Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

Continuation of the post at Abbie Smith's ERV blog (http://scienceblogs.com/erv/)

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby AndrewV69 » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:25 pm  •  [Post 18526]

Gefan wrote:

:popcorn:


As I twerped on twatter:



Please please please please let this bill pass.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Disce aut discede
http://noseenohearnospeak.blogspot.ca/

Ick. AndrewV69, proud slimepitter and MRA, with in.malafide in his email address? No. Just no. Fuck off.
- PZ Myers 26 July 2012 at 3:17 pm
User avatar
AndrewV69
.
.
 
Posts: 4413
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:52 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Matt Cavanaugh » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:29 pm  •  [Post 18527]

jugheadnaut wrote:Yes, and it was especially nice that we got to encounter a lot more of Baccarin in Homeland. :drool:

Every time I hear Summer Glau's name I get pangs of regret about Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Damn, that show deserved another couple of seasons.

I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed that show. Then disappointed it got canned.
"They're so far up their own asses, they've gone full klein bottle. Never go full klein bottle." -- Welch
User avatar
Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
 
Posts: 2661
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Old_ones » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:59 pm  •  [Post 18528]

Guestus Aurelius wrote:(I will not engage with the anti-GMO Facebook friends, I mean.)



Image

https://www.facebook.com/InspirationalWooEnergy
User avatar
Old_ones
.
.
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Jan Steen » Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:18 am  •  [Post 18529]

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Mykeru wrote:Oh Jesus Christ, the Savior on a Stick, but Matt Cavanaugh's analysis of P.Z. Myers' underage girl fandom is truly a thing of train-wreck wonder:

PZ Myers and the Dream Girl

I know we keep saying "This is the moment P.Z. irrevocably goes off the deep end", but This is the moment P.Z. irrevocably goes off the deep end


It's beautiful. Any follow up, Matt? Do you really believe there were multiple authors or one author with poor control over their faked style? Troll or one of Meyers's cronies? Laden?


If it was Laden, 'she' would surely have written that The Crappy Plagiarist is not a collection of blog posts. :lol:

It wasn't written by Peezus himself, unless he took the trouble to change his capitals. So, either a troll, an adult sycophant, or composed by Peezus but written by somebody else. The only thing we can be certain of is that it wasn't actually written by a teenager from Indiana. :lol:
Fighting hypocrisy since Sun Oct 14, 2012.
User avatar
Jan Steen
.
.
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:18 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Jan Steen » Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:40 am  •  [Post 18530]

Image
Fighting hypocrisy since Sun Oct 14, 2012.
User avatar
Jan Steen
.
.
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:18 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Kirbmarc » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:06 am  •  [Post 18531]

AndrewV69 wrote:How can a student prove consent? The bill's co-author says: "Your guess is as good as mine."


It's simple. If he's a man and he's had sex with a woman, he must ask for a written contract, signed in the presence of a witness, who has to be a woman or a gay male or a trans (otherwise there'd be two sexist douchecanoes forcing a woman to sign the contract). Taping the signing is also recommended. Taping the sex act itself is optional.

And even with a signature and a tape, if a woman says that she felt like she was raped she'll have a good case, and good luck convincing the jury that he couldn't possibly have known that in her mind she felt like she was raped. Because as we all know if you claim that you feel like you were raped, you were raped. Unless you're a man.

BELIEVE THE VICTIMS!
Kirbmarc
.
.
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:29 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Skep tickle » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:06 am  •  [Post 18532]

Opyt wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Opyt wrote:
quote="CaptainFluffyBunny" WTF? Somebody defending themselves from a rape accusation doesn't have to testify? And often shouldn't? Weird fuckin' Florida law, huh?/quote

Not just Florida. Apparently US & Canada.

I'm pretty sure that that applies to the accuser, not the defendant. It's to prevent trauma and stress to the victim, not the person defending themselves against the allegation(s). The defendant being the one accused.


Ah, my bad, I was reading and not comprehending. The defendant being there is probably required, as when the defendant loses, they're probably going to be carted off to a jail cell.

Yeah, the accused has to be there, but at this point the only defense that can be given is literally: "she gave consent". Unless it's received in writing, or recorded in audio or on video, the defendant can't prove one way or the other, at which point it's up to the jury to decide whether or not the crime was committed. It's literally a he-said she-said case at this point, which, in my eyes, takes away from the validity of the "97% of rapists don't serve a day of jail time." thing that got tossed out early in the conversation. It's just kind of disappointing that it's up to the defendant to prove that they didn't commit the crime whereas in other crimes, it's the prosecutor's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It's going to be interesting if she (the person I was tweeting with) turns out to be a prosecutor, if only because maybe she will be able to prove it to a jury. It really looks like a crusade against penis, but I can't prove that myself.

Defendant has the right to testify but never has to testify in U.S., AFAICT though IANAL. Two contributing factors:

1) Presumption of innocence until/unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove their case, even if that's just the accuser's testimony ("she said", in some cases). There are situations in which the defense team figures that the prosecution can't prove its case, & therefore the defense doesn't defend. Wikipedia claims this was established by the US Supreme Court in 1895 in Coffin v. United States.

2) 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the right against self-incrimination. Anyone who testifies is open to cross-examination by the other side's lawyer(s). There are situations in which the defense team decides it's riskier to put the defendant on the stand than to have him/her testify in his/her own defense.
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3142
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:04 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby James Caruthers » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:13 am  •  [Post 18533]

Okay, #YourSlipIsShowing is officially more fun than #YesAllCats.







:dance:

Shame I don't have some dummy accounts to throw into this. The SJWs are virtually impossible to tell apart from trolls, because they're such caricatures of their own stereotypes in both posts and profile descriptions. The potential for directing fake witch hunts is huge.
User avatar
James Caruthers
.
.
 
Posts: 2867
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:50 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Skep tickle » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:30 am  •  [Post 18534]

Ape+Lust & Jan Steen - magnificent.

Re the letter:

There are 2 crease marks (1 each vertically & horizontally). That's the way you might fold a sheet of paper if tucking it into a note card. However no note card was presented. (Nor the envelope.)

All sorts of people could have written that letter, either as a joke or to allow PZ to present faux-support. It could have been done with PZ's knowledge, or without. It could have been mailed from Indiana (Jen McCreight's home state) or, if done w/ PZ's knowledge, mailed from anywhere, or never mailed just folded so it looked like it had been in an envelope.

Besides the changing handwriting & the apparently mirrored vocabulary (h/t Matt for putting that all together), it does seem odd that a 15-year-old kid who sees herself as wordly would not refer at all to the internet, including (but not limited to) Pharyngula. What she knows about Myers supposedly comes exclusively from THA.
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3142
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:04 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Skep tickle » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:34 am  •  [Post 18535]

I'm sure no-one is holding their breath over this, but here's a correction to 1 sentence in my comment about the 5th Amendment:

Should be (bolded word added):

"There are situations in which the defense team decides it's riskier to put the defendant on the stand than to have him/her not testify in his/her own defense."
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3142
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:04 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Kirbmarc » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:35 am  •  [Post 18536]

I would just like to emphasize that exposing 4chan (CIA? FBI?) trolls/plants has been a group effort. Kudos, to everyone.


