Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!

#19801

PZ being a cunt.
Again.

Note the horder comment celebrating their effort to have Sargon and his supporters closed down on Twitter.

There kirb. That's the enemy. Not the effort to embarrass Anita with her own blow-back ideology.

http://archive.is/lNMgI

#19802

DrokkIt wrote:
MarcusAu wrote:What I was trying to get at was if it is OK to lie in order to achieve something of value.

My suspicion is that Sargon is being dishonest - and that the stakes are not really high enough to justify it. Although it may very well be an entertaining or even effective strategy.

But as I said above - I don't really know what is in his heart. So he can take my opinions for whatever he thinks they are worth.
I also think he is being dishonest, or perhaps making a mountain out of a molehill.

He's technically correct in that Sarkeesian should not have done what she did, and it's very funny and petty.

It's not like YouTube isn't full of vids of him calling her much worse, so there's no moral high ground.

Thing is, it happened at a con and probably broke conduct policy. Sargon has every right to have her thrown out on her ass. "Garbage human" is well down the path of dehumanization. It's not terribly far from "sub-human". It's really very vicious language if you stand back and look at it objectively. It would make a great statement to have her canned over it.

#19803

Brive1987 wrote:PZ has a stroke-post up on on the Sargon thing.

All very interesting.

Kirb thinks Sargon is a lying dick and Anita could be collateral damage in the Huns assault on the purity of free speech. Which is kinda dumb. But in a forgivable European way.

PZ takes Sargon on face value mocking his upset. Which is really stupid. Like baby stupid.

I think Sargon demonstrated how trite and shrill the lass is. And a pulpit bully and he is now toying with a SJ leaning con. I can appreciate this.

What I can't appreciate is fuck stain Myers repeating Sargons RL name over and over and over in his passive aggressive doxing style. Myers really deserves a boot up the arse.

I don't care about Sarkeesian herself. If she were to lose all of her income, forced to pay back her subscribers and had to take a job at McDonald's I'd probably laugh.

I care about setting a precedent though. The rules on "harassment" are idiotically written. I don't want to encourage their use, even if the target is unsympathetic. Mock Sarkeesian for her hypocrisy, turn her into even more of a joke, make people dissociate from her when they realize she's toxic to their image. Don't try to silence her, try to make people see how shitty she is.

Myers has already been punished when Nugent and Mehta, both friendly towards practically anyone who's not a raging douchebag, dumped him publicly. He's a has been, a loser, a forgettable hanger-on. FTB receives less and less traffic, he got into fights with his own Hordelets, nobody respects him. And nobody tried to shut him up.

That's what should encouraged. We should be asking people "do you really want to support a moronic hypocrite like Sarkeesian, who bitches and moans about harassment but then lashes out in public when she has to endure the sight of the people she dislikes?". We should show that everything she touches turns toxic and alienates consumers. We should see her sponsors deserting her, her friends walking out, her schemes unraveling.

Trying to shut her up only fuels her victimhood narrative at best, or the narrative that the idiotically written harassment rules actually have a point.

#19804

Hunt wrote:
DrokkIt wrote:
MarcusAu wrote:What I was trying to get at was if it is OK to lie in order to achieve something of value.

My suspicion is that Sargon is being dishonest - and that the stakes are not really high enough to justify it. Although it may very well be an entertaining or even effective strategy.

But as I said above - I don't really know what is in his heart. So he can take my opinions for whatever he thinks they are worth.
I also think he is being dishonest, or perhaps making a mountain out of a molehill.

He's technically correct in that Sarkeesian should not have done what she did, and it's very funny and petty.

It's not like YouTube isn't full of vids of him calling her much worse, so there's no moral high ground.
Thing is, it happened at a con and probably broke conduct policy. Sargon has every right to have her thrown out on her ass. "Garbage human" is well down the path of dehumanization. It's not terribly far from "sub-human". It's really very vicious language if you stand back and look at it objectively. It would make a great statement to have her canned over it.

