The Refuge of the Toads

[Lsuoma]

It's been brought up before, but only a demented fuck like Chu could think describing yourself as a "stormtrooper" is something a decent person would do.

Of course if Chu ever did try goose-strutting down the promenade he'd probably slip in a puddle of his own head grease.

http://i.imgur.com/r1bFeXT.jpg

[comhcinc]

Matt and I don't usually agree (well... often don't agree).... but this^ is 100% correct IMHO. Obama did more to worsen race relations in the US than any president since FDR.

I find this hilarious. Obama has bent over backwards to be bland and non controversial on the matter of race relations. He has hardly said diddly about it. Inviting the cop and Henry Louis Gates to the White House for a beer was a pathetic, feeble gesture. Cop should have been booted from the force, arresting someone for being black in his own front yard. You can imagine the pressure he would have been under to say something about it, and this is all the SJWs got back in return. "Let's all have a beer together." Ha!

Yeah. A lot of progressives have bemoan that Obama hasn't done enough for race relations. I do disagree about the beer meeting. I like that. I firmly believe the more we can seat down with people and drink with them the more understanding there can be.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I'm enjoying Damien in this thread: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/accordingtomatthew/

I'm pleased to see push back in the comments section from the ole "feminism is good for men too" trope.

Oolon being a dipshit as usual and thinks making the leap from "patriarchs exist" to "Patriarchy exists" is solid reasoning.

That last comment deserves a standing ovation:

Msironen • 5 hours ago

"...feminists are simply for equality of the sexes..."

And Islam is the religion of peace, so why aren't you a muslim already? What do you have against peace?

[Tigzy]

That last comment deserves a standing ovation:

Msironen • 5 hours ago

"...feminists are simply for equality of the sexes..."

And Islam is the religion of peace, so why aren't you a muslim already? What do you have against peace?

Aye, that's a good one. Will have to remember that one.

[feathers]

Oh for fuck's sake. I give up.

Meanwhile:

https://i.uploadly.com/wu3czsuy.gif

In just about any sports where there's a whiff of danger of head injury, people wear helmets nowadays- but not in sailing.

[Dave]

Yeah. A lot of progressives have bemoan that Obama hasn't done enough for race relations. I do disagree about the beer meeting. I like that. I firmly believe the more we can seat down with people and drink with them the more understanding there can be.

Getting the opposing sides to sit down and have a beer together can only lead to better understanding . . . or bar fights. Im good with it either way.

[Steersman]

So Cathy Reisenwitz follows Steersman for some reason. Interesting.

Lock him down to 140 characters and I guess he does OK.

In light of this, am I the only who is surprised that he hasn't started tweeting in simplified Chinese characters?

:) Maybe I should also look for some Pitman shorthand symbols that I could use with Twitter? Or maybe I could use some of those 2D barcodes that Dawkins recently ran afoul of?

Problem of course is that that tends to reduce the number of potential readers - better to go with something like TwitLonger which Tigzy had recommended some time back. Seem to recollect that there had been a recent newmagazine article where Twitter was floating the notion of increasing the character limit.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Matt and I don't usually agree (well... often don't agree).... but this^ is 100% correct IMHO. Obama did more to worsen race relations in the US than any president since FDR.

I find this hilarious. Obama has bent over backwards to be bland and non controversial on the matter of race relations. He has hardly said diddly about it. Inviting the cop and Henry Louis Gates to the White House for a beer was a pathetic, feeble gesture. Cop should have been booted from the force, arresting someone for being black in his own front yard. You can imagine the pressure he would have been under to say something about it, and this is all the SJWs got back in return. "Let's all have a beer together." Ha!

Is this like that Sci-fi movie where there's a duplicate Earth, only everything is in reverse?

Let's focus on the Gates incident. Gates was not "arrested for being black". That's an outrageous, asinine statement.

* When Gates returned home, his front door key did not work. With the help of his chauffeur, he broke down the door and entered;
* Gates' neighbor observed two men breaking into Gates' house. Gates had entered, & she did not recognize the man still outside (Gates' chauffeur). When asked by 911 to identify his race, she said 'possibly hispanic';
* The police (entirely reasonably) asked Gates to show ID to prove it was his house;
* Gates refused, immediately accusing the cop of racism;
* Gates continued to refuse, instead going to his kitchen & placing a phone call to lodge a complaint of racism with the police chief;
* Gates finally showed his Harvard ID, then shouted for the name of the cop;
* The cop provided it, but Gates shouted for it two more times, the cop repeating his name each time;
* The cop asked Gates to step outside so they could talk. (Cop reported this was because Gates' shouting was echoing in the kitchen & he could not call in his update to dispatch);
* Gates snarked, 'yeah, I'll talk to yo mama outside';
* Gates continued to be belligerent & hurl accusations of racism as they exited onto the porch. This was all caught on audio over the cop's radio;
* The cops arrested Gates for disorderly behavior in public.

obama immediately called the cops "stupid" and cited the incident as an example of racism. The "beer summit" was a face-saving maneuver after the details had come out.

Gates is an African-American Studies prof who's written extremely incendiary tracts on race relations. He was clearly itching for a confrontation. His behavior was extremely rude & not at all commensurate with the situation. It was Gates who injected race into the incident.

Yes, Gates got punished for dissing the cops. But that'll happen to white folks, too, if they act like that much of a dick. It was a stupid move -- unless your goal is to fan the flames of racial conflict.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Yeah. A lot of progressives have bemoan that Obama hasn't done enough for race relations. I do disagree about the beer meeting. I like that. I firmly believe the more we can seat down with people and drink with them the more understanding there can be.

Getting the opposing sides to sit down and have a beer together can only lead to better understanding . . . or bar fights. Im good with it either way.

Red Wedding...

[comhcinc]

In just about any sports where there's a whiff of danger of head injury, people wear helmets nowadays- but not in sailing.

Sailing isn't a sport. It is a means to travel over water using wind.

[youtube]aY_7XRUJtDE[/youtube]

When I had to coach my daughter's team I had to go through concussion training.

One of the things that I learned is Girls High School Soccer is the new one single cause of concussions in the United States.

[comhcinc]

Yeah. A lot of progressives have bemoan that Obama hasn't done enough for race relations. I do disagree about the beer meeting. I like that. I firmly believe the more we can seat down with people and drink with them the more understanding there can be.

Getting the opposing sides to sit down and have a beer together can only lead to better understanding . . . or bar fights. Im good with it either way.

Red Wedding...

That is another way to solve problems.

[Steersman]

MarcusAu "I am familiar with the concept of puns"

Didn't seem consistent with your "I'm not sure what they have to do with anything".

Concrete thinking at its finest, Steers, old boy. Read the cartoon speech bubble and you will see why MarcusAu posted it. I suspect your CoreEmpathySimulation process has crashed. Please reboot.

Last time they rebooted Steers he started agreeing with the National Front. I believe there is concern another reboot may result in an endless loop of Mein Kampf / Stalin quotes.

Sheesh. Link to one neo-Nazi site, and that might be debatable, and one is forever tainted - at least in the eyes of some who seem to have less commitment to the principles of skepticism than they apparently claim ....

