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 CaptainFluffyBunny » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:14 pm  •  [Post 18526]

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.
I was told to check my privilege...I rolled a three. Roll again for damage?
CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:39 am

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

Postby Sunder » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:16 pm  •  [Post 18527]

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.
"Farewell Ghost Wizard, or die trying."
User avatar
Sunder
.
.
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:12 pm

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

Postby Suet Cardigan » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:19 pm  •  [Post 18528]

Image



Another classis, Ape+Lust!

I love the knife stuck through his copy of The God Delusion.
my kin (Dalek) doesn’t exactly expression compassion or pity towards, well, anything or anyone.
User avatar
Suet Cardigan
.
.
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:26 am
Location: England, a bastion of barbarism and cluelessness

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

Postby Ape+lust » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:22 pm  •  [Post 18529]

Bonus, since I see Mykeru around:

Image
User avatar
Ape+lust
.
.
 
Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:55 pm

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

Postby Matt Cavanaugh » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:24 pm  •  [Post 18530]

jugheadnaut wrote:I first saw her on Firefly about 10 years ago, I pretty much had to physically hold my jaw off the floor the entire episode. And this is a show that had Gina Torres and Morena Baccarin as regulars, so I should have been inured to the effect spectacular women while watching.

Ahhhh, Saffron.

Great female cast on Firefly. (don't forget Summer Glau & Jewel Staite!) And Whedon gets slammed by radfems for writing weak female characters ?!

'Twas nice to encounter Baccarin again in Homeland.
"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: 2976
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:38 pm

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

Postby Opyt » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:32 pm  •  [Post 18531]

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.


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.
Opyt
.
.
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 2:50 am

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

Postby jugheadnaut » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:35 pm  •  [Post 18532]

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
jugheadnaut wrote:I first saw her on Firefly about 10 years ago, I pretty much had to physically hold my jaw off the floor the entire episode. And this is a show that had Gina Torres and Morena Baccarin as regulars, so I should have been inured to the effect spectacular women while watching.

Ahhhh, Saffron.

Great female cast on Firefly. (don't forget Summer Glau & Jewel Staite!) And Whedon gets slammed by radfems for writing weak female characters ?!

'Twas nice to encounter Baccarin again in Homeland.


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.
User avatar
jugheadnaut
.
.
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 11:09 pm

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

Postby Ape+lust » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:45 pm  •  [Post 18533]

Suet Cardigan wrote:Another classis, Ape+Lust!

I love the knife stuck through his copy of The God Delusion.


Thank you! Here's a terrible secret -- PZ's head is perched on the body of a Black man. I bleached some poor fool, then dishonored him with pudgy Minnesota pieface. I should be hellbound for that.
User avatar
Ape+lust
.
.
 
Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:55 pm

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

Postby Gefan » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:46 pm  •  [Post 18534]



:popcorn:
User avatar
Gefan
.
.
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

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

Postby SoylentAtheist » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:46 pm  •  [Post 18535]

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
SoylentAtheist wrote:pz just is not that creative. Also the page is folded into quarters.

but cursive is no longer a required course in school.


1) Nope.
2) QED.


Take another look at the vertical center whiteish line. The document was scanned in. That whiteish line is from where the fold did not press up against the glass/scanner quite as well. Bottom half is an inner fold. Top half where you see a bit of a mottled grey line surrounded by a bit of white is an outer fold.

I demand an impartial jury on my assessment of the quarter folds!
User avatar
SoylentAtheist
 

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

Postby SoylentAtheist » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:59 pm  •  [Post 18536]

Never mind. I mixed up the question order.
<= Self admitted dufus to the left.
User avatar
SoylentAtheist
 

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

Postby CaptainFluffyBunny » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:13 pm  •  [Post 18537]

Cursive is still taught in Indiana schools, albeit with some controversy. Still, the letter does not pass the sniff test. Matt's assessment of the writing style changes and language are not easily dismissed.
I was told to check my privilege...I rolled a three. Roll again for damage?
CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:39 am

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

Postby Matt Cavanaugh » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:16 pm  •  [Post 18538]

Guestus Aurelius wrote:Is Monsanto's reputation as a particularly evil corporation earned? I know there's some fucked up history there (Agent Orange), but are they in fact any more nefarious than most big companies today?