I refer you back to the 8 stages of genocide - item 3

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/imag ... npzSLdzFHw

#19805

Brive1987 wrote:PZ being a cunt.
Again.

Note the horder comment celebrating their effort to have Sargon and his supporters closed down on Twitter.

There kirb. That's the enemy. Not the effort to embarrass Anita with her own blow-back ideology.

http://archive.is/lNMgI

PZ IS a cunt. Always. He's also an incredibly ineffectual cunt right now.

I care about embarrassing Anita, but by exposing her as a hypocrite and the rules she supports as dumb, not by trying to use her own dumb rules against her. It's a matter of method, not of target.

The endgame, at least to me, is to make all "normal" progressive people dissociate from the toxic SocJus. In order to do so you have to expose the SocJus, not turn them into victims. By all means criticize and mock Sarkeesian for being a grade-A hypocrite, and show how she dishes it out but can't take it. Do not legitimize call out culture, do not fuel her story about being a poor victim.

#19806

shoutinghorse wrote:
DrokkIt wrote:
MarcusAu wrote:What I was trying to get at was if it is OK to lie in order to achieve something of value.

My suspicion is that Sargon is being dishonest - and that the stakes are not really high enough to justify it. Although it may very well be an entertaining or even effective strategy.

But as I said above - I don't really know what is in his heart. So he can take my opinions for whatever he thinks they are worth.
I also think he is being dishonest, or perhaps making a mountain out of a molehill.

He's technically correct in that Sarkeesian should not have done what she did, and it's very funny and petty.

It's not like YouTube isn't full of vids of him calling her much worse, so there's no moral high ground.

He's playing her at her own game and why shouldn't he, as has been said here before, she's been all over the UN, Twitter and Google spouting her "harassment of wimminz on the internet" bollocks for too long, time she had a taste of her own medicine.

In my view it's the "no bad tactics, only bad targets" concept at play, and I do not like it. I think it hypocritical to say something is bad in principle and then go ahead and do the same when it suits you.

Were it me I would very much make a meal of 'look at how hypocritical Sarkeesian is being' by pointing out that she would treat such a thing as harassment.

However as I have said, it is very amusing.

#19807

Kirbmarc wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:PZ being a cunt.
Again.

Note the horder comment celebrating their effort to have Sargon and his supporters closed down on Twitter.

There kirb. That's the enemy. Not the effort to embarrass Anita with her own blow-back ideology.

http://archive.is/lNMgI
PZ IS a cunt. Always. He's also an incredibly ineffectual cunt right now.

I care about embarrassing Anita, but by exposing her as a hypocrite and the rules she supports as dumb, not by trying to use her own dumb rules against her. It's a matter of method, not of target.

The endgame, at least to me, is to make all "normal" progressive people dissociate from the toxic SocJus. In order to do so you have to expose the SocJus, not turn them into victims. By all means criticize and mock Sarkeesian for being a grade-A hypocrite, and show how she dishes it out but can't take it. Do not legitimize call out culture, do not fuel her story about being a poor victim.

I think the calculus here is that there isn't a hope in hell of getting Snarkisian banned. She is the show pony.

What this will demonstrate is the vacuous puff of ideologically driven Codes of Behaviour that are actually aimed at preventing Crimes against Social Justice.

Happy splash-back is pointing out that Sarko is in material breach of the very codes she pushes. You can't achieve these outcomes without lodging a complaint.

Obviously following proper procedure and with approved protocols observed.

#19808

DrokkIt wrote:

In my view it's the "no bad tactics, only bad targets" concept at play, and I do not like it. I think it hypocritical to say something is bad in principle and then go ahead and do the same when it suits you.

Were it me I would very much make a meal of 'look at how hypocritical Sarkeesian is being' by pointing out that she would treat such a thing as harassment.

However as I have said, it is very amusing.