In any case, if you haven't seen it yet you may wish to take a look at a fairly recent WEIT post referencing a Nick Cohen article in The Guardian (belying complains about its left-leaning?) A salient quote:

What civilisation Judaism and Christianity possess came from the outside. They did not reform themselves, which is why calls for a Muslim reformation so spectacularly miss the point. Civilisation came from the battering that religion took from the Enlightenment, from sceptics, scientists, mockers and philosophers, who destroyed their myths and exposed the immorality of their taboos.

Islam simply isn't going to change unless the countries Muslims wish to immigrate to draw a line or two in the sand. Apropos of which:

[comhcinc]

* Gates continued to be belligerent & hurl accusations of racism as they exited onto the porch. This was all caught on audio over the cop's radio;
* The cops arrested Gates for disorderly behavior in public.

A group including myself was driving home from a bar once. We got pulled over. One of my friends was about as drunk as a person could be. He was in the back seat. Once the cop had cleared the driver he looked at me friend and say "Would you like to step outside the car sir?".

My friend did as was arrested for public intoxication. It stuck in court because the cop did not demand but ask if he wanted to get out of the car.

It was so much bullshit I couldn't even be upset. I see the Gates things about the same. The cop was stupid. Getting Gates outside so he could arrest him was bullshit.

[Steersman]

I am familiar with the concept of puns

Didn't seem consistent with your "I'm not sure what they have to do with anything".

Concrete thinking at its finest, Steers, old boy. Read the cartoon speech bubble and you will see why MarcusAu posted it. I suspect your CoreEmpathySimulation process has crashed. Please reboot.

:-) If I ever get around to writing some AI software I'll be sure to consider that as an appropriate label for some modules. But saw that one robot was calling itself Hammerstein but that still seemed a non sequitur, although maybe it was too late to be firing on all cylinders.

[Billie from Ockham]

* Gates continued to be belligerent & hurl accusations of racism as they exited onto the porch. This was all caught on audio over the cop's radio;

Are you sure about this part?


[youtube]ITl55WTyIRY[/youtube]

[Guestus Aurelius]

The whole issue of the rise of the SJWs is a fascinating phenomenon.
For example, why did it happen now?
Why did it happen in atheism before most other segments of society? (Gamergate started two or three years after Elevatorgate)
The elements of SJW politics have been around for decades - the Sokal affair was based on the academic PoMo brigade, who were pretty indistinguishable from modern SJWs - apart from lacking some of the viciousness we have come to expect from the current generation.
So why now?

<snip>

Yes, I think the academia angle is crucial to understanding all this.

Postmodernism is absolutely a running thread, but it's important to differentiate between bona fide epistemological relativism—rare in the wild, and not really at play here—and its far more common and insidious cousin, critical theory, which has its roots in the Frankfurt School but was revived in its contemporary guise in the 1970s and ’80s.

Critical theory is not explicitly anti-science, and it doesn't embrace full-on relativism. If you polled its adherents, you'd find nearly unanimous belief in evolution, climate change, and the Big Bang, and if you asked them why they believe in those things, they'd tell you that they trust the scientific consensus.

So far so good. But here's the rub.

Critical theory concerns itself with matters of human interactions and cultural products, and in these domains it is unscientific while also fancying itself just as good as science at getting things right. Even here, it isn't fully relativistic. To the contrary, the belief in truth remains generally intact. What happens, though, is the critical theorists selectively take little doses of relativism as needed, often unwittingly, in order to elevate their own value-laden apriorism to the level of reliable data. Regardless of how they proceed from there, GIGO.

So those underlying sociopolitical assumptions are where the real action is. And what are they? Mainly how "power" works. That's the meat of it, anyway: assumptions about how and why people with "power" do what they do, and assumptions about how and why people without it do what they do. No need for empirical psychological foundations—in fact, to test these assumptions scientifically would be immoral because science, though valuable, is, after all, a cultural product of Western colonial powers. To study, say, women or poor people or tribal people scientifically would dehumanize them, as though they were lab rats to be poked and prodded. (Of course, if the results support your assumptions, cite way!) This is precisely why the American Anthropological Association dropped the word "science" from its long-term plan a few years ago. It's surprising that it didn't happen earlier.

The game is simple: pick a sphere of human relations, identify who has the power and who doesn't, and you've got yourself a new "grievance studies" program. Gender studies? Check. African American studies? Check. Queer studies? Check. Indigenous studies? Check. Postcolonial studies? Check. Your assumptions are unassailable because you've tethered them to morality. Questioning them amounts to misogyny, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and the like. And what of the slipshod concept of "power" that forms the backbone of your worldview? Well, you've got Foucault on your side, and even though you can't really understand him, he's got all that cachet so you know he's good.

Now here's where things get really interesting and frankly frightening. This is my take on how the broad SJW phenomenon has emerged from what was once just an academic niche of postmodernism and critical theory.

The first part of the equation is this: you don't need to take a class in a "grievance studies" department to be inculcated with this stuff, because it's now entrenched in the humanities and social sciences at large. Take an introduction to sociology, art history, or English literature, and there's a good chance you'll get some of it. Just depends on who's teaching. Moreover, students are typically required to take at least a class or two in those areas—not a bad policy in theory, but all this is to say that it's become increasingly difficult for underclassmen to avoid being taught a particular political perspective as if it's verifiable fact. We give college students every reason to trust that their professors are feeding them truth.

And you know how I mentioned above that critical theory fancies itself as good as science? Well, here's the second part of the equation. Consider how we science-minded folk go about trying to persuade people to ditch their woo and denialism. They'll never read all the scientific literature they'd need to read in order to become experts, and neither will we. No, we ultimately rely on the consensus of the professionals, the people with PhD at the end of their name, and we encourage others to do the same. But now we're in quite the intellectual quagmire, aren't we? Because according to the very same logic, the grievance studies professors are experts, too!!! Even many science PhD's see it this way. They want people to take their own expertise and consensuses seriously, and so why wouldn't they readily accept the validity of what the scholars in other fields are saying? Think Sean Carroll or Phil Plait. There's actually a perverse consistency in this approach.

The last part of the equation is surely the most important: the internet and social media. Just over the past 5 or 10 years, we've seen the emergence of websites and blogs dedicated to bringing grievance studies to the masses. Some are run by actual academics, but most are run by trust-fund babies who were indoctrinated in college. Their message has become popular because it has the weight of "scholarship" behind it and because it taps into our deep-seated tribalistic tendencies. Middle-school and high-school students now absorb it long before they even apply to university. You're either on the side of good, trying to solve the problem, or you're on the side of evil, a bigot perpetuating the problem. And evil physically disgusts us. So we "share" and "like" and "retweet" to signal our virtue. We're not one of those evil bigots. We're good, and now you know it.

That's how I see it, anyway. The perfect breeding ground for social justice warriors. To recap: as grievance studies and critical theory have gained a veneer of credibility by becoming institutionally entrenched in higher education, more college students have become indoctrinated in them, and some with nothing better to do have gone on to spread the gospel to Millennials on new media, where it's caught on like wildfire because of human psychology—ironically, the very thing that critical theorists make ignorant foundational assumptions about in the first place.

