Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!

[deLurch]

Vidcon finally makes an official statement about the Anita-Sargoon issue. Skip down to the section entitled "Who’s Harassing Whom?"

Who’s Harassing Whom?

VidCon has a tagline, it’s “For people who love online video.” But, of course, in addition to celebrating, this event has also always been about confronting difficult issues our community faces. It is openly known that women on the internet are subject to far greater amounts (and intensity) of harassment and abuse than men. This is a pattern and it’s pervasive. Running this event, we have to be aware when a creator has potentially dangerous harassers or stalkers, and our list for our female creators is a whole lot longer than the list for male creators.

That’s just one reason why we had a panel called “Women Online” featuring women who had received a variety of kinds of abuse, from repeated sexual advances to stalking to years of targeted harassment.

There is a fairly prominent genre of social/political commentary on the internet that focuses on specific individuals as a path to attack ideas and build outrage. These creators do not violate harassment policies, but the result is often that the vitriol of their followers ends up focused not on ideas, but on people (usually women.)

Many people in these communities end up believing the righteous thing to do is threaten, harass, and dox the thinkers they’re arguing with. Whether or not this is an intentional strategy to cultivate harassment or an awful side-effect, the result is some of the worst discourse and most intense harassment on the internet.

This year, we had a contingent of attendees (some who paid, some who snuck in with fake passes) who had been either perpetrators of this harassment, or had, for years, watched as the outrage they cultivated resulted in followers doxxing, harassing, intimidating, and even threatening the lives of the creators on these panels.

It is difficult to imagine that this group of people (who are aware that their channels have been base-camps for years of harassment of some of our panelists) did not realize that their arriving early to fill up the three front rows of a panel was going to be intimidating. In any case, it looked like intentional intimidation to most people in attendance, and the panelists were understandably on edge throughout the discussion.

During the panel, a panelist called out one of the audience members for being someone who has made her life very difficult, and wished she didn’t have to give him attention because he was a “garbage human.” Look, we don’t want our panelists to insult our audience members, even when we completely understand that the comment exists in a much broader (and pretty messed up) context. Even when people have said hateful things that everyone in our office disagrees with, we have a policy, and it exists not just to protect people at the show, but to protect our ability to have these conversations.

Our founder, Hank Green, talked with our panelist and said two things:

* He told her that her comment had violated our policy, but that he understood that there was a broader context (which to be clear, we were blissfully ignorant of until this weekend, and remain inexpert in.)

* He apologized to her for not having been more aware of and active in understanding the situation before the event, which resulted in her being subjected to a hostile environment that she had not signed up for.

We agreed that she would go forward and continue on as a panelist on a later panel.

This is a difficult situation to build policy to alleviate, but we ask that all of the people involved consider the power of our actions and statements both online and in the real world. But one specific note, if people attend VidCon to collect footage to later use in videos that criticize not just ideas, but focus the outrage of their followers on individuals, they will not be welcome back.

What both of these issues have driven home for the VidCon team is that people are often bad at understanding their own power. We all imagine ourselves to be simply people — just another human among the billions with one tiny voice. But “trolling” (whatever that is) really does drive people from our platforms and end their dreams of being creators. A simple stroll through a hotel lobby really can endanger people’s safety.

These days success can happen fast, and creators might not yet have understood or accepted the responsibility their influence brings.
Maybe that is especially true when creators have built a fan base with the kind of inflammatory rhetoric and audience development strategies that can potentially turn their followers into more than just trolls. We are all watching as those techniques wear at the fabric of not just internet culture, but our whole world.

We hope that one of the many lessons learned at VidCon 2017 will be that it is very difficult to correctly imagine the power you can have over other people, and maybe we will all work harder to understand that in the future.

[Really?]

Vidcon finally makes an official statement about the Anita-Sargoon issue. Skip down to the section entitled "Who’s Harassing Whom?"

Who’s Harassing Whom?

VidCon has a tagline, it’s “For people who love online video.” But, of course, in addition to celebrating, this event has also always been about confronting difficult issues our community faces. It is openly known that women on the internet are subject to far greater amounts (and intensity) of harassment and abuse than men. This is a pattern and it’s pervasive. Running this event, we have to be aware when a creator has potentially dangerous harassers or stalkers, and our list for our female creators is a whole lot longer than the list for male creators.

That’s just one reason why we had a panel called “Women Online” featuring women who had received a variety of kinds of abuse, from repeated sexual advances to stalking to years of targeted harassment.

There is a fairly prominent genre of social/political commentary on the internet that focuses on specific individuals as a path to attack ideas and build outrage. These creators do not violate harassment policies, but the result is often that the vitriol of their followers ends up focused not on ideas, but on people (usually women.)

Many people in these communities end up believing the righteous thing to do is threaten, harass, and dox the thinkers they’re arguing with. Whether or not this is an intentional strategy to cultivate harassment or an awful side-effect, the result is some of the worst discourse and most intense harassment on the internet.

This year, we had a contingent of attendees (some who paid, some who snuck in with fake passes) who had been either perpetrators of this harassment, or had, for years, watched as the outrage they cultivated resulted in followers doxxing, harassing, intimidating, and even threatening the lives of the creators on these panels.