4chan is not a secret branch of CIA or FBI. Everyone knows they work for the NSA.
Kirbmarc
.
.
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:29 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Dick Strawkins » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:49 am  •  [Post 18537]

AndrewV69 wrote:
Gefan wrote:

:popcorn:


As I twerped on twatter:



Please please please please let this bill pass.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:



How can you prove consent?

The same way you do so with any other legal contract - have the agreement signed and notarized.
That sounds like a joke but it's the logical conclusion of making 'affirmative consent' a legal requirement.

I think I've said it before here but I think the root of the problem with the 'rape-culture' mentality (the SJW idea that we live in a culture that condones rape and sexual violence against women) is the conflation of behavior that is currently accepted in modern liberal society (the hook-up culture, sex before marriage, guilt-free sexuality) with behavior that is not accepted - such as non-consenting sex.
Hence we have a situation where a scenario that should be unremarkable - for example a young man meets a young woman at a party, have fun and decide to have sex - is viewed as being in some way inherently wrong.
To me it appears that the underlying assumption on the part of SJWs is that the behavior is wrong but there seems to be a need for them to rationalize this using other, much more rapey, words.

The man isn't simply attracted to the woman, he has a sense of 'entitlement to sex' with her.

The couple don't simply mutually fool around, eventually ending up having sex, the man goes ahead and has sex with her without asking for explicit affirmative consent.

The couple aren't simply enjoying the party and easing their inhibitions using alcohol, what's happening, in fact, is that the man is plying the woman with alcohol to make her incapable of informed consent to any subsequent sexual actions.

There is a weird synergy between the SJW demonization of normal heterosexual behavior in the West, and the wishes of those of extreme conservative or religious fundamentalist thinking. There's not a complete agreement, of course, but there is a significant overlap in that both groups essentially want to end the current situation that they both regard as sinful or wrong, albeit for different reasons.


If we disregard the idea of a legalized notary signing off on all requests for physical interaction between a couple where are we left?
We either have a situation where all interactions should be video taped in case of future disagreement over what occurred (a somewhat sleazy approach which, however, has managed to save more than a few men who have been accused of rape), or we start to accept the idea of a witness - a chaperone, if you will - who will provide an independent testimony regarding anything that occurred on the date.

Nothing I've mentioned so far seems practical and yet even if we agreed on one of them it wouldn't affect a major hole in the entire premise of protecting women using 'enthusiastic consent' provisions. That hole is the fact that consent is not something that solely arises in first date scenarios. Consent is something that is required on both a first date and after fifty years of marriage.
SJWs like Lacy squeaky Green may get all hot and bothered by the idea of a guy asking for permission to kiss her on a first date but I suspect she'd get pretty bored with it if he kept doing so for for years afterwards.
But shouldn't he be required to keep doing so in perpetuity?
Surely he must.
And not just for kissing, for every aspect of sexual interaction.
Now I don't discount the idea that there may be some people that would go along with this and perhaps even enjoy it, but I suspect we are straying away from the idea of protecting women and instead wandering into the territory of uncommon sexual kinks.

Normal sexual behavior is predominantly based on unspoken body language that is used to convey implicit consent. Any misunderstanding of this body language (which must happen frequently) is better combatted through the use of assertive language that conveys non-consent rather than the other way around, explicit enthusiastic consent for every interaction.
PZ Myers: "Hypocrisy is a bitch, isn't it?"
User avatar
Dick Strawkins
.
.
 
Posts: 4772
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:34 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Tony Parsehole » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:53 am  •  [Post 18538]

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Image


Jesus Christ! I missed that one. The level of paranoia is astounding. That the CIA or FBI would be involved in setting up fake twitter accounts solely for getting a few laughs out of these gonks speaks volumes about how deranged they are.
"It wasn't long before the arse-featured animals were all vibrating frenziedly"
Image
User avatar
Tony Parsehole
.
.
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby James Caruthers » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:02 am  •  [Post 18539]

Kirbmarc wrote:
I would just like to emphasize that exposing 4chan (CIA? FBI?) trolls/plants has been a group effort. Kudos, to everyone.


4chan is not a secret branch of CIA or FBI. Everyone knows they work for the NSA.

The twitter SJWs have some really elaborate conspiracy theories worked out in their heads about how 4chan is part of some FBI plan to oppress teh POC.
User avatar
James Caruthers
.
.
 
Posts: 2867
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:50 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby James Caruthers » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:02 am  •  [Post 18540]

Dammit ninja'd by spongypissflaps.
User avatar
James Caruthers
.
.
 
Posts: 2867
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:50 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Satan » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:03 am  •  [Post 18541]

Skep tickle wrote:All sorts of people could have written that letter, either as a joke or to allow PZ to present faux-support. It could have been done with PZ's knowledge, or without.


I think joke or troll are the most likely options. I wouldn't put too much past PZ in terms of online behavior but I don't think he'd have much of a motive to fabricate fan mail.
User #666. Got brimstone?
User avatar
Satan
.
.
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 2:32 am
Location: Hell

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Kirbmarc » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:11 am  •  [Post 18542]

The twitter SJWs have some really elaborate conspiracy theories worked out in their heads about how 4chan is part of some FBI plan to oppress teh POC.


Soon, on your screens: The Goatse Files. LOLZ ARE OUT THERE.
Kirbmarc
.
.
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:29 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby SoylentAtheist » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:12 am  •  [Post 18543]

Satan wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:All sorts of people could have written that letter, either as a joke or to allow PZ to present faux-support. It could have been done with PZ's knowledge, or without.


I think joke or troll are the most likely options. I wouldn't put too much past PZ in terms of online behavior but I don't think he'd have much of a motive to fabricate fan mail.

Agreed. We may have a low opinion of him in many other respects, but I just don't see him faking his own fan mail.
User avatar
SoylentAtheist
 

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby James Caruthers » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:27 am  •  [Post 18544]

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Image



Image

Kirbmarc wrote:Soon, on your screens: The Goatse Files. LOLZ ARE OUT THERE.


Image
User avatar
James Caruthers
.
.
 
Posts: 2867
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:50 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Tony Parsehole » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:29 am  •  [Post 18545]


Yeah. Those troll accounts must be controlled by the FBI. Who else could be Machiavellian enough to fool you guys into falling for a stupid, bigoted hashtag on Twitter?
Occam's razor 101.
"It wasn't long before the arse-featured animals were all vibrating frenziedly"
Image
User avatar
Tony Parsehole
.
.
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Tony Parsehole » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:39 am  •  [Post 18546]

Image
"It wasn't long before the arse-featured animals were all vibrating frenziedly"
Image
User avatar
Tony Parsehole
.
.
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby jimthepleb » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:59 am  •  [Post 18547]

Tony Parsehole wrote:Image

He has a covert message in his greatest hit to his agents out in the field. The message is subtle but run's along the lines of: 'Your secrets are safe with me and I shall never betray you.' Hiding in plain sight, so clever.
"Indolent hand wringers" Richard Dworkins describing the baboons. http://support.operationsmile.org/goto/reneehendricks
User avatar
jimthepleb
.
.
 