[VickyCaramel]

Islam simply isn't going to change unless the countries Muslims wish to immigrate to draw a line or two in the sand. Apropos of which:

Are they also calling for the dismantling of Jewish courts? The Muslims are not the only ones to do this.
As far as I was aware these courts don't really have any more power in the eyes of the law than some kind of mediation service?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Vicky, I'm not ignoring your comments about Italian performance during ww2, it's just been years since i read anything on the subject, so can't provide much in the way of factual counter points, and i'm going to have to go away and refresh my knowledge. My reading on the subject (absent specifics) left me with the impression that the "italians are crap soldiers" was a false representation of their actual combat performance.

Don't worry, I don't feel ignored.

I can't remember who taught me this, but... You don't win wars by killing the enemy, you win wars by making them give up and run away.
The bulk of Italians were just not willing to fight, they had given up before it started. I cannot possibly think of a type of soldier that would be worse.

...but not all of them. The Black shirt divisions were fairly committed, and the colonials, who were effectively fighting for their homeland could be very committed, especially in East Africa. I'm not calling into question the masculinity of Italian males, they were a superb force in the First World War, and the Italian resistance had testicles just as big as any other resistance movement.

I have heard all the arguments before, that stories of their cowardice is just propaganda, and anecdotes are exaggerations based on that propaganda. I don't buy it.
That they had inferior equipped. At the beginning of the war that certainly wasn't true.
That they were poorly equipped, well maybe yes but if the Italian army cannot equip it's troops in the field we can only blame the Italian army.

Lets look at a few facts. They definitely couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery, just look at the invasion of Greece -- what other army has ever been able to say it has misplaced battalions before actually getting into action? They had trouble supplying their troops in the field, and often before they even got to the field. This is all basic stuff that the Italian army is not capable of doing, so why would we assume that they were capable of training the tens of thousands of new conscripts into anything that looked like soldiers?

Obviously, there are going to be committed professional soldiers and talented officers, and as the war goes on these are going to become seasoned. But in the round it's fare to say the Italian army wasn't up to much. Frankly I don't think that the thought that some fanatical fascists and colonialists could fight hard is a particularly redeeming for Italy's reputation, I prefer to think of 'The Gentlemen' who cheerfully surrendered by the thousand.

A few instances:

* In North Africa, Italian troops under Rommel, Ramke, et al., fought quite tenaciously. One notable instance being the defense of the Mareth Line;
* During the final, futile defense of Tunis, the Giovani Fascisti infantry regt. held a hill until it was annihilated;
* In Sicily, a mixed force of Italian infantry (Livorno div), motorcyclists, and light armor furiously counter-attacked the US Rangers holding Gela. They nearly succeeded, but were decimated by naval fire. The parade-ground formation adopted during the Italian advance also led to needless casualties;
* Coastal divisions, made up of poorly-trained locals, and equipped with WWI guns and shells that did not fit, obviously surrendered or fled. Still, some well-equipped & trained units cut & ran, too -- notably Napoli div. Clearly, the mettle of the Italian man was not the critical factor; rather, training, equipment, & unit leadership.

[feathers]

Army and Marine Corps chiefs: It’s time for women to register for the draft - Washington Post, 2/2/2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/che ... the-draft/

I'd like to see Watson, Sarkeesian, Hensley et al. being drafted but I'm afraid they're too old already.

[feathers]

I'm not trying to start another Slymepit war. I'm just genuinely curious about how the General's could have stopped the outcome occurring as it did.

[youtube]UAeqVGP-GPM[/youtube]

[Steersman]

Islam simply isn't going to change unless the countries Muslims wish to immigrate to draw a line or two in the sand. Apropos of which:
[.tweet][/tweet]

Are they also calling for the dismantling of Jewish courts? The Muslims are not the only ones to do this.
As far as I was aware these courts don't really have any more power in the eyes of the law than some kind of mediation service?

Good question. Their recent news release seems to answer it in the affirmative:

Campaigners are calling on the government to exclude Sharia and all other religious forums, including the Jewish Beth Din from presiding over divorce and family matters; to reinstate legal aid; to stop the repeal of the Human Rights Act and to re-affirm the principle of the separation of religion and the law. The law is a key component of securing justice for citizens and one law for all.

Namazie and her groups - both the One Law For All and the ExMuslims of Britain (CEMB I think) - are going concerns and deserve much commendation and support.

But you might also be interested in a fairly recent post in The Independent - Sharia courts in Britain lock women into 'marital captivity', study says - on the topic.

[free thoughtpolice]

I don't think he looks like Michael Jackson.

https://veuwer.com/i/3lpg.jpg

Then again, I don't know anyone with the acting skill to pull it off could match Michael Jackson's facial features. Maybe they should have gone for a woman.

It's a relatively close match... but of course.... no one on earth has Jackson "end-stage" nose. So.... my challenge to you is to find ANY well respected Black actor who looks anything like Jackson. I will start a count-down... 10....9....8....7.

Idris Elba?

[Shatterface]

Oh for fuck's sake. I give up.

Meanwhile:

https://i.uploadly.com/wu3czsuy.gif

In just about any sports where there's a whiff of danger of head injury, people wear helmets nowadays- but not in sailing.

Just guessing but maybe the added protection is cancelled out by the increased chance of drowning.

[Kirbmarc]

Sheesh. Link to one neo-Nazi site, and that might be debatable, and one is forever tainted - at least in the eyes of some who seem to have less commitment to the principles of skepticism than they apparently claim ....

In any case, if you haven't seen it yet you may wish to take a look at a fairly recent WEIT post referencing a Nick Cohen article in The Guardian (belying complains about its left-leaning?) A salient quote:

What civilisation Judaism and Christianity possess came from the outside. They did not reform themselves, which is why calls for a Muslim reformation so spectacularly miss the point. Civilisation came from the battering that religion took from the Enlightenment, from sceptics, scientists, mockers and philosophers, who destroyed their myths and exposed the immorality of their taboos.

Islam simply isn't going to change unless the countries Muslims wish to immigrate to draw a line or two in the sand. Apropos of which:

If your idea is to dismantle Sharia courts, then I'm with you. If you think that Islam needs to be mocked, critcized and deconstructed by skeptics, scientists and philosophers instead of being glorified as a "religion of peace", then I'm with you. If you think that the countries where Muslims wish to immigrate have to promote secularism and Englitenment values in Muslim communities instead of protecting "identity" and "diversity" at all costs, then I'm with you.

If you wish stop Wahabi/Salafi preachers paid by the Gulf States, I'm also with you.

You're talking sense now Steers. That's what is so incredibly frustrating, because I know that you will soon fall back into your "deport all Muslims unless they piss on the Quran" nonsense.

You quoted Maryam Namazie's tweets. Do you think she's OK with your ideas of mass deportations of Muslims? What about Maajid Nawaz, someone who advocates secularims and liberal-democratic values in Islam...do you think he agrees with your "population transfers" idea?

You act just like a SJW, with a "motte and bailey" technique. The "motte" are some reasonable ideas abou promoting secularism and liberal democracy. The "bailey" is "deport all Muslims unless they get past some Quran-desecration test!".