It is difficult to imagine that this group of people (who are aware that their channels have been base-camps for years of harassment of some of our panelists) did not realize that their arriving early to fill up the three front rows of a panel was going to be intimidating. In any case, it looked like intentional intimidation to most people in attendance, and the panelists were understandably on edge throughout the discussion.

During the panel, a panelist called out one of the audience members for being someone who has made her life very difficult, and wished she didn’t have to give him attention because he was a “garbage human.” Look, we don’t want our panelists to insult our audience members, even when we completely understand that the comment exists in a much broader (and pretty messed up) context. Even when people have said hateful things that everyone in our office disagrees with, we have a policy, and it exists not just to protect people at the show, but to protect our ability to have these conversations.

Our founder, Hank Green, talked with our panelist and said two things:

* He told her that her comment had violated our policy, but that he understood that there was a broader context (which to be clear, we were blissfully ignorant of until this weekend, and remain inexpert in.)

* He apologized to her for not having been more aware of and active in understanding the situation before the event, which resulted in her being subjected to a hostile environment that she had not signed up for.

We agreed that she would go forward and continue on as a panelist on a later panel.

This is a difficult situation to build policy to alleviate, but we ask that all of the people involved consider the power of our actions and statements both online and in the real world. But one specific note, if people attend VidCon to collect footage to later use in videos that criticize not just ideas, but focus the outrage of their followers on individuals, they will not be welcome back.

What both of these issues have driven home for the VidCon team is that people are often bad at understanding their own power. We all imagine ourselves to be simply people — just another human among the billions with one tiny voice. But “trolling” (whatever that is) really does drive people from our platforms and end their dreams of being creators. A simple stroll through a hotel lobby really can endanger people’s safety.

These days success can happen fast, and creators might not yet have understood or accepted the responsibility their influence brings.
Maybe that is especially true when creators have built a fan base with the kind of inflammatory rhetoric and audience development strategies that can potentially turn their followers into more than just trolls. We are all watching as those techniques wear at the fabric of not just internet culture, but our whole world.

We hope that one of the many lessons learned at VidCon 2017 will be that it is very difficult to correctly imagine the power you can have over other people, and maybe we will all work harder to understand that in the future.

Well, that should settle the matter. Both sides will be very happy.

[feathers]

This the dog you mean?

holy-shit.jpg

This on a t-shirt. In Rotherham or Molenbeek. I dare you.

[feathers]

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

That girl needs a good going over.

[Suet Cardigan]

From the Vidcon statement about Sargon and Anita:

It is openly known that women on the internet are subject to far greater amounts (and intensity) of harassment and abuse than men.

Bullshit:

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten ... ent-03.png

Also:

But one specific note, if people attend VidCon to collect footage to later use in videos that criticize not just ideas, but focus the outrage of their followers on individuals, they will not be welcome back.

So they shouldn't invite Anita back then after she called Sargon a garbage human and a shithead.

[John D]

Vidcon finally makes an official statement about the Anita-Sargoon issue. Skip down to the section entitled "Who’s Harassing Whom?"

Who’s Harassing Whom?

VidCon has a tagline, it’s “For people who love online video.” But, of course, in addition to celebrating, this event has also always been about confronting difficult issues our community faces. It is openly known that women on the internet are subject to far greater amounts (and intensity) of harassment and abuse than men. This is a pattern and it’s pervasive. Running this event, we have to be aware when a creator has potentially dangerous harassers or stalkers, and our list for our female creators is a whole lot longer than the list for male creators.

That’s just one reason why we had a panel called “Women Online” featuring women who had received a variety of kinds of abuse, from repeated sexual advances to stalking to years of targeted harassment.

There is a fairly prominent genre of social/political commentary on the internet that focuses on specific individuals as a path to attack ideas and build outrage. These creators do not violate harassment policies, but the result is often that the vitriol of their followers ends up focused not on ideas, but on people (usually women.)

Many people in these communities end up believing the righteous thing to do is threaten, harass, and dox the thinkers they’re arguing with. Whether or not this is an intentional strategy to cultivate harassment or an awful side-effect, the result is some of the worst discourse and most intense harassment on the internet.

This year, we had a contingent of attendees (some who paid, some who snuck in with fake passes) who had been either perpetrators of this harassment, or had, for years, watched as the outrage they cultivated resulted in followers doxxing, harassing, intimidating, and even threatening the lives of the creators on these panels.

It is difficult to imagine that this group of people (who are aware that their channels have been base-camps for years of harassment of some of our panelists) did not realize that their arriving early to fill up the three front rows of a panel was going to be intimidating. In any case, it looked like intentional intimidation to most people in attendance, and the panelists were understandably on edge throughout the discussion.

During the panel, a panelist called out one of the audience members for being someone who has made her life very difficult, and wished she didn’t have to give him attention because he was a “garbage human.” Look, we don’t want our panelists to insult our audience members, even when we completely understand that the comment exists in a much broader (and pretty messed up) context. Even when people have said hateful things that everyone in our office disagrees with, we have a policy, and it exists not just to protect people at the show, but to protect our ability to have these conversations.

Our founder, Hank Green, talked with our panelist and said two things:

* He told her that her comment had violated our policy, but that he understood that there was a broader context (which to be clear, we were blissfully ignorant of until this weekend, and remain inexpert in.)

* He apologized to her for not having been more aware of and active in understanding the situation before the event, which resulted in her being subjected to a hostile environment that she had not signed up for.

We agreed that she would go forward and continue on as a panelist on a later panel.

This is a difficult situation to build policy to alleviate, but we ask that all of the people involved consider the power of our actions and statements both online and in the real world. But one specific note, if people attend VidCon to collect footage to later use in videos that criticize not just ideas, but focus the outrage of their followers on individuals, they will not be welcome back.

What both of these issues have driven home for the VidCon team is that people are often bad at understanding their own power. We all imagine ourselves to be simply people — just another human among the billions with one tiny voice. But “trolling” (whatever that is) really does drive people from our platforms and end their dreams of being creators. A simple stroll through a hotel lobby really can endanger people’s safety.

These days success can happen fast, and creators might not yet have understood or accepted the responsibility their influence brings.
Maybe that is especially true when creators have built a fan base with the kind of inflammatory rhetoric and audience development strategies that can potentially turn their followers into more than just trolls. We are all watching as those techniques wear at the fabric of not just internet culture, but our whole world.

We hope that one of the many lessons learned at VidCon 2017 will be that it is very difficult to correctly imagine the power you can have over other people, and maybe we will all work harder to understand that in the future.

and ultimately... it is the men that I sometimes hate... haha.

The Green brothers who run VidCon ultimately side with the general idea that women are oppressed... even in modern America. I have watched many of their videos and they are often quite insightful, but they clearly believe in the patriarchy. Even after looking at the specifics of the "pay gap" they still conclude that women are underpaid because of sexism.They have always been this way, and while they are less flagrant than many men, they clearly fall into the general pile of people who think that men act... and women are acted upon.

The whole dialog is comic. A bit of an emperor with no clothes story.

I guess I really can't change this. It does get frustrating for me.

I will recount a typical story. I was out to dinner with my wife and two other married couples. We have been friends for years so they are pretty good at putting up with my bluntness. We were talking about the pay gap. I claimed that sexism has little to do with the pay difference and that the difference is primarily due to women's choices. I was immediately seriously attacked by my wife and the two other women you became upset and shouted at me that sexism is a huge problem. So I pointed out that all three women at the table either worked part time in a job only because they "liked" the work... or didn't even have a job. The men on the other hand worked hard technical jobs with over time and travel required. Basically... the men a the table earned over 95% of the wages at the table. AND... this is so the women can do what they want. Just want they want.

and so really, men usually like to take care of women and women like to be taken care of by men.

So.. what's a guy to do? I have only one suggestion. Laugh at the women who wear pussy hats to the Woman's March. This shit is funny as fuck. The bitches just want to make sure they make the men feel guilty enough to continue to take care of them... while they petition the men for more control and power. Just laugh. We can never fix this shit. Also... don't stick your dick in crazy!

[Bhurzum]

It is openly known that women on the internet are subject to far greater amounts (and intensity) of harassment and abuse than men.

All evidence to the contrary. Even after you massage the definition of "harassment" to fit your wacko narrative.

Many people in these communities end up believing the righteous thing to do is threaten, harass, and dox the thinkers they’re arguing with.

Even though the "garbage human" in question has gone to great lengths to dissuade his fans from doing those things. But hey, let's not allow facts to get in the way.

Our founder, Hank Green, talked with our panelist and said two things:

* He told her that her comment had violated our policy, but that he understood that there was a broader context (which to be clear, we were blissfully ignorant of until this weekend, and remain inexpert in.)

* He apologized to her for not having been more aware of and active in understanding the situation before the event, which resulted in her being subjected to a hostile environment that she had not signed up for.

So even though she'd violated the rules, it's A-OK because...Sargon bad. Also, who are you trying to kid? You booked Sarkesian for a talk yet were blissfully ignorant of the broader context surrounding the scamming cunt? Bullshit!

We agreed that she would go forward and continue on as a panelist on a later panel.

I'm shocked! No, really. After all, if you'd booted her from the gig, she'd only use that for further victimhood cred and proof that "the community" is ripe with soggy knees, toxic masculinity and is part of the partiarchy.

We hope that one of the many lessons learned at VidCon 2017 will be that it is very difficult to correctly imagine the power you can have over other people, and maybe we will all work harder to understand that in the future.

and that the VidCon staff are spineless wimps. And nutless.

[Suet Cardigan]

Vidcon.jpg

(151.62 KiB) Downloaded 256 times

[feathers]

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

Of course. Remember that Jesus isn't a prophet, or just a god, he is God and therefore perfect.

(Realising that christians claim Jesus to be God makes the New Testament all the more pathetic, by the way. "Here I am, creator of a billion star systems, 'Can you make me bread and wine?', 'Can you get me some fish?', 'Can you make me walk?'".)

[#32 Rat]

The comments on the Vidcon statement are all negative, so that's a good sign. Vicky Caramel sums up:

In other words, feminist ideologues aren’t subject to the same rules as mere morals, they are free to flout them with impunity.

P.S. I love the way you poisoned the well by insinuating that critics of Sarkeesian sneaked into the Con with with fake passes.

I'm surprised, I was expecting a mealy mouthed statement of inaction, not a half-hearted declaration of fealty to nutcaseville. If the Green bros were aiming for a statement that irritated but not inflamed, they missed (an opinion only).

[Steersman]

[.youtube][/youtube]

One good vid deserves another - something you in particular might like as it seems from your neck of the woods (Kyuquot, B.C):

[youtube][/youtube]


Courtesy of Jerry Coyne who has a brief post on it.

[Steersman]

Vidcon finally makes an official statement about the Anita-Sargoon issue. Skip down to the section entitled "Who’s Harassing Whom?"
...

Well, that should settle the matter. Both sides will be very happy.

You really had to quote all of that? Just to add a "me-too" type of comment? You might at least consider not cluttering up FT's blog/website, if not everyone's scrolling finger.

[d4m10n]

and so really, men usually like to take care of women and women like to be taken care of by men.

So.. what's a guy to do?

Marry a career-oriented woman with high earning potential?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[John D]

and so really, men usually like to take care of women and women like to be taken care of by men.

So.. what's a guy to do?

Marry a career-oriented woman with high earning potential?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Why would I want to hang out with a woman who not only manipulated my emotions... but also made more money than me? That's a shit life for sure. I will stick with keeping my dick clean and laughing at pussy hats.... thank you very much.

[DrokkIt]

That VidCon statement is cancerous rubbish, but nothing surprising from the Greens. Long history of them deliberately obfuscating and misrepresenting in order to serve their ideology.

[Steersman]

Vidcon finally makes an official statement about the Anita-Sargoon issue. Skip down to the section entitled "Who’s Harassing Whom?"


<snip>

and ultimately... it is the men that I sometimes hate... haha.

<snip>

The whole dialog is comic. A bit of an emperor with no clothes story.

I guess I really can't change this. It does get frustrating for me.

<snip>

So.. what's a guy to do? I have only one suggestion. Laugh at the women who wear pussy hats to the Woman's March. This shit is funny as fuck. The bitches just want to make sure they make the men feel guilty enough to continue to take care of them... while they petition the men for more control and power. Just laugh. We can never fix this shit. Also... don't stick your dick in crazy!

:-) Maybe declare, for starters, that women's voices, particularly in courts of law, are worth only 1/4 those of men? ;-) Not really a viable solution of course - though some here might disagree [ ;) ] - but sure looks like a lot of women are rather clueless about how the job market, and much else, works:

[Brive1987]

Pretty stern stuff from a couple of inexpert clowns who admit:

He told her that her comment had violated our policy, but that he understood that there was a broader context (which to be clear, we were blissfully ignorant of until this weekend, and remain inexpert in.)

It would be nice if next time they supplied a list of speakers who are exempted from the code of conduct.

It would be nice to know which paying customers are banned from the front row of which events - and which isolation pens have been reserved for them.

It's also ironic they passive aggressively seek to disinvite people from their YouTube con who film stuff to make future commentary vids.

I think this exercise of official complaint by Sargon has had the desired result of shining a light on the bullshit. If he had just criticised it's unlikely these lizards would have come out blinking into the sun.

[free thoughtpolice]

[.youtube][/youtube]

One good vid deserves another - something you in particular might like as it seems from your neck of the woods (Kyuquot, B.C):

[youtube][/youtube]


Courtesy of Jerry Coyne who has a brief post on it.

I've posted this video before. An eagle being chased by some others dropped a rabbit in the middle of the road in front of my house and there was too much traffic for them to retrieve it, so I took it down to the beach and tossed it out there. There was a sub adult on it before I could even get my camera set up. Starts at 6:30.
[youtube][/youtube]

[rayshul]

I'd disagree with your thoughts that we should get rid of sky genies.

We're now arse deep in the insanity of SJWs and fuck me but does these cunts need to find Jesus.

I don't think now, after seeing Elevatorgate and all that has followed, that people are actually capable of making moral decisions without religion. I mean some few are, sure, okay. But a fuckload aren't. And there's a shit load of worse cults than Christianity. Christianity has been largely reformed, readapted and remade while keeping the central tenets of being decent to other people intact. Now I look at Christians and I'm like, man, these guys are nice. Why can't SJWs just find Jesus.

I think I've brought it up before, but I watched a video in which "postmodern theologian" Peter Rollins (who used to go the same church I went to during my misspent evangelical youth - my lamest namedrops ever continue) discussed religion and atheism with Lawrence Krauss. The one good point Rollins made was about fundamentalism. Some religious people are fundamentalists and some are not. The ones who are fundamentalists are fundamentalists because it solves some problem they have, and if they stop being religious, they don't lose that problem and look for something else to solve it.

SJWs are secular fundamentalists. They think there is a simple answer to all life's problems, they know what it is, need just need to impose it on everybody else and everything will be fine, and anyone who opposes it is the devil. They are puritans to the core, hence the popularity of witch-hunts. If they were to find Jesus, they'd become unbearable Bible thumpers, which I don't think would be an improvement.

Yep. If they got some Jesus in them they'd be less fucking psychotic and focus their energies on converting people rather than hitting people with bike locks in the street. I think we gotta bring back Christianity to atheists, guys. We as a species weren't ready for the change.

[jet_lagg]

So they agree she violated convention policy, but decided no action would be taken. I didn't have high expectations, but an outright "it's okay when we do it" is about as low as it gets.

[free thoughtpolice]

rayshul wrote:

Yep. If they got some Jesus in them they'd be less fucking psychotic and focus their energies on converting people rather than hitting people with bike locks in the street. I think we gotta bring back Christianity to atheists, guys. We as a species weren't ready for the change.

They would go along peaceably bombing abortion clinics and shooting gynecologists.

[MarcusAu]

I'm really not sure how what happened previously should have any bearing on how people are expected to behave once they are at the conference.

The conference organisers cannot reasonably be expected to either know or care about all the previous drama - they can only ask that people comply with the regulations once they are there.

And if recording is banned for one group it should be banned for all groups - otherwise the conference organisers will be expected to mind read.

Actually it seems that there will be a group with favoured status - and all others will have to subservient to them.

I guess all the anti-SJW contingent (or however they want to identify themselves) will have to decide whether Vidcon is really for them. Perhaps they can organise something of their own to attend.

[rayshul]

Also, Boogie is looking ill these days. Ffffuhk.

[rayshul]

rayshul wrote:

Yep. If they got some Jesus in them they'd be less fucking psychotic and focus their energies on converting people rather than hitting people with bike locks in the street. I think we gotta bring back Christianity to atheists, guys. We as a species weren't ready for the change.

They would go along peaceably bombing abortion clinics and shooting gynecologists.

Doubt it. There's a pretty small minority who wind up doing that. Virtually none for a very long time. SJWs don't really have the intellectual capacity to know what they should be doing. The SJW cultists say fight the power, these people are the enemies, that's why they run in feeling righteous. While if they were Christians, they wouldn't do it. I don't think SJWs are evil, I think they're just not very intelligent and need someone to tell them what to do and feel. If they get too excited about things, then they lose their minds.

[Steersman]

...

Maybe it would be better if we could "force people to grow the fuck up" and entirely abandon at least the reactive parts of their religions. But I think it makes more sense to recognize that the reactive and non-reactive parts are, for many people, largely joined at the hip, and that it will be a slow evolutionary process of separating the wheat from the chaff while being careful about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater - which Hoffmann more or less argues, with some justification, is one of the major failings of the New Atheists.

1) Are you an atheist ( 'New' or otherwise)? If so, in what sense are the major failings of the 'New Atheists' also your own?

No. I think that, as I recently quoted Hoffmann quoting someone else:

Strictly speaking, atheism is an indefensible position, just as theism is indefensible, for both are systems of belief and neither proposition has been (or is likely to be) proven anytime soon.

You might check out the Wikipedia article on atheism, particularly the strong variety. If atheism is merely the absence of belief (negative or weak atheism) then it might have some justification, even if that looks more like agnosticism. But if, as seems the case for many atheists - particularly the Gnu variety, it boldly, if not foolhardily or hypocritically, insists there is no god then that is an active claim. For which there is hardly more evidence than there is for Jehovah or Allah or Zeus.

No doubt there is virtually no evidence for any anthropomorphic god, but it seems that the strong atheist position is vitiated or compromised by being unable to prove that there are NO other concepts that are plausible or possibly viable. "They" say that one can never prove a negative but, as with much of what "they" say, that isn't really true. For instance, in what I think is the proverbial "paradigmatic" case, consider Fermat's Last Theorem: "no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than 2". As you may know, that theorem was unproven for some 400 years - even though there were many cases where it was known to be true (all numbers less than particular values, for example) - but it was recently proven to be true, even if the details of the proof are largely outside my salary range.

But likewise with a proof for the claim that there are NO gods - rather large number of possibilities outside the standard anthropomorphic definition which I expect that no True (Strong) Atheist (tm) has managed to list much less disprove.

2) What restrictions on your own speech or actions would you be prepared to accept to serve the greater good? (However that is to be defined).

Can't think of any, particularly any that I don't already abide by, more specifically an insistence or an argument that people shouldn't make categorical claims or assertions unless they're prepared to show that every member of the class or category is or is not such-and-such.

Why I think that, for example, racist or sexist statements are so problematic if not odious. And why I think that, for example, Islam is so problematic at best if not egregiously odious as it is rife with such categorical claims - as Wafa Sultan put it, "The language of Islam is a negative, dead language, replete with violence, anger, hatred, and racism".

No doubt some of many groups exhibit behaviours or perspectives that should be at least deprecated if not anathematized, whether that's due to genetics or culture or feedbacks between the two. But to insist, particularly without proof, that that applies to all members of the group or class is frequently untenable or unwise, particularly as all it takes is one contrary case to disprove the claim, not to mention putting egg on one's face. No doubt all of some groups might reasonably be declared beyond the Pale - all rapists for example, although even in that case there might be extenuating circumstances (diminished capacity for example). But, as with Fermat's theorem, making categorical statements about an entire class (numbers, or members of a race or a sex or an ethnicity for examples), particularly where the class or group is very large, seems rather unwise or problematic at best - Here be dragons. :-)

[MarcusAu]

Steersman - This is getting weird.

You are not an atheist or a theist as both definitions are 'strictly speaking' indefensible.

What word best describes your position on such issues?

nb Going back to the basics as I understand it - gnosticism is about knowledge, and theism is about belief. So, if you choose to describe yourself on the gnostic/agnostic scale instead it doesn't really make anything much clearer.

[MarcusAu]

nb I would not expect the 'New' atheists to have a consistent position on the issue - as they are not 'strictly speaking' part of the same school. And you seem to acknowledge this by using 'gnu' at times - indicating that their grouping is informal at best.

So it would perhaps clarify things a bit when criticising them to quote who you are talking about.

[KiwiInOz]

How did I miss this piece of news:

[youtube][/youtube]

Sir Billy, the consummate fuck off artist. Should be the Pit's patron saint.

[Steersman]

Steersman - This is getting weird.

Why? How so?

You are not an atheist or a theist as both definitions are 'strictly speaking' indefensible.

Exactly. More or less. :-) But not really an either-or situation; there are other possibilities.

What word best describes your position on such issues?

Generally "agnostic", although I think there's a case to be made for intelligence or consciousness as god, even if it might be moot how much "heavy lifting" that is capable of doing. I'm currently re-reading Niall Shanks' "God, the Devil, and Darwin" (highly recommended) - "a critique of Intelligent Design Theory" - that has an illustrative quote of Thomas Aquinas:

We see how some things, like natural bodies, work for an end even though they have no knowledge. .... Things that have no knowledge [consciousness?] tend towards an end only through the agency of something which knows and also understands, as an an arrow through an archer. There is therefore an intelligent being by whom all natural things are directed to their end. This we call God. [pg 24]

If, as seems plausible or worth considering, consciousness is the common thread woven through the entire warp and woof of all of reality - all the way down - then it seems not an excess of hyperbole to characterize that as god.

nb Going back to the basics as I understand it - gnosticism is about knowledge, and theism is about belief. So, if you choose to describe yourself on the gnostic/agnostic scale instead it doesn't really make anything much clearer.

You might check out the Wikipedia article on agnosticism, particularly the quotes of T. H. Huxley who apparently coined the term:

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3]

According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, "agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist".[2] Agnosticism is a doctrine or set of tenets[4] rather than a religion. ....

Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not. ....

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

You think there are "scientific grounds for professing" that there is NO god? And if so then what is your definition for such?

[KiwiInOz]

[youtube][/youtube]

[KiwiInOz]

[youtube][/youtube]

[MarcusAu]

...
You think there are "scientific grounds for professing" that there is NO god? And if so then what is your definition for such?

Is that so?

Well I hadn't thought that up to this point - but I'll put in on my list with 5 other things to ruminate about tomorrow morning before getting something to eat.

Anyway - thanks for the links and comments - I'm not sure I have much more to say at this point - but I'll think things over.

[InfraRedBucket]

The next diet craze. Zero cal fake food with flavor packets. You heard it here first (maybe).

"Breatharian’ couple survives on ‘the universe’s energy’ instead of food"

"A “Breatharian” mom and dad of two have barely eaten for nine years as they live off “the universe’s energy.”

Husband and wife Akahi Ricardo and Camila Castello believe that food and water aren’t necessary and humans can be sustained solely by the energy of the universe."

http://nypost.com/2017/06/15/breatharia ... d-of-food/

Just in case you don't not believe these two, Tf00t has a video.
[youtube][/youtube]

Yep and I see it's (heart sinks) half a bleeding hour long.
Forgot about Breatharians, we'll die of old age by the time we get through that to find out waddyahknow you cant live on air and "energy".
With all the competition for everyone's limited online attention. He really doesnt get any more concise.
He'll be releasing box sets next.

[InfraRedBucket]

Vidcon.jpg

What isnt getting mentioned there is AK singled him out also saying " Shithead like this dude making dumbass videos"

Not nice at all.

[Really?]

Anyone have thoughts about the story about CNN and their possibly questionable motives?

It's been a bad week for them. Three journalists were fired because they ran a story that turned out to be untrue about a Trump aide colluding with the Russians.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/media/c ... index.html

Today -

A CNN producer made the mistake of talking to an undercover journalist from James O'Keefe's Project Veritas. Apparently, Jeff Zucker, the head of CNN, has been pushing full speed ahead to get the network talking about the Russia/Trump story to make money. Even though there's no evidence.

[youtube][/youtube]

[free thoughtpolice]

Infrared Bucket wrote:

Yep and I see it's (heart sinks) half a bleeding hour long.
Forgot about Breatharians, we'll die of old age by the time we get through that to find out waddyahknow you cant live on air and "energy".

As much as I like Tf00t, I have to agree completely. Too long,too much repetition.

[MarcusAu]

Infrared Bucket wrote:

Yep and I see it's (heart sinks) half a bleeding hour long.
Forgot about Breatharians, we'll die of old age by the time we get through that to find out waddyahknow you cant live on air and "energy".

As much as I like Tf00t, I have to agree completely. Too long,too much repetition.

It seems that a little goes a long way.

[Sunder]

With all the competition for everyone's limited online attention. He really doesnt get any more concise.

Don't know how much of the blame can be laid at the feet of Youtube for actively encouraging content padding the last couple years.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

That VidCon statement is cancerous rubbish, but nothing surprising from the Greens. Long history of them deliberately obfuscating and misrepresenting in order to serve their ideology.

Never heard of them before, but from pix I can tell they are feeble manlets who've never done an honest day's work in their lives. Of course they would kowtow to a dominatrix like Snarkee.

[free thoughtpolice]

Anyone have thoughts about the story about CNN and their possibly questionable motives?

It's been a bad week for them. Three journalists were fired because they ran a story that turned out to be untrue about a Trump aide colluding with the Russians.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/media/c ... index.html

Today -

A CNN producer made the mistake of talking to an undercover journalist from James O'Keefe's Project Veritas. Apparently, Jeff Zucker, the head of CNN, has been pushing full speed ahead to get the network talking about the Russia/Trump story to make money. Even though there's no evidence.

[youtube][/youtube]

Project Veritas? ? James O'Keefe talking about other's journalistic ethics? My guess is this guy was following the guy around and he asked questions like "Is there evidence of Trump collusion" What do you think of pissgate? Then he edits it to make like there is no story at all.
The facts are out there and the Russians hacked those emails and planted false stories all over the internet to damage Clinton. Trump's cronies when asked lied about contacts with Russians, making a real reason to investigate the matter. Flynn has certainly broken the law about foreign deals and there is a lot of other shady crap that has happened. It could be that there isn't any evidence to link trump to collusion but there is plent y enough smoke to send the fire department in.
As for the reliability of CNN, everyone makes mistakes. When they discovered this one they apologized, withdrew the remarks and fired thre journalists for inadequate source checking. Check out Breitbart, sleazebag O'Keefe, and for that matter Trump. Serial liars and slanderers yet you never get an apology much less firings when they do it.

[Tigzy]

Just saw this on twitter, and it's amused me a bit. It seems that the meme wars may have started a lot earlier than is generally thought - round about at the time of the English Civil War, when Sir Horatio Cary’s Regiment of Horse went into battle against the Parliamentarians under these banners:

http://wiki.bcw-project.org/_media/roya ... cary_1.jpg
http://wiki.bcw-project.org/_media/roya ... /cary2.jpg?

http://wiki.bcw-project.org/royalist/ho ... ratio-cary

[d4m10n]

Why would I want to hang out with a woman who not only manipulated my emotions...

Because Pavlovian reinforcement can be positive rather than negative.

...but also made more money than me?

Because you can buy things with money.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Billie from Ockham]

WRT Snarkesian v Sargon and the pathetic response of the conference organizer ... I have this vague memory of another woman using her position on a stage to call someone else out when they couldn't respond ... I also have a feeling that the previous event caused some shock-waves through some community, maybe even leading to the creation of some website.

I probably just coughed too hard and released some THC stored in phlegm. The above couldn't have really happened.

[Billie from Ockham]

Why would I want to hang out with a woman who not only manipulated my emotions...

Because Pavlovian reinforcement can be positive rather than negative.

You spelled adjectival form of Edward Thorndike's name incorrectly.

[d4m10n]

My apologies to Dr. Thorndike, but you get the idea.

[Billie from Ockham]

My apologies to Dr. Thorndike, but you get the idea.

As long as you don't confuse negative reinforcement with punishment, I'll accept your apology on behalf on great-great-grandpa.

[free thoughtpolice]

THC phlegm is the best kind! :dance:

[Guest_97f56d3c]

That last sentence from Anita above, is echoing and strengthening what Hank Green of Vidcon said in his statement.

The panel's first question drops. It’s about why feminism — online and in games — is an issue worthy of discussion.

Sarkeesian notes Benjamin's presence and begins speaking.

"If you Google my name on YouTube you get shitheads like this dude who are making these dumb-assed videos," she says. "They just say the same shit over and over again. I hate to give you attention because you're a garbage human. These dudes just making endless videos that go after every feminist over and over again is a part of the issue of why we have to have these conversations."

The crowd gives her a positive response, with some whoops and cheers.

On the front rows, Benjamin and his retinue rock back and forth, as if they are watching a comedy show. He yells back that he be allowed to debate with her.

Polygon, in addition to ableist sperg shaming ("rock back and forth") makes the claim that Sargon yelled back at Anita. Did he say anything in response? I had the impression from the videos he just sat there.

[free thoughtpolice]

filming me for nefarious reasons... :lol:

[Ape+lust]

She's going to regret firing McIntosh. He was a good rodeo clown and right now she needs one more than ever.

[MarcusAu]

WRT Snarkesian v Sargon and the pathetic response of the conference organizer ... I have this vague memory of another woman using her position on a stage to call someone else out when they couldn't respond ... I also have a feeling that the previous event caused some shock-waves through some community, maybe even leading to the creation of some website.

I probably just coughed too hard and released some THC stored in phlegm. The above couldn't have really happened.

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out who you are referring to.

One obvious distinction is that Sarkessian is motivated by protecting her income steam, while the other individual is not so good at long term planning and was fueled by pure snark. (Though I'm sure she would appreciate your THC infused loogie if you have any left over).

[free thoughtpolice]

She's going to regret firing McIntosh. He was a good rodeo clown and right now she needs one more than ever.

It looks like he was responsible for most of the "content" and likely did writing.
Since he was banished to man hell her project was womyn controlled (the historical thing) and flopped.
She needs a man. Maybe she could ask Sargon of Akkad if he desires another wife?

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

THC phlegm is the best kind! :dance:

Homegrown is even better:

2017-06-07 09.06.46_1496895089806-min.jpg

(606.45 KiB) Downloaded 96 times

[pro-boxing-fan]

I actually seriously entertained the hope that VidCon would punished Sarkeesian in some way, a slap on the wrist or whatever, i don't really care as long as the condemnation is at least clear. I wished for that because that would have been the unexpected situation. I think Sargon played well the 'holding yourself to your own standard' card but he did played the card in the first place because he was sure it would not happen. Im pretty sure, we all did too.

So what if? How does the gaming press and the usual SJW react? What does Sargon say? What does that mean for Anita future's? (She's not a rising star anymore) .. and many more questions.

[pro-boxing-fan]

Im pretty sure at this point Quebec will separate before i see an edit button on just one of the 2 websites i visit the most.

[Guest_84d94f98]

I know Jenny tends to bullshit a lot, but in this instance she is reading a letter from Aleksandr Kolpakov (aka Russian Deadpool aka Skeptic Feminist) from jail. It seems fairly legit. (Jenny has a history of swapping between complete bullshitter mode & brutal honesty mode).

tl;dw -
* Aleksandr Kolpakov is writing letters back & forth with Jenny McDermott & Laughing Witch
* Aleksandr Kolpakov says he is suicidal (believable) poor guy got caught & is facing life in jail & a destroyed reputation.
* Aleksandr Kolpakov says he is poor (believable, in jail, lost job, barely made ends meet until sucking it up and getting some work recently).
* Jenny sent him a $20 for the jail commissary.
* Aleksandr Kolpakov is now claiming his 'shrooms were laced with PCP. We now know what his claimed defense will be.
* Aleksandr Kolpakov is blaming the corrupt "politically motivated" prosecutors

(YES, BELIEVE IT OR NOT THIS IS ACTUALLY WORTH WATCHING DESPITE MCDERMOTT)


One thing Aleksandr does not do is accept responsibility for his actions. Everything is everyone else's fault. And he needs to get out and clear his name. He dindunuffin. The asshat is worried about what youtubers think and are saying about him. He appears desperate to milk for sympathy.

Keep in mind this asshat falsely claimed he had PTSD from being deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan even though he only completed basic training and was never deployed, and would not be deployable given his training. He falsely claimed he was a Sargent even though the army confirms his highest rank was Private 2nd Class. He used a paygrade code on his paperwork to fool his women. He also used the "it's classified" as a dodge for why none of his claims could be confirmed.

People are laughing at his claimed 3 black belt marshal arts training based on his videos. I don't personally have sufficient experience to judge.

Recap of the events that night:
https://gjsentinel.com/news/articles/co ... avior-odd/

Mesa County investigators requested that his blood be tested for the presence of drugs.

If the PCP claim is real, there will be evidence of that in his blood tests (assuming he wasn't a regular users of PCP as it was).

On the detectability of PCP.
https://therecoveryvillage.com/pcp-addi ... ystem-pcp/

Urine tests can detect PCP after 4-6 hours and for up to 7-14 days.
Blood tests are best done within 1-4 hours since plasma levels peak during that time. Blood tests are often done in an emergency room setting.
Hair tests can detect PCP within 5-10 days after use and for up to 90 days.
Saliva tests can detect PCP within 5-10 minutes of use and for up to three days.

-Soylent

[dog puke]

THC phlegm is the best kind! :dance:

Homegrown is even better:

2017-06-07 09.06.46_1496895089806-min.jpg

You grew a piano? :twatson:

[dog puke]

Im pretty sure at this point Quebec will separate before i see an edit button on just one of the 2 websites i visit the most.

Quebec? Is that still around?

[dogen]

Does anyone think that Carrier may have been trying it on with Ophelia?

I bet she could be a right little goer.

Ophie is a lesbian. A 4,000-year-old undead virgin lesbian.

In D&D parlance, a Bean Lich.

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

THC phlegm is the best kind! :dance:

Homegrown is even better:

2017-06-07 09.06.46_1496895089806-min.jpg

You grew a piano? :twatson:

I got the piano for FREE from a Methodist church that went outta bizness.