In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

[Sulman]

Road maintenance is white supremacy :bjarte:

I can't find the stats I once saw online, but I think it was like this: while it is true that higher income households have a higher average number of cars, which are more expensive, the percentage of households that have a car at all was not significantly lower in lower income classes. (Only the poorest families have no car, but in large cities many richer families also dropped their car. The picture is nowadays even more skewed because of the increase of car sharing programs).

So it's mostly bunk, and people with an old wreck arguably profit more of high quality asphalt than those with a new, high-end car.

So poor people don't use roads? They get from place to place simply by walking, or by flying bus? Their food delivered by drone, all the amenities of life brought to them by apparently mysterious, non-infrastructure means? Fascinating.

CCP is as thick as pigshit. She had her 15 minutes with the banknote thing, but clearly didn't get the memo.

[Brive1987]

PZ is at effluence with a full schedule. The crowds will be flocking.

Looking over my notes for the panels, I’m not bringing much levity, either. I’ll have to hit up some parties tonight

.

"hit up some parties"

Hopefully with full consent. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Kirbmarc]

There could be some untapped comedic material for an Elfwick type to find something that benefits everyone and argue how it only benefits white people.

"Rich white guys talk about saving rainforests only they'll ever be privileged enough to visit."

"Only rich white men need the police or prisons or the military, to protect their ill-gotten gains from the righteous proletarian expropriation they call "theft" and to exterminate women, PoC and LGBT people."

"Firefighters are for rich white people who have houses."

[Shatterface]

Roads are for plebs who can't afford helicopters.

[Brive1987]

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/proxy ... 00-h281-nc

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

PZ is at effluence with a full schedule. The crowds will be flocking.

Looking over my notes for the panels, I’m not bringing much levity, either. I’ll have to hit up some parties tonight

.

"hit up some parties"

Hopefully with full consent. :lol: :lol: :lol:

"Parties" as in the quasi-legal use of the word, I suppose?

"I'll hit up that party over there reading Germain Greer's latest tract, that party over there with the Antifa flag, and...ooh yes, that party over there with massive tits and a vulva like pan-fried squid entrails."

https://image.ibb.co/iCA80F/9507.jpg

[AndrewV69]

There could be some untapped comedic material for an Elfwick type to find something that benefits everyone and argue how it only benefits white people.

"Rich white guys talk about saving rainforests only they'll ever be privileged enough to visit."

"Only rich white men need the police or prisons or the military, to protect their ill-gotten gains from the righteous proletarian expropriation they call "theft" and to exterminate women, PoC and LGBT people."

"Firefighters are for rich white people who have houses."

Relax you two. Elfwick is dealing with this issue right now.

[Sunder]

Wanted to read some of said "piling on" but the account's on lockdown at present.

[Shatterface]

Nazis invented the autobahn. Probably.

[AndrewV69]

Also:

[AndrewV69]

Also this seems to be making the rounds:

Every time I start to suspect that Trump will be a one term president ... something happens.

[MacGruberKnows]

Also, even if determinism is true, "he couldn't have done otherwise" is dumb. Maybe he could have if he had been exposed to different stimuli (if, for example, their parents had punished him for other thing he's done before). Coyne is ready to acknowledge the deterrent effect of prison, surely he can acknowledge the deterrent effect of other forms of punishment.

I really don't see how Coyne could have written anything else.

You can flip a coin but you can't flip a Coyne.

[Kirbmarc]

Also this seems to be making the rounds:

Every time I start to suspect that Trump will be a one term president ... something happens.

Sarsour is an opportunist who is very clearly pushing for entryism of muslim conservative ideas/Honor Brigade bullshit in the US left. So far the gambit of tactically paying lip service to progressive causes has worked, but it's hard to keep up the mask all the time. She's not as bright as she thinks she is, either.

[Brive1987]

This is what happened when you politely grab for a hand instead .....

:lol: :mrgreen:

[Sunder]

Ben Goren is a fucking idiot who thinks that "trolley car" ethical thought experiments are all bullshit because "science would just institute higher safety standards so there wouldn't be runaway trolley cars."

This dumbfuck is considered a shining light at Jerry's blog. He's like Nerd of Redhead's beta iteration.

[Brive1987]

Oh..

It was fake news.

My bad.

[Guest_936d3dec]

Ben Goren is a fucking idiot who thinks that "trolley car" ethical thought experiments are all bullshit because "science would just institute higher safety standards so there wouldn't be runaway trolley cars."

This dumbfuck is considered a shining light at Jerry's blog. He's like Nerd of Redhead's beta iteration.

Trolley car problems are stupid because no one is buying a car with "kill me to save them" programming installed and most of these incidents will be solved with "what's the fastest, safest way to avoid or stop".

That said, it's equally appalling the numbers of people I encounter who seem to agree with Ben and say self driving cars cannot get here fast enough because of all the lives they will save. Assuming that to get to all the lives they save, there won't be a period of time where self driving cars are killing people left and right and engineers are scratching their heads in amusement saying "hmm, that was certainly an interesting corner case!"

[Brive1987]

The "West" is defined by the Atlantic in light of Trump's Polish speech.

The writer has missed the term "culture based on shared values" as a scaffold.

How odd.

The West is not a geographic term. Poland is further east than Morocco. France is further east than Haiti. Australia is further east than Egypt. Yet Poland, France, and Australia are all considered part of “The West.” Morocco, Haiti, and Egypt are not.

The West is not an ideological or economic term either. India is the world’s largest democracy. Japan is among its most economically advanced nations. No one considers them part of the West.

The West is a racial and religious term. To be considered Western, a country must be largely Christian (preferably Protestant or Catholic) and largely white. Where there is ambiguity about a country’s “Westernness,” it’s because there is ambiguity about, or tension between, these two characteristics. Is Latin America Western? Maybe. Most of its people are Christian, but by U.S. standards, they’re not clearly white. Are Albania and Bosnia Western? Maybe. By American standards, their people are white. But they are also mostly Muslim.

Race is often a marker for an alternative culture that would have to be displaced.
So is a non Christian religion.

But I'd much rather a culturally aligned secular Arab than a white redneck survivalist Christian fundie.

Fucking 101 stuff.

[Really?]

Also this seems to be making the rounds:

Every time I start to suspect that Trump will be a one term president ... something happens.

Sarsour is an opportunist who is very clearly pushing for entryism of muslim conservative ideas/Honor Brigade bullshit in the US left. So far the gambit of tactically paying lip service to progressive causes has worked, but it's hard to keep up the mask all the time. She's not as bright as she thinks she is, either.

Fuck. I can't take two whole fucking terms of fucking everyone fucking being fucking crazy because of fucking Trump.

Sarsour began her speech by praising “her favorite person in the room”, Siraj Wajjah – a man “listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.” She goes on to describe Wajjah as “a mentor, a motivator, and encourager” who advised her to “speak truth to power and not worry about the consequences.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/linda-sa ... istration/

In the comments, a couple of morons are trying to say that people using the word "crusade" is the same as Sarsour using "jihad." Except the fucking Crusades fucking ended fucking a zillion fucking years afuckinggo.

Trump...then Pence. Ugh.

[Brive1987]

That's why we tolerate Kirb despite his plethora of red flags.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Also this seems to be making the rounds:

Every time I start to suspect that Trump will be a one term president ... something happens.

I would wholeheartedly support Linda Sarsour adopting the niqab.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Oh..

It was fake news.

My bad.

If I were a foreign head of state, I'd grab Melania by the pussy.

[free thoughtpolice]

That's why we tolerate Kirb despite his plethora of red flags.

And he did say we were not his friends. :?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

The "West" is defined by the Atlantic in light of Trump's Polish speech.

The writer has missed the term "culture based on shared values" as a scaffold.

How odd.

The West is not a geographic term. Poland is further east than Morocco. France is further east than Haiti. Australia is further east than Egypt. Yet Poland, France, and Australia are all considered part of “The West.” Morocco, Haiti, and Egypt are not.

The West is not an ideological or economic term either. India is the world’s largest democracy. Japan is among its most economically advanced nations. No one considers them part of the West.

The West is a racial and religious term. To be considered Western, a country must be largely Christian (preferably Protestant or Catholic) and largely white. Where there is ambiguity about a country’s “Westernness,” it’s because there is ambiguity about, or tension between, these two characteristics. Is Latin America Western? Maybe. Most of its people are Christian, but by U.S. standards, they’re not clearly white. Are Albania and Bosnia Western? Maybe. By American standards, their people are white. But they are also mostly Muslim.

Race is often a marker for an alternative culture that would have to be displaced.
So is a non Christian religion.

But I'd much rather a culturally aligned secular Arab than a white redneck survivalist Christian fundie.

Fucking 101 stuff.

No, it is ideological. "The West" comprises any culture descended from The Enlightenment and still embracing its values.

[Brive1987]

Your point may not be made. Consent is implicit in her face.

[Brive1987]

That's why we tolerate Kirb despite his plethora of red flags.

And he did say we were not his friends. :?

Yeah. :x

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Ben Goren is a fucking idiot who thinks that "trolley car" ethical thought experiments are all bullshit because "science would just institute higher safety standards so there wouldn't be runaway trolley cars."

This dumbfuck is considered a shining light at Jerry's blog. He's like Nerd of Redhead's beta iteration.

Is there a particular Gorram Goren comment that set you off?

Anyhoo, over at WEIT right now, there's a pig-pile on Lindy West happening. Laissez les bon temps roulet et laissez la grosse femme pleuret!

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... r-the-nyt/

[shoutinghorse]

Now Now Becky, no need for rudeness they're only being friendly. :lol:

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Now Now Becky, no need for rudeness they're only being friendly. :lol:

Haha! It's fun playing Ape's game of freeze-framing Becky from videos. She is turning into lemon-mouthed Opheliar!

https://image.ibb.co/dbVBnv/Screen_Shot ... _04_PM.png

[shoutinghorse]

LOL .. If ever a face said Triggered :D

[Bhurzum]

LOL .. If ever a face said Triggered :D

Islam should use her fug-mug as a burka propaganda tool.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

LOL .. If ever a face said Triggered :D

It was right after the dudebro made some joke about penises.

[AndrewV69]

As I hear it, this is the content that triggered CNN and caused them/they/xir to insert that statement about blackmailing the alleged badthink author of the gif Trump retweeted.

(I say alleged because there are suggestions that the author is perhaps a 15 year old, or perhaps he is a middle aged man, or perhaps he is a Mexican Trump loving Mexican living in Mexico City).

So now:

If you ask me (and strangely, no one has) CNN would have been wiser to ignore that gif that Trump tweeted

If any of this is true (I have not checked ) ... they have not not only given ammo to "the basket of deplorables", but credibility to the racist "Jews control the media crowd".

I guess it must have seemed like a good idea at the time?

[Guest_936d3dec]

Sarsour is an opportunist who is very clearly pushing for entryism of muslim conservative ideas/Honor Brigade bullshit in the US left. So far the gambit of tactically paying lip service to progressive causes has worked, but it's hard to keep up the mask all the time. She's not as bright as she thinks she is, either.

+ fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes in the white house
+ our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community, it is not to assimilate
+ our obligation is to our young people, is to our women, is to make sure our women are protected
+ and our top priority is to please Allah and only Allah

The last one in particular is interesting. I am not sure of any Christian, Catholic or Jewish faiths that would say

+ "top priority is to please God"
+ and only God.

I was brought up a conservative Jew, and can't speak for the ultra orthodox fundamentalists, but what Judaism taught me is that our top priority is how we treat people on earth, and if we do that right, we don't have to worry about pleasing God. And I think that's probably good for most Jews and I know shit about Christianity, but I think that checks in with them as well.

But the "only God" part is what marks her speech as significantly divisive, extremist, and alarming. Hey Linda, you live in a community. Pleasing "only God", if you ask me, is literally sociopathic. If ultra orthodox Jews were to say the same thing (and I don't know they would) I would agree they are sociopaths as well.

[Guest_936d3dec]

A lot of you have been asking where Lamby is these days since he's always been the star of my gram and I've been posting pics of my poodle girls. Well, you know honesty is my jam but this one has been really heartbreaking to talk about. But I feel I have to share that last March, after four years of challenging behavior and aggression that could not be treated with training or medication or consistent loving dog ownership, Lamby went to live at an amazing professional facility in Los Angeles @matt_thezendog where an awesome person named @therealdanishay (who is educated in a rescue dog's specific trauma) loves him so hard. Lamby suffered terrible abuse as a pup that made having him in a typical home environment dangerous to him and others- we needed to be responsible to ourselves, our neighbors and especially our beloved boy. Jack and I will miss him forever but sometimes when you love something you have to let it go (especially when it requires tetanus shots and stitches.) Someday I'll really write about the pain and relief of letting Lamby go off and really be Lamby, biting and peeing in his own mouth and all.

A spokesperson for BARC Shelter in Brooklyn — where Dunham adopted Lamby in January 2013 before going on to make the dog a star by detailing his adoption in a New Yorker article, showing him off in magazine spreads like Vogue, and spotlighting him on her Instagram feed — has a different story though. For starters, the pet didn’t have a long history of abuse prior to Lena bringing him home.

“We checked the records for Lamby,” Robert Vazquez told Yahoo Celebrity via email. “He was ‘owner surrendered, not enough time,’ so we do not know where she got ‘multiple owners that abused the dog.’” (In her New Yorker piece from March 2013, Dunham said the dog had “three other homes, three other names, but now he’s mine mine mine.”)

At the time of his adoption by the star, the dog was just 1 “nearing 2-years-old” — and he didn’t have a history of being aggressive.

“When she adopted the dog from us, it wasn’t crazy,” Vazquez continued. “I have pictures of the dog loving on Lena and her mom, which is weird if the dog was abused. It wouldn’t be cuddling with her or be in the bed with her ‘boyfriend’ in the pages of Vogue.” (Lamby appeared with Lena in a 2014 Vogue spread, which also featuring her co-star Adam Driver. The dog, which seemed like a trained pro, was with the pair on city streets, in bed, and chilling with the pair in the bathroom.)

Vazquez says he personally was there “the four times Lena visited Lamby” prior to the adoption “because I’ve been in-charge of the dogs for the last 14-15 years at BARC. If Lamby had a bad past or was abused, do you think BARC would have adopted him to Lena knowing she’s a new star and put her — or the dog — in that situation? We would have told her if the dog had issues. We are a no-kill shelter. We don’t lie about the dogs’ histories because that gets them returned — and mentally it’s not good for dogs.”

Lena has previously said the dog’s aggression started immediately. In the New Yorker piece, she wrote that despite Jack’s allergies to dogs, she adopted Lamby anyway. Things were fine at first — because Jack wasn’t there — but the first night the singer met the dog, the dog bit him. In 2014, she posted an Instagram photo of her blood-stained panties after she said the dog bit her in the rear. She tweeted that it was the second time Lamby bit her (both times the dog became upset because Lena was “sobbing”). After the incident made headlines, she posted again about how the “special-need rescue dog” was working with “an amazing trainer.”

The BARC rep said, “It’s just hard to believe the dog was nasty when she took Lamby to every green room with her when Girls was still a thing 4 years ago.”

Vazquez is also disappointed that Lena got two new puppies shortly before giving away Lamby. (Dunham brought the cute canines with her to a Tonight Show appearance in February. During the interview, in which the new pups were passed around, she didn’t hint at trouble with Lamby. “Their brother, Lamby, lives in California. He’s more of a Cali kinda guy. More of a laid-back, West Coast dude,” she said.)

“[She] didn’t admit she bought her two new dogs [despite writing in the] New Yorker that dogs shouldn’t be dumped or thrown away because they have feelings,” he said.

Additionally, Vazquez pointed out that BARC — like other shelters — has a provision in its adoption papers mandating that if things don’t work out with the pet, which happens, it must be returned to the rescue organization instead of being re-homed, as Lena did and urged her 3.3 million Instagram followers to do. (“If you have a similar situation, please know it’s possible to responsibly re-home your rescue rather than sending them back into the shelter system,” she wrote. “It can require patience, diligence, and often a financial contribution, but there are solutions that leave everyone happy and safe. You will always have been your dog’s first stop outside shelter life and that’s beautiful.”)

#IndyWatch

[Sunder]

Ben Goren is a fucking idiot who thinks that "trolley car" ethical thought experiments are all bullshit because "science would just institute higher safety standards so there wouldn't be runaway trolley cars."

This dumbfuck is considered a shining light at Jerry's blog. He's like Nerd of Redhead's beta iteration.

Trolley car problems are stupid because no one is buying a car with "kill me to save them" programming installed and most of these incidents will be solved with "what's the fastest, safest way to avoid or stop".

That said, it's equally appalling the numbers of people I encounter who seem to agree with Ben and say self driving cars cannot get here fast enough because of all the lives they will save. Assuming that to get to all the lives they save, there won't be a period of time where self driving cars are killing people left and right and engineers are scratching their heads in amusement saying "hmm, that was certainly an interesting corner case!"

I don't want to be too much of a dick, but you do realize that trolley problems aren't actually about trolleys? It's a morals and ethics question, the purpose of which is to determine culpability for action or inaction based on the consequences of either. You could replace trolleys with tumbling rocks or freak flooding if it helps.

Ben's a tit because he hyper-focuses on civil engineering and manages to dodge the point spectacularly. It's the type of idiotic literal-mindedness that would object to a 2nd grade math problem that starts with "you have five apples" by saying "this is bullshit, I don't have any apples!"

[Guest_936d3dec]

I don't want to be too much of a dick, but you do realize that trolley problems aren't actually about trolleys? It's a morals and ethics question, the purpose of which is to determine culpability for action or inaction based on the consequences of either. You could replace trolleys with tumbling rocks or freak flooding if it helps.

I just want to make sure we're working from the same baseline, maybe we are not...

google com/search?q=self+driving+car+trolley+problem

There are 174,000 hits for that and many many articles like this one:

washingtonpost com/news/innovations/wp/2015/12/29/will-self-driving-cars-ever-solve-the-famous-and-creepy-trolley-problem/

So lots of people write about how the self-driving car is going to have to decide who to kill, its passengers or some outsiders, and many seem to think that cars will be built that will decide to kill the sole rider in order to save say a family.

Philosophers have been gnawing on the infamous Trolley Problem for decades, and it’s always been a purely intellectual exercise with no “right” answer. But we’re suddenly in a world in which autonomous machines, including self-driving cars, have to be programmed to deal with Trolley Problem-like emergencies in which lives hang in the balance. There’s no dodging the issue: The programmers have to decide how machines can behave appropriately in crunch time (as it were).

Self-driving cars at some point will have to wrestle with situations akin to this, if perhaps not quite so melodramatic. They’ll have to swerve to avoid pedestrians or cyclists – but what if that imperils others? Such as the occupant/owner of the self-driving vehicle? Would you program a car to drive off the side of a mountain road, sacrificing the occupant, if a school bus was careening down the mountain in the wrong lane?

washingtonpost com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/28/what-if-your-self-driving-car-decides-one-death-is-better-than-two-and-that-one-is-you/

You’re humming along in your self-driving car, chatting on your iPhone 37 while the machine navigates on its own. Then a swarm of people appears in the street, right in the path of the oncoming vehicle.

There’s a calculation to be made — avoid the crowd and crash the owner, or stay on track and take many lives? — and no one is at the wheel to make it. Except, of course, the car itself.

My take is that the vast majority of these articles (and there are tons) are masturbation pieces for the authors, and that self driving cars will never be making decisions like: kill the hot blonde retard over on the left or the ugly neurosurgeon on the right or just kill my driver who I think is an asshole.

They will be thinking more like: "is there a path of avoidance, is there a path I can stop in, which path slows me down the most". There may be some logic as to "hit a lamppost which can bend (good) or might slice (bad) or hit a building which is immovable"

There won't be any trolley problems of figuring out who to kill, if only because of course, that way lies infinite lawsuits.

[Brive1987]

Given Twatto got Indy from Craigslist or Gumtree or somewhere random, her return options will be limited to a needle.

[Brive1987]

Is Watson sailing her ship of harassment under her own name?

If so her wall of hate is pretty underwhelming. Where's the yin to her (rank) yang?

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Anybody against self-driving cars must live in a place of better drivers than I do. Spastic morons piloting two tons of steel 20mph over the speed limit while texting and vaping and also trying to shave a few seconds off their time with only the small chance of killing various other drivers and pedestrians.

I'd like to see anybody with a DUI, reckless driving or enough tickets forced into a self-driving car. Most humans seem fundamentally incapable of handling any responsibility more strenuous than a TV remote or picking their nose.

[free thoughtpolice]

"Shiv" has a different take on the muslim rape gang thing.
http://archive.is/T0ZNf

Anyway, when there were (and there was) thousands of other rape, abuse, sexual violence and stalking cases committed by white guys against ‘our women’, Lo! Tommy Robinson was nowhere to be seen. Nor was any other outraged white right wingers. Because, if you hadn’t noticed, the crime isn’t abusing women, it’s being a muslim and abusing a white woman. In fact I’d go further than that, it’s being a foreigner/non-white and abusing a white woman. It stinks of racism and reminds me of the lynching of black men who touched white women in the South.

Amazing how an ultra victim like Trans shiv can have so much compassion for all those young girls.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Ben Goren is a fucking idiot who thinks that "trolley car" ethical thought experiments are all bullshit because "science would just institute higher safety standards so there wouldn't be runaway trolley cars."

This dumbfuck is considered a shining light at Jerry's blog. He's like Nerd of Redhead's beta iteration.

Trolley car problems are stupid because no one is buying a car with "kill me to save them" programming installed and most of these incidents will be solved with "what's the fastest, safest way to avoid or stop".

That said, it's equally appalling the numbers of people I encounter who seem to agree with Ben and say self driving cars cannot get here fast enough because of all the lives they will save. Assuming that to get to all the lives they save, there won't be a period of time where self driving cars are killing people left and right and engineers are scratching their heads in amusement saying "hmm, that was certainly an interesting corner case!"

I don't want to be too much of a dick, but you do realize that trolley problems aren't actually about trolleys? It's a morals and ethics question, the purpose of which is to determine culpability for action or inaction based on the consequences of either. You could replace trolleys with tumbling rocks or freak flooding if it helps.

Ben's a tit because he hyper-focuses on civil engineering and manages to dodge the point spectacularly. It's the type of idiotic literal-mindedness that would object to a 2nd grade math problem that starts with "you have five apples" by saying "this is bullshit, I don't have any apples!"

Someone should start slipping in Voight-Kampff questions to Ben.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

self driving cars will never be making decisions like: kill the hot blonde retard over on the left or the ugly neurosurgeon on the right or just kill my driver who I think is an asshole.

Save the blonde! Save the blonde!

[youtube][/youtube]

[Bhurzum]

:o

[TheMudbrooker]

Anybody against self-driving cars must live in a place of better drivers than I do. Spastic morons piloting two tons of steel 20mph over the speed limit while texting and vaping and also trying to shave a few seconds off their time with only the small chance of killing various other drivers and pedestrians.

I'd like to see anybody with a DUI, reckless driving or enough tickets forced into a self-driving car. Most humans seem fundamentally incapable of handling any responsibility more strenuous than a TV remote or picking their nose.

No need to wait for self-driving cars...

[youtube][/youtube]

[Kirbmarc]

The "West" is defined by the Atlantic in light of Trump's Polish speech.

The writer has missed the term "culture based on shared values" as a scaffold.

How odd.

The West is not a geographic term. Poland is further east than Morocco. France is further east than Haiti. Australia is further east than Egypt. Yet Poland, France, and Australia are all considered part of “The West.” Morocco, Haiti, and Egypt are not.

The West is not an ideological or economic term either. India is the world’s largest democracy. Japan is among its most economically advanced nations. No one considers them part of the West.

The West is a racial and religious term. To be considered Western, a country must be largely Christian (preferably Protestant or Catholic) and largely white. Where there is ambiguity about a country’s “Westernness,” it’s because there is ambiguity about, or tension between, these two characteristics. Is Latin America Western? Maybe. Most of its people are Christian, but by U.S. standards, they’re not clearly white. Are Albania and Bosnia Western? Maybe. By American standards, their people are white. But they are also mostly Muslim.

Race is often a marker for an alternative culture that would have to be displaced.
So is a non Christian religion.

But I'd much rather a culturally aligned secular Arab than a white redneck survivalist Christian fundie.

Fucking 101 stuff.

The Atlantic definition is incorrect. Russia is mostly white and mostly Christian Orthodox, yet it's never been part of the "west". And plenty of people consider Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to be part of the "West". Also for quite a long time nobody considered Eastern Europe, with the exception of Greece (or previously Poland) to be part of "the west".

The "west", without context, is a meaningless word. Many use it as the modern version of the "First World", i.e. the US allies who are liberal democracies.

The concept of "west" was first used by the Greeks against the Persian invaders, combined to the tropes of "western freedom" and "eastern tyranny", since the Greek city-states were proud of their independence vs. the perceived subjugation and servile attitudes of those under the rule of the Persians. It was then used by the conservative Romans against, ironically enough, Greece and especially the Hellenized successors of Alexander's empire, then by the Catholic church in relation to the Catholic-Orthodox schism, then by Christian countries against the expansionist aims of the Ottoman Empire, then by European colonial powers, then by Americans and their allies vs. the Soviet Union and their allies.

The tropes of the "west" as the land of freedom vs. "Eastern" servitude is the common theme, from the Greeks onward. The Greeks saw the Persians as the slaves of their emperor, the Romans saw themselves as a free aristocracy vs. the slaves of a depraved court, the Catholics as free members of the "res public Christiana" who had popes and emperors both not a figure that dominated both the civil and religious hierarchies like the Cesaro-Papist Byzantine Emperors, the Christian countries saw themselves as free (and fractured) kingdoms and nobles vs. the servile followers of the Ottoman Empire, the European colonial powers as the free people vs. the slaves who were merely exchanged domination of an "Eastern" tyrant for a "Western" master, the US and their allies as the "free world" vs. those under authoritarian Communist dictatorship.

Of course for the most part the myth of the "west" is, indeed, a myth, used to justify conservative or colonial positions or fighting together against a common enemy/rival for power. However after the rise of the Enlightenment "the west" was used more and more to refer to the countries who were gradually rebuilt according to the Enlightenment principles: the UK, the US, then France, then pretty much all liberal democracies and their colonies/satellites.

The seminal text for the modern conservative/anti-globalist right-wing populist rhetoric about "the west" is Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West ("Der Untergang des Abendlandes").

The book introduces itself as a "Copernican overturning" involving the rejection of the Eurocentric view of history, especially the division of history into the linear "ancient-medieval-modern" rubric.[1] According to Spengler, the meaningful units for history are not epochs but whole cultures which evolve as organisms. He recognizes at least eight high cultures: Babylonian, Egyptian, Chinese, Indian, Mesoamerican (Mayan/Aztec), Classical (Greek/Roman), Arabian, Western or "European-American." Cultures have a lifespan of about a thousand years. The final stage of each culture is, in his word use, a "civilization".

Spengler also presents the idea of Muslims, Jews and Christians, as well as their Persian and Semitic forebears, being 'Magian'; Mediterranean cultures of the antiquity such as Ancient Greece and Rome being 'Apollonian'; and the modern Westerners being 'Faustian'.

According to Spengler, the Western world is ending and we are witnessing the last season—"winter time"—of Faustian Civilization. In Spengler's depiction, Western Man is a proud but tragic figure because, while he strives and creates, he secretly knows the actual goal will never be reached.

Spengler's book is the basis for the NeoReaction movement, for all those who say that they reject "Whig history" (i.e. history as evolution from Antiquity to the Middle Ages to Modernity) and, most importantly, for Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of the World Order". It is Huntington who presents this map:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... mapn2.pngg

Note how Huntington's map does differentiate between "Western" and "Latin American" Civilizations, excludes Japan from the "west" and includes Poland (along with the Baltic States, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech and Slovak Republics) in the "Western" cultures, but still doesn't follow what the Atlantic alleges to be the definition of the "west" (mostly white, mostly Christian) because Russia, the Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, Georgia and Armenia are mostly Christians, and mostly "white", but are definitely not "western", they're part of the Orthodox culture instead.

Also the Philippines are apparently, according to Huntington, a crossroads between "the West", Islam and the Sinic culture.

What is Huntington's main thesis? This:

Huntington began his thinking by surveying the diverse theories about the nature of global politics in the post-Cold War period. Some theorists and writers argued that human rights, liberal democracy, and the capitalist free market economy had become the only remaining ideological alternative for nations in the post-Cold War world. Specifically, Francis Fukuyama argued that the world had reached the 'end of history' in a Hegelian sense.

Huntington believed that while the age of ideology had ended, the world had only reverted to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural conflict. In his thesis, he argued that the primary axis of conflict in the future will be along cultural lines.[6]

As an extension, he posits that the concept of different civilizations, as the highest rank of cultural identity, will become increasingly useful in analyzing the potential for conflict.

In the 1993 Foreign Affairs article, Huntington writes "The Clash of Civilizations?" At the end of the article, he writes:

This is not to advocate the desirability of conflicts between civilizations. It is to set forth descriptive hypothesis as to what the future may be like.[2]

In addition, the clash of civilizations, for Huntington, represents a development of history. In the past, world history was mainly about the struggles between monarchs, nations and ideologies, such as seen within Western civilization. But after the end of the Cold War, world politics moved into a new phase, in which non-Western civilizations are no longer the exploited recipients of Western civilization but have become additional important actors joining the West to shape and move world history.[7]

And what is Huntington's idea of the key elements of the "west"?

Western civilization, comprising the United States and Canada, Western and Central Europe, Australia and Oceania. Whether Latin America and the former member states of the Soviet Union are included, or are instead their own separate civilizations, will be an important future consideration for those regions, according to Huntington. The traditional Western viewpoint identified Western Civilization with the Western Christian (Catholic-Protestant) countries and culture.[9]

So even according to Huntington it's more complicated than just "Christian and white". It's "Western Christian (Catholic-Protestant) and mostly European".

Also according to Huntington Latin American culture is "different" but "may be considered part of Western civilization".

Latin American. Includes Central America, South America (excluding Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana), Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Mexico. May be considered a part of Western civilization. Many people in South America and Mexico regard themselves as full members of Western civilization.

However the "Orthodox" civilization seems to be distinct from the "West" (and poorly defined):

The Orthodox world of the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia (except Croatia and Slovenia), Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece and Romania. Countries with a non-Orthodox majority are usually excluded (Shia Muslim Azerbaijan, Sunni Muslim Albania and most of Central Asia, as well as majority Muslim regions in the Balkans, Caucasus and central Russian regions such as Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, Roman Catholic Slovenia and Croatia, Protestant and Catholic Baltic states). However, Armenia is included, despite its dominant faith, the Armenian Apostolic Church, being a part of Oriental Orthodoxy rather than the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Kazakhstan is also included, despite its dominant faith being Sunni Islam.

What's more, there's the Huntingtonian concept of "cleft" countries:

There are also others which are considered "cleft countries" because they contain very large groups of people identifying with separate civilizations. Examples include Ukraine ("cleft" between its Eastern Rite Catholic-dominated western section and its Orthodox-dominated east), French Guiana (cleft between Latin America, and the West), Benin, Chad, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Togo (all cleft between Islam and Sub-Saharan Africa), Guyana and Suriname (cleft between Hindu and Sub-Saharan African), Sri Lanka (cleft between Hindu and Buddhist), China (cleft between Sinic and Buddhist, in the case of Tibet; and the West, in the case of Hong Kong and Macau), and the Philippines (cleft between Islam, in the case of Mindanao; Sinic, and the West). Sudan was also included as "cleft" between Islam and Sub-Saharan Africa; this division became a formal split in July 2011 following an overwhelming vote for independence by South Sudan in a January 2011 referendum.

So apparently Hong Kong, Macau, French Guyana and the Philippines have elements of the Western Civilization even though they're definitely not "white".

Huntington's theory has gotten more and more popular after it apparently "predicted" the clashes in the Ukraine and the division of Sudan.
People like Steve Bannon are followers of Huntington (and of Spengler=

But is Huntington's theory really predictive and possible to test for accuracy, or more of simplification of much more complex dynamics? Well, for a start, it's too vaguely defined. For example there's the concept of "swing civilizations":

Russia and India are what Huntington terms 'swing civilizations' and may favor either side. Russia, for example, clashes with the many Muslim ethnic groups on its southern border (such as Chechnya) but—according to Huntington—cooperates with Iran to avoid further Muslim-Orthodox violence in Southern Russia, and to help continue the flow of oil. Huntington argues that a "Sino-Islamic connection" is emerging in which China will cooperate more closely with Iran, Pakistan, and other states to augment its international position.

Huntington leaves out that the US (a definitely "Western" country) heavily co-operated with the GCC countries, with Pakistan and other Sunni Muslim entities against Iran and Russia.

Huntington also seem to perceive "civilization" as rather monolithic and static. Differences between Catholic countries and Protestant ones are ignored, and (more significantly) conflicts within the "Muslim culture" are ignored. Geopolitical programs of different nations and different national interests are papered over.

Moreover the inner conflict between modernization and traditionalism in many different cultures (including, but not limited to, islam) is ignored. Huntington, following Spengler's lead, doesn't believe in a concept such as "modernity".

I'm not going to argue whether Huntington's thesis is accurate or not (I think it's too poorly defined to be meaningfully discussed as scientific theory, and too generic to be discussed as a geopolitical-geostrategic theory) but it is a theory that is becoming more and more popular in conservative circles, especially in the Trump administration, mostly due to the influence of Steve Bannon.

The Trump administration in general seems torn between the NeoCon/Bush paradigm of the American Empire-Pax Americana-regime change to "export democracy" and the Huntington/Bannon paradigm of "defending Western Civilization".

Trump's speech should be analyzed on these basis, instead of trying to paint Trump as the puppet of Richard Spencer.

[Kirbmarc]

Sarsour is an opportunist who is very clearly pushing for entryism of muslim conservative ideas/Honor Brigade bullshit in the US left. So far the gambit of tactically paying lip service to progressive causes has worked, but it's hard to keep up the mask all the time. She's not as bright as she thinks she is, either.

+ fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes in the white house
+ our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community, it is not to assimilate
+ our obligation is to our young people, is to our women, is to make sure our women are protected
+ and our top priority is to please Allah and only Allah

The last one in particular is interesting. I am not sure of any Christian, Catholic or Jewish faiths that would say

+ "top priority is to please God"
+ and only God.

I was brought up a conservative Jew, and can't speak for the ultra orthodox fundamentalists, but what Judaism taught me is that our top priority is how we treat people on earth, and if we do that right, we don't have to worry about pleasing God. And I think that's probably good for most Jews and I know shit about Christianity, but I think that checks in with them as well.

But the "only God" part is what marks her speech as significantly divisive, extremist, and alarming. Hey Linda, you live in a community. Pleasing "only God", if you ask me, is literally sociopathic. If ultra orthodox Jews were to say the same thing (and I don't know they would) I would agree they are sociopaths as well.

She IS pretty terrible. The part against assimilation is the worst part IMHO since (whether Linda understands it or not) it WILL be used to push conservative initiatives and go after modernization muslims or ex-muslims. She's behaving like Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity when they bash those who aren't "Christian enough".

The "top priority to please God, and only God" is the muslim standards. Islam is all about God and only God (and Mohammed as his prophet). It's in the Qu'ran. It's in the ahadith. It's in the religious practice. Islam is highly sectarian, divisive, and warns against trusting non-muslims or taking them as friends.

But, if I can guess, what Linda meant with her speech is to create a "Muslim identity" which protected from criticism by Muslim identity politics, just like LGBT identity politics protect Gender Studies from criticism. She wants to exploit "intersectionality" to push conservative muslim narratives, like "modesty fashion"- She's using her status as an American Muslim woman to get easy victim tokens. She's a political troll.

The left loves her because of the soft bigotry of low expectations (yes, I believe that's a thing, regardless of the fact it was that moron Dubya who used this term). They see a hijab-wearing muslim woman who nevertheless claims to be against FGM (although she's ready to say that Ayaan Hirsi Ali should have her vagina taken away) or pro-LGBT rights (although it's clear that it's because she believes that both LGBT people and muslims are "oppressed" and so they should ally tactically with the Left to protect their oppressed identities"), so they're willing to excuse her support for religious laws, her praising of Saudi Arabia as being better in certain aspects compared to the US and "not a boogeyman" and her fundamentally anti-modern, anti-assimilationist message.

The left should rather support leftist ex-muslims like Ali Rizvi or Lalo Dagach, or leftist liberal muslims like Maajid Nawaz. Linda isn't a leftist, or a modernizer/liberal: she's a conservative who aligns with the left out of identity politics and so says all the right words to get accepted. She's not a full-time reactionary Salafi, but she's not someone who should be given a podium at leftist rallies, either.

[Kirbmarc]

That's why we tolerate Kirb despite his plethora of red flags.

And he did say we were not his friends. :?

:lol:

Here's evidence of Reza Aslan being a cunt with double standards ("It is known"):

"Jihad is Sarsour's speech is SO obviously not about violence, but Sam Harris is SO obviously a supporter of genocide".

Stick to eating brains, Reza.

https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1598188 ... .png?w=400

[MarcusAu]

Besides supporting the implementation of Sharia law in the US - has Linda Sarsour said anything about what she thinks of the separation of church and state?

I'm thinking no...but who knows could be pleasantly surprised.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

She's probably all for the separation of church and state, but strongly against the separation of mosque and state. At least that's my guess.

[Brive1987]

That western thing seems a bit complicated.

In modern parlance can't we say we had the western allies and the commies With everything else third world shit-can?

And the western allies were commonwealth/America/Europe - ie derived from the western enlightenment.

Largely democratic, capitalist, Christian, cognisant of some form of humanistic human rights. Possessed of a shared classical historical root. Oh. And if you never got around to inventing the wheel - don't bother to apply. Yes. That includes the Australian Aboriginals.

Now this "west" is not capable of simple transference to decolonialised shit-can states with their own cultural roots. But individuals can transfigure

[MarcusAu]

So can we start referring to 'Orientals' again yet?

[MarcusAu]

Also I think Poles should only be considered Polish if they can grow handlebar mustaches.

...and yes that would include your significant other Phil.

[Brive1987]

So can we start referring to 'Orientals' again yet?

You need to be more specific.

You have the oriental-west and shit can states.

Your broad brush is offensive.

[feathers]

Anybody against self-driving cars must live in a place of better drivers than I do. Spastic morons piloting two tons of steel 20mph over the speed limit while texting and vaping and also trying to shave

All three at the same time? That I'd have to see!

...a few seconds off their time with only the small chance of killing various other drivers and pedestrians.

Ah. Right. That kind of narrows it down.

[MarcusAu]

So can we start referring to 'Orientals' again yet?

You need to be more specific.

You have the oriental-west and shit can states.

Your broad brush is offensive.

And you comment it what I would typically expect from an Occidental.

[shoutinghorse]

AntiFa in Hamburg. Because they only way to protest the G20 is to burn cars. :roll:

[Tigzy]

"Shiv" has a different take on the muslim rape gang thing.
http://archive.is/T0ZNf

Anyway, when there were (and there was) thousands of other rape, abuse, sexual violence and stalking cases committed by white guys against ‘our women’, Lo! Tommy Robinson was nowhere to be seen. Nor was any other outraged white right wingers. Because, if you hadn’t noticed, the crime isn’t abusing women, it’s being a muslim and abusing a white woman. In fact I’d go further than that, it’s being a foreigner/non-white and abusing a white woman. It stinks of racism and reminds me of the lynching of black men who touched white women in the South.

Amazing how an ultra victim like Trans shiv can have so much compassion for all those young girls.

Planks and motes, innit! Whether 'Shiv' (lol please!) likes it or not, there certainly appears to be a case that these muslim rape gangs are largely targeting white working class girls. In 'Shiv's world, it seems to be more outrageous that Tommy Robinson can largely make certain muslims the target of his ire, as opposed to certain muslims making white non-muslim children the focus of their perversions. 'Shiv' is every bit as selective in her outrage as Tommy Robinson, so she should shut her arse about it, really.

[Billie from Ockham]

AntiFa in Hamburg. Because they only way to protest the G20 is to burn cars. :roll:

The point of burning cars is to stop gov'ts from wasting money on roads. Please, try to keep up.

[DrokkIt]

AntiFa in Hamburg. Because they only way to protest the G20 is to burn cars. :roll:

The amount of people in my timeline who think this is a good thing is appalling.