When you want to promote your ideas in a seemingly convicing way you propose the "motte", but when you're left to your own devices you quickly get back to the "bailey".

[Dave]

Oh for fuck's sake. I give up.

Meanwhile:

https://i.uploadly.com/wu3czsuy.gif

In just about any sports where there's a whiff of danger of head injury, people wear helmets nowadays- but not in sailing.

They dont?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/acws-gothenbur ... 7131C2.jpg

USSailing has a somewhat mixed message on it: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2015/ ... r-sailing/

On the otherhand, Im not aware of a large push for helmets in soccer either, well, except for the Iranian womans team.

[feathers]

But, I don't know if I agree with the conclusion. I actually think SJWs are in such a intellectual bubble that they convince themselves they are as big a victim as they say. They are weak protected little children who were taught that all their problems are caused by white men.

I think this is a common mistake. SJWs are not weak and helpless. They perform weak and helpless to get what they want, and only pick on people who are not in a position to fight back.

No, they happily attack people like Dawkins or Shermer, so that doesn't hold water.

[VickyCaramel]

A few instances:

* In North Africa, Italian troops under Rommel, Ramke, et al., fought quite tenaciously. One notable instance being the defense of the Mareth Line;
* During the final, futile defense of Tunis, the Giovani Fascisti infantry regt. held a hill until it was annihilated;
* In Sicily, a mixed force of Italian infantry (Livorno div), motorcyclists, and light armor furiously counter-attacked the US Rangers holding Gela. They nearly succeeded, but were decimated by naval fire. The parade-ground formation adopted during the Italian advance also led to needless casualties;
* Coastal divisions, made up of poorly-trained locals, and equipped with WWI guns and shells that did not fit, obviously surrendered or fled. Still, some well-equipped & trained units cut & ran, too -- notably Napoli div. Clearly, the mettle of the Italian man was not the critical factor; rather, training, equipment, & unit leadership.

I think we should have really clarified this at the beginning, although I have said I am not questioning the masculinity of Italian men.
We are talking about the quality of the Italian army. Virtually all the examples of the Italians fighting well you will find will be examples of them fighting as part of the German-Italian group/army, which in effect meant under the Germans.
On it's own, it managed to invade Albania (although it was held up by the Albanian police until the tanks arrived), in was reasonably successful in invading several villages in Kenya, and in British Somaliland they did manage to capture the whole territory even though they didn't actually win any battles (unless allowing the British to withdraw practically unscathed counts). Their invasion of Greece was a failure as was their invasion of Egypt. It is not a stellar record.

[Za-zen]

Julia Galef weighs in.



Oh, she doth teach the torches to burn bright. Smart lady.

Holy shit, D.J. Grothe is amazing in the comments against Dan Fincke.

What a bunch of nonsense in that thread, especially from Finke. But the "punching down good" nonsense spouted by others shows how far the rot has spread. Who decides who is down? You? It has to be you, because it is utterly a value judgement, it's subjective PoMo shite from SJW infected brain farts. Me and my mates decided you are "up" therefore we have a consensus! Therefore i'm justified in knocking your teeth to the back of your throat. Dingbats.

Finke breaks down his bullshit into 6 paragraphs no less! Six! It could have/should have been one. But the more you waffle, the stronger your argument is.

Para 1: Dawkins is a bad boy, doesn't state why, other than dawkins is a big name. Pre emptive conclusion.

Para 2: Dawkins is a bad boy, doesn't state why, other than Dawkins is a big name. Includes waffle about professional standards according to Dan Finke.

Para 3: Premise! We finally got it. Finke believes Skepticism should be welcoming to the political ideology that is feminism, throws in some waffle about the dangers of alienating such a huge population. I assume he means feminists, because he couldn't possibly be conflating the political ideology that is feminism with the half of the population that is Women, could he? At this point Dan would do well to be reminded A+ was roundly laughed out of existence. This is also where the bait and switch/Motte and Bailey (take your pick) argumentation begins. It was perfectly clear in the video that BIG RED was what was being caricatured. Big red is the poster child for madfem/sjw political nonsense, as is blatantly obvious from the political positions the character espouses throughout the video! Dan's bailey is "she said feminism in parallel to him saying islamist".

Para 4: Dan thinks it's appropriate for NECSS to side explicitly with feminism. Doesn't state why, we can assume it's because Dan likes feminism. Which feminism Dan? Your Motte version or your bailey version? The Big Red Madfem whackology version that has about as much of a relation to reality as creationism, and other whackaloons you state in Para 1 NECSS shouldn't be a big tent for?

Para 5: Dan thinks "it's also fair to be more stringent in protecting marginalized people from gross attacks than privileged people." Who exactly are we talking about here Dan? I didn't know that we had established Big Red to be under privileged, and needing of protection, unless of course you mean, we need to protect Big Red's bullshit from scrutiny, because it's abject nonsense which no org involved in the blowing apart of nonsense should be protecting. Maybe we need to protect creationists too Dan, i mean sheesh they are being marginalized by all those meanie intellectuals and science heads. Dan then proceeds on a subjective rant about which way you punch, which effectively boils down to the old "fair game for beliefs I don't like" crap. Dan then proceeds to say the video was also racist because of it's caricature of the islamist. Dan you really don't understand the difference between race and ideology, do you (that's a statement not a question). But your idiocy displays the SJW brain in action, where people are reduced to tick box identity. Ask Gad Saad if the caricature represents him, and offends his racial sensibilities.

Para 6: Last paragraph, and i hope you've noted all Dan has done is set up a false premise for his conclusion. Dawkins is a bad boy because he was punching down on big red, according to the book of Dan, is the be all and end all of this paragraph.

Comment section and Dan immediately retreats to his Motte: Dan says "And, seriously, I am in 100% agreement that some feminists are being pernicious in their accommodation of patriarchy within Islam. I don't disagree that the thing that is wrong that was attempting to be satirized is really wrong. I think the way it was done reached far beyond that issue in its tarring of feminism though and cast as pernicious lots of things that are not pernicious, treating them as on the level with clearly pernicious facets of Islamism. It was a wide scope demonization of all social justice feminism. And if he thinks THAT MUCH of social justice feminism is equal to Islamism then, yeah, it's bizarre to say that he's pro-feminism. He may be pro-feminism-stopping-where-it-was-circa-1970 or something but he's not at all still on board with the cause.

And that is the only piece of writing Dan needed to make on that thread. It shows what he thinks, and why he is offended. He doesn't like Dawkin's politics because he's a SJWanker.

[Kirbmarc]

A few instances:

* In North Africa, Italian troops under Rommel, Ramke, et al., fought quite tenaciously. One notable instance being the defense of the Mareth Line;
* During the final, futile defense of Tunis, the Giovani Fascisti infantry regt. held a hill until it was annihilated;
* In Sicily, a mixed force of Italian infantry (Livorno div), motorcyclists, and light armor furiously counter-attacked the US Rangers holding Gela. They nearly succeeded, but were decimated by naval fire. The parade-ground formation adopted during the Italian advance also led to needless casualties;
* Coastal divisions, made up of poorly-trained locals, and equipped with WWI guns and shells that did not fit, obviously surrendered or fled. Still, some well-equipped & trained units cut & ran, too -- notably Napoli div. Clearly, the mettle of the Italian man was not the critical factor; rather, training, equipment, & unit leadership.

