Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!

#8521

Keating wrote:
Aneris wrote:Do you deny that inviting a fringe Far Right Evangelical to your podcast, to speak about "traditional values" positively is furthering a Republican project? If you disagree, is it absolutely impossible for you to even see the point?
Yes, I deny both. There are only 3 ways to solve any conflict:
1. Negotiation
2. Conquest
3. Submission

If you aren't prepared to even talk to someone you have extreme disagreements with (in good faith*), then you are reduced to either violently suppressing them or being violently suppressed by them. Only one of those options seems preferable to me.

#TeamKeating

#8522

It's interesting to think that the sort of argumentation that J S Mill was promoting had a rachetting effect that allowed the freedoms that we have come to expect in modern society.

The SJWs seem to have a complete lack of faith in human nature - int that they seem to think that if such arguments are allowed to take place today there will be a de-rachetting effect - so that we will regress back to Victorian society values (and beyond).

#8523

Lsuoma wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:If anybody else cares, Com is in an area where internet connection is hard to come by, so he's not able to log in and comment as much as he'd like.
Not me.

#TeamFascist

#8524

MarcusAu wrote:It's interesting to think that the sort of argumentation that J S Mill was promoting had a rachetting effect that allowed the freedoms that we have come to expect in modern society.

The SJWs seem to have a complete lack of faith in human nature - int that they seem to think that if such arguments are allowed to take place today there will be a de-rachetting effect - so that we will regress back to Victorian society values (and beyond).

What we've seen, particularly obviously in #gamergate, is that the people who advocate loudest for SJW control are those that later turn out to be rapists, abusers, perverts, hate-crime fakers and (hilariously) arms dealers. There's a reason the loudest have no faith in human nature... they themselves are fundamentally broken.

#8525

Also they don't seem to think that the arguments are about truth claims - ie they are purely political theatre (and the other side may not be arguing in good faith anyway).

#8526

rayshul wrote:
What we've seen, particularly obviously in #gamergate, is that the people who advocate loudest for SJW control are those that later turn out to be rapists, abusers, perverts, hate-crime fakers and (hilariously) arms dealers. There's a reason the loudest have no faith in human nature... they themselves are fundamentally broken.

Now wait just a minute - what have you got against perverts?

#8527

MarcusAu wrote:It's interesting to think that the sort of argumentation that J S Mill was promoting had a rachetting effect that allowed the freedoms that we have come to expect in modern society.

The SJWs seem to have a complete lack of faith in human nature - int that they seem to think that if such arguments are allowed to take place today there will be a de-rachetting effect - so that we will regress back to Victorian society values (and beyond).

I see it the opposite way. It's not they don't have enough faith in human nature, it's that they have way too much faith in their own personal goodness and in the goodness of the people they deem worthy.

Authoritarians in general are often misguided idealists at first, people who wish to improve the world by putting themselves in charge, who think that they can bring forth an utopia by getting rid of the Evil Wrongthinkers. Hell, even Hitler was an idealist: he had an image of a Thousand Years Reich of prosperity and progress through strength and struggle for the people he deemed worthy, namely those who triumphed thanks to their superior inner qualities.

I think that in order to reject authoritarianism you need not to have too much faith in ideals or utopias and accept the reality is always going to be flawed and improvements take time, effort and maintenance, not to mention pragmatism and compromises, accepting that there's always going to be someone who's not on board with your ideas.

Also there's never going to be a world completely without flaws or corruption or evil or people trying to cheat the system or people with small-minded and petty projects and ideas or bigotry and prejudice or irrationality or stupidity or disease or suffering, etc. etc.

People are flawed, that's why they should never have too much power over other people, because it's far too easy to abuse your power either for selfish or even misguided idealist goals. The only way to reduce (not eliminate, that's impossible) abuses of power is to keep power limited, controlled, checked and balanced. Nobody is good enough or smart enough or rational enough or unbiased enough to have unlimited power over others. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

#8528

So ... apparently Sye Ten Atheist's youtube channel is back, less a few problematic videos.

http://i.imgur.com/DhH9HJg.jpg
(this is a still from his channel promo )
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4fYb- ... d0NKo-0q7A

#8529

Kirbmarc - I'm sure that they believe that things would be much better if there was an enlightened elite political class guiding society from above.

If only we could come up with a criteria to determine who would qualify for such a group.

#8530

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:If anybody else cares, Com is in an area where internet connection is hard to come by, so he's not able to log in and comment as much as he'd like.

He sends his love and hopes to be back soon.

It's a good thing twitter runs on gas or he'd have his lifeline to Shoe cut as well.

#8531

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Aneris wrote:
Guest_440911e7 wrote:How does anyone refute Charles Murray without having listened to what Charles Murray says?

How do I refute a fringe Far Right Evangelical speaking about traditional values unless I've heard what they've had to say?

Do I just sign up for what a blogger at Salon tells me they said?