Oh for fuck's sake. The "bad tactic" here is literally asking for the rules to be applied equally. The SJWs got the fucking rules they wanted, but that isn't enough for them. They have to be allowed a different standard of behavior to everyone else at the conference. And apparently you agree. Apparently asking Princess Anita to follow the same standards of conduct that Sargon is following (which by the way we have no evidence that he's violated - there is no video circulating where Sargon calls quiet audience member Anita a "garbage human" from a bully pulpit) is too much.

Fuck that noise. People who demand a certain level of conduct should follow their own rules, full stop.

#19809

Guest_97f56d3c wrote:
fwiw, Sargon is saying he was hacked and is now at a different account.

Has to be said, having his twitter account hacked is certainly something to add to the bulgin' bag of harassments he's received off the back of Sarkeesian's nanny-goat stropfest.

The timing does seem curiously...convenient.

#19810

Old_ones wrote:
Fuck that noise. People who demand a certain level of conduct should follow their own rules, full stop.

Or they should die on the same goddamn cross that everyone else does.

No special dispensations for the people who make the unpopular rules that nobody else likes.

No get out of jail free card for the senator who voted for mandatory minimums for marijuana possession, who gets weight confiscated on his way back from Mexico.

No exception to the anti-sodomy law for Larry Craig.

Not until every single person doing time under those unpopular laws is first exonerated. That would be justice. Not making exceptions for the goddamn hypocrites who make rules that they can't follow in the first place.

#19811

Tigzy wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Inernational pitizens, if you'd be so kind, would you mind stating if you would rather your country had some enshrined protections for freedom of speech like the USA's First Amendment? If not, why not?
Yep, definitely. Particularly now, where there appear to be signs of de facto anti-blasphemy (islam only, of course) legislation coming into effect in the UK. Probably too early to worry seriously about it, but it would be nice to have the reassurance of enshrined FoS protections.

Couldn't agree more with this - the way the UK is going we're going to be in trouble. Hate speech laws only seem to work in Islam' favour at the moment where just by quoting the Koran Muslims should be in trouble.

#19812

Steersman wrote:
jet_lagg wrote:
That sounds very much like saying retaliation is exactly the same as unprovoked attack, even after the attacked party has exhausted other options like appeals to reason. The tactic desceibed only works if the "harassed" party sticks to their guns and says it really did subjectively affect them. If you announce your purpose in advance you necessarily fail.
Maybe, although they seem different kettles of fish. For one thing, in the case of "an unprovoked attack", the offended party generally stipulates that their supposedly entirely justified response or retaliation - a declaration of war as with the attack on Pearl Harbour, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or the invasion of Poland - is a direct consequence of that attack. Absent that clearly specified link, particularly where there's been an ongoing escalation prior to that "nuclear option", bystanders might reasonably fault the responders for excesses.

If we're sticking with the war analogy it's pretty clear to me that hostilities were openly declared by both sides long ago. Insisting Sargon announce in advance he's not really upset by Sarkeesian's words (which by their insane definition means it's not harassment and so renders the action fruitless) is like saying surprise air raids are an immoral tactic and we should never have used surprise air raids against the Japanese following Pearl Harbor. Or at the very least, if we did we, should have announced in advance that we were doing a surprise air raid to show them why surprise air raids are bad (which again, by definition means it's no longer a surprise attack and won't teach anyone anything). This is how we demonstrate our moral superiority. Or something. Nonsense, obviously.

I can understand someone taking a principled stance against abusing the harassment policy. I personally don't think I could bring myself to lie like that. It's not going to stop me from enjoying idiots like the ones at Gamerghazi tying themselves in knots trying to explain how Sargon's actions are somehow different from Sarkeesian's though. They're exactly the same. They're both lying, gaming a batshit insane concept of "harassment", both formal and informal, to take down their ideological enemies. If the moral high ground matters so much, I'll only point out that Sargon was warning about this situation from the beginning while Sarkeesian was campaigning for it.