Posts: 859
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:54 pm
Location: you kay?

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Dick Strawkins » Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:25 am  •  [Post 18548]

Regarding the circumcision debate, it's interesting to see the same rationalizations being used here as in the following article about another rite-of-passage ritual, body scarrification.


http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27412311

"We are not violating children's rights, we are just showing the children where they are from and what they will go through in life,"


"Before, when I walked in the street with my big brother who has the scars, people would not believe he is my brother. Now I am happy because we look the same."


"This is part of our tradition and it is very important to me," says Genevieve Boko whose six-month-old daughter Marina and nephews Luc and Hospice, aged 10 and 12, are all about to undergo scarification.


Since her husband died, Gamba Dahoui has carried out all the local scarifications - she cleans the incisions with medicinal plants and gin. Charcoal is also put on the wounds to help them heal.
Dahoui always uses the same knife, ignoring official advice to use new sterile blades for each person, to avoid the risk of transmitting blood-borne infections such as tetanus and HIV.


Image

Is there such a big difference between parents who would do this to their children and parents that would carry out genital mutilation (girls and boys?)

I can't really see a huge difference. Both sets of parents are doing so for tradition and conformity to their respective societal norms.

The only significant medical reason for circumcision of male infants or young children is rare complications of phimosis (most cases of phimosis are resolved using non surgical treatments.) To suggest that all male infants should be circumcised to avoid phimosis complications is certainly not logical - far more children will die or suffer serious injury from circumcision related problems than from phimosis which is a non life threatening condition. An apt analogy might be to suggest amputating the nipples of male children to prevent male breast cancer (a very real albeit rare but, unlike phimosis, life threatening condition.)

There may be some slight medical reason why adult circumcision may be warranted - HIV and HPV prevention are the usual reasons suggested - but frankly this seems a pathetic reason. The protection provided by circumcision is tiny compared to that provided by condoms and this may lead to complacency in men who think they are safe to have sex because of the circumcision.
Most importantly, circumcision does not prevent sexual disease transmission in small children (because, of course, they are not having sex.)

I do think, however people are skirting around the real reasons.
It's just cosmetic surgery.
A circumcised penis simply looks better than the uncircumcised 'turtle-in-a-polo-neck' variety.

It is the norm in north America amongst the more affluent white population (lack of circumcision is far more common in the hispanic population.) White American women simply prefer circumcised penises. It's what they are used to, it's what they see in porn and the prevailing talking points about non circumcised individuals (that they may be more prone to HIV, HPV, phimosis, penile cancer etc) - and that circumcision is a mark of affluency and not carried out by poor members of society, tends to create a pressure to conform.
The idea that women (or more particularly affluent white women) will reject men who are not circumcised also adds to this pressure to avoid a situation where a son might face rejection or a limit to his possible marriage partners.
PZ Myers: "Hypocrisy is a bitch, isn't it?"
User avatar
Dick Strawkins
.
.
 
Posts: 4772
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:34 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby didymos » Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:35 am  •  [Post 18549]



You know, I don't remember that being the case at all when I was kid. Or ever. Xe must have been hanging out with some really stupid kids.
User avatar
didymos
.
.
 
Posts: 914
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:59 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Coprolite » Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:39 am  •  [Post 18550]

This kind of thing fucks me off. The lefty skeptics who pay lip service to the idea that prejudice is wrong and that one should keep an open mind make comments like this:





Being the type of fellow that I am, I watched 30 minutes of the video and found the guy (surprise surprise) to not actually be unhinged at all. He's really quite a talented speaker and goes into some fascinating depth about the subject.

But no, he is dubbed MRA, so O'Malley is perfectly justified in just pointing and laughing and making judgements about his mental state based on his appearance in a video HE DIDN'T EVEN FUCKING WATCH. This guy is one of the UK skeptics royalty and like so many of them, he's just an identity politics sucker using the term "Skeptic" to give himself automatic credibility without ACTUALLY DOING ANY SKEPTICING. It's good to be a skeptic when it makes you seem cool, but you can drop skepticism the moment you come across something you disagree with. Fuck off.
"And so on, until the universe spreads out into cooling spastic sub-atomic particles and grinds to a halt." - Mykeru
User avatar
Coprolite
.
.
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:19 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby didymos » Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:42 am  •  [Post 18551]



Right. How's that working out for you?
User avatar
didymos
.
.
 
Posts: 914
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:59 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Mykeru » Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:59 am  •  [Post 18552]

Ape+lust wrote:Bonus, since I see Mykeru around:

Image


Awesome. Simply awesome.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Mykeru
.
.
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:52 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Apples » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:47 am  •  [Post 18553]

"You haven't seen a woman overreact until you tell her she is overreacting" - fake Bill Murray twitter account
User avatar
Apples
.
.
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby BarnOwl » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:59 am  •  [Post 18554]

Dick Strawkins wrote:
How can you prove consent?

The same way you do so with any other legal contract - have the agreement signed and notarized.
That sounds like a joke but it's the logical conclusion of making 'affirmative consent' a legal requirement.

I think I've said it before here but I think the root of the problem with the 'rape-culture' mentality (the SJW idea that we live in a culture that condones rape and sexual violence against women) is the conflation of behavior that is currently accepted in modern liberal society (the hook-up culture, sex before marriage, guilt-free sexuality) with behavior that is not accepted - such as non-consenting sex.
Hence we have a situation where a scenario that should be unremarkable - for example a young man meets a young woman at a party, have fun and decide to have sex - is viewed as being in some way inherently wrong.
To me it appears that the underlying assumption on the part of SJWs is that the behavior is wrong but there seems to be a need for them to rationalize this using other, much more rapey, words.

The man isn't simply attracted to the woman, he has a sense of 'entitlement to sex' with her.

The couple don't simply mutually fool around, eventually ending up having sex, the man goes ahead and has sex with her without asking for explicit affirmative consent.

The couple aren't simply enjoying the party and easing their inhibitions using alcohol, what's happening, in fact, is that the man is plying the woman with alcohol to make her incapable of informed consent to any subsequent sexual actions.

There is a weird synergy between the SJW demonization of normal heterosexual behavior in the West, and the wishes of those of extreme conservative or religious fundamentalist thinking. There's not a complete agreement, of course, but there is a significant overlap in that both groups essentially want to end the current situation that they both regard as sinful or wrong, albeit for different reasons.


If we disregard the idea of a legalized notary signing off on all requests for physical interaction between a couple where are we left?
We either have a situation where all interactions should be video taped in case of future disagreement over what occurred (a somewhat sleazy approach which, however, has managed to save more than a few men who have been accused of rape), or we start to accept the idea of a witness - a chaperone, if you will - who will provide an independent testimony regarding anything that occurred on the date.

Nothing I've mentioned so far seems practical and yet even if we agreed on one of them it wouldn't affect a major hole in the entire premise of protecting women using 'enthusiastic consent' provisions. That hole is the fact that consent is not something that solely arises in first date scenarios. Consent is something that is required on both a first date and after fifty years of marriage.
SJWs like Lacy squeaky Green may get all hot and bothered by the idea of a guy asking for permission to kiss her on a first date but I suspect she'd get pretty bored with it if he kept doing so for for years afterwards.
But shouldn't he be required to keep doing so in perpetuity?
Surely he must.
And not just for kissing, for every aspect of sexual interaction.
Now I don't discount the idea that there may be some people that would go along with this and perhaps even enjoy it, but I suspect we are straying away from the idea of protecting women and instead wandering into the territory of uncommon sexual kinks.

Normal sexual behavior is predominantly based on unspoken body language that is used to convey implicit consent. Any misunderstanding of this body language (which must happen frequently) is better combatted through the use of assertive language that conveys non-consent rather than the other way around, explicit enthusiastic consent for every interaction.


I'm sure some sort of smartphone app can be designed for legally documenting affirmative/enthusiastic consent - in addition to the obvious video capabilities. Maybe a selfie in bed with an overlay of signatures and fingerprints. Most people I know can't let go of their smartphones for more than about 30 seconds, so the app should always be available when "the time is right."
User avatar
BarnOwl
.
.
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Dick Strawkins » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:10 am  •  [Post 18555]

BarnOwl wrote:
I'm sure some sort of smartphone app can be designed for legally documenting affirmative/enthusiastic consent - in addition to the obvious video capabilities. Maybe a selfie in bed with an overlay of signatures and fingerprints. Most people I know can't let go of their smartphones for more than about 30 seconds, so the app should always be available when "the time is right."


Image
PZ Myers: "Hypocrisy is a bitch, isn't it?"
User avatar
Dick Strawkins
.
.
 
Posts: 4772
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:34 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Biohazard » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:16 am  •  [Post 18556]

Surely there will be rage blogs against this "raging feminist".

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." - Nietzsche
User avatar
Biohazard
.
.
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:19 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Dick Strawkins » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:23 am  •  [Post 18557]

Biohazard wrote:Surely there will be rage blogs against this "raging feminist".



The FTB welcoming committee is on it's way.

Image
PZ Myers: "Hypocrisy is a bitch, isn't it?"
User avatar
Dick Strawkins
.
.
 
Posts: 4772
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:34 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby TedDahlberg » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:25 am  •  [Post 18558]

didymos wrote:

You know, I don't remember that being the case at all when I was kid. Or ever. Xe must have been hanging out with some really stupid kids.


The literalness of SJWs ("intent is not magic") keeps reminding me of this:

Charles Babbage wrote:Sir:

In your otherwise beautiful poem "The Vision of Sin" there is a verse which reads – "Every moment dies a man, Every moment one is born." It must be manifest that if this were true, the population of the world would be at a standstill. In truth, the rate of birth is slightly in excess of that of death.

I would suggest that in the next edition of your poem you have it read – "Every moment dies a man, Every moment 1 1/16 is born."

The actual figure is so long I cannot get it onto a line, but I believe the figure 1 1/16 will be sufficiently accurate for poetry.

I am, Sir, yours, etc.,

Charles Babbage
User avatar
TedDahlberg
.
.
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:08 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:51 am  •  [Post 18559]

KiwiInOz wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:From Benson's comments:

I always had the image of an anti-feminist bros as either a guy swilling beer with his buddies in his garage wearing the same t-shirts emblazoned with the words “Boob Patrol!”; or a socially awkward 20 or 30-something in a darkened basement or living in his mom’s garage, wearing sweats and no shirt, surrounded by a month’s worth of empty snack wrappers and empty pop cans and sport drink bottles, screaming “Feminazi!!!!” at the computer monitor when on twitter, while toggling back and forth between the slymepit forum, twitter, FTB, an mra site, and porn.


http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... an-insult/

Anyone want to check their webcam software for viruses?


[indignant] I don't do twitter, FTB, or mra sites. [/indignant]

so four porn windows then?
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby AnonymousCowherd » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:54 am  •  [Post 18560]

TedDahlberg wrote:
didymos wrote:

You know, I don't remember that being the case at all when I was kid. Or ever. Xe must have been hanging out with some really stupid kids.


The literalness of SJWs ("intent is not magic") keeps reminding me of this:

Charles Babbage wrote:Sir:

In your otherwise beautiful poem "The Vision of Sin" there is a verse which reads – "Every moment dies a man, Every moment one is born." It must be manifest that if this were true, the population of the world would be at a standstill. In truth, the rate of birth is slightly in excess of that of death.

I would suggest that in the next edition of your poem you have it read – "Every moment dies a man, Every moment 1 1/16 is born."

The actual figure is so long I cannot get it onto a line, but I believe the figure 1 1/16 will be sufficiently accurate for poetry.

I am, Sir, yours, etc.,

Charles Babbage


One of the more annoying things about the "intent is not magic" trope is that it is such a mis-statement, it is not even wrong. Intent is not "magic" if you mean that it is not an excuse for any kind of bad behaviour. "I was only joking" doesn't always work, and you don't have to subscribe to any SJW claptrap to see that.

On the other hand, intent is pretty damn important, and it is what we largely try to work out in other people's behaviour or statements. Not always correctly, but then there is never any guarantee we'll "get it right" when trying to work out the world around us.

The funny thing is, the SJWs seem to want to impute the very thing they are denying the value of - intent - when they use that phrase. "I was only joking" becomes "no you weren't, you were being <insert wrong here>". Covering that up with the "intent is not magic" mantra is using their own little bit of slight-of-hand "magic" to hide their claim that it is, in fact, all powerful, and the intent they discern in you damns you.

Who you gonna believe - them telling you what you think, or your own lyin' mouth?
it seems to me that science and love of my fellow human beings is more than sufficient argument to guide the entirety of my life - Rev. PC Myers.

"But I love..I love..all people" E. Mielke, Stasi head 1957-89, shortly before his murder trial.
User avatar
AnonymousCowherd
.
.
 
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Kirbmarc » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:58 am  •  [Post 18561]

You know, I don't remember that being the case at all when I was kid. Or ever. Xe must have been hanging out with some really stupid kids.


Xe's probably a Poe:

Kirbmarc
.
.
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:29 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Hunt » Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:01 am  •  [Post 18562]

Biohazard wrote:Surely there will be rage blogs against this "raging feminist".



I agree with her regarding Old vs New feminism. Roughly the dividing line is between first and second gen (wave) feminism and third gen feminism. Third gen feminism ran out of moral steam almost out of the yard house and then went completely off the rails, not so much in what it did but what it didn't do: it didn't bring men along for the ride while at the same time claimed to speak for them. Only a third gen fem could possibly look at western society, which is so blatantly, utterly, obviously a PLUTOCRACY and instead see patriarchy. 93% of workplace fatalities are men, but we live in a patriarchy! That's one fine patriarchy. Where are my fair slave girls feeding me grapes while I sit on cushion under one of those big ceiling fans pulled by...more fair slave girls. I WANT MY FAIR SLAVE GIRLS!!!
"...you can do what you want to do with this if you feel confident that nothing will go wrong."
Hunt
.
.
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:04 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Southern » Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:06 am  •  [Post 18563]

SoylentAtheist wrote:I am not about to bite on this unless Matt or someone else here who has reviewed the document happens to be a professional forensic hand writing expert.


Did someone called?

Image

(Which is ironic, because Horatio doesn't do shit besides messing with his glasses and spouting ironic quips and vague threats)
I'm posting this statement feeling confident that nothing will go wrong.
User avatar
Southern
.
.
 
Posts: 2211
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:28 pm
Location: Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby jugheadnaut » Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:34 am  •  [Post 18564]

Dick Strawkins wrote:Regarding the circumcision debate, it's interesting to see the same rationalizations being used here as in the following article about another rite-of-passage ritual, body scarrification.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27412311

"We are not violating children's rights, we are just showing the children where they are from and what they will go through in life,"


"Before, when I walked in the street with my big brother who has the scars, people would not believe he is my brother. Now I am happy because we look the same."


"This is part of our tradition and it is very important to me," says Genevieve Boko whose six-month-old daughter Marina and nephews Luc and Hospice, aged 10 and 12, are all about to undergo scarification.


Is there such a big difference between parents who would do this to their children and parents that would carry out genital mutilation (girls and boys?)

I can't really see a huge difference. Both sets of parents are doing so for tradition and conformity to their respective societal norms.



Some comparisons:

I felt that I was consecrating the moment of my sons' official naming and entrance into the Jewish people. I gave birth to live healthy children -- a miracle in and of itself -- but also had the privilege to be able to give birth to them as Jews. By having a bris for each of my sons, that miracle of biology became holy. By having a bris for each of my sons, I was implicitly and explicitly telling each boy something that I will continue to convey each day of their lives: they are Jews, and for them, Judaism will be a lifetime of commitment, dedication and trust.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jordana-horn/why-i-circumcised-my-sons_b_1836837.html

Later in the article, she says:

I'm proud that the American Academy of Pediatrics has taken a stand that dovetails both with the health of children and the health of American ideals of religious freedom and dignity.


Yes, she clearly believes religious freedom is an important ideal for her sons.

And then there's:

This was our first major decision for our child, and my own mother and father were trying to completely take it out of our hands, based on arguments that we found superstitious and naive. But I also had a larger family to consider, aunts and uncles and cousins and sisters, and, beyond that, a generation of nieces and nephews and second cousins to come, not to mention “six thousand years of Jewish history.” If we decided not to circumcise, it might very well rip open a wound in my family life that would take decades to heal (though by writing the previous five pages, I may have just done that anyway).

“We have to,” I said.

“I know we do,” said Regina, and she began to cry.

That evening, I called home.

“We’ve decided to circumcise,” I said.

“Good,” my father said. “I feel like that will connect him to my father. And my grandfather before that. And down through the generations.”


http://www.salon.com/2007/01/09/pollack_circumcision/

And from the first comment on this article:

And by the way, when is being more sexually sensitive a good thing for a male?


Could the attitude behind this sentiment help explain why feminists who consider themselves to be serious atheists and skeptics tend to discount ritual circumcision as an issue?
User avatar
jugheadnaut
.
.
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby TedDahlberg » Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:38 am  •  [Post 18565]

AnonymousCowherd wrote:One of the more annoying things about the "intent is not magic" trope is that it is such a mis-statement, it is not even wrong. Intent is not "magic" if you mean that it is not an excuse for any kind of bad behaviour. "I was only joking" doesn't always work, and you don't have to subscribe to any SJW claptrap to see that.

On the other hand, intent is pretty damn important, and it is what we largely try to work out in other people's behaviour or statements. Not always correctly, but then there is never any guarantee we'll "get it right" when trying to work out the world around us.

The funny thing is, the SJWs seem to want to impute the very thing they are denying the value of - intent - when they use that phrase. "I was only joking" becomes "no you weren't, you were being <insert wrong here>". Covering that up with the "intent is not magic" mantra is using their own little bit of slight-of-hand "magic" to hide their claim that it is, in fact, all powerful, and the intent they discern in you damns you.

Who you gonna believe - them telling you what you think, or your own lyin' mouth?


It's a part of their pattern of taking good ideas too far, and of simplifying things too much. "I think gender equality is good" becomes "the radical notion that women are people". "I think more films/books/games should feature female protagonists" becomes "your film/book/game is sexist/misogynistic because it doesn't feature a female protagonist". And in this case, "I'm interpreting what you're saying in this negative way, is that what you mean?" becomes "intent is not magic".

Really, a lot of my problems don't stem from what they're saying, but how they're saying it. It's the difference between "you're wrong" and "you're lying". As you say, they imbue others' words with (malicious) intent. Usually needlessly.
User avatar
TedDahlberg
.
.
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:08 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Tony Parsehole » Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:50 am  •  [Post 18566]


Because to troll through twitter 4chan would need:
A) Funding
B) Government encouragement

Fuck me. How thick can you get?
"It wasn't long before the arse-featured animals were all vibrating frenziedly"
Image
User avatar
Tony Parsehole
.
.
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby TedDahlberg » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:01 am  •  [Post 18567]

Tony Parsehole wrote:
Because to troll through twitter 4chan would need:
A) Funding
B) Government encouragement

Fuck me. How thick can you get?


Image
User avatar
TedDahlberg
.
.
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:08 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby jugheadnaut » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:06 am  •  [Post 18568]

An interesting thing about 'intent is not magic' is that this idea is more commonly associated with the political right. A common criticism of liberals is that they frequently support policies mainly to show they care about an issue and whether the policies actually work and won't cause more harm than good is very much a lesser concern.

Also, as with everything else in SJW-land, 'intent is not magic' is subordinate to the master clause 'it's OK when we do it'.
User avatar
jugheadnaut
.
.
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Sulman » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:15 am  •  [Post 18569]

Twitter is absolutely hilarious at the moment. The baboon perimeter is filled with 4chan guerrillas, and they cannot tell friend from foe. It's fantastic how easily their ideology has been subverted.
User avatar
Sulman
.
.
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 8:13 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Tony Parsehole » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:19 am  •  [Post 18570]

Pretty funny that the SJW's can't believe that 4chan alone could be behind the insanely Machiavellian scheme of setting up fake Twitter accounts and hashtags to take the piss.

Apparently the SJW's of Twitter are so incredibly important that they got the Gubmint scared, man. The only course of action available was to contact 4chan (who we all know are extremely close friends of the Gubmint) via 4chan's Super Secret Flashing Red Batman Telephone and get them to discredit the movement by making a hashtag.
Although 4chan were only too happy to help their friends in the Gubmint hashtags are incredibly expensive to think of and can take even the most talented hackers many days to type correctly so the Gubmint were forced to fund them. Yeah....That's it.
Image
"It wasn't long before the arse-featured animals were all vibrating frenziedly"
Image
User avatar
Tony Parsehole
.
.
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Konrad_Cruze » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:25 am  •  [Post 18571]

Skep tickle wrote:
Opyt wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
quote="CaptainFluffyBunny" WTF? Somebody defending themselves from a rape accusation doesn't have to testify? And often shouldn't? Weird fuckin' Florida law, huh?/quote

Not just Florida. Apparently US & Canada.

I'm pretty sure that that applies to the accuser, not the defendant. It's to prevent trauma and stress to the victim, not the person defending themselves against the allegation(s). The defendant being the one accused.


Ah, my bad, I was reading and not comprehending. The defendant being there is probably required, as when the defendant loses, they're probably going to be carted off to a jail cell.

Yeah, the accused has to be there, but at this point the only defense that can be given is literally: "she gave consent". Unless it's received in writing, or recorded in audio or on video, the defendant can't prove one way or the other, at which point it's up to the jury to decide whether or not the crime was committed. It's literally a he-said she-said case at this point, which, in my eyes, takes away from the validity of the "97% of rapists don't serve a day of jail time." thing that got tossed out early in the conversation. It's just kind of disappointing that it's up to the defendant to prove that they didn't commit the crime whereas in other crimes, it's the prosecutor's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It's going to be interesting if she (the person I was tweeting with) turns out to be a prosecutor, if only because maybe she will be able to prove it to a jury. It really looks like a crusade against penis, but I can't prove that myself.
Defendant has the right to testify but never has to testify in U.S., AFAICT though IANAL. Two contributing factors:

1) Presumption of innocence until/unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove their case, even if that's just the accuser's testimony ("she said", in some cases). There are situations in which the defense team figures that the prosecution can't prove its case, & therefore the defense doesn't defend. Wikipedia claims this was established by the US Supreme Court in 1895 in Coffin v. United States.

2) 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the right against self-incrimination. Anyone who testifies is open to cross-examination by the other side's lawyer(s). There are situations in which the defense team decides it's riskier to put the defendant on the stand than to have him/her testify in his/her own defense.


In Scotland, the defendant in any case does not need to testify on the grounds that they have the right to remain silent (see Crown vs Nat Fraser)
Viris colratha dath sethicara tesh dasovallian. Solruthis veh za jass

[i]Sons of our father, stand in midnight clad. We bring the night.[i]
User avatar
Konrad_Cruze
.
.
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:07 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Tony Parsehole » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:27 am  •  [Post 18572]

TedDahlberg wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:
Because to troll through twitter 4chan would need:
A) Funding
B) Government encouragement

Fuck me. How thick can you get?


Image

Image
"It wasn't long before the arse-featured animals were all vibrating frenziedly"
Image
User avatar
Tony Parsehole
.
.
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:16 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Matt Cavanaugh » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:40 am  •  [Post 18573]

didymos wrote:

You know, I don't remember that being the case at all when I was kid. Or ever. Xe must have been hanging out with some really stupid kids.

I'm detecting a high correlation between bow-ties and sheer idiocy.
"They're so far up their own asses, they've gone full klein bottle. Never go full klein bottle." -- Welch
User avatar
Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
 
Posts: 2661
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby TedDahlberg » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:47 am  •  [Post 18574]

Tony Parsehole wrote:Image


Image
User avatar
TedDahlberg
.
.
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:08 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Pitchguest » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:51 am  •  [Post 18575]

TedDahlberg wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:Image


Image


"But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day . . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2

Avatar credit to tklmac (and Jan Steen) AND ANERIS (!)
User avatar
Pitchguest
.
.
 
Posts: 2561
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:44 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Aneris » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:57 am  •  [Post 18576]

real horrorshow wrote:
welch wrote:
real horrorshow wrote:Actually welch, it reads more like you are the one playing the zero-sum game while accusing others of it. Mr Radio's argument seems to be the same as mine: All non-consensual non-medically-necessitated genital mutilation is wrong and should be stopped.

You are the one insisting that FGM is always "worse" than MGM (which is not true) and therefore more emphasis must be placed on FGM. Even if it were the case that all FGM is "worse" than all MGM, or the other way about, or if both were always exactly equally bad they are both equally wrong in moral terms. They are both unnecessary violations of a non-consenting child's bodily autonomy.

Or are you making the rad fem's argument by claiming that attention drawn to MGM is a deliberate tactic to draw attention away from FGM? Some kind of pro-cutter plot?


See, I tried for some vague form of being reasonable on this before, even though I was pretty sure it was going to fail, because the issue is far too emotional. I was pretty right about the failure thing. So on this issue, you decide what and how you want me to think on it, and rest your worried mind that I do indeed think that to whatever limits make you most comfortable.

Right. Is it gaslighting or lampshading when you accuse those you disagree with of using the wonky argument that, actually, you are using. Maybe we should call it lamplighting? Or welching?

Still, I can see how pointing out a failure in logic is clear proof that I'm getting all emotional. And the most important thing is that you get to tell everyone you're more right than anyone else - xkcd meme. Oh, and to tell us all - once again - that you aren't taking part in the discussion while posting more than everyone else combined. What comes next "hA hA I TROLL U"? You're being so oolon I need a shit.


Gaslighting = a term introduced to a general audience by social justice warriors. Originally refers to deliberately tricking someones senses to make them think they are crazy. If you know Pharyngula, you know why the term came up a few times: they used it to either point out someone was denying their “lived experience” or they claimed their target was gaslighting them by denying the accusations cooked up by the dog-piling horde.

Lampshading = even though both have to do with lamps and lights, they have little in common. That's a term I borrowed from the storywriter's toolkit where the writer, through a character, acknowledges a plot hole or obvious flaw, but then does little to fill it. Tropers call this technique lampshade hanging. The purpose is to align the audience's suspension of disbelief again with the goal of the writer to provide an entertaining story. In that sense, it actually doesn't translate well into the realm of debate, where different sides of an argument do not share the same goals (perhaps only share a “meta goal” of sussing out a truth). However, I use it to point out that someone can at least “tip-hat” that some counter argument exists, even if they are unwilling to take it seriously.
Ѽ One of Discordianism's² primary tenets —certainly one of the most memorable— is to take nothing seriously while regarding everything as Serious Business³ // Aneris23 @ Twitter
User avatar
Aneris
.
.
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Pentagon

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Matt Cavanaugh » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:06 am  •  [Post 18577]

Jan Steen wrote:If it was Laden, 'she' would surely have written that The Crappy Plagiarist is not a collection of blog posts. :lol:

"Dear Mr. Laden Myers,
Thank you for turning off your Rape Switch re-writing Don Quixote from scratch."
"They're so far up their own asses, they've gone full klein bottle. Never go full klein bottle." -- Welch
User avatar
Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
 
Posts: 2661
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Southern » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:07 am  •  [Post 18578]

Tony Parsehole wrote:
Because to troll through twitter 4chan would need:
A) Funding
B) Government encouragement

Fuck me. How thick can you get?


Wait. They're suggesting that, in USA, you can get paid by the government for trolling?

I'm convinced. America is the best place ever.
I'm posting this statement feeling confident that nothing will go wrong.
User avatar
Southern
.
.
 
Posts: 2211
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:28 pm
Location: Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby katamari Damassi » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:15 am  •  [Post 18579]

jimthepleb wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:Image

He has a covert message in his greatest hit to his agents out in the field. The message is subtle but run's along the lines of: 'Your secrets are safe with me and I shall never betray you.' Hiding in plain sight, so clever.

I kind of feel bad for this anonymous chick who's become an anti-SJW meme. I don't know. Maybe she's an obnoxious SJW, but to me she just looks like someone who knows where to get good weed.
“I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet.”
― Stanisław Lem
User avatar
katamari Damassi
.
.
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:32 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Ericb » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:27 am  •  [Post 18580]

katamari Damassi wrote:
jimthepleb wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:Image

He has a covert message in his greatest hit to his agents out in the field. The message is subtle but run's along the lines of: 'Your secrets are safe with me and I shall never betray you.' Hiding in plain sight, so clever.

I kind of feel bad for this anonymous chick who's become an anti-SJW meme. I don't know. Maybe she's an obnoxious SJW, but to me she just looks like someone who knows where to get good weed.



she looks like Andy Partridge in a dreads wig.
User avatar
Ericb
.
.
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:20 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Gefan » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:37 am  •  [Post 18581]

Dick Strawkins wrote:It is the norm in north America amongst the more affluent white population (lack of circumcision is far more common in the hispanic population.) White American women simply prefer circumcised penises. It's what they are used to, it's what they see in porn and the prevailing talking points about non circumcised individuals (that they may be more prone to HIV, HPV, phimosis, penile cancer etc) - and that circumcision is a mark of affluency and not carried out by poor members of society, tends to create a pressure to conform.
The idea that women (or more particularly affluent white women) will reject men who are not circumcised also adds to this pressure to avoid a situation where a son might face rejection or a limit to his possible marriage partners.


Strawkins, are you suggesting that the entire debate in North America over the bodily autonomy of male children is being perpetuated by the fee-fees of affluent white women?

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
User avatar
Gefan
.
.
 
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Old_ones » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:54 am  •  [Post 18582]

Tony Parsehole wrote:
Because to troll through twitter 4chan would need:
A) Funding
B) Government encouragement

Fuck me. How thick can you get?


Its way easier on the ego if you can pretend it was the CIA that made you look stupid. In that case at least you were important enough to warrant CIA attention.

Its a lot harder to cast yourself as the heir of Malcolm X, when you find yourself getting hosed by a bunch of trolls looking for a laugh. These asshats aren't paranoid, they are narcissists trying to mitigate their humiliation.
User avatar
Old_ones
.
.
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby welch » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:54 am  •  [Post 18583]

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
welch wrote:
Opyt wrote:So. I somehow managed to find a feminist law student. I brought up innocent until proven guilty, and she agreed that it was important. She then told me that the burden of proof for rape should not be on the survivor/victim.

Full tweet here if interested.

Also, despite being flagged for some kind of blockbot listing by VitaBrevi for "dogpile", I don't seem to be listed on the blockbot. I guess I'm not on it after all. Yet.


That would seem to be at odds with how things actually work. The burden of proof is really specifically on the plaintiff in such cases. the defendant doesn't even have to testify, (and often shouldn't.)

WTF? Somebody defending themselves from a rape accusation doesn't have to testify? And often shouldn't? Weird fuckin' Florida law, huh?


No, it's part of "innocent until proven guilty". The burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution. They have to do 100% of the work to prove the defendant guilty. The defendant doesn't have to prove themselves innocent. In theory, the defense doesn't have to do squat. Now, I'm unaware of that tactic ever working, but it is a valid strategy, at least on paper.
If you're going to ignore me, then actually do it. But that does require some work. So you probably won't do it right.
User avatar
welch
.
.
 
Posts: 8247
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:05 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby Cunt of Personality » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:55 am  •  [Post 18584]

I've been twattering on twatter and apparently I'm a racist troll. Just a heads up for you guys so that you can preemptively ostracise me.
User avatar
Cunt of Personality
.
.
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 12:17 pm
Location: France

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby welch » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:56 am  •  [Post 18585]

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Opyt wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:WTF? Somebody defending themselves from a rape accusation doesn't have to testify? And often shouldn't? Weird fuckin' Florida law, huh?

Not just Florida. Apparently US & Canada.

I'm pretty sure that that applies to the accuser, not the defendant. It's to prevent trauma and stress to the victim, not the person defending themselves against the allegation(s). The defendant being the one accused.


Nope. The accuser, or more correctly, the prosecution side is the one burdened with 100% of the proof requirement. The defendant is literally not required to prove their innocence. Guilt, not innocence must be proved.

That is where a lot of the "oddities" of our criminal justice system spring from, and a lot of it is rather counter-intuitive.
If you're going to ignore me, then actually do it. But that does require some work. So you probably won't do it right.
User avatar
welch
.
.
 
Posts: 8247
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:05 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby welch » Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:09 am  •  [Post 18586]

Sunder wrote:
welch wrote:Okay, but now you're artificially limiting things. If someone wants to argue about gender balance in specific genres, but that's not the argument I've seen, and it certainly doesn't seem to be the main one. As well, canon outside the game starts to get tricky, since canon can be changed at will, whereas that's a bit harder to do with a videogame.

And, in listening to most of the sane complaints, (because again, fuck listening to idiots and loons, life's too short), most of the folks complaining don't require a strictly female or male protagonist. They would be quite happy with a well-done choice. That would be really totally awesome for them. I tend to only play male protagonists, but I enjoy watching my wife play the same game as someone completely different and seeing how things change. It's kind of neat. My son will play either, sometimes just to see the differences up close as it were.

if more games worked a bit more to offer more options, you'd definitely satisfy the center of mass.

To get it out of the way my personal belief is creators should be free to create whatever kind of stories appeal to them, period. I don't like any kind of dictates about what people should create other than simply audience demand.

My point was just that the roleplaying genre is a different beast than others and should be considered somewhat differently. Traditional RPGs are games have virtually no limitations on what kind of character you can play. Video game RPGs are limited by technology, budget, and time, but in general share this openness, as do many sandbox games.

And while I admire the ability to choose in games like that, I don't think it's a good solution for every kind of story. In fact, similar choice systems in such games like the traditional good/evil ending feel tacked on much of the time. And with rare exceptions like Shepard from Mass Effect, it's not the custom player characters of RPGs who become the pop culture icons of gaming. It's the characters who have established and canonical personalities.


But unless you're doing a story where the protagonist has a clearly established external canon or history, i.e. superman, george washington, etc., then there's no reason to prefer any one gender or race. That's the gist of the complaints with things. Yes, a superman video game where you play as superman, you're, well, Superman. If you're playing as Abraham Lincoln or Lao-tze, you have certain limits on the protagonist to maintain some form of accuracy.

But where the story has never existed outside of the game, and/or the game is new, then the reasons for the default to be male really drop, and dramatically. For example, the current Assassin's Creed blowup. First, UbiSoft tried to play it off as "historical accuracy", (which is amusing as fuck given ASSASSIN'S CREED. I mean, that's about as historically accurate as two-headed dragon races up the potomac deciding the revolutionary war between the US and Pern.)

Well, that was shown to be somewhat weak, given Corday.

Then they tried to bring up technical issues. Again, weak given the statements from someone who actually worked on Assassin's Creed 3 and Liberation, Jonathan Cooper, who was the animation director for Assassin's Creed. I think it is safe to say he has more direct knowledge of what's going on in high-end video games, and Assassin's Creed than most.

They actually did create a female protagonist based on Connor, and in fact, you can play Liberation as either Connor or Aveline. Both AC3 and ACL were released simultaneously. Details: http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/11/580046 ... -animation

Ubisoft has handled this amazingly poorly, but they're not unique there. Given a video game or game series with no external canon or history to deal with, the reasons for not balancing protagonist gender, or race for that matter, drop rather a lot.
If you're going to ignore me, then actually do it. But that does require some work. So you probably won't do it right.
User avatar
welch
.
.
 
Posts: 8247
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:05 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby welch » Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:13 am  •  [Post 18587]

SoylentAtheist wrote:
Satan wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:All sorts of people could have written that letter, either as a joke or to allow PZ to present faux-support. It could have been done with PZ's knowledge, or without.


I think joke or troll are the most likely options. I wouldn't put too much past PZ in terms of online behavior but I don't think he'd have much of a motive to fabricate fan mail.

Agreed. We may have a low opinion of him in many other respects, but I just don't see him faking his own fan mail.


It really doesn't pass the laugh or the Occam's test.
If you're going to ignore me, then actually do it. But that does require some work. So you probably won't do it right.
User avatar
welch
.
.
 
Posts: 8247
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:05 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby welch » Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:16 am  •  [Post 18588]

Old_ones wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:
Because to troll through twitter 4chan would need:
A) Funding
B) Government encouragement

Fuck me. How thick can you get?


Its way easier on the ego if you can pretend it was the CIA that made you look stupid. In that case at least you were important enough to warrant CIA attention.

Its a lot harder to cast yourself as the heir of Malcolm X, when you find yourself getting hosed by a bunch of trolls looking for a laugh. These asshats aren't paranoid, they are narcissists trying to mitigate their humiliation.


Given the CIA's rich history of epic failures, it's not a huge leap.
If you're going to ignore me, then actually do it. But that does require some work. So you probably won't do it right.
User avatar
welch
.
.
 
Posts: 8247
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:05 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby windy » Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:23 am  •  [Post 18589]

Tony Parsehole wrote:
Yeah. Those troll accounts must be controlled by the FBI. Who else could be Machiavellian enough to fool you guys into falling for a stupid, bigoted hashtag on Twitter?
Occam's razor 101.


In similar news, a student from Madagascar (= obviously an undercover agent of Monsanto and CIA) has been trolling March Against Monsanto with images from a fake anti-GMO protest, for great justice:

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/g ... ss-agenda/

Image

To my new friends from March Against Monsanto:

I apologize, I have tricked you for many days now, and I must now stop because I am getting scared of your community, and even though I do not respect your ways, you are humans and I feel bad tricking you into thinking I am one of your group. You mean well, but you are not using science in a good way to help Madagascar.

There was no March Against Monsanto (MAM) in Madagascar. I made the signs and gave them to my friends to see what your group would say. My teacher (who does not agree with this project because of the trickery) told me that your group will accept almost anything regardless of the scientific process, this was my experiment to see if he is correct. In my opinion, he is correct, and your group should not have the same respect as people who are careful about their science. When we talk about science, we must be very careful how we use peoples emotions, otherwise it is manipulation.

Below I will put the pictures from our fake protest and write my real thoughts. During this experiment I was encouraged and instructed by MAM organizers to destroy or damage golden rice experiments. I was encouraged to allow locusts to eat all our food crops instead of allowing the emergency use of insecticides (this is a very difficult problem for the Malagasy people!). The signs and “memes” below were made to have no factual truth and are very offensive to many Malagasy people, and yet you shared them, you say you will use them in your marketing, and you encouraged me to take more pictures of “people with diseases” to spread your message. You encouraged me to mistrust a man from the USA who starts organic school gardens here, just because he also thinks that agriculture is complicated and biotechnologies might be able to help us. You encouraged me to stop working with this man and focus instead on vandalizing my imaginary gold rice experiments. This was offensive and unpleasant for me to experience.

My experiment was also a failure in another way. I made my signs in a way that I thought was so extreme and offensive that they would be rejected by your community. Instead, all of the signs received compliments, and I could not think of anything more extreme until I searched your own website! My signs were untrue, offensive, and even incoherent or contradictory – but after my experiment, when I look at your websites I ask myself “What is the difference?”.

For Madagascar, I think we will be better off if we have nothing to do with March Against Monsanto. I think Monsanto is probably not a good company. I do not know if biotechnology will be good for Madagascar. One thing that I do know is that March Against Monsanto is not an organization that is able to help the Malagasy people learn about the risks and benefits of biotechnology in any meaningful way. Thank you for keeping your signs and “memes” out of our country, we welcome you back when you learn about what science is.

Thank you,
Navid Rakotofala
“Ideological purity is for ideologues.” - J. Morales
User avatar
windy
.
.
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Y'all come back now, y'hear?

Postby real horrorshow » Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:27 am  •  [Post 18590]

welch wrote:No, it's not some stupid plan that ends in !trolling. It's just clear you have no interest in any viewpoint other than your own.

Ooh, irony overload.

So I'm not going to even attempt to discuss it, because there cannot be a discussion in that situation.

So, it's not because of the gaping hole in your argument?

It's pointless, and ultimately a waste of our time. Whatever you wish to think that makes you right, and gives you the victory, it's yours with two bags full.

And in return I award you the title of 'Patronising Cunt' and wish you a hearty Fuck Off. (And if you're quoting Baa Baa Black Sheep, it's three bags full.)
“[Y]ou're evil. More evil than Sauron, I'd wagger!” - Phil Giordana
User avatar
real horrorshow
.
.
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:59 am
Location: In a band of brigands.

[Show] Post a reply

PreviousNext

Return to Periodic Table of Swearing - The Undead Thread

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DeepInsideYourMind, didymos, Google [Bot], Hunt, Michael J, TedDahlberg and 8 guests