Milo may have set fire to the Commons, but was was the Commons dry enough to burn?
Nobody said anything on Murray, you're missing pages of contexts.
Perhaps it would help if you clarified your position in a concise summary. To those not following the exchange very well you do seem to be endorsing censorship, guilt by association, slippery-slope arguments and the silencing of certain platforms by financial disincentive. Your ad homs certainly don't help. So if you are genuinely interested in making your point, you might consider stating your position plainly.

You must have meant Kirbmarc. Or Service Dog. I have him on ignore and don't know what he's on about with "financial disincentive" and the likes.

#8532

MarcusAu wrote:Kirbmarc - I'm sure that they believe that things would be much better if there was an enlightened elite political class guiding society from above.

If only we could come up with a criteria to determine who would qualify for such a group.

Yeah, it's funny how some people can believe that human beings are too rotten to be left without an enlightened elite political class guiding them when that class is made up by human beings who are supposedly too rotten to govern themselves but good enough to govern others.

I guess that they think that they or their favorite god-emperors are somehow special and different from other human beings. In the case of SJWs I think that they see their Superior Empathy as separating them from the rabble, even though it's only window-dressing for hating the "right" people.

#8533

Aneris wrote:Perhaps it would help if you clarified your position in a concise summary. To those not following the exchange very well you do seem to be endorsing censorship, guilt by association, slippery-slope arguments and the silencing of certain platforms by financial disincentive. Your ad homs certainly don't help. So if you are genuinely interested in making your point, you might consider stating your position plainly.

You must have meant Kirbmarc. Or Service Dog. I have him on ignore and don't know what he's on about with "financial disincentive" and the likes.[/quote]

When have I endorsed censorship, Aneris? Or engaged in guilt by associaton and proposed silencing platforms? You haven't endorsed censorship (not beyond of what German laws on holocaust denial and nazi symbols, at least, and you have refused to give an explicit opinion on those laws anyway) but when it comes to guilt by association...well read my sign.

#8534

Suet Cardigan wrote:From the BBC:
"Artificial intelligence: How to avoid racist algorithms"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39533308

It should be called "How to distort the truth by leaving out Asian employees"

Ms Buolamwini thinks the situation has arisen partly because of the well-documented lack of diversity within the tech industry itself.
Every year the tech giants release diversity reports and they make for grim reading.
Google's latest figures (January 2016) state that 19% of its tech staff are women and just 1% are black.
At Microsoft in September 2016 17.5% of the tech workforce were women and 2.7% black or African American.
At Facebook in June 2016 its US tech staff were 17% women and 1% black.

What they don’t mention is the percentage of Asian staff:
32% at Google,
30.5% at Microsoft,
38% at Facebook.

Or the fact that the listed companies are begging for more "diverse" applicants for open positions.

What are the percentages of diversity in the schools that educate or train people for the positions that a tech company could use? ( students not teachers)

You cannot hire what doesn't come in the door with the appropriate skills.

My Union went on active campaigns to recruit women for years, very few responded.

#8535

MarcusAu wrote:I think this is the TL;DR vid - that was referred to earlier:

[youtube][/youtube]

Yes it is. I suck at embedding. Many thanks!

#8536

Kirbmarc wrote:
Aneris wrote:You must have meant Kirbmarc. Or Service Dog. I have him on ignore and don't know what he's on about with "financial disincentive" and the likes.
When have I endorsed censorship, Aneris? Or engaged in guilt by associaton and proposed silencing platforms? You haven't endorsed censorship (not beyond of what German laws on holocaust denial and nazi symbols, at least, and you have refused to give an explicit opinion on those laws anyway) but when it comes to guilt by association...well read my sign.

I also don't favour the old laws, I explained they are in place for a long time. Also, there is no guilty by association, either. It is not fallacious to argue that giving a stage for Person X is promoting the cause of Person X, even if unwittingly or naively. Have you heard of product placement and native advertisment? Think about it, and let's agree to disagree.

#8537

Aneris wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
Aneris wrote:You must have meant Kirbmarc. Or Service Dog. I have him on ignore and don't know what he's on about with "financial disincentive" and the likes.
When have I endorsed censorship, Aneris? Or engaged in guilt by association and proposed silencing platforms? You haven't endorsed censorship (not beyond of what German laws on holocaust denial and nazi symbols, at least, and you have refused to give an explicit opinion on those laws anyway) but when it comes to guilt by association...well read my sign.
I also don't favour the old laws, I explained they are in place for a long time. Also, there is no guilty by association, either. It is not fallacious to argue that giving a stage for Person X is promoting the cause of Person X, even if unwittingly or naively. Have you heard of product placement and native advertisment? Think about it, and let's agree to disagree.

The guilt by association bit I was talking about isn't about Sargon&Co, there's nothing about Sargon&Co in my signature (even though I think you're confusing "giving a stage" with "defending someone's rights").

No your use of guilt of association I was talking about, that people can read in my signature, is what you've written about me and Service Dog (neither of us have "given a stage" to anyone: we don't have any stages to give). It's easy to say "let's agree to disagree" after calling someone as being "in service of a neo-nazi agenda" just because they disagreed with you.

I wonder if you would think it'd be rational for someone to call you "in service of a neo-marxist agenda" because of your support for the antifa movement. I think you'd be well within the rights to call that someone intellectually dishonest for using guilt by association. Do you agree with me?

#8538

Couple of catch ups.

I would date the A/S schism from EG to the failure of the big name attacks (their Stalingrad) with the fall of Berlin being the Orbit split. Trump was the counter revolution on a wider SJ front.

The AS SJW's goal was to topple the male leadership, terraform conventions into their image, establish own-brand alternatives and develop the nex-gen social media figureheads.

Aborted CoC wars, WiS whiteanting, Skepticon fails, blog network fails and most importantly failed swamp draining leading to general dissociation crueled the game. Pity the war was won at the cost of the village though.

...........

RW has derided the dredging up of the de-planed doctors criminal record as victim blaming. Seems sex for drugs isn't a problem for her. Figures. Brian Dunning will be relieved to hear of this "slate clean" approach.

http://i.imgur.com/y13XYo7.jpg

...........

Indy is shitting on Watson because he can.

...........

The post is over. Thought I'd something more to say.

#8539

Why is it usually those with communications, gender studies, journalism and arts degrees usually are the ones demanding "diversity in tech? Why didn't they themselves study for a tech career? ( cough, cough..hard work..cough cough)

#8540

Aneris wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
Aneris wrote:You must have meant Kirbmarc. Or Service Dog. I have him on ignore and don't know what he's on about with "financial disincentive" and the likes.
When have I endorsed censorship, Aneris? Or engaged in guilt by associaton and proposed silencing platforms? You haven't endorsed censorship (not beyond of what German laws on holocaust denial and nazi symbols, at least, and you have refused to give an explicit opinion on those laws anyway) but when it comes to guilt by association...well read my sign.
I also don't favour the old laws, I explained they are in place for a long time. Also, there is no guilty by association, either. It is not fallacious to argue that giving a stage for Person X is promoting the cause of Person X, even if unwittingly or naively. Have you heard of product placement and native advertisment? Think about it, and let's agree to disagree.

You can certainly argue that "giving a stage ... is promoting a cause", although that doesn't necessarily mean that it is always true or never justified. You might look at it from a cost-benefit analysis: sure, there might be some promotion of, say, creationism if Dawkins were to "debate" Ken Ham, but the long-term benefits of doing so might, probably does, outweigh the short-term costs.

But, more generally relative to the Aneris-Kirbmarc-ServiceDog "schism", while I sympathize with aspects of your apparent if somewhat inchoate or incoherent position, it also seems that you're being rather dogmatic, almost "SJW-ish" in your "four legs good, two legs bad" rejection of any and all "consorting with the enemy". Rather uncharacteristic.

And, even somewhat more generally, I kind of get the impression that that schism is kind of typical of far too many online "debates" and discussions: everyone, or at least many people, misinterpreting each other and riding madly off in all directions. Kind of analogous ("core of cognition"!) to two people, one in the north quadrant and one in the east, looking at a barn painted red on the north side and green on the east. And the first person says the barn is entirely red and the second person says entirely green with neither being much willing to see how they might both be right and both wrong - and never the twain shall meet. Figure we're hooped if we aren't willing and able to even try to look at "the barn" from as many points of view as possible.

#8541

Kirbmarc wrote:The guilt by association bit I was talking about isn't about Sargon&Co, there's nothing about Sargon&Co in my signature (even though I think you're confusing "giving a stage" with "defending someone's rights").

No your use of guilt of association I was talking about, that people can read in my signature, is what you've written about me and Service Dog (neither of us have "given a stage" to anyone: we don't have any stages to give). It's easy to say "let's agree to disagree" after calling someone as being "in service of a neo-nazi agenda" just because they disagreed with you.

I wonder if you would think it'd be rational for someone to call you "in service of a neo-marxist agenda" because of your support for the antifa movement. I think you'd be well within the rights to call that someone intellectually dishonest for using guilt by association. Do you agree with me?

A mixed bag. I know you are motivated by the free speech debate, and not because you want to help out any group. I characterized your take as a form of free speech absolutism, which should have left no doubt about your intentions. I don't believe anyone here (myself included) is in doubt about your movitation in this matter, at all. If you got a different idea what I meant, then forget about it, I take it back.

You are however mistaken about the matter, about what guilty by association is, and on your Antifa example. This is now approaching tautology. If you help them do their thing, you help them do their thing. Yes, you would be helping their Neo Marxist agenda, if that's how you want to call it. The question here was, whether one should be making common cause, i.e. they want X, we want X, let's team up. Exactly there I disagreed vehemently. Of course I want X, but I don't want to promote it with or in association with certain groups. Because there are also causes Y and Z, and they are against those. Therefore I cannot team up with them on X, even if we happen to agree. I genuinely believe I have explained this many times. Key word, accommodationism.

#8542

Aneris - Hang in there bro

https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphot ... 9206_n.jpg

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

#8543

Brive1987 wrote: ...........

RW has derided the dredging up of the de-planed doctors criminal record as victim blaming. Seems sex for drugs isn't a problem for her. Figures. Brian Dunning will be relieved to hear of this "slate clean" approach.

http://i.imgur.com/y13XYo7.jpg

...........

Indy is shitting on Watson because he can.

...........

The post is over. Thought I'd something more to say.

She look real purdy with that new tattoo tho' don't she :P

http://i.imgur.com/k8fk44l.png

#8544

Do not judge me. OK?

#8545

d4m10n wrote:Aneris - Hang in there bro

[.img]https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphot ... 9206_n.jpg[/img]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

:lol: Ouch. Though Aneris may not have the same set of mirror-neurons to fully appeciate the poor critter's predicament ....

#8546

Brive1987 wrote:
RW has derided the dredging up of the de-planed doctors criminal record as victim blaming. Seems sex for drugs isn't a problem for her. Figures. Brian Dunning will be relieved to hear of this "slate clean" approach.

http://i.imgur.com/y13XYo7.jpg

In other news Dr. David Thanh Duc Dao vs. Dr. David Anh Duy Dao

#8547

AndrewV69 wrote:[.tweet][/tweet]

Do not judge me. OK?

:-) "Do you still beat your wife?" Though you might want to hang fire the next time you think of accusing me of trolling. ;-)

But, somewhat apropos:

#8548

Aneris wrote:A mixed bag. I know you are motivated by the free speech debate, and not because you want to help out any group. I characterized your take as a form of free speech absolutism, which should have left no doubt about your intentions. I don't believe anyone here (myself included) is in doubt about your motivation in this matter, at all. If you got a different idea what I meant, then forget about it, I take it back.

Fine. That's not exactly how you put it in the past, but let's agree to move on from there. No one is in service of anyone. "Free speech absolutism" is a still bit unfair (I believe in the need for some limits of free speech, just not the same limits you believe to be necessary), but it's better than "in service of a neo-nazi agenda".

You are however mistaken about the matter, about what guilty by association is, and on your Antifa example. This is now approaching tautology. If you help them do their thing, you help them do their thing. Yes, you would be helping their Neo Marxist agenda, if that's how you want to call it. The question here was, whether one should be making common cause, i.e. they want X, we want X, let's team up. Exactly there I disagreed vehemently. Of course I want X, but I don't want to promote it with or in association with certain groups. Because there are also causes Y and Z, and they are against those. Therefore I cannot team up with them on X, even if we happen to agree. I genuinely believe I have explained this many times. Key word, accommodationism.

And you're perfectly within your rights not to want to associate with some people because you suspect it's counterproductive to your aims. That's not the point of contention, though, the point of contention is your characterization of some people as neo-nazi sympathizers/"fellow travelers" of the neo-nazi movement based on the infamous Reichsburger livestream, the Kekistan memes and some common intent like being anti-EU and pro-Trump. Which is all pretty weak sauce for such a serious accusation.

Now you seem to be backpedaling towards the position that you're not accusing them of being anything, you just don't want to team up with them because you have different aims and they don't support some causes you care about. Fine, again, no problem with that, but that's not exactly how you put it in your previous posts.

I think you would have done a much better job of presenting your ideas without mentioning the Reichsburger stream at all, or neo-nazis, or neo-nazi connections and equivocations.

Just plainly say: "I'm against teaming up with Sargon&Co against SJWs because Sargon&Co agree with me on SJWs they also have positions on Trump or the EU or climate change or abortion rights which go against my principles and aims, and here's why I think my principles and aims are good". That's it: simple, with no references to neo-nazi schemes, rational and to the point.

Even better: expose clearly which aims and goals you think are important. Do you think that the EU is an organization worth salvaging and reforming, or even that it's OK as it is? If so, why? Do you think Trump is a bigger danger than the SJWs, or at least a more easily fought danger? If so, why? Etc.

#8549

Steersman wrote:But, more generally relative to the Aneris-Kirbmarc-ServiceDog "schism", while I sympathize with aspects of your apparent if somewhat inchoate or incoherent position, it also seems that you're being rather dogmatic, almost "SJW-ish" in your "four legs good, two legs bad" rejection of any and all "consorting with the enemy". Rather uncharacteristic.

I find the censorship of self-expression wrong, i.e. they can have their flags and symbols and salutes. But I don't want incitement to violence, defamation, libel and suchlike legalized. There are personality rights and rights of others involved. Your elbow room ends where the nose of your neighbour begins. Attention is also a resource, and it cannot be that those who have many eyeballs and ears can simply spread untrue things about anyone. This would be disastrous if e.g. tabloid can simply destroy any person at a whim, and you could never do anything about it, except to hope to one day gain a bigger platform to set the record straight. The "untrue" part is really tricky and this was one reason why I didn't want to discuss this at all, because this alone is a wall of text. If you dig enough, you can find or spin anything to make someone look bad, hence I favour relatively broad protection of personality rights. A tabloid might obtain someone's browers history (thanks Trump!) and make inferences at the edge of legality. Incitement to violence can also never be legal, because you have a right to not constantly worry that someone, or some group is about to kill you (e.g. fatwas). Finally, all of such cases are handled by courts and under constant review, which should minimize that such laws are being used to censor someone.

#8550

Aneris wrote:
Steersman wrote:But, more generally relative to the Aneris-Kirbmarc-ServiceDog "schism", while I sympathize with aspects of your apparent if somewhat inchoate or incoherent position, it also seems that you're being rather dogmatic, almost "SJW-ish" in your "four legs good, two legs bad" rejection of any and all "consorting with the enemy". Rather uncharacteristic.
I find the censorship of self-expression wrong, i.e. they can have their flags and symbols and salutes. But I don't want incitement to violence, defamation, libel and suchlike legalized.

Neither do I. I just think that stupid and bigoted memes (virtually indistinguishable from shitposting) like the naked nazi lady aren't incitement to violence, defamation, libel or suchlike. IF that's what's gotten the Unfriendly Neighborhood Reichsburger into trouble THEN it's fair to say that it's dangerous precedent, AND it's fine to frame it as such.

There are personality rights and rights of others involved. Your elbow room ends where the nose of your neighbour begins. Attention is also a resource, and it cannot be that those who have many eyeballs and ears can simply spread untrue things about anyone. This would be disastrous if e.g. tabloid can simply destroy any person at a whim, and you could never do anything about it, except to hope to one day gain a bigger platform to set the record straight. The "untrue" part is really tricky and this was one reason why I didn't want to discuss this at all, because this alone is a wall of text. If you dig enough, you can find or spin anything to make someone look bad, hence I favour relatively broad protection of personality rights. A tabloid might obtain someone's browers history (thanks Trump!) and make inferences at the edge of legality. Incitement to violence can also never be legal, because you have a right to not constantly worry that someone, or some group is about to kill you (e.g. fatwas). Finally, all of such cases are handled by courts and under constant review, which should minimize that such laws are being used to censor someone.

Again it's hard to disagree, but it's all not very relevant to the Reichsburger stream. And I know that the point about you bringing up the Reichsburger stream wasn't to discuss the German laws on free speech from a critical perspective, but it was the point of the livestream itself.

I think you've deeply misunderstood the aim of the livestream. There was no support for neo-nazi ideas, just support for the same ideas you're writing about here, namely that flags and symbols and salutes and stupid memes which aren't incitement to violence or defamation or libel are fine, along with concern that the misadventure of Reichsburger NaziPornLover might lead to precedents for other censorship of material which isn't incitement to violence or liberal or defamation.

#8551

Aneris wrote:
Steersman wrote:But, more generally relative to the Aneris-Kirbmarc-ServiceDog "schism", while I sympathize with aspects of your apparent if somewhat inchoate or incoherent position, it also seems that you're being rather dogmatic, almost "SJW-ish" in your "four legs good, two legs bad" rejection of any and all "consorting with the enemy". Rather uncharacteristic.
I find the censorship of self-expression wrong, i.e. they can have their flags and symbols and salutes. But I don't want incitement to violence, defamation, libel and suchlike legalized. There are personality rights and rights of others involved. Your elbow room ends where the nose of your neighbour begins. ...

Yes, I quite agree (mostly) with all of that - largely the bulk of my "sympathies for your position". And (partly) why I've been critical of Kirbmarc's - been like pulling teeth to get him to admit that there are or should be justifiable limits to speech; and he still hasn't been willing to consider that much of the Quran is well outside those limits - wonder why that might be ...

Aneris wrote:Finally, all of such cases are handled by courts and under constant review, which should minimize that such laws are being used to censor someone.

But that seems a sticky wicket; no shortage of devils amongst the details - as you sort of suggested. And it seems also a case of the red/green barn I mentioned earlier: clearly there is no shortage of actual fake news, but it seemed you were arguing that it was fake news that Germany was, apparently, creating new laws to oblige social media to, in effect, be judge, jury and executioner when it comes to determining whether any particular post or comment had crossed the line. Seems kind of analogous to the kerfuffle in the US with universities being obliged to deal with accusations of sexual assault - which has certainly worked out well, hasn't it? Road to hell, good intentions, and all that.

#8552

Steersman wrote:Yes, I quite agree (mostly) with all of that - largely the bulk of my "sympathies for your position". And (partly) why I've been critical of Kirbmarc's - been like pulling teeth to get him to admit that there are or should be justifiable limits to speech; and he still hasn't been willing to consider that much of the Quran is well outside those limits - wonder why that might be ...

Ask Aneris whether she thinks it's OK to ban the Qu'ran, Steers. Just a hunch, but I don't think Aneris agrees with you on that one.

#8553

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Yes, I would be interested in the GNU social instance, if Sulman wouldn't mind doing the setup.

Okay I'll try and get it started over the weekend.

#8554

Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:Yes, I quite agree (mostly) with all of that - largely the bulk of my "sympathies for your position". And (partly) why I've been critical of Kirbmarc's - been like pulling teeth to get him to admit that there are or should be justifiable limits to speech; and he still hasn't been willing to consider that much of the Quran is well outside those limits - wonder why that might be ...
Ask Aneris whether she thinks it's OK to ban the Qu'ran, Steers. Just a hunch, but I don't think Aneris agrees with you on that one.

Even if she doesn't, does that then mean that there's no justification for the position? That she apparently favours banning one form of hate speech doesn't mean that she necessarily agrees with everyone else's definition for it, or that the responses should be the same in all cases.

Think you're unclear on the differences between a principle - i.e., banning hate speech - and the definition of the relevant terms and the consequential motivations - i.e., exactly what constitutes hate speech and what harms follow from it. But maybe your biases are clouding your judgement?

Guest_440911e7 · #8555

That HuffPo article about denying white men the franchise, just has to be a poe, right?

#8556

Get a Bigger Dick.

"The P-shot or the Priapus shot, named after the Greek god of fertility, is a blood-based treatment used to cure erectile dysfunction and increase penis size in patients.

The shot was pioneered by Dr Charles Runels*, an American MD who specialises in sexuality issues."

*No relation to Virgil Runnels.

#8557

rayshul wrote:What we've seen, particularly obviously in #gamergate, is that the people who advocate loudest for SJW control are those that later turn out to be rapists, abusers, perverts, hate-crime fakers and (hilariously) arms dealers. There's a reason the loudest have no faith in human nature... they themselves are fundamentally broken.

Indeed.

#8558

linky: http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/lif ... -injection

#8559

Kirbmarc wrote:
Aneris wrote:
Steersman wrote:But, more generally relative to the Aneris-Kirbmarc-ServiceDog "schism", while I sympathize with aspects of your apparent if somewhat inchoate or incoherent position, it also seems that you're being rather dogmatic, almost "SJW-ish" in your "four legs good, two legs bad" rejection of any and all "consorting with the enemy". Rather uncharacteristic.
I find the censorship of self-expression wrong, i.e. they can have their flags and symbols and salutes. But I don't want incitement to violence, defamation, libel and suchlike legalized.
Neither do I. I just think that stupid and bigoted memes (virtually indistinguishable from shitposting) like the naked nazi lady aren't incitement to violence, defamation, libel or suchlike. IF that's what's gotten the Unfriendly Neighborhood Reichsburger into trouble THEN it's fair to say that it's dangerous precedent, AND it's fine to frame it as such.

There are personality rights and rights of others involved. Your elbow room ends where the nose of your neighbour begins. Attention is also a resource, and it cannot be that those who have many eyeballs and ears can simply spread untrue things about anyone. This would be disastrous if e.g. tabloid can simply destroy any person at a whim, and you could never do anything about it, except to hope to one day gain a bigger platform to set the record straight. The "untrue" part is really tricky and this was one reason why I didn't want to discuss this at all, because this alone is a wall of text. If you dig enough, you can find or spin anything to make someone look bad, hence I favour relatively broad protection of personality rights. A tabloid might obtain someone's browers history (thanks Trump!) and make inferences at the edge of legality. Incitement to violence can also never be legal, because you have a right to not constantly worry that someone, or some group is about to kill you (e.g. fatwas). Finally, all of such cases are handled by courts and under constant review, which should minimize that such laws are being used to censor someone.
Again it's hard to disagree, but it's all not very relevant to the Reichsburger stream. And I know that the point about you bringing up the Reichsburger stream wasn't to discuss the German laws on free speech from a critical perspective, but it was the point of the livestream itself.

I think you've deeply misunderstood the aim of the livestream. There was no support for neo-nazi ideas, just support for the same ideas you're writing about here, namely that flags and symbols and salutes and stupid memes which aren't incitement to violence or defamation or libel are fine, along with concern that the misadventure of Reichsburger NaziPornLover might lead to precedents for other censorship of material which isn't incitement to violence or liberal or defamation.

The stream yet again. Really? You don't need to convince me that it is okay to share everything from David Icke, Alex Jones to Reichsbürgers around. I mean, go ahead, knock yourself out. I failed to explain that there is a social dimension attached to that. If you are in Germany next time, you might want to commend Hitler's impressive Autobahn building. That's a sort of meme. What could possibly go wrong? As you say, it has zero implications. Hitler was also vegetarian. Maybe the vegetarians could cite a famous person for their case. Surefire Kirbmarc Approved method, guaranteed to win over people. Really, nobody is stopping you. And if someone disapproves, as I did, point out how they are commiting "guilty by association". That'll teach them!

#8560

Spike13 wrote:Why is it usually those with communications, gender studies, journalism and arts degrees usually are the ones demanding "diversity in tech? Why didn't they themselves study for a tech career? ( cough, cough..hard work..cough cough)

Does anyone know the unemployment rate among black techies?

Because if there isn't some huge untapped pool of highly qualified Techies of Color what the fuck are tech companies supposed to do about it?

#8561

Aneris wrote:The stream yet again. Really? You don't need to convince me that it is okay to share everything from David Icke, Alex Jones to Reichsbürgers around. I mean, go ahead, knock yourself out.

*head-desk*

Defending a person's right to speak by pointing out what happened in their case /= endorsing their ideas and "sharing everything".

I failed to explain that there is a social dimension attached to that. If you are in Germany next time, you might want to commend Hitler's impressive Autobahn building. That's a sort of meme. What could possibly go wrong? As you say, it has zero implications. Hitler was also vegetarian. Maybe the vegetarians could cite a famous person for their case. Surefire Kirbmarc Approved method, guaranteed to win over people. Really, nobody is stopping you. And if someone disapproves, as I did, point out how they are commiting "guilty by association". That'll teach them!

OF COURSE there's a social dimension to that, especially in Germany. OF COURSE it pisses people off. OF COURSE it's not something you do in a normal conversation between people talking about vegetarianism or transportation in Germany. BUT the point of the livestream wasn't to win friends among Germans, it was to show how certain laws set dangerous precedents. That was a specific point to the livestream, not talking about how "Hitler did good things too". There was no endorsement of Nazi ideas, no praise for Nazism or Hitler.

I get that you were outraged by the extreme example shown by Sargon&Co to talk about free speech, I get that you thought "wow, that's unbelievable, how could they". It might actually have been a deliberately extreme choice to get emotional reactions and more clicks. What it wasn't was "laying the pipes" for neo-nazism.

You could say that Sargon&Co channeled their inner Howard Stern by choosing an extreme example to talk about issues of free speech. You can call them shock jocks and you wouldn't be too far from the truth. BUT it's not a sign they're nazis, only that a) they care about free speech and b) they care about clicks to their channels.

#8562

This song goes out tonight to two wonderful misunderstood people. You know who you are.

[youtube][/youtube]

#8563

Service Dog wrote:JapGF & I are waiting to hear from a friend, away in LA. His brother is schizophrenic, sometimes suicidal. Disappeared from his housecleaning job in the middle of a clean & hasnt been heard-from for 2 days. I might have to go to apartment & check if he's alive & rescue the dog.

Giy is alive & dog is fine. Giy has been on a drinking bender.

#8564

Giy = Guy

#8565

Chomsky is even more evil than Hitler. At least Hitler was a vegetarian.

#8566

Shatterface wrote:
Spike13 wrote:Why is it usually those with communications, gender studies, journalism and arts degrees usually are the ones demanding "diversity in tech? Why didn't they themselves study for a tech career? ( cough, cough..hard work..cough cough)
Does anyone know the unemployment rate among black techies?

Because if there isn't some huge untapped pool of highly qualified Techies of Color what the fuck are tech companies supposed to do about it?

SIW's aren't about solutions.( have you seen what they come up with when they try?...ugh) they are about pointing out problems for others to fix. Kinda like a societal "honey-do" list.

#8567

Please guys, I love yuz, I reallly do.. but the horse isn't just dead and beaten... a tank column has rolled over it.

#8568

free thoughtpolice wrote:Chomsky is even more evil than Hitler. At least Hitler was a vegetarian.

He was a choir boy as a child and he loved dogs and campaigned against smoking, I hear he enjoyed opera.

#8569

MarcusAu wrote:
rayshul wrote:
What we've seen, particularly obviously in #gamergate, is that the people who advocate loudest for SJW control are those that later turn out to be rapists, abusers, perverts, hate-crime fakers and (hilariously) arms dealers. There's a reason the loudest have no faith in human nature... they themselves are fundamentally broken.
Now wait just a minute - what have you got against perverts?

MY DICK

#8570

Spike13 wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:Chomsky is even more evil than Hitler. At least Hitler was a vegetarian.

He was a choir boy as a child and he loved dogs and campaigned against smoking, I hear he enjoyed opera.

I don't want to make it sound like Hitler and Chomsky were terribly different.
Both hated Jews and were rabid anti-zionists. Hitler befriended the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin al-Husayni, and strove to further his agenda of defeating Zionism, much like Chomsky has attempted to help al Husayni's nephew Yasser Arafat in his campaign against the wicked state of Israel.

#8571

Have Chomsky and Hitler even been seen in the same place?

#8572

Keating wrote:Have Chomsky and Hitler even been seen in the same place?

No, but the same could be said of Chomsky and Stalin's ghost:
[youtube][/youtube]

#8573

rayshul wrote:I don't think your view there is so fair, pig...

The alt-right and far right wing groups I'm part of are preeeetty argumentative over the finer points of shit. There's a fair amount of flouncing, shouting, arguing, and people calling each other names (mainly lefty ones). The difference I've seen in these groups is that people argue and don't immediately get banned and shamed. They just shout at each other. While you might not agree with the community on every point of something, you can probably agree on them with some things and shout about others. The difference is there's much less censorship and shutting people down. I think it's a place where you can legitimately take on some views and disregard others and still feel like you're still part of that group.

These people are allies when I agree with them and people to argue with when I don't. They don't need to be an ally 100% of the time.

Yes, I think this is part of the gradual re-alignment of things. A certain portion of the Left was always solid about truth and argument (even far Left sometimes), but a larger portion of the Left was always about lockstep thinking, putting party above truth, presenting a united front (obviously, as an aspect of the focus on getting power - time to worry about truth later, sort of thing). The best representative of the former historically was of course Orwell.

But the majority of the Left has always been about ideological purity, whether at a hardcore level, or just at a sort of second-hand, sleepy, entranced level (the everyday virtue-signalling of "please like me and give me a job, look, I'm saying the right things").

I think what we're seeing now is a lot of people "coming up for air" so to speak, shaking off the PC trance and realizing that it's not necessary to agree with everyone on everything, and specifically, it's not necessary to have a "united front" about anything. There can be a united front on some issues, definitely, but to have a united front on ideology is poison.

IOW, people are rediscovering free speech because it's bracing, because it feels good man.

And this is the liberal way: dissent, argument, the forum, the marketplace of ideas.

As Popper said, one of the most pernicious myths is that truth once found is easily recognizable. That's the trap ideology can fall for (not saying ideology is necessarily always bad, i.e. it's fine to have a unified view of things, so long as you hold it subject to testing). It's what leads to the situation of thinking that people who haven't seen the truth like you must be stupid, evil or willfully blind. It's what leads to heresy-hunting, Red Guardism, etc.

On the contrary, truth is difficult to come by, we may not always recognize it when we find it, and we do best when we follow nature's way of throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks. None of us have a hotline to reality, a backchannel to the truth that gives us licence to be absolutely confident in truths above the perceptual level of "the cat is on the mat".

I think part of the problem is that people aren't educated enough in the hard sciences, where the extreme difficulty of discovering the truth is itself a hard-won truth. I remember for what was called my Sixth Year Studies in Scotland in the 1970s (which used to go just past the A level of England at the time), as physics students, we had to pick a famous experiment from the past and duplicate it (I did Brownian Motion). When you do that sort of thing, it brings home just how hard it really is to discover the truth, and just how much both hard work and genius are necessary for even the slightest gain in proper science.

#8574

Spike13 wrote:Please guys, I love yuz, I reallly do.. but the horse isn't just dead and beaten... a tank column has rolled over it.

What sort of tanks? And how do you know they're not bigfoot tracks?

#8575

Lsuoma wrote:
Spike13 wrote:Please guys, I love yuz, I reallly do.. but the horse isn't just dead and beaten... a tank column has rolled over it.
What sort of tanks? And how do you know they're not Boringfoot tracks?

Βigfoot tracts and tanks. If only Vicky were here to school us.

#8576

Perhaps we can have a fresh start today:

[youtube][/youtube]

#8577

gurugeorge wrote:
rayshul wrote:I don't think your view there is so fair, pig...

The alt-right and far right wing groups I'm part of are preeeetty argumentative over the finer points of shit. There's a fair amount of flouncing, shouting, arguing, and people calling each other names (mainly lefty ones). The difference I've seen in these groups is that people argue and don't immediately get banned and shamed. They just shout at each other. While you might not agree with the community on every point of something, you can probably agree on them with some things and shout about others. The difference is there's much less censorship and shutting people down. I think it's a place where you can legitimately take on some views and disregard others and still feel like you're still part of that group.

These people are allies when I agree with them and people to argue with when I don't. They don't need to be an ally 100% of the time.
Yes, I think this is part of the gradual re-alignment of things. A certain portion of the Left was always solid about truth and argument (even far Left sometimes), but a larger portion of the Left was always about lockstep thinking, putting party above truth, presenting a united front (obviously, as an aspect of the focus on getting power - time to worry about truth later, sort of thing). The best representative of the former historically was of course Orwell.

Indeed. And such "thinking", particularly characteristic of the Left, produces no end of bizarre "theories" and policies that might well be the death of the Academy, at least large swaths of it. But a case or two in point:

gurugeorge wrote:I think part of the problem is that people aren't educated enough in the hard sciences, where the extreme difficulty of discovering the truth is itself a hard-won truth. I remember for what was called my Sixth Year Studies in Scotland in the 1970s (which used to go just past the A level of England at the time), as physics students, we had to pick a famous experiment from the past and duplicate it (I did Brownian Motion). When you do that sort of thing, it brings home just how hard it really is to discover the truth, and just how much both hard work and genius are necessary for even the slightest gain in proper science.

Indeed. You no doubt know of C.P. Snow's Two Cultures, an interesting Scientific American update on the topic here. But I've often thought that the more or less defining difference between those two cultures is that science is intrinsically well-grounded in the way the universe actually works while the humantites, the arts, are more or less free to create any "philosophick romance" (pg 8) that catches their fancy as explanation or theory - eg. "Teh Patriarchy!!11!!" - without the least obligation for any correspondence at all to "reality". Seems to be a completely different mindset, a completely different understanding of cause and effect.

#8578

http://i.imgur.com/6yZWDXy.jpg

#8579

fuzzy wrote:linky: http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/lif ... -injection

My cousin opened a nightclub called "Erectile Dysfunction". It was a complete flop, and nobody came.

#8580

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
fuzzy wrote:linky: http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/lif ... -injection
My cousin opened a nightclub called "Erectile Dysfunction". It was a complete flop, and nobody came.

Did it have a couple of big sweaty bouncers hanging around the front?

:rimshot:

Taxi!