Also a lack of resources. Italy had no oil fields under its control. Italians needed to import iron, coal, nickel, bauxite (needed for aluminum), etc.

[feathers]

Laurie Penny would first have to find an erection that could withstand that whiny, nasally, noise that comes out of her cake hole.

How would anyone be able to hear if that erection is firmly in that whiny, ..., cakehole.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

A few instances:

* In North Africa, Italian troops under Rommel, Ramke, et al., fought quite tenaciously. One notable instance being the defense of the Mareth Line;
* During the final, futile defense of Tunis, the Giovani Fascisti infantry regt. held a hill until it was annihilated;
* In Sicily, a mixed force of Italian infantry (Livorno div), motorcyclists, and light armor furiously counter-attacked the US Rangers holding Gela. They nearly succeeded, but were decimated by naval fire. The parade-ground formation adopted during the Italian advance also led to needless casualties;
* Coastal divisions, made up of poorly-trained locals, and equipped with WWI guns and shells that did not fit, obviously surrendered or fled. Still, some well-equipped & trained units cut & ran, too -- notably Napoli div. Clearly, the mettle of the Italian man was not the critical factor; rather, training, equipment, & unit leadership.

I think we should have really clarified this at the beginning, although I have said I am not questioning the masculinity of Italian men.
We are talking about the quality of the Italian army. Virtually all the examples of the Italians fighting well you will find will be examples of them fighting as part of the German-Italian group/army, which in effect meant under the Germans.
On it's own, it managed to invade Albania (although it was held up by the Albanian police until the tanks arrived), in was reasonably successful in invading several villages in Kenya, and in British Somaliland they did manage to capture the whole territory even though they didn't actually win any battles (unless allowing the British to withdraw practically unscathed counts). Their invasion of Greece was a failure as was their invasion of Egypt. It is not a stellar record.

We are in complete agreement.

[Cnutella]

Here's a handy site - it tracks Patreon earnings and subscribers.

R. Watson: https://graphtreon.com/creator/rebecca

Brianna Wu: https://graphtreon.com/creator/user?u=439829

Both are nosediving.

[John D]

Matt and I don't usually agree (well... often don't agree).... but this^ is 100% correct IMHO. Obama did more to worsen race relations in the US than any president since FDR.

Is this like that Sci-fi movie where there's a duplicate Earth, only everything is in reverse?

Let's focus on the Gates incident. Gates was not "arrested for being black". That's an outrageous, asinine statement.

Indeed. Obama has done two things that have been disastrous.

1) He perpetuated every possible story of racial injustice by pointing out how racist cops and whites are. Many times he would go on TV and say stuff like "This could be one of my children". White America looks at this and thinks... "No Mr. O.... this could not be one of your kids... because your kids are generally well educated and they are not belligerent criminals." It is just a way of Obama focusing on every potentially charged race issue and claiming these things are all because of race. He would always imply that racism caused all kinds of problems.

2) He did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to make things better for race relations. No concrete suggestions. No collegial discussions. No funding. After claiming racism caused a problem he would end his speech by saying "BUT... we have a process and the process must be followed."

So, while he constantly used language to point out the great grievances he didn't move the needle one peg toward justice. By implication he was saying whites are all racists and the process must be follow even though the process is fixed by racist whites.

Meanwhile... whites don't give a shit anymore and we don't even feel guilty anymore. We watch Blacks marching at fucking midnight chanting "Hands Up Don't Shoot"..... No one ever said hands up don't shoot for starters. And... why would anyone march at night???.... just to make sure stuff gets looted? It makes no fucking sense!

There is one exception which are the progressive liberal upper middle class whites in the Democrat party. They still feel plenty guilty and they remind me that I should feel guilty every day. They have taken over NPR and PBS making sure every 15 minutes there is another story about oppressed women and minorities, while simultaneously misunderstanding why so many people like Trump.

Obama completely fucked this.... and he is largely to blame for the current mood. The Democrats should have easily crushed in the 2016 election, but it will be close because their handling of racism, sexism, and security will drive more and more whites to the Reps.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

* Gates continued to be belligerent & hurl accusations of racism as they exited onto the porch. This was all caught on audio over the cop's radio;

Are you sure about this part?


[youtube]ITl55WTyIRY[/youtube]

That's the 911 recording. Perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology (not 'dispatch'?). IIRC, the exchange was recorded in some way.

[comhcinc]

* Gates continued to be belligerent & hurl accusations of racism as they exited onto the porch. This was all caught on audio over the cop's radio;

Are you sure about this part?


[youtube]ITl55WTyIRY[/youtube]

That's the 911 recording. Perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology (not 'dispatch'?). IIRC, the exchange was recorded in some way.

The first part is the 911 recording the second half is the a recording of the officer and dispatch speaking.

[Kirbmarc]

But, I don't know if I agree with the conclusion. I actually think SJWs are in such a intellectual bubble that they convince themselves they are as big a victim as they say. They are weak protected little children who were taught that all their problems are caused by white men.

I think this is a common mistake. SJWs are not weak and helpless. They perform weak and helpless to get what they want, and only pick on people who are not in a position to fight back.

No, they happily attack people like Dawkins or Shermer, so that doesn't hold water.

The SJWs can pick on anyone they want as long as they have their friends in the media.

The best weapons of the SJWs are lies, smears, outrage, demonization and internet campaigns. They couldn't use them if they didn't have a consistent part of the media on their side. Let's not forget that a laughingstock like Oolon was interviewed by the BBC (the biggest TV network of the United Kingdom) as an expert at "dealing with trolls".

The SJWs are at their most effective when they use their motte and bailey technique. The "motte" are a series of reasonable ideas, like gender equality, a focus on some social issues, supporting the poor and the disenfranchised, empathy, tolerance, taking accusers seriously, etc.

The "bailey" are the crazy ideas like "white cis het male privilege", Patriarchy, "punching up", "words hurt exactly as bad as actions", "microaggression", "shut up and listen", "believe the victims" etc.

The witch hunts, the support for questionable accusations of crimes, the calls for firing people over "dangerous opinions" and jokes and the no-platforming of anyone who disagrees happen because the SJWs have convinced many that they're fighting for the "motte" when they're actually fighting for the "bailey".

Many progressive don't really understand the difference between the "motte" and the "bailey". They also tend to believe progressive media. When people like Connie St. Louis lie and pervert the truth, like in the cases of Tim Hunt and Milo Yannopoulos, the progressive who trust progressive media (which was overwhelmingly on St. Louis' side) genuinely believe that she's telling the truth, that Hunt is a sexist monster woh wants women to be barred from science because they're too emotional and that Yannopoulos is a dangerous stalker who threatens people with murder.

That's because St. Louis is a feminist, and feminism is associated with the "motte". Progressive media use the arguments in support of the "motte" to promote and defend the witch hunts and the deplatforming. Progressive who believe the media, and who are largely unaware of the methods of the online SJWs, join the witch hunts because they think that they're protecting women, black people or Muslims from sexist neanderthals, racists and intollerant white supremacists.