Yes: Roundup.

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html
"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: 2976
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:38 pm

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

Postby Matt Cavanaugh » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:23 pm  •  [Post 18539]

Southern wrote:Well, I hate to crash their dreams, but... if they do manage to control 100% of the world's food supply, you know what will happen the next day? Governments all around the world will expropriate the shit out of Monsanto's intellectual property. And what the fuck they will do about it? Even the smallest of the small banana republics can send their troops and expropriate Monsanto's facilities.


Because the US would never ever invade a banana republic just to protect the profits of a US corporation.
"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: 2976
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:38 pm

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

Postby AndrewV69 » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:25 pm  •  [Post 18540]

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: 4573
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 18541]

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: 2976
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 18542]

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: 254
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 18543]

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: 2002
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 18544]

Image
Fighting hypocrisy since Sun Oct 14, 2012.
User avatar
Jan Steen
.
.
 
Posts: 2002
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 18545]

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!
User avatar
Kirbmarc
.
.
 
Posts: 441
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 18546]

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.
"The Reader hereby agrees to accept all responsibility for any emotional turbulence that arises as a result of the perusal of this Text."
- Miri Mogilevsky
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3371
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 18547]

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: 3479
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 18548]

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.
"The Reader hereby agrees to accept all responsibility for any emotional turbulence that arises as a result of the perusal of this Text."
- Miri Mogilevsky
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3371
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 18549]

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."
"The Reader hereby agrees to accept all responsibility for any emotional turbulence that arises as a result of the perusal of this Text."
- Miri Mogilevsky
User avatar
Skep tickle
.
.
 
Posts: 3371
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 18550]

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.
User avatar
Kirbmarc
.
.
 
Posts: 441
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 18551]

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: 5023
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 18552]

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: 4798
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 18553]

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: 3479
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 18554]

Dammit ninja'd by spongypissflaps.
User avatar
James Caruthers
.
.
 
Posts: 3479
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 18555]

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: 160
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 18556]

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.
User avatar
Kirbmarc
.
.
 
Posts: 441
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 18557]

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 18558]

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Image



Image

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


Image
User avatar
James Caruthers
.
.
 
Posts: 3479
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 18559]


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: 4798
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 18560]

Image
"It wasn't long before the arse-featured animals were all vibrating frenziedly"
Image
User avatar
Tony Parsehole
.
.
 
Posts: 4798
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 18561]

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: 871
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 18562]

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: 5023
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 18563]



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: 1267
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 18564]

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: 14
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 18565]



Right. How's that working out for you?
User avatar
didymos
.
.
 
Posts: 1267
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 18566]

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

Image


Awesome. Simply awesome.
"...and the age of sophists, calculators and economists was upon us." --The Hitch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWxpkcQUCeo
User avatar
Mykeru
.
.
 
Posts: 4516
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 18567]

User avatar
Apples
.
.
 
Posts: 2214
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 18568]

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: 2294
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 18569]

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: 5023
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 18570]

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: 68
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 18571]

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: 5023
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 18572]

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: 876
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 18573]

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 18574]

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: 1373
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 18575]

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:

User avatar
Kirbmarc
.
.
 
Posts: 441
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 18576]

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: 887
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 18577]

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: 2424
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 18578]

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: 402
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 18579]

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: 876
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 18580]


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: 4798
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 18581]

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: 876
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 18582]

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: 402
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 18583]

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: 765
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 18584]

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: 4798
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 18585]

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 18586]

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: 4798
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 18587]

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: 2976
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 18588]

Tony Parsehole wrote:Image


Image
User avatar
TedDahlberg
.
.
 
Posts: 876
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 18589]

TedDahlberg wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:Image


Image


User avatar
Pitchguest
.
.
 
Posts: 2768
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 18590]

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: 1623
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Pentagon

[Show] Post a reply

PreviousNext

Return to Periodic Table of Swearing - The Undead Thread

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Badger3k, Bing [PANIC], comhcinc, JacquesCuze, jugheadnaut, MadGav and 8 guests