#19813

This is Camilla. Camilla is being badass. Observe the badassery of Camilla:

#19814

Easy J wrote: "Bomber planning to attack Mecca's Grand Mosque blows himself up"

"DUBAI: Saudi security forces on Friday foiled a suicide attack on the Grand Mosque in the Muslim holy city of Mecca, cornering the would-be attacker in an apartment, where he blew himself up, the Interior Ministry said."

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wor ... ?cid=FBcna

Why bother with a bomb when you could start a stampede? Just shout: 'Hey, Faisel -- why'd you bring that black dog along with you on the Hajj?"

#19815

Fuk'd up ?

It would certainly seem so.

#19816

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Why bother with a bomb when you could start a stampede? Just shout: 'Hey, Faisel -- why'd you bring that black dog along with you on the Hajj?"

That would go down like a pork pie in a synagogue.

#19817

Old_ones wrote:
DrokkIt wrote:

In my view it's the "no bad tactics, only bad targets" concept at play, and I do not like it. I think it hypocritical to say something is bad in principle and then go ahead and do the same when it suits you.

Were it me I would very much make a meal of 'look at how hypocritical Sarkeesian is being' by pointing out that she would treat such a thing as harassment.

However as I have said, it is very amusing.
Oh for fuck's sake. The "bad tactic" here is literally asking for the rules to be applied equally. <snip>.

I think the "bad tactic" people are referring to is lying about the level of trauma you personally experienced from mean words.

#19818

Old_ones wrote:
DrokkIt wrote:

In my view it's the "no bad tactics, only bad targets" concept at play, and I do not like it. I think it hypocritical to say something is bad in principle and then go ahead and do the same when it suits you.

Were it me I would very much make a meal of 'look at how hypocritical Sarkeesian is being' by pointing out that she would treat such a thing as harassment.

However as I have said, it is very amusing.
Oh for fuck's sake. The "bad tactic" here is literally asking for the rules to be applied equally. The SJWs got the fucking rules they wanted, but that isn't enough for them. They have to be allowed a different standard of behavior to everyone else at the conference. And apparently you agree. Apparently asking Princess Anita to follow the same standards of conduct that Sargon is following (which by the way we have no evidence that he's violated - there is no video circulating where Sargon calls quiet audience member Anita a "garbage human" from a bully pulpit) is too much.

Fuck that noise. People who demand a certain level of conduct should follow their own rules, full stop.

Crying and playing the victim looks dumb after you've spent 3 years saying everyone crying and playing the victim is wrong.

It simply cuts both ways. I didn't say I thought Sarkeesian was fine to take public swings at him, in fact I think it's clearly against the conduct expected of a speaker. Nor Did I say I agreed with the idea that she should not be held to a conduct standard.

I was talking about Sargon's response to it and not the event itself when I made the statement, some people apply principles universally and that's that.

#19819

Tigzy wrote:This is Camilla. Camilla is being badass. Observe the badassery of Camilla:

Haha! The text of that tweet would fit perfectly as a speech bubble in any "It's Grim Up North...London" cartoon in the Eye.

#19820

jet_lagg wrote:
I think the "bad tactic" people are referring to is lying about the level of trauma you personally experienced from mean words.

Yes and also the attempt to play that 'trauma' up to get her deplatformed from the rest of the vidcon stuff.

I don't personally give a shit if she is banned or not, however the tactic of playing up an insult as trauma and using that to get someone shut down is clearly the kind of SJW nonsense that we all love.

#19821

jet_lagg wrote:
Old_ones wrote:
DrokkIt wrote:

In my view it's the "no bad tactics, only bad targets" concept at play, and I do not like it. I think it hypocritical to say something is bad in principle and then go ahead and do the same when it suits you.

Were it me I would very much make a meal of 'look at how hypocritical Sarkeesian is being' by pointing out that she would treat such a thing as harassment.

However as I have said, it is very amusing.
Oh for fuck's sake. The "bad tactic" here is literally asking for the rules to be applied equally. <snip>.
I think the "bad tactic" people are referring to is lying about the level of trauma you personally experienced from mean words.

IMO that's pretty much irrelevant. Was there this amount of debate over whether it was harassment when it was Rebecca Watson doing exactly the same thing to Stef McGraw*? IMO calling out a silent audience member from a stage is a bad action from a lesser standard than Princess Anita and her ilk tend to hold other people to. Certainly calling that dumb bitch a liar or telling her "you suck" in an internet comment box is 10000% less abusive than what she just did.

_______________________________
*I wasn't hanging around here during that time, so I actually don't know

Guest_97f56d3c · #19822

There are two problems with the Batman analogy:

1. We're not all Batman, and it can't be demanded we take actions that require us to perform in a brawl as well as Batman can.

2. Much of what Batman did as he pursued vigilante justice was illegal.

(Breaking and entering)
(Assault and Battery)
(Driving a non-street legal car)
(Flying an aircraft without an FAA airworthiness certificate)
(Possession and construction of bombs)
(Holding people against their will and interrogating them (would seem to border on kidnapping and torture))
(Wiretapping)

So you're asking Sargon to unilaterally disarm from a legal and ethically obtained weapon (asking Conference to adhere to their CoC), but in the meantime, since Sargon is not the Dark Knight, Sargon is not allowed to break and enter, beat up, and interrogate Anita against her will.

All Carl can do is use words and (one would hope) logic, and do that from his already much less powerful platform.

Guest_97f56d3c · #19823

Apologies for using his first name.

To that extent, I'm okay with PZ's use of his name since Sargon's name escaped a long time ago, and he seems relatively okay with that.

There's even a wiki entry, not just a kiwi farms or ED or rational wiki entry....

#19824

What could be Sargon's motives? Is he hurt or faking it? Does he feel he is really harassed? Is he lying?

Jeez, I find it odd that some, in a group that is very good at making fun of their foes by trowing back at them or reversing on them their own weak ideologies, concepts, definitions and general dishonesty when they face some mishap (ie: PZ sexual harassment), would go and try to unironically deconstruct Sargon doing the exact same thing for his own little fun.

:cdc:

#19825

[youtube][/youtube]

#19826

Kirbmarc wrote: I don't care about Sarkeesian herself. If she were to lose all of her income, forced to pay back her subscribers and had to take a job at McDonald's I'd probably laugh.

I care about setting a precedent though. The rules on "harassment" are idiotically written. I don't want to encourage their use, even if the target is unsympathetic. Mock Sarkeesian for her hypocrisy, turn her into even more of a joke, make people dissociate from her when they realize she's toxic to their image. Don't try to silence her, try to make people see how shitty she is.

Myers has already been punished when Nugent and Mehta, both friendly towards practically anyone who's not a raging douchebag, dumped him publicly. He's a has been, a loser, a forgettable hanger-on. FTB receives less and less traffic, he got into fights with his own Hordelets, nobody respects him. And nobody tried to shut him up.

That's what should encouraged. We should be asking people "do you really want to support a moronic hypocrite like Sarkeesian, who bitches and moans about harassment but then lashes out in public when she has to endure the sight of the people she dislikes?". We should show that everything she touches turns toxic and alienates consumers. We should see her sponsors deserting her, her friends walking out, her schemes unraveling.

Trying to shut her up only fuels her victimhood narrative at best, or the narrative that the idiotically written harassment rules actually have a point.

Isn't your entire complaint, here Kirbmarc, sort of like complaining we didn't shut the barn door when the horse is already out of the barn?

These are the rules. I hate sexual harrasment law in the US - I think it is too broad (thus easily abused) and sexist ("Reasonable woman" vs "Reasonable Person" standard) and the woman that helped push most of it was a radical feminist who saw bad male sexual behavior under every bed and lurking in her closet. I thought at the time that it would normalize more bad laws and social practices (Conference Code of Conduct policies are just one example) wherein feelings were pushed over facts esp female feelings over male feelings. I was in my early 20's when lots of this stuff happened. In the long run, it turns out I was rightSO WHAT?
Me being right hasn't made a lick of difference The playing field right now in terms of most of these culture wars is skewed in terms of Soc Justice and no amount of wishing or whining about 'setting precedents' (as if the damn things haven't already been set) is going to make anything better.

What Sargon is doing has nothing but an upside:
A) If they don't follow their own rules it exposes very public ally that they don't believe their own bullshit. Or that they think large groups of people are expendable. There goes any hope of ever building more popularity for such an event in the future.
B) If they deplatform the bitch then for the first time EVAH , Anita actually suffers. The proof is so easily seen that any 'pushback' by the Usual Suspects (complicit press, other orgs, sjw bloggers, large groups of people mislead by the Soc Justice crowd) is likely to be minimal.
C) If the rules are enforced equally then either people who attend these events in the future will be better behaved, or some troublemakers will choose to stay away. Once again, win-win.

People are already getting deplatformed in the US via threats of VIOLENCE and here you are complaining lest an abuser be deplatformed for not following her own rules.

#19827

David McAfee suits up in his white knight armor to champion all those damsels who consent to sex then change their mind partway through.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... -carolina/

I think he's extrapolating from his personal experiences.

#19828

pro-boxing-fan wrote:What could be Sargon's motives? Is he hurt or faking it? Does he feel he is really harassed? Is he lying?

Jeez, I find it odd that some, in a group that is very good at making fun of their foes by trowing back at them or reversing on them their own weak ideologies, concepts, definitions and general dishonesty when they face some mishap (ie: PZ sexual harassment), would go and try to unironically deconstruct Sargon doing the exact same thing for his own little fun.

:cdc:

I'm not so sure he's lying. He might be exaggerating as , while I watched his video I hven't followed his feed. Maybe somewhere he admits he's not really hurt or something. But I think he probably WAS upset, at least a little.
I mean think of it: Sargon has hardly been Anita's worse critic. ThunderF00t , maybe,but not Sargon. Why he should even think she would recognize him in an audience is beyond me. He's also a rather new critic of hers at that. So he was setting in his seat , and I bet the last thing he expected was to be public ally attacked.

Guest_97f56d3c · #19829

A view from MundaneMatt of what the squad was thinking and what they observed happening.

There is some harassment panel today with Anita and Boogie2988 and security has asked them to sit in the back of the auditorium.

#19830

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Easy J wrote: "Bomber planning to attack Mecca's Grand Mosque blows himself up"

"DUBAI: Saudi security forces on Friday foiled a suicide attack on the Grand Mosque in the Muslim holy city of Mecca, cornering the would-be attacker in an apartment, where he blew himself up, the Interior Ministry said."

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wor ... ?cid=FBcna
Why bother with a bomb when you could start a stampede? Just shout: 'Hey, Faisel -- why'd you bring that black dog along with you on the Hajj?"

This the dog you mean?

holy-shit.jpg: (64.31 KiB) Downloaded 201 times

#19831

Do moslems ever attempt to rationalize why they're worshipping a fucking meteorite? Or do they just hope no one notices?

#19832

Old_ones wrote:
IMO that's pretty much irrelevant. Was there this amount of debate over whether it was harassment when it was Rebecca Watson doing exactly the same thing to Stef McGraw*? IMO calling out a silent audience member from a stage is a bad action from a lesser standard than Princess Anita and her ilk tend to hold other people to. Certainly calling that dumb bitch a liar or telling her "you suck" in an internet comment box is 10000% less abusive than what she just did.

_______________________________
*I wasn't hanging around here during that time, so I actually don't know

The comparison of Watson to Sarkessian certainly gives me pause.

However, I suspect that both situations will be dealt with more effectively in the court of public opinion rather than the enforcement of decidedly weak convention CoC policies.

All the Vidcon reps have to do is give a form reply to the effect of how seriously they take all matters of harassment, and furthermore that they will be having some very harsh words indeed for anyone who contravenes policy. And then wait for it to blow over. (The standard bullshit in other words).

Sargon et al - appear to have made a major PR coup and likely would have even without engaging the complaints process. And yes - that is his call to make.

#19833

Brive1987 wrote:PZ takes Sargon on face value mocking his upset. Which is really stupid. Like baby stupid.

Yes but it's what Watson did and history shows that if Watson walks off a cliff PZ will be shortly behind applauding her for discovering this ingenious shortcut to the ground.

#19834

I don't recall if this has been mentioned, but Maajid Nawaz is crowdfunding a lawsuit against the SPLC:
[youtube][/youtube]

#19835

free thoughtpolice wrote:I don't recall if this has been mentioned, but Maajid Nawaz is crowdfunding a lawsuit against the SPLC:
[.youtube][/youtube]

This topic is being kicked around over at Friendly Atheist.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... extremist/

#19836

Here's a brief message from Harmful Opinions

(Skip to the end for an update on Candid)

[youtube][/youtube]

#19837

In France the new minister of feminism proposes a fine of 5000 euros for making a sexist statement.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ment-fines

#19838

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Do moslems ever attempt to rationalize why they're worshipping a fucking meteorite? Or do they just hope no one notices?

Old Mo personally brought the meteorite into the Kaaba (or so they say) so it's OK When Mo Did It.

Which is islam in a nutshell: Mo is the Perfect Man, so if Mo did something or say something is OK to do, then it's OK to do it. If he was against it, then you should be against it. If he had no opinion about it or if his opinion was vague enough to leave room for interpretation, scholars bicker about it endlessly.

#19839

fuzzy wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:I don't recall if this has been mentioned, but Maajid Nawaz is crowdfunding a lawsuit against the SPLC:
[.youtube][/youtube]
This topic is being kicked around over at Friendly Atheist.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... extremist/

That darn cat is still doing her illogical "if you advocate that a particular ideology should go away then you must therefore be arguing in favor of murdering everyone who holds it even if you never said any such thing" spiel.

#19840

So Kirbmarc

Have you discussed more points of islamic theology before or after coming out as an atheist?

#19841

MarcusAu wrote:So Kirbmarc

Have you discussed more points of islamic theology before or after coming out as an atheist?

Definitely after. Most muslims don't think too much about their beliefs, they just do what others (their imams, mostly, but also the leaders of their communities) tell them to do.

You're taught a lot about the Qu'ran in the madrasses, though it's mostly rote learning and repetition, not really debate.

#19842

Zenlike does not know the difference between "shill" and "chill."

#19843

Let's see if this wakes everyone up

[youtube][/youtube]

#19844

Lsuoma wrote: This the dog you mean?

holy-shit.jpg

Move over Schrödinger's cat, it's the age of Steersman's dog!

#19845

MarcusAu wrote:Let's see if this wakes everyone up

[youtube][youtube]

I love channels like this - crazy experimental weapons, blowing shit up and general shenanigans. Check out this guys channel, he makes some nutty (low tech) weaponry and is pretty entertaining in the process.

[youtube][/youtube]

note: the above video contains very little "action" footage but if you rummage around his channel, you'll find plenty of good content.

#19846

Disgusting...

he kept going on about 'penetration' and being 'cocked by a wench'.

#19847

MarcusAu wrote:Disgusting...

he kept going on about 'penetration' and being 'cocked by a wench'.

Happy is the man whose hobby is his job ;)

#19848

free thoughtpolice wrote:In France the new minister of feminism proposes a fine of 5000 euros for making a sexist statement.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ment-fines

I hope she also cracks down on all those school teachers statutorily raping their underage students.

#19849

Sunder wrote:Zenlike does not know the difference between "shill" and "chill."

Not much better with Ass v. Elbow, either.

#19850

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Do moslems ever attempt to rationalize why they're worshipping a fucking meteorite? Or do they just hope no one notices?

Probably as much as Catholics try to rationalize the dogma that they are eating the flesh of Jesus every Sunday. I'm out. I have no idea what the rest of them are thinking, but I certainly didn't buy the explanations.

#19851

:lol:

http://i.imgur.com/AJN10YJ.png

#19852

Not that I am that engrossed in Laci's exploits, but it appears that Laci is getting a fair amount of blow back for whatever journey she is on, which includes associating with people some of her former? online associates would prohibit.

#19853

deLurch wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Do moslems ever attempt to rationalize why they're worshipping a fucking meteorite? Or do they just hope no one notices?
Probably as much as Catholics try to rationalize the dogma that they are eating the flesh of Jesus every Sunday. I'm out. I have no idea what the rest of them are thinking, but I certainly didn't buy the explanations.

Are Catholics all about saying that if Jesus did it, then it's OK? That's the way islam works.

#19854

Kirbmarc wrote:
deLurch wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Do moslems ever attempt to rationalize why they're worshipping a fucking meteorite? Or do they just hope no one notices?
Probably as much as Catholics try to rationalize the dogma that they are eating the flesh of Jesus every Sunday. I'm out. I have no idea what the rest of them are thinking, but I certainly didn't buy the explanations.
Are Catholics all about saying that if Jesus did it, then it's OK? That's the way islam works.

Yes - we should all be more Christ-like in our actions.

I quite like the walking on water bit myself.

#19855

deLurch wrote:Not that I am that engrossed in Laci's exploits, but it appears that Laci is getting a fair amount of blow back for whatever journey she is on, which includes associating with people some of her former? online associates would prohibit.

I've been paying attention, and good on them both. I hope many more follow Laci out of being zealots and into being able to have a disagreement without imploding.

Also good on Sargon for having the good grace.

#19856

Kirbmarc wrote:Are Catholics all about saying that if Jesus did it, then it's OK? That's the way islam works.

W.W.J.D. "What Would Jesus Do?"

Of course I don't see anyone advocating upending the apple carts of the merchants. The coffee cake sales & car washes at churches seem to go right on by without a blink.

And if you want to get as literal and specific as "money changers," bank card ATMS have been popping up in christian churches (not Catholic that I have seen) to make giving easier. But yeah, I think that counts as a money changer.

https://consumerist.com/2007/08/06/now- ... ches-atms/

I can't really think of much in way of horrible things that Jesus has done beyond being a total douche to merchants at a church.

#19857

I think the Christian peace and love bit - was traditionally an in-group / out-group deal.

The out-group just needed to be told the good news - even if it killed them.

For as much as there were missionaries doing charity work - it never that hard for people to find justification to treat others like shit. And sectarianism helped too.

I reckon the classic Emo Philips joke could be translated to work for muslims too:

[youtube][/youtube]

#19858

Kirbmarc wrote:
deLurch wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Do moslems ever attempt to rationalize why they're worshipping a fucking meteorite? Or do they just hope no one notices?
Probably as much as Catholics try to rationalize the dogma that they are eating the flesh of Jesus every Sunday. I'm out. I have no idea what the rest of them are thinking, but I certainly didn't buy the explanations.
Are Catholics all about saying that if Jesus did it, then it's OK? That's the way islam works.

You had to ask, didn't you.
[youtube][/youtube]

#19859

MarcusAu wrote:Yes - we should all be more Christ-like in our actions.

I quite like the walking on water bit myself.

Jesus was a carpenter. We should all learn a trade.

And hang out with prostitutes.

Guest_97f56d3c · #19860

Re: the conv at Patheos where some folks say in the US the suit won't fly because the SPLC list is just opinion, It'll be interesting to see if Popehat chimes in on the Nawaz SPLC suit like he did with Dave Rubin.

"Nawaz should be the first person fighting for the SPLC's right to publish their inflammatory and wrong statements against him, that he is bothered by that and doesn't proves he is alt-right!" -- Poopdeck Popehat!