This is why it's important to make people in the left to realize how bad the SJWs are. When enough progressives will desert the progressive media because of their lack of ethics and support for SJW craziness the media will have to change their tune.

The cracks are already showing: the Guardian had to close their comment sections. People are getting tired of hearing about famous claims of rape which turn out to be based on questionable evidence (Duke, UVA, Mattress Girl, etc.).

[Steersman]

<snip>
Islam simply isn't going to change unless the countries Muslims wish to immigrate to draw a line or two in the sand. Apropos of which:
[.tweet][/tweet]

If your idea is to dismantle Sharia courts, then I'm with you. ....
If you wish stop Wahabi/Salafi preachers paid by the Gulf States, I'm also with you.

You're talking sense now Steers.

Great. Except I still think those are treating the symptoms, not the disease itself.

That's what is so incredibly frustrating, because I know that you will soon fall back into your "deport all Muslims unless they piss on the Quran" nonsense.

I prefer to think of it as a case of the carrot and the stick - the version in which the stick is used to get the mule's attention, so to speak, and not the one where the carrot is at the end of the stick.

You quoted Maryam Namazie's tweets. Do you think she's OK with your ideas of mass deportations of Muslims? What about Maajid Nawaz, someone who advocates secularims and liberal-democratic values in Islam...do you think he agrees with your "population transfers" idea?

Probably not as I''ve tweeted that at her and didn't find any consequential "likes". And another party to the conversation, a Pakistani-Canadian ex-Muslim (Nice Mangos), has apparently blocked me as a result. But I think in both cases because they, quite understandably, have some emotional ties to relatives who are unable to repudiate their religion.

You act just like a SJW, with a "motte and bailey" technique. The "motte" are some reasonable ideas abou promoting secularism and liberal democracy. The "bailey" is "deport all Muslims unless they get past some Quran-desecration test!".

When you want to promote your ideas in a seemingly convicing way you propose the "motte", but when you're left to your own devices you quickly get back to the "bailey".

As I've said several times, as many quite credible people have said, Islam itself is the problem. Treating the symptoms doesn't seem particularly effective:

Maybe it would help greatly if we were to start a discussion on the idea, tender the hypothesis, that "repatriation" might be the best solution. You might note that even Merkel is apparently leaning in that direction:

[feathers]

Regarding carriers comments on the M1 tank.

Looking online I found varying cost per unit 4.3-8.1 mil.( whether this disparity is due to differing variants or actual vs adjusted projected costs is unclear)

The U.S. military has not lost a single tank to enemy action( opposing tank shells)

But the Iraqi army has; mostly to anti-armour missiles I believe, but some also to RPGs and mines.

I believe this is because the Iraqi Army variant did not have the depleted uranium armour and was therefore not as strong.

Strange, I'd think those tanks donated to the Iraqi army would have been completely constructed of depleted uranium and fueled by hydrogen fluoride :twisted:

[screwtape]

Here's a handy site - it tracks Patreon earnings and subscribers.

R. Watson: https://graphtreon.com/creator/rebecca

Brianna Wu: https://graphtreon.com/creator/user?u=439829

Both are nosediving.

There's something odd about those graphs—both Watson and Wu show two dips in mid-November, a large fall in the second week of December, and a small fall with some recovery in early January. What's the explanation?

Watson.png

(85.85 KiB) Downloaded 198 times

Wu.png

(81.27 KiB) Downloaded 201 times

[johnself]

Here's a handy site - it tracks Patreon earnings and subscribers.

R. Watson: https://graphtreon.com/creator/rebecca

Brianna Wu: https://graphtreon.com/creator/user?u=439829

Both are nosediving.

There's something odd about those graphs—both Watson and Wu show two dips in mid-November, a large fall in the second week of December, and a small fall with some recovery in early January. What's the explanation?

Watson.png

Wu.png

Absence of the same single major donor for both?
Change in the patreon site html which threw the website off?

[Malky]

Islam simply isn't going to change unless the countries Muslims wish to immigrate to draw a line or two in the sand. Apropos of which: <snip>
Are they also calling for the dismantling of Jewish courts? The Muslims are not the only ones to do this.
As far as I was aware these courts don't really have any more power in the eyes of the law than some kind of mediation service?

The problem is that the real courts will hold people to their "freely entered into" agreement to abide by the religious court's decision.

[tina]

Julia Galef weighs in.


What a bunch of nonsense in that thread, especially from Finke. But the "punching down good" nonsense spouted by others shows how far the rot has spread. Who decides who is down? You? It has to be you, because it is utterly a value judgement, it's subjective PoMo shite from SJW infected brain farts. Me and my mates decided you are "up" therefore we have a consensus! Therefore i'm justified in knocking your teeth to the back of your throat. Dingbats.

Finke breaks down his bullshit into 6 paragraphs no less! Six! It could have/should have been one. But the more you waffle, the stronger your argument is.

Para 1: Dawkins is a bad boy, doesn't state why, other than dawkins is a big name. Pre emptive conclusion.

Para 2: Dawkins is a bad boy, doesn't state why, other than Dawkins is a big name. Includes waffle about professional standards according to Dan Finke.

Para 3: Premise! We finally got it. Finke believes Skepticism should be welcoming to the political ideology that is feminism, throws in some waffle about the dangers of alienating such a huge population. I assume he means feminists, because he couldn't possibly be conflating the political ideology that is feminism with the half of the population that is Women, could he? At this point Dan would do well to be reminded A+ was roundly laughed out of existence. This is also where the bait and switch/Motte and Bailey (take your pick) argumentation begins. It was perfectly clear in the video that BIG RED was what was being caricatured. Big red is the poster child for madfem/sjw political nonsense, as is blatantly obvious from the political positions the character espouses throughout the video! Dan's bailey is "she said feminism in parallel to him saying islamist".

Para 4: Dan thinks it's appropriate for NECSS to side explicitly with feminism. Doesn't state why, we can assume it's because Dan likes feminism. Which feminism Dan? Your Motte version or your bailey version? The Big Red Madfem whackology version that has about as much of a relation to reality as creationism, and other whackaloons you state in Para 1 NECSS shouldn't be a big tent for?

Para 5: Dan thinks "it's also fair to be more stringent in protecting marginalized people from gross attacks than privileged people." Who exactly are we talking about here Dan? I didn't know that we had established Big Red to be under privileged, and needing of protection, unless of course you mean, we need to protect Big Red's bullshit from scrutiny, because it's abject nonsense which no org involved in the blowing apart of nonsense should be protecting. Maybe we need to protect creationists too Dan, i mean sheesh they are being marginalized by all those meanie intellectuals and science heads. Dan then proceeds on a subjective rant about which way you punch, which effectively boils down to the old "fair game for beliefs I don't like" crap. Dan then proceeds to say the video was also racist because of it's caricature of the islamist. Dan you really don't understand the difference between race and ideology, do you (that's a statement not a question). But your idiocy displays the SJW brain in action, where people are reduced to tick box identity. Ask Gad Saad if the caricature represents him, and offends his racial sensibilities.

Para 6: Last paragraph, and i hope you've noted all Dan has done is set up a false premise for his conclusion. Dawkins is a bad boy because he was punching down on big red, according to the book of Dan, is the be all and end all of this paragraph.

Comment section and Dan immediately retreats to his Motte: Dan says "And, seriously, I am in 100% agreement that some feminists are being pernicious in their accommodation of patriarchy within Islam. I don't disagree that the thing that is wrong that was attempting to be satirized is really wrong. I think the way it was done reached far beyond that issue in its tarring of feminism though and cast as pernicious lots of things that are not pernicious, treating them as on the level with clearly pernicious facets of Islamism. It was a wide scope demonization of all social justice feminism. And if he thinks THAT MUCH of social justice feminism is equal to Islamism then, yeah, it's bizarre to say that he's pro-feminism. He may be pro-feminism-stopping-where-it-was-circa-1970 or something but he's not at all still on board with the cause.

And that is the only piece of writing Dan needed to make on that thread. It shows what he thinks, and why he is offended. He doesn't like Dawkin's politics because he's a SJWanker.

Beautifully skewered Za-Zen :clap:

[--bill]

Please thank Islam for the internet:

FYI: the father of algebra was Persian, not Arabian.

I didn't know van der Weerden was Persian; learn something new everyday, I guess.

[Dave]

Here's a handy site - it tracks Patreon earnings and subscribers.

R. Watson: https://graphtreon.com/creator/rebecca

Brianna Wu: https://graphtreon.com/creator/user?u=439829

Both are nosediving.

There's something odd about those graphs—both Watson and Wu show two dips in mid-November, a large fall in the second week of December, and a small fall with some recovery in early January. What's the explanation?

Watson.png

Wu.png

The pages themselves explain that:

* Patreon's test of showing actual amount earned instead of amount pledged.
** Patreon permanently changed the earnings numbers to show the actual amount earned instead of amount pledged.

[Za-zen]

Here's a handy site - it tracks Patreon earnings and subscribers.

R. Watson: https://graphtreon.com/creator/rebecca

Brianna Wu: https://graphtreon.com/creator/user?u=439829

Both are nosediving.

There's something odd about those graphs—both Watson and Wu show two dips in mid-November, a large fall in the second week of December, and a small fall with some recovery in early January. What's the explanation?

Watson.png

Wu.png

It's still major bread, for what amounts to two talentless hacks. Seriously selling victimhood is a profitable racket.

[comhcinc]

Please thank Islam for the internet:

FYI: the father of algebra was Persian, not Arabian.

I didn't know van der Weerden was Persian; learn something new everyday, I guess.

I didn't know that Diophantus went by any other names. ;)

[feathers]

Are they also calling for the dismantling of Jewish courts? The Muslims are not the only ones to do this.
As far as I was aware these courts don't really have any more power in the eyes of the law than some kind of mediation service?

I was about to reply but Steers gave a concise and to-the-point reply :o

Yep, as Namazie and other ex-muslims have explained, you must not underestimate the power such courts have in domestic matters in a subculture already heavily dominated by religion. In practice, divorce becomes impossible when initiated by the woman. If she dare.

They're also likely to aid in hiding real issues like spousal abuse or forced marriage from the official jurisdiction's radar by making some underhand arrangements between families. That arguably also happens in other subcultures (like the Chinese), but surely the state's law needn't encourage it.

[Dave]

Islam simply isn't going to change unless the countries Muslims wish to immigrate to draw a line or two in the sand. Apropos of which: <snip>
Are they also calling for the dismantling of Jewish courts? The Muslims are not the only ones to do this.
As far as I was aware these courts don't really have any more power in the eyes of the law than some kind of mediation service?

The problem is that the real courts will hold people to their "freely entered into" agreement to abide by the religious court's decision.

Yes and no. The more egregious issues with Bet Dins and Sharia courts are fairly easy to overturn in a "real" court. Particularly in Family courts, the judges tend to be very willing to accept that a woman was coerced into such an agreement, or find that the results of the religious court is not in the bests interests of the children (an area where the courts have wide descretion) or just against public interest. The problem is, to get such a hearing, the woman needs to get a lawyer and argue to overturn the religious court's decision. There is a lot of social pressure to not to rock the boat that way. Doing so often means alienation from family and all existing social support. There is also the problem in divorce proceedings, without a divorce decree from the religious court, the participants cannot remarry in their community -- although they may be divorced in the eyes of the state and therefore free to remarry, they are not in the eyes of their community and therefore will have difficulty remarrying or even dating within their community.

Disclaimer, I am not familiar with operations of Family Law courts across the pond, the above is based on my experience here in Murrica!

[CommanderTuvok]

Please thank Islam for the internet:

FYI: the father of algebra was Persian, not Arabian.

I didn't know van der Weerden was Persian; learn something new everyday, I guess.

Why do twats and frauds like CJ Werleman keep championing Islamic/Arab history from 1,000 years ago? Why don't they make the same silly soundbites about Greek culture, or Chinese culture, or Roman culture?

Could it be because Islamic culture has not got a lot to shout about these days? Could it be that frauds like CJ have jumped onto certain Islamist bandwagons and is a writer for Middle Eastern Eye? Could it because SJWs and frauds like CJ feel the need to "big up" Muslims and therefore hark back to some "golden era", which is not at all unique considering lots of areas/countries/cultures have had "golden eras" at some point. Why is there the fucking constant shout about Arab/Muslim history from 1,000 years. It is childishly obsessive. I can understand pro-Islamists like Mo Ansar constantly referring to it, but there is no excuse for white, middle class SJW frauds.

It is the same as the fucking constant requests about how people should read the Koran. Why? Should I also read Buddhist texts and Hindu texts? Strangely, there is no constant demand that I read those books. Just fuck the fuck away off.

[VickyCaramel]

FYI: the father of algebra was Persian, not Arabian.

I didn't know van der Weerden was Persian; learn something new everyday, I guess.

I didn't know that Diophantus went by any other names. ;)

yjtad.jpg

(84.17 KiB) Downloaded 185 times

[feathers]

I think we should have really clarified this at the beginning, although I have said I am not questioning the masculinity of Italian men.

http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/ww20 ... g~original

[Billie from Ockham]

[youtube]ITl55WTyIRY[/youtube]

That's the 911 recording. Perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology (not 'dispatch'?). IIRC, the exchange was recorded in some way.

That started with the 911 call, but also included all of the radio "traffic" between Patrol 52 (the arresting officer) and control. Yes, there is some noise in background at one point and, yes, 52 doesn't answer for about 15 seconds, which is supposedly during the walk to the porch, but there's no evidence on his radio of what you said up to and including when he called for a "wagon" (i.e., Gates had been arrested).

[Guest_0048cc29]

The problem is, to get such a hearing, the woman needs to get a lawyer and argue to overturn the religious court's decision

My very limited personal experience and knowledge learned via the news is that Jewish Bet Dins are very supportive of women wanting divorces and doing the utmost to get the man to issue a "get", so, #NotAllBetDins, as exemplified by the Orthodox rabbi given 10 years for kidnapping and beating husbands who would not issue the get. I haven't heard of that occurring in Sharia courts.

(It doesn't seem terribly difficult for women in divorce cases to get a lawyer.... or multiple lawyers after she has been consecutively fired by each.... They all seem to know where they can ask the court to find their funding.)

[--bill]

FYI: the father of algebra was Persian, not Arabian.

I didn't know van der Weerden was Persian; learn something new everyday, I guess.

I didn't know that Diophantus went by any other names. ;)

No-one knows Diophantus' real name; he took the name Diophantus after having a vision (in greek, phantasm; genitive phantus) of this:

[youtube]LmSt1oEIshE[/youtube]

In any case, Diophantus is more the father of number theory rather than algebra---he ain't got no structure!

[Dave]

The problem is, to get such a hearing, the woman needs to get a lawyer and argue to overturn the religious court's decision

My very limited personal experience and knowledge learned via the news is that Jewish Bet Dins are very supportive of women wanting divorces and doing the utmost to get the man to issue a "get", so, #NotAllBetDins, as exemplified by the Orthodox rabbi given 10 years for kidnapping and beating husbands who would not issue the get. I haven't heard of that occurring in Sharia courts.

At least here in the US, that sort of thing is not much of a problem outside of the more extreme Hasidic sects. But as I live near a few of those, it is something I see occasionally.

[VickyCaramel]

My very limited personal experience and knowledge learned via the news is that Jewish Bet Dins are very supportive of women wanting divorces and doing the utmost to get the man to issue a "get", so, #NotAllBetDins, as exemplified by the Orthodox rabbi given 10 years for kidnapping and beating husbands who would not issue the get. I haven't heard of that occurring in Sharia courts.

Which kind of religion treats women better is neither her nor there. If you are going to de-legitimize Islamic Courts, then really you have to bring in legislation which de-legitimizes Jewish Courts, Latter Day Saints courts, and every other kind of parallel system... while allowing for the legitimacy of other legally binding services like mediation services... without the former being allowed to masquerade as latter.

It seems this is what they are actually calling for. I'm in two minds about it.

[Za-zen]

Worthy of note, is that Dawkins is carrying on the tradition of calling bullshit bullshit, in the abscence of it's greatest proponent, the always provocative Christopher Hitchens. Those who seek to tar and feather Dawkins, were Hitchens sycophants. Fawning and pawing the great man, in a display more often seen in a troop of monkeys.

[Kirbmarc]

<snip>
Islam simply isn't going to change unless the countries Muslims wish to immigrate to draw a line or two in the sand. Apropos of which:
[.tweet][/tweet]

If your idea is to dismantle Sharia courts, then I'm with you. ....
If you wish stop Wahabi/Salafi preachers paid by the Gulf States, I'm also with you.

You're talking sense now Steers.

Great. Except I still think those are treating the symptoms, not the disease itself.

What you're proposing isn't a cure for the disease. What you're proposing is throwing the patient out of the hospital and into the sewers unless he accepts an expensive, invasive, destructive cure.

The Muslims who live in Europe as regular immigrants or citizens are people that we want to integrate, not a disease that we wish to eradicate. The disease is an ideology: Islamism (fundamentalist, conservative Islam). The disease is spread by the ideologues who argue in favor of it and by the followers who act on its ideas and violate the laws of a secular country. Those people aren't "all Muslims".

That's what is so incredibly frustrating, because I know that you will soon fall back into your "deport all Muslims unless they piss on the Quran" nonsense.

I prefer to think of it as a case of the carrot and the stick - the version in which the stick is used to get the mule's attention, so to speak, and not the one where the carrot is at the end of the stick.

I prefer treating human beings as human beings who can be taught and explained what is a socially acceptable behavior and can face the consequences of their actions if they behave badly, not as animals to scare and manipulate with the threat of mass deportation. Silly old-fashioned me.

You quoted Maryam Namazie's tweets. Do you think she's OK with your ideas of mass deportations of Muslims? What about Maajid Nawaz, someone who advocates secularims and liberal-democratic values in Islam...do you think he agrees with your "population transfers" idea?

Probably not as I''ve tweeted that at her and didn't find any consequential "likes". And another party to the conversation, a Pakistani-Canadian ex-Muslim (Nice Mangos), has apparently blocked me as a result. But I think in both cases because they, quite understandably, have some emotional ties to relatives who are unable to repudiate their religion.

Gee, you think? And doesn't that tell you a thing or two about your ideas?

You act just like a SJW, with a "motte and bailey" technique. The "motte" are some reasonable ideas abou promoting secularism and liberal democracy. The "bailey" is "deport all Muslims unless they get past some Quran-desecration test!".

When you want to promote your ideas in a seemingly convicing way you propose the "motte", but when you're left to your own devices you quickly get back to the "bailey".

As I've said several times, as many quite credible people have said, Islam itself is the problem. Treating the symptoms doesn't seem particularly effective:

Of course the problem is Islam itself. But the problem used to be Christianity itself, until Christianity reformed. And it took a lot of time and effort The Bible is just as bad as the Quran about women's rights, support of slavery, violence etc. But today only some fringe groups of Christians are violent fundamentalists, because Christianity changed.

Give it time and Islam may change, too. Reformation of a religion is a slow, complex process, but it works if it's supported by society at large (and if we stop the money flow from Gulf States to Wahabi/Salafi preachers). The problem is that those who should be the ones pushing for this process (the progressives) are praising Islam as a "religion of the oppressed POCs" and refuse even to criticize it.

Refugees or immigrants who violate the laws of a secular country and commit serious crimes motivated by religion should suffer the consequences of their criminal acts, which include expulsion.

But expelling all Muslims, refugees, immigrants and citizens, and not just the violent and aggressive ones, is like expelling all fundamentalist Christians from the USA. Absurd. Illiberal. Totalitarian.

By the way, have you tried to ask Rizvi if he supports your ideas about mass deportations of Muslims?

Maybe it would help greatly if we were to start a discussion on the idea, tender the hypothesis, that "repatriation" might be the best solution. You might note that even Merkel is apparently leaning in that direction:

[/quote]

The motte and bailey again.

Not all European Muslims are refugees, Steers. The idea that refugees should be repatriated after the war they were fleeing from is over is a sensible one. It's what happened to French, Belgian, Dutch and Norwegian refugees to the UK after WWII was over.

The idea of expelling all Muslims who do not "piss on the Quran" is pure totalitarian idiocy.

[some guy]

Here's a handy site - it tracks Patreon earnings and subscribers.

R. Watson: https://graphtreon.com/creator/rebecca

Brianna Wu: https://graphtreon.com/creator/user?u=439829

Both are nosediving.

There's something odd about those graphs—both Watson and Wu show two dips in mid-November, a large fall in the second week of December, and a small fall with some recovery in early January. What's the explanation?

Watson.png

Wu.png

If you read the explanation below the graphs explaning the regions marked * and ** (where things drop), Patreon changed from reporting $s *pledged* to $s *actually received*. So there is no real change (and Watson seems to have actually gained some $ recently).

[some guy]

Doh! :nin: