a Court of Law. If even arson attacks against Jewish communal buildings can be passed off as just a case of political protest taken too far, then almost all antisemitism can be minimised

[Bhurzum]

Maybe there's some justification for falling back on the biological definition, i.e., man: produces sperm, woman: produces ova? In which case, Zoe is, presumably, female, i.e., a female human, i.e., a woman. If she can't produce either then she is neither.

Well, if the internet is anything to go by, Quinn has a higher sperm-count than five guys!

:D

[feathers]

I don't recall any posts like that, just discussing Trump. One would argue that even accepting that people had their reasons for voting for the man, a rational person would examine the warts as well. Eyes wide open and all of that.

I would argue that, if you want to vote for a toad, you should examine the warts first.

[Kirbmarc]

Zoe Quinn has decided she doesn't have a gender. She's not a girl, but she's not a boy either. Which is, let's face it, such a girl thing to do. Straight women with dyed hair and piercings hijack "queer", cis women with dyed hair and piercings hijack "trans", from the people who actually are those things, for attention (so link is to archive.is, not to Quinn's Tumblr).

This seems to be another area where the regressive left are taking us backwards. Feminism used to say that just because you're a woman, that doesn't mean you have to fulfil the traditional role that's expected of you if you're not comfortable with that. Now it says if you're not comfortable with what's expected of you as a woman, you're not a woman, you're something else.

This part is interesting:

I would, however, like to start working toward capturing a fraction of the magic of David Bowie or Prince or any of the number of the queer genderfucking icons we lost last year. There are some extremely stylish shoes that need filling.

You wish, Zoe, you wish. They have something you lack, called "talent". They produced things people actually enjoyed, instead of being famous for having other people write a shitty Choose Your Own Adventure game for game, for being involved in SJW circles and for playing the victim constantly.

[Sunder]

Literally who thinks you fill someone's shoes by pissing in them.

[paddybrown]

It's very hard for past movies to rate given the development in film making - 2 second cuts, special effects, narrative thru action. Break that approach and you get panned for being "boring" like Batman vs Superman.

So no. The exorcist hasn't aged well compared to modern options like (say) the Blair Witch remake. The tropes have been done to death in a far more sophisticated fashion.

Unless you abhor the current ADHD film style and prefer, say, Once upon a time in the West.

There's something underrated about the creative use of boredom that cinema can use, because the audience are in for two hours. If you let it stretch out for a bit then when the exciting thing happens, it's even more exciting because of the contrast. If you're film's all shouting and running about and shooting machine guns and explosions and nothing else, it gets tedious.

One of my favourite examples of creative boredom is this song, "Are We In Trouble Now", by Mark Knopfler. It's such an extreme example I have to wonder if he did it deliberately to take the piss. It's a really dull song. A slow, boring country song performed in a really low-energy way, even by Knopfler's standards. Two verses, guitar solo, piano solo, bridge, verse. Finally, the closing guitar solo to the chords of the bridge. He goes through it four times, and it's all generic Knopfler-by-numbers. A few times he sounds like he's leading into something that'll pick up the energy, but no, he goes back to being boring. Then, finally, the first line of the fifth iteration of the bridge (about 5.09), he plays an exquisite couple of bars. And then boring again as it fades out.

[youtube][/youtube]

I find it funny, anyway.

[Steersman]

I don't recall any posts like that, just discussing Trump. One would argue that even accepting that people had their reasons for voting for the man, a rational person would examine the warts as well. Eyes wide open and all of that.

I would argue that, if you want to vote for a toad, you should examine the warts first.

Probably wise to consider the warts on the alternatives too.

[paddybrown]

This part is interesting:

I would, however, like to start working toward capturing a fraction of the magic of David Bowie or Prince or any of the number of the queer genderfucking icons we lost last year. There are some extremely stylish shoes that need filling.

You wish, Zoe, you wish. They have something you lack, called "talent". They produced things people actually enjoyed, instead of being famous for having other people write a shitty Choose Your Own Adventure game for game, for being involved in SJW circles and for playing the victim constantly.

That's the thing, too. People have always played with being androgynous, testing the boundaries to what's appropriate to their gender - going back to the flappers in the 1920s, to glam rock in the 70s, the New Romantics in the 80s, the Riot Grrls in the 90s and so on. None of them thought they were some unprecedentedly new category of human.

[Steersman]

Maybe there's some justification for falling back on the biological definition, i.e., man: produces sperm, woman: produces ova? In which case, Zoe is, presumably, female, i.e., a female human, i.e., a woman. If she can't produce either then she is neither.

Well, if the internet is anything to go by, Quinn has a higher sperm-count than five guys!

:D

:-) Her own or those of other people (men)? Not that I would throw stones at her for that reason alone.

[Kirbmarc]

Literally who thinks you fill someone's shoes by pissing in them.

Well, that's one way of filling things. But then you can't complain if people say you're full of piss.

[Kirbmarc]

This part is interesting:

I would, however, like to start working toward capturing a fraction of the magic of David Bowie or Prince or any of the number of the queer genderfucking icons we lost last year. There are some extremely stylish shoes that need filling.

You wish, Zoe, you wish. They have something you lack, called "talent". They produced things people actually enjoyed, instead of being famous for having other people write a shitty Choose Your Own Adventure game for game, for being involved in SJW circles and for playing the victim constantly.

That's the thing, too. People have always played with being androgynous, testing the boundaries to what's appropriate to their gender - going back to the flappers in the 1920s, to glam rock in the 70s, the New Romantics in the 80s, the Riot Grrls in the 90s and so on. None of them thought they were some unprecedentedly new category of human.

Because the idea was to tear down stereotypes by being rebels and facing social rejection with a smile, not to build new protected classes which have to be coddled by a nanny state/nanny university.

[Steersman]

I don't support Hate Speech laws. I think all hate speech laws should be taken off the books. That said, if they do exist, I support them being applied equally. A good recent example was the 4 black 'youths' who beat up that mentally handicapped white kid with obvious racial motivation given in the film they themselves posted.

The absolutely worst thing any legal system can do is have laws that apply differently to different groups. A large part of the problem with feminism, for example, is the way that sentencing affects men and women differently, leading to unnecessary conflict and antagonism between the sexes. Racial or religious based legal discrimination is no different in the long run. If you want to see Europe descend into civil war, I can't think of a better way to do it than giving minorities special protections or benefits under the law. Indeed, it doesn't even matter if such benefits actually exists, all that matters is the perception that they do.

Generally agree about the "laws that apply different to different groups", although even that seems somewhat moot. You in favour, for example, of laws that allow designated parking for handicapped people? You think it should be "first come, first served, no exceptions"?

But seems to be a similar case with hate speech laws: I'd cheerfully designate (trying to get Trump to designate) the Quran as such and then let the chips fall where they may. Seems rather unwise to insist on absolutes (tolerance for example) - there being very few of those about, the speed of light maybe being an exception. Although one might argue that my definitions for "man" (in the "marked" sense - to use Aneris' phrasing - if I'm not mistaken) and "woman" is such an absolute but definitions seem a different context and concept.

[Bhurzum]

Her own or those of other people (men)?

Again, according to internet-theory, she stores it internally so...

Not that I would throw stones at her for that reason alone.

Convert to Islam and you'll be pretty much commanded to do it! Hell, on the walk home from the stoning you can torch a synagogue and the German soft-cocks will let you off with a fine.

How sweet is that?

Seig Allahu, mein Imam!

[CommanderTuvok]

So, Zoe Quinn jumps on the non-gender bandwagon. Quelle surprise.

She's still a fucking bullying fraud, whatever she decides to class herself as.

[Hunt]

Sorry to hear about it, Couch.

[Brive1987]

It's very hard for past movies to rate given the development in film making - 2 second cuts, special effects, narrative thru action. Break that approach and you get panned for being "boring" like Batman vs Superman.

So no. The exorcist hasn't aged well compared to modern options like (say) the Blair Witch remake. The tropes have been done to death in a far more sophisticated fashion.

Unless you abhor the current ADHD film style and prefer, say, Once upon a time in the West.

Oh I'm not sold on ADHA - but the rest of the world, esp the young uns are.

And while I may not love transformers I can still see that what used to be classics in my mind no longer "work" properly.

Great Expectations
If
Ghost and Mrs Muir
Roman Holiday
Affair to remember
Exorcist
Butch Cassidy
Xmas Vacation
The Birds
Etc ....

It's like when Jackson shat in the well of Tolkien with elves using shields to surf down the stairs of Helms Deep. Everything rrevocably changed. And not for the better.

[Brive1987]

I've been gone for several weeeks, not that I post much, but I do read everything and weirdly feel like I know a lot of you sad sacks.

So, I've had to bury my brother; who at 54 died snorkeling for lobsters at dusk, as was his thing, down in front of mum's place. Seems like he had another of the seizures he'd been having in recent weeks since they changed his medication - he's battled mental illness since his teens.

The coroner actually rings me with updates. she's taken an interest as it looks like they might be having a swing at my bro's psychiatrist at the private hospital I'd put him into; who it turns out was using a rip-the-bandaid-off appracoh to my bros's thirty year addiction to benzodiazepines, in the face of the mortality risks now a well know sequalae of too-rapid benzo withdrawl.

So, anyway, that's two boys down and five siblings remaining, I'm the youngest; but we're tight, and mum has handled it bettter than expected. I think she realised her boy had had a rough trot and died doing probably the one thing he still got some pleasure from. The old man died a dozen years back.

Anyway, I've had to skim, but I think the upshot of the last hundred and fifty-odd pages is PZ'z gone full red; as in you-USAians-prob-need-to-reform-the-House-Committee sort of Red;

That, and I was intending to launch into a full-throated treatise as to why lawyers (as arguably opposed to Engineeers or any of the other professions) are, and make, good skeptics; then forced myself to reflect on how actually many of my professional friends and colleagues, whether in academia, private practice, or in-house, seem to fall for her most obvious crap; as evidenced by their cheerfully post and re-tweet Icke, Wolfe, Mercola and the like. So no defence of lawyers-as-better-innate-skeptics from me.

Good to be back reading here. I hope everyone is well and your lives are sprinkled with good bits.

Couch.

There's a beer with your name on it at the Bourbon whenever you have the spoons.

We can make 2017 Great Again.

[Suet Cardigan]

How Can Literature Resist Islamophobia? One Writer Answers: Gay Muslim Furry Romance.

The Time He Desires is the story of Aziz, a cheetah in a faltering heterosexual marriage who explores the boundaries of his sexuality with the help of a gay fox.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017 ... trump.html

Please kill me now.

[zou3gou3]

I've found this piece of news: A young neonazi was charged with attempted arson of a synagogue in 2000. It doesn't say what the sentence was. Is there a way to find out?

Two offenders were sent to prison. One got three years, one 2 years and 3 months. The driver was put on probation.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschla ... 84924.html

[DrokkIt]

So no. The exorcist hasn't aged well compared to modern options like (say) the Blair Witch remake. The tropes have been done to death in a far more sophisticated fashion.

Now this I completely disagree on.

Exorcist has a tangible atmosphere of malevolence that is sorely lacking from most horror films. There is something powerful about it that remains vital far beyond the point where editing tricks like jump scares and effects are no longer novel.

Compared to that I find most modern horror really dull. Especially if you aren't jumpy (I'm not) there is often very little existential horror or originality in any of the ideas now. You can make a better-looking film, but the vibe and performances aren't so easy to create on demand.

If you think of any of the big remakes now, they almost always "look better" but are they better films? Usually not.

Agreed. I'm no movie connoisseur but that stark, unadorned ugliness jumped out at me when I first saw it in my teens. Long, slow paced dialogues with few scene cuts or mood music. Emotionally jarring horror scene. Then right back to the low energy dialogue.

Maybe it was the low energy of it all that did it for me. Not much identifiably human to it. The scenes were so cold. You felt like a disinterested onlooker. Exorcist 3 was just the opposite. Warm, developed characters. Faster scene cuts. Background music. It engaged you. Totally different flavor.

I get what Brive is saying inasmuch as the film culture/ what appeals to young people has changed, but I also know when I was a teenager my taste in a lot of stuff was immature and shitty and gradually you find your way back to things that are all-time greats.

There is also a specific irony to this because horror film makers constantly try to recapture the success (critical and financial) of THE EXORCIST and THE SHINING, you see wholesale tropes that were invented by these films over and over again.

[Kirbmarc]

I've found this piece of news: A young neonazi was charged with attempted arson of a synagogue in 2000. It doesn't say what the sentence was. Is there a way to find out?

Two offenders were sent to prison. One got three years, one 2 years and 3 months. The driver was put on probation.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschla ... 84924.html

Thanks. I'd say that it's justified to say that in the cases of Palestinian-German would-be arsonists the justice system was more lenient, and that the idea that the attempted arson was due to a political protest over Israel's policies played a role. Since the synagogue isn't a political entity of Israel it's also justified to say that there's room to doubt about how justified the more lenient stand was, and there's room to speculate that that part of the reason for the sentence might have been a desire not to be labeled as racist or islamophobic.

[Aneris]

Rigth Wingers complaining about extra harsh laws for Third Reich related offence, but now whine that pro-palestinian middle-easterns aren’t treated by these rules.

Yes, that's hypocritical on their part, but is there a double standard?

Comparing a damage of 800€ to “[w]hat’s next? A statue of Hitler at the Brandenburg Gate?” – it should be obvious why a centipede facepalm is not enough for this one, especially when the same people otherwise complain about 1.

Yes, that's dumb. But it's part of the game of twitter outrage.

Giving the impression as if the court was sympathetic to their ideology. Actually, the court actually found they weren’t anti-semtists as the German law usually imagines them, but nonetheless they found that this has a “highly [negative] symbolic value” because of the Holocaust.

The problem is that the synagogue is a place of cult, not a political symbol of Israel. All I'm asking is: would neo-nazis, or anyone who's not a "POC" be punished more harshly if they did the same thing? The court seems to have focused on the political vs. racial motivation of the attack, but it's hard to think that there's not a double standard at work if the same act is punished in different ways just for a different alleged motivation.

Giving the impression as if the court was lenient or they got away scots-free. In fact, the defense wanted it ruled as criminal property damage, but the court found it was “severe attempted arson”, and stated that the perpetrators had hazard the consequence of burning the building down.

In order to know if the court was lenient, we need to know if probation is typical sentence for "severe attempted arson", not what the defense wanted.

1. You find it important to nickpick whether your own word "doublestandard" fits, in context of extremely distorted tweets just to play the "yes, but" game? Actually, Jews don't complain about harsh anti-neo-nazi laws. It's Right Wingers who one time sympathize with conspiracy theorist and holocaust deniers, and another time with Israel. That doesn't go together. I don't see what point you are trying to make, or why you deem it necessary to play nitpicky contrarian with goal post moving, while implicitly defending extremly distorted news.
2. No, the tweet is not part of the usual twitter outrage. It is beyond the pale. The perpetrators aren't neo nazis, and 800€ damage even to a synagogue is not the first step to the death of millions of jews, neither are we at risk of trying to erect a Hitler statue. And no, I am not defending the perpetrators, either. I hate this. I only put it into perspective, and explained the context. I detest this trick (of course a SJW favourite), and I'm really allergic to that stuff. It must be possible to accept that this isn't quite like murdering millions of jews, without being accused of trivializing it.
3. Again, the court addressed the historical and symbolical weight. The court was taking it seriously. But that perpetrators weren't the type of anti-semites the German Law has in mind, hence this does not apply.
4. The point here is that if they wanted to go with the lenient ruling, they could have followed the assessment of the defence, but they didn't. You can always go deeper into the rabbit hole and somehow rescue Watson, his lunatic tweet, or the extremely hyperbolic article. Also, understand that Nazism in Germany has historical context and is not just some random (even dangerous) fringe group. They represent a former government, with aspirations to overthrow and re-install the former system, and they are thus more on the territory of treason, whereas another similar group does not meet such criteria. In addition to the obvious historical significance, there is also the de-nazification imposed by the allies. Obvious being obvious, none of these contexts apply to asylum seekers from the Middle East.

Final problem...

Two offenders were sent to prison. One got three years, one 2 years and 3 months. The driver was put on probation.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschla ... 84924.html

Thanks. I'd say that it's justified to say that in the cases of Palestinian-German would-be arsonists the justice system was more lenient, and that the idea that the attempted arson was due to a political protest over Israel's policies played a role. Since the synagogue isn't a political entity of Israel it's also justified to say that there's room to doubt about how justified the more lenient stand was, and there's room to speculate that that part of the reason for the sentence might have been a desire not to be labeled as racist or islamophobic.

That's of course unwinnable. Would they have punished middle-easterners like Neo Nazis, they'd trivialize the special context. Prison Planet and Infowars people are imbeciles, and their tweet and the article should not even merit a discussion.

[katamari Damassi]

Still on my honeymoon, now in St Thomas awaiting an emergency CT of my brain. Yesterday in St Kitts I had an episode of vertigo and was unable to locate my left arm-it took me several attempts to put my left hand into my pocket. I also had tingling all over my left side. The ship doctor thinks it was a transitory blood clot that cleared itself, but ordered this CT and arranged for it to be done in St Thomas. My blood pressure is way up as a result and I'm supposed to be taking it easy, but I'm about to lose it at this clinic because despite having good insurance they're demanding multiple authorizations before they'll do anything. I think nothing less than a valise full of cash will satisfy them. Keep in mind St Thomas is a US territory. If I have a stroke it will be their fault.

Get well. :(

Back in Ft Lauderdale and feeling fine. CT was clear-except for chronic sinusitis-and neck Dopplers revealed all clear. I was told my blood pressure would be elevated for a few days, and I've been taking it easy. Apart from that episode, I've had a good time. Met some really interesting people-including this group of really fun lesbians.
Now I just need to catch up here.

[katamari Damassi]

Husband thinks I'm nuts, but I blame my episode on a bad deep tissue massage I had onboard. I don't think the woman is a licensed masseuse. I read about a woman who had a fatal stroke a day or so after getting an adjustment from a chiropractor.

[Hunt]

Still on my honeymoon, now in St Thomas awaiting an emergency CT of my brain. Yesterday in St Kitts I had an episode of vertigo and was unable to locate my left arm-it took me several attempts to put my left hand into my pocket. I also had tingling all over my left side. The ship doctor thinks it was a transitory blood clot that cleared itself, but ordered this CT and arranged for it to be done in St Thomas. My blood pressure is way up as a result and I'm supposed to be taking it easy, but I'm about to lose it at this clinic because despite having good insurance they're demanding multiple authorizations before they'll do anything. I think nothing less than a valise full of cash will satisfy them. Keep in mind St Thomas is a US territory. If I have a stroke it will be their fault.

Get well. :(

Back in Ft Lauderdale and feeling fine. CT was clear-except for chronic sinusitis-and neck Dopplers revealed all clear. I was told my blood pressure would be elevated for a few days, and I've been taking it easy. Apart from that episode, I've had a good time. Met some really interesting people-including this group of really fun lesbians.
Now I just need to catch up here.

Sometimes it takes a while to recover from vacations.

[Hunt]

Husband thinks I'm nuts, but I blame my episode on a bad deep tissue massage I had onboard. I don't think the woman is a licensed masseuse. I read about a woman who had a fatal stroke a day or so after getting an adjustment from a chiropractor.

Are you kidding? That shit happens all the time. You're lucky you made it off that boat alive.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Damn it Phil.... pick up this Sherman Tank in France for $440,000!

http://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-w ... _know.html

Tempting, but I just bought my bike yesterday afternoon and don't have the money for an extra vehicle...

[Kirbmarc]

You find it important to nickpick whether your own word "doublestandard" fits, in context of extremely distorted tweets just to play the "yes, but" game? Actually, Jews don't complain about harsh anti-neo-nazi laws. It's Right Wingers who one time sympathize with conspiracy theorist and holocaust deniers, and another time with Israel. That doesn't go together. I don't see what point you are trying to make, or why you deem it necessary to play nitpicky contrarian with goal post moving, while implicitly defending extremly distorted news.

Jews, as I've shown, have complained that the sentence was too lenient and could leave to other attacks on synagogues being punished less harshly if the perps justify themselves with the spurious "it's actually about criticism of Israel" justification.

I don't care about InfoWars. I care about the fact that if you're a Palestinian-German anti-semite who sets fire to a synagogue you get a more lenient sentence than if you're a neo-nazi anti-semite who does the same thing. Yes, that's a double standard.

No, the tweet is not part of the usual twitter outrage. It is beyond the pale. The perpetrators aren't neo nazis, and 800€ damage even to a synagogue is not the first step to the death of millions of jews, neither are we at risk of trying to erect a Hitler statue. And no, I am not defending the perpetrators, either. I hate this. I only put it into perspective, and explained the context. I detest this trick (of course a SJW favourite), and I'm really allergic to that stuff. It must be possible to accept that this isn't quite like murdering millions of jews, without being accused of trivializing it.

I know you're not defending the perps, I've never said you were. And yes, saying that this is the first step towards deaths of millions of jews is stupid, and so is saying that they'll erect a Hitler statue next. I never said you were trivializing this, either.

I'm simply baffled by what is a clear double standards, when a certain group of people is punished less harshly just because they're a certain group of people, even though the crime they committed was the same.

Again, the court addressed the historical and symbolical weight. The court was taking it seriously. But that perpetrators weren't the type of anti-semites the German Law has in mind, hence this does not apply.

Many people (including Jews from The Jewish Press) disagree and think that all anti-semitic attacks should be punished in the same way. I tend to agree and think that punishing perps differently for the same acts is a double standard.

The point here is that if they wanted to go with the lenient ruling, they could have followed the assessment of the defence, but they didn't. You can always go deeper into the rabbit hole and somehow rescue Watson, his lunatic tweet, or the extremely hyperbolic article. Also, understand that Nazism in Germany has historical context and is not just some random (even dangerous) fringe group. They represent a former government, with aspirations to overthrow and re-install the former system, and they are thus more on the territory of treason, whereas another similar group does not meet such criteria. In addition to the obvious historical significance, there is also the de-nazification imposed by the allies. Obvious being obvious, none of these contexts apply to asylum seekers from the Middle East.

They aren't asylum seekers, they are Palestinian-German. I never said that they were asylum seekers and for that matter neither did Watson or InfoWars. You're putting words in other people's mouths.

I'm not interested in defending Watson or InfoWars, they're nutty conspiracy theorist blowhard with little to no redeeming qualities. My point is that other people are also concerned by the blatant double standard, including "The Jewish Press" and "Everyday Anti Semitism", hardly bastions of right-wing craziness.

That's of course unwinnable. Would they have punished middle-easterners like Neo Nazis, they'd trivialize the special context. Prison Planet and Infowars people are imbeciles, and their tweet and the article should not even merit a discussion.

Why would punish people the same way for the same act trivialize anything? If anything jewish-friendly media seems to be offended by the more lenient punishment for anti-semitic attacks.

Prison Planet and InfoWars are imbeciles and their article is hyperbolic and stupid, but the same point was made by others which aren't, like the aforementioned Jewish Press, Everyday Anti-Semitism and even Razib Khan: