In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1561

Kirbmarc wrote:
jet_lagg wrote:
If You Don't Understand Christianity, Shut Up

Quoting the dictionary definition of God, holding up the bible, or referring to Comparative Religious Studies 101 to defend positions when challenged is a bad idea. It will not stand up in an argument with a doctorate in divinity and it is not adequate to dismiss cutting edge peer reviewed materials from journals like Themelios. If you do not understand theology, do not posit yourself as an expert on the matter.
Someone (his name escapes me now, but I believe he taught biology at a small university in a US Midwestern state) once had created an argument to reply to this kind of reasoning. How was it called? The Courtesan's Reply? Ah, no, wait, that was Dick Carrier's Bat Signal...

:lol: I mean, honestly! ;-)

#1562

If I squint right - and try to parse that tweet - I think that Zinnia is claiming to represent the scientific point of view.

So it becomes something like - science tells you how your genitals work - but that if you want to apply the labels 'male' or 'female' then you are buying into some form of ideology (ie bigotry).

Obviously 'male' and 'female' are in no way scientific concepts!

#1563

Not just the old Confederate battle flag is 'Racist' but a new flag designed by a child is too. :doh:

[youtube][/youtube]

#1564

Kirbmarc wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFCfsH7XgAEPW31.jpg:large

Yeah, who cares about science anyway, 'mright?

Zinnia oh Zinnia
Say have you seen Zinnia
Zinnia the penised lady?

#1565

AndrewV69 wrote:In other news:

[youtube][/youtube]

:) Apropos of both horse and "other news":

Somewhat amusing, and kind of encouraging, to see which side Panahi comes down on in the CNN-Trump battle.

#1566

Meanwhile in the socialist utopia that is Venezuela :?

#1567

So today I watched Rise, Dawn and War for the Planet of the Apes and fucken loved every minute.

If Andy Serkis doesn't get an Oscar nod I'm going riot.

#OscarsSoHuman

#1568

Shaved head, surely a neo-nazi. It's ok to punch nazis...

#1569

Kirbmarc wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFCfsH7XgAEPW31.jpg:large

Yeah, who cares about science anyway, 'mright?

Where the fuck is he getting this stuff? His much-abused ass? I don't even understand what he's even saying. Does this apply to all species, or are humans just magically excepted for reasons? The idea that you can redefine standard biology and then declare it to be settled science just baffles me.

My best guess is that he's declaring there is no male and female categories in humans, just perceptions that are transphobic if they correspond to reality.

#1570

MarcusAu wrote:If I squint right - and try to parse that tweet - I think that Zinnia is claiming to represent the scientific point of view.

So it becomes something like - science tells you how your genitals work - but that if you want to apply the labels 'male' or 'female' then you are buying into some form of ideology (ie bigotry).

Obviously 'male' and 'female' are in no way scientific concepts!

He's certainly trying to claim that his argument is based on a "scientific point of view". But he clearly hasn't the foggiest idea what that entails - dogma does tend to produce that type of fog, as with Loyola's rules for "thinking with the Church":

http://i.imgur.com/2SMmewB.png

And I don't think it particularly tenable to insist that "male and female are in no way scientific concepts", although I think you have to enlarge the scope of the term "scientific" to justify the counter-argument. While this might be considered too "prescriptivist" for some ..., consider the science of taxonomy:

Taxonomy (from Ancient Greek: τάξις taxis, "arrangement", and -νομία -nomia, "method"[1]) is the science of defining and naming groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics. Organisms are grouped together into taxa (singular: taxon) and these groups are given a taxonomic rank; groups of a given rank can be aggregated to form a super group of higher rank, thus creating a taxonomic hierarchy. ....

And my argument has been, as I put it in a [deleted] comment over at Patheos before being summarily banned for questioning the "conventional wisdom" of dogmatic transactivists, that:

... humans can be partitioned into 3 more or less mutually exclusive classes, at least from the perspective of the biology of procreation, i.e., those who produce sperm ("men"), those who produce ova ("women"), and those who produce neither ("girls", "eunuchs", "menopausees", "transwomen", "transmen", etc).

And, as I said in the same comment:

... science more or less starts from defining terms and classes on the basis of "shared characteristics" - whether they're electrons and protons, or "animal, mineral, vegetable", or male and female.

Which is, of course, not a particularly popular, or even easlily understood, perspective, even by those who should know better. Fer instance, an amusing if somewhat clueless response to my earlier comment (which I'm pleased to note is still there - have to commend Green for that at least):

William Bergmann wrote: [to] Steers Mann • 6 hours ago
Are you implying my infertile wife is not a female?

And, in our time, the term 'gender' is largely meaningless in its classic usage.

I'm sorry if you're upset at being forced to deal with individuals, rather than being able to lump people together based on your self-defined notions.

Sorry to bust your bubble there, William, but, technically speaking at least, that is exactly what I'm saying: your infertile wife is not a female. Although I'm happy to see that he recognizes that the term "gender" is more or less incoherent twaddle.

But it's also clear that he's rather clueless about how definitions and the science that undergirds them really work. Analogously, a teenager is defined as a person who's within a certain age bracket - once a person is outside that bracket they can no longer claim membership in that class - can no longer claim that label with pride, even if many others can still do so.

Maybe there's some justification for coming up with other labels, other terms, for the classes "male" and "female". But it is manifestly impossible to deny that those groupings exist, that the attributes they conventionaly entail are shared by rather large percentages of both human and other animal populations. Which have a not inconsiderable value. Not surprisingly, I haven't had much success in getting anyone to accept any of the other possibilities that might be used ... ;-)

#1571

MarcusAu wrote:If I squint right - and try to parse that tweet - I think that Zinnia is claiming to represent the scientific point of view.

So it becomes something like - science tells you how your genitals work - but that if you want to apply the labels 'male' or 'female' then you are buying into some form of ideology (ie bigotry).

Obviously 'male' and 'female' are in no way scientific concepts!

I can't wrap my head around why s/h/it would think the label matters. Biology tells us that there are two different types of genitals capable of carrying out sexual reproduction in humans (and most other multicellular life forms) and that you need two people, one with each of the genitals to make a baby happen. That's the part that actually matters. Male and female are just arbitrary designations. Call them external and internal if you want. Call them "outie" and "innie". Call them lightsaber and sarlacc pit.

Changing the names just changes the fucking names. What is it with SJWs that deludes them into thinking that there is some kind of magic in the labels you put on things? You can't change reality by changing labels.

#1572

Kirbmarc wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFCfsH7XgAEPW31.jpg:large

Yeah, who cares about science anyway, 'mright?

Yea. Particularly the somewhat "prescriptivist" science of taxonomy ... ;-)

#1573

Kirbmarc wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFCfsH7XgAEPW31.jpg:large

Yeah, who cares about science anyway, 'mright?

I'd be happy to refer to zir girlcock as 'female genitals' just as soon as it starts shooting ova...

#1574

Steersman wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
jet_lagg wrote:
If You Don't Understand Christianity, Shut Up

Quoting the dictionary definition of God, holding up the bible, or referring to Comparative Religious Studies 101 to defend positions when challenged is a bad idea. It will not stand up in an argument with a doctorate in divinity and it is not adequate to dismiss cutting edge peer reviewed materials from journals like Themelios. If you do not understand theology, do not posit yourself as an expert on the matter.
Someone (his name escapes me now, but I believe he taught biology at a small university in a US Midwestern state) once had created an argument to reply to this kind of reasoning. How was it called? The Courtesan's Reply? Ah, no, wait, that was Dick Carrier's Bat Signal...
:lol: I mean, honestly! ;-)

I thought the Slymepit revealed he took (and dressed up) the Country-fried Reply from a previous comment on his blog.

#1575

Of course once the concepts of 'male' and 'female' have been deemed surplus to requirements - then the related concepts of 'straight' 'gay' 'bisexual' 'transgender' etc etc will also be thrown out the window.

#1576

Old_ones wrote:
MarcusAu wrote:If I squint right - and try to parse that tweet - I think that Zinnia is claiming to represent the scientific point of view.

So it becomes something like - science tells you how your genitals work - but that if you want to apply the labels 'male' or 'female' then you are buying into some form of ideology (ie bigotry).

Obviously 'male' and 'female' are in no way scientific concepts!
I can't wrap my head around why s/h/it would think the label matters. Biology tells us that there are two different types of genitals capable of carrying out sexual reproduction in humans (and most other multicellular life forms) ...

Yea, though technically speaking, the defining attributes - the sine qua non - of the definitions for both "male" and "female" is the type of gamete produced. Even though the type of genitals generally correlates strongly with the gamete produced, there are exceptions, although they are rather rare.

Old_ones wrote:... and that you need two people, one with each of the genitals to make a baby happen. That's the part that actually matters. Male and female are just arbitrary designations. Call them external and internal if you want. Call them "outie" and "innie". Call them lightsaber and sarlacc pit.

Changing the names just changes the fucking names. What is it with SJWs that deludes them into thinking that there is some kind of magic in the labels you put on things? You can't change reality by changing labels.

Indeed - sort of a type or form of totemism. Seems part and parcel of the rather problematic phenomenon of identitarianism (amusing example in that definition). But seems also that many recognize that the labels are, in fact, "socially constructed" - we agree, as "rules of the road", that certain terms, certain combinations of letters and phonemes, denote certain attributes. However, rather problematically, many seem to balk at, are unhorsed or discombobulated by the very thought of, admitting that the attributes themselves are quite real, and that they are generally shared by rather large numbers of people and other animals.

As I've frequently argued, that seems rather remarkably clueless about the nature of science - the "virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment" that mars so much of "feminism".

#1577

MarcusAu wrote:Of course once the concepts of 'male' and 'female' have been deemed surplus to requirements - then the related concepts of 'straight' 'gay' 'bisexual' 'transgender' etc etc will also be thrown out the window.

Once you ditch the binary everyone is non-binary.

No more being special.

#1578

Hey, Dad! You said I'd never amount to anything! But now I've cut my balls off - so who's the loser now?

#1579

#32 Rat wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote: <snip>
Someone (his name escapes me now, but I believe he taught biology at a small university in a US Midwestern state) once had created an argument to reply to this kind of reasoning. How was it called? The Courtesan's Reply? Ah, no, wait, that was Dick Carrier's Bat Signal...
:lol: I mean, honestly! ;-)
I thought the Slymepit revealed he took (and dressed up) the Country-fried Reply from a previous comment on his blog.

Don't recollect the details on that - maybe before my time. :-) But a Wikipedia article has an amusing observation by Edward Feser:

Roman Catholic philosopher Edward Feser, writing in The American, has called the Courtier's Reply a rhetorical "pseudo-defense" employed as a "clever marketing tag" in order for members of the New Atheism movement to avoid criticism of their arguments. Feser terms the Reply "the Myers Shuffle".[8]

The "Myers shuffle" criticism points out that the Courtier's Reply rhetoric is usually a summation of logical fallacies or sophistry, and characterizes Muehlhauser's assertion that criticism of someone's philosophical or theological ignorance is irrelevant when the existence or otherwise of God is disputed as a case of the special pleading fallacy. Feser further claims that asserting that the "average believer" is not well informed about theology is a red herring, since something being true does not depend on how many people believe it is true.

#1580

dogen wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:[.img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFCfsH7XgAEPW31.jpg:large[/img]

Yeah, who cares about science anyway, 'mright?
I'd be happy to refer to zir girlcock as 'female genitals' just as soon as it starts shooting ova...

:lol: Indeed. "Best post evah"? ;-)

#1581

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFCfsH7XgAEPW31.jpg:large

Yeah, who cares about science anyway, 'mright?
Where the fuck is he getting this stuff? His much-abused ass? I don't even understand what he's even saying. Does this apply to all species, or are humans just magically excepted for reasons? The idea that you can redefine standard biology and then declare it to be settled science just baffles me.

My best guess is that he's declaring there is no male and female categories in humans, just perceptions that are transphobic if they correspond to reality.

Zinnia has been having hormone treatment for years:

[youtube][/youtube]

Can someone ask Zinnia why she's taking female hormones if the ideas of male and female are just social constructs?

#1582

I thought using "female" as a noun was verboten at the "nigger" level ..... so confused.

http://i.imgur.com/s7jSG4C.jpg

#1583

What is a female lens and how does it have distinguishing characteristics that don't stereotype?

Are they caring nurturing cities? Or ones full of shoe shops? Maybe all you need is lots of breast feeding safe places? Or female cops policing man-spreading? Enya on the piped music? Lots of pink and bright colours?

Or is it the destruction of male stereotypes? No sports stadiums, no games shops, no male magazines, no motorbikes. But if so, what of the bulls. Dykes have rights.

Would Dave-lens be different to a Shoe-lens? What if Zvan got hold of the damn thing. Then it would be Subways and Pizza all the way down.

Please. How would the Pepsi test be constructed?

#1584

Suet Cardigan wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: <snip>

My best guess is that he's declaring there is no male and female categories in humans, just perceptions that are transphobic if they correspond to reality.
Zinnia has been having hormone treatment for years:

[.youtube][/youtube]

Can someone ask Zinnia why she's taking female hormones if the ideas of male and female are just social constructs?

I would but he blocked me on Twitter ages ago. But consistency is certainly not his strong suit.

The problem in not defining one's terms adequately right out of the chute:

The principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso (sequitur) quodlibet (EFQ), "from falsehood, anything (follows)", or ex contradictione (sequitur) quodlibet (ECQ), "from contradiction, anything (follows)"), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law of classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it.

#1585

Brive1987 wrote:What is a female lens and how does it have distinguishing characteristics that don't stereotype?

Are they caring nurturing cities? Or ones full of shoe shops? Maybe all you need is lots of breast feeding safe places? Or female cops policing man-spreading? Enya on the piped music? Lots of pink and bright colours?

Or is it the destruction of male stereotypes? No sports stadiums, no games shops, no male magazines, no motorbikes. But if so, what of the bulls. Dykes have rights.

Would Dave-lens be different to a Shoe-lens? What if Zvan got hold of the damn thing. Then it would be Subways and Pizza all the way down.

Please. How would the Pepsi test be constructed?

It's just trendy and corporate friendly mushy pap that means nothing but more money and power for corporate cronies. Some vagina monuments here, gender quotas there, Girl Power rhetoric, etc. etc., and you look progressive and so enlightened while doing nothing of value.

Politics as usual.

#1586

Brive1987 wrote:What is a female lens and how does it have distinguishing characteristics that don't stereotype?

<snip>

Please. How would the Pepsi test be constructed?

:lol: :clap: ;)

But, somewhat parenthetically, seem to recollect that the use of stereotypes to define a class ("woman") was the substance of a large part of Benson's objections, and those of other second (?) wave feminists like Germaine Greer, to much of the transactivist and "feminist" (3rd wave?) cant and dogma.

#1587

"Inclusive, accessible and safe" sounds more like a war on men than anything directly aligned to women (or is it "females"?). I see committee quotas, panel pledges, safe rooms and liquor-restrictions.

More "economically productive" is probably code for wage gap and shoe shops.

I see nothing new here but more identity politics served with disgusting "bits of everything" boardroom sambos.

#1588

MtM transgender is a thing? This is a complete game changer in the oppression Olympics. We're going to clean house after this, lads.

#1589

[youtube][/youtube]

#1590

So puberty is the same thing as transgender?

We are all transgender - except for kids given treatment to delay puberty because of gender dysmorphia?

And this tiny minority of cis-gender people get to boss around the overwhelmingly trans majority?

Fucking shitlords.

They need to check their cis-privilege.

#1591

Brive1987 wrote:Would Dave-lens be different to a Shoe-lens? What if Zvan got hold of the damn thing. Then it would be Subways and Pizza all the way down.

A Zvan lense would be convex. Very.

#1592

free thoughtpolice wrote:[youtube][/youtube]

That's pretty cool, but too much effort.

I like my drone solution better because it came fully assembled:

http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdn ... G_4019.jpg

Also, its effective against deer, assorted waterfowl and crack heads.

#1593

Rock salt should be sufficient.

#1594

Also, its effective against deer, assorted waterfowl and crack heads.

Upland game birds. Self defense against large dangerous mammals when shells are loaded buckshot- slug -slug...

#1595

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:

I am under the impression that people who are into Gender Studies are nutbars. The further into it they get the more crazed they become. This one denies that there is such a thing as biological sex.

[youtube][/youtube]

I got other things to do with my time than engage these crazies.
I nominated that dude in the video for the Cunties™, calling him a "fag Himmler".

I'm almost certain that that is a transman, which means there is probably a wife or girlfriend at home. Please leave the fags out of this.

#1596

Old_ones wrote: That's pretty cool, but too much effort.

I like my drone solution better because it came fully assembled:

http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdn ... G_4019.jpg

Also, its effective against deer, assorted waterfowl and crack heads.

Combine it with these and you can have fun:

[youtube][/youtube]

#1597

#1598

A couple of anthropologists take 4 years to get 45 "women of color" to do a SurveyMonkey and discover that astronomy is rife with misogynists and racists subjecting the WOCs to micro-agressions. I read the paper and respond:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2 ... 3423638972

#1599

Shatterface wrote:So today I watched Rise, Dawn and War for the Planet of the Apes and fucken loved every minute.

If Andy Serkis doesn't get an Oscar nod I'm going riot.

#OscarsSoHuman

They're all great. I watch WFTPOTA on Saturday, and enjoyed it. I did, however, keep reminding me of PZ Myers and his horde... :)

Anyway, Dunkirk this weekend, the film that has SJWs moaning about a lack of POC and women. Lol.

#1600

katamari Damassi wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:
I am under the impression that people who are into Gender Studies are nutbars. The further into it they get the more crazed they become. This one denies that there is such a thing as biological sex.

[.youtube][/youtube]

I got other things to do with my time than engage these crazies.
I nominated that dude in the video for the Cunties™, calling him a "fag Himmler".
I'm almost certain that that is a transman, which means there is probably a wife or girlfriend at home. Please leave the fags out of this.

No evidence to justify the argument that he's a transman. According to the video, he's one Nicholas Matte:

And nothing in a Google Search to support the contention either.

Something of his bio at the University of Toronto:

Nick Matte teaches Intro to Trans Studies (UNI 477), and has been an active part of the Sexual Diversity Studies program for a number of years. He is the curator of the Sexual Representations Collection and also sits on the SDS Steering Committee and Special Events Committee. Nick is a PhD Candidate in the History Department and the Collaborative Graduate Specialization at the Institute for Women and Gender Studies. He obtained his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees at the University of Victoria, the latter in History and Social, Cultural, and Political Thought. ....

Guest_936d3dec · #1601

take it fwiw from page 2 of googling Nicholas Matte "trans man"

caitmckinney.com TCD.pdf

Nick Matte is a creative spirit, interdisciplinary
historian, and kinky, genderqueer trans man living
with disability. He teaches transgender studies at
the University of Toronto’s Mark S. Bonham Centre
for Sexual Diversity Studies and works with the
CLGA through the LGBTQ Digital Oral History
Collaboratory

But not much proof is needed, that dude, relatively passable, was obviously a chick. (voice, overall shape (that resembles so many others), and then well, the field of studies)

#1602

Bhurzum wrote:

NFL quarterbacks make big money! This turdtowel chucker could have a career! :drool:

#1603

Digital oral is what, sucking someone's finger?

Guest_936d3dec · #1604

Shatterface wrote:Digital oral is what, sucking someone's finger?

More like a continuous falling stream of green 9s followed by green 6s against a black background.

#1605

Shatterface wrote:So today I watched Rise, Dawn and War for the Planet of the Apes and fucken loved every minute.

If Andy Serkis doesn't get an Oscar nod I'm going riot.

#OscarsSoHuman

I was just explaining to a friend that the Planet of the Apes trilogy are the best movies I've seen in a long time. And that the best character by a country mile is Caesar. And that if anyone wants a role model for their children, it is Caesar, by another country mile. Noble, Shakespearian.

My friend watched the movies and said that Cerkis should win best actor, by a country mile.

#1606

CommanderTuvok wrote: Anyway, Dunkirk this weekend, the film that has SJWs moaning about a lack of POC and women. Lol.

is Rommel in it? Rommel was black. Just look at the nose.

No, wait -- that was Beethoven.

#1607

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFCfsH7XgAEPW31.jpg:large

Yeah, who cares about science anyway, 'mright?
Zinnia oh Zinnia
Say have you seen Zinnia
Zinnia the penised lady?

Leave Zinnia alone!

You go girl!:

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.rs ... _Jones.jpg

If that didn't get wood it's because your trans-bigots and besides, she's too much woman for you.

#1608

Suet Cardigan wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFCfsH7XgAEPW31.jpg:large

Yeah, who cares about science anyway, 'mright?
Where the fuck is he getting this stuff? His much-abused ass? I don't even understand what he's even saying. Does this apply to all species, or are humans just magically excepted for reasons? The idea that you can redefine standard biology and then declare it to be settled science just baffles me.

My best guess is that he's declaring there is no male and female categories in humans, just perceptions that are transphobic if they correspond to reality.
Zinnia has been having hormone treatment for years:

[youtube][/youtube]

Can someone ask Zinnia why she's taking female hormones if the ideas of male and female are just social constructs?

Do zer hormones cum with a "double your money back" guarantee ???

Guest_936d3dec · #1609

Zinnia Jones Retweeted

Zinnia retweets support for a dog assigned as parrot at birth.

i.imgur com/xlTLg8x.png

#1610

MacGruberKnows wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFCfsH7XgAEPW31.jpg:large

Yeah, who cares about science anyway, 'mright?
Zinnia oh Zinnia
Say have you seen Zinnia
Zinnia the penised lady?
Leave Zinnia alone!

You go girl!:

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.rs ... _Jones.jpg

If that didn't get wood it's because your trans-bigots and besides, she's too much woman for you.

Well, I WAS planning on masturbating immediately after reading The Pit...

#1611

MacGruberKnows wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFCfsH7XgAEPW31.jpg:large

Yeah, who cares about science anyway, 'mright?
Zinnia oh Zinnia
Say have you seen Zinnia
Zinnia the penised lady?
Leave Zinnia alone!

You go girl!:

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.rs ... _Jones.jpg

If that didn't get wood it's because your trans-bigots and besides, she's too much woman for you.

Is Quadruple A even a cup size ???

#1612

Guest_936d3dec wrote:take it fwiw from page 2 of googling Nicholas Matte "trans man"

caitmckinney.com TCD.pdf

Nick Matte is a creative spirit, interdisciplinary
historian, and kinky, genderqueer trans man living
with disability. He teaches transgender studies at
the University of Toronto’s Mark S. Bonham Centre
for Sexual Diversity Studies and works with the
CLGA through the LGBTQ Digital Oral History
Collaboratory
But not much proof is needed, that dude, relatively passable, was obviously a chick. (voice, overall shape (that resembles so many others), and then well, the field of studies)

Thanks - seems plausible, though the info is not really all that readily available (sidebar, third the way down):
http://caitmckinney.com/TCD.pdf

#1613

Barbie's Boyfriend wrote:Is Quadruple A even a cup size ???

Only if you think bra size works like batteries.

#1614

Are we gushing about the new Planet of the Apes trilogy? It's the rarest of type, each movie better than the last. Another vote for Serkis. The cgi Caesar is more moving than 99% of real actors.

#1615

Peeking in at FA, I see a post up about the Boy Scouts of America being pressured to let girls in (they already allow transgender boys). A commenter asks if the Girl Scouts also accept boys, and of course the first response is "that's not the point!"

#1616

Part of what's impressive about Caesar is that one actor gets to play him from childhood to maturity.

De Nero never got to play young Noodles in Once Upon a Time in America or old Vito Corleone in The Godfatger. It's always obvious that the role is split between different actors.

Serkis plays Caesar the child, Caesar the sulky teenager, Ceasar the young rebel and Caesar the leader and father. That's a hell of an arc for a single actor.

#1617

Kirbmarc wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFCfsH7XgAEPW31.jpg:large

Yeah, who cares about science anyway, 'mright?

What has science ever done for us?

Promised us flying cars and gave us robots that commit suicide.

http://www.iflscience.com/technology/se ... -terrible/

#1618

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
CommanderTuvok wrote: Anyway, Dunkirk this weekend, the film that has SJWs moaning about a lack of POC and women. Lol.
is Rommel in it? Rommel was black. Just look at the nose.

No, wait -- that was Beethoven.

[youtube][/youtube]

#1619

Sunder wrote:Peeking in at FA, I see a post up about the Boy Scouts of America being pressured to let girls in (they already allow transgender boys). A commenter asks if the Girl Scouts also accept boys, and of course the first response is "that's not the point!"

My wife was a Girl Scout leader for many years. As such.... I was also signed up as a "scout". Girl Scouts are super open as far as membership goes. They have allowed atheists to join for decades for example which is a good thing regarding my wife and I ... and my atheist children. I am pretty sure Boys are allowed. The Girl Scouts do have many rules however. These rules are designed to improve safety and security. For example.... if a married couple is on a trip with scouts they are NOT allowed to sleep with each other. They must sleep in separate gender specific places. It is kind of like saying anyone can join... but you can't get to do whatever you want.

Boy Scouts have much less discipline. Every year there are a few Boy Scouts who drown on a camping trip, or electrocute themselves putting up a flag pole. This is very uncommon for Girl Scouts.

Some Christians didn't like the open ideas in Girl Scouts and so they started a religious version of Girl Scouts. Many battles for the Girl Scout name and organization have ensued in the US.

#1620

jet_lagg wrote:
gurugeorge wrote:
CommanderTuvok wrote: As Diversity & Comics says, if the best thing you can say about a movie is that Michael Keaton, who does a great job in everything he's in, did a great job in this movie, you're in trouble.

Truly, SJWs ruin everything they touch.
This is rather odd. I actually enjoyed the latest Spidey film, and I didn't sense any particular infection with SJWism.
You didn't notice the ethnic replacement of all his friends?

Flash was the only character they brown-washed. The rest are new characters entirely. Sort of anyway. They ripped off the Miles Morales mythology without admitting that's what they were doing.[/quote]

MJ is also brownwashed. She's the snappy SJW type who crops up throughout the movie dissing everyone (that she's MJ is revealed right at the end).

And of course Aunt May can't possibly be a nice old white working class old lady who's Pete's main moral compass anymore, she has to be a hot latina MILF (affording the movie a couple of oddly uncomfortable moments). Not exactly brownwashing, I guess, but sort of thinly-disguised immigrantwashing.

The bottom line is that none of the important characters in his life are white any more. In another possible world, one that didn't have a constant drip, drip, drip of ethnic replacement, it might have been fun to switch things around, but in the current timeline it's just another tiresome, enervating drip.