Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[TedDahlberg]

Oh, and a completely tangential thought: Why is the pressure always placed on girls to go into male-dominated fields? Why do we see no equivalent pressure on boys to go into historically female-dominated ones?

And perhaps more importantly: Why are boys often choosing to do so anyway? Male nurses went from <3% of all nurses to roughly 10% within the past forty years with absolutely no attempt made to steer men into nursing.

A wizard feminism did it.

http://i.imgur.com/oKvLb22.png

[Tribble]

Blizzard must be one of the most incompetent companies when it comes to dealing with launch events, easily up there with EA.

Twice already with an always-online game (Diablo III both times) and now with the Hearthstone expansion. You would think after a decade with this shit, they would have gotten their act together. As it turns out, nope. They still fucked it up. Twats.

lol. I don't play any of the current Blizzard games, but I have friends who play WoW & Diablo III. And, as far as I can tell, every WoW release, as well as D3, has been (to a greater or lesser degree) a cluster fuck. So I would expect the same for this.

[Dick Strawkins]

Sittin' by the pool, writing jokes about rape culture.

http://www.jedisparadise.co.uk/4/index_ ... /15690.jpg

Sorry, I don't see the resemblance.

Wait a second...









http://i.imgur.com/FY5yCqz.jpg

There, that's better!

[DaveDodo007]

Channel 4 news have got mail :

Hello Channel 4 news -

I've enjoyed your programme since the days when Trevor McDonald was merely a 'Mr.' and now I have a chance to put something back by giving you a news lead.

This may sound crazy, but I have it on extremely good authority that there is excellent evidence that the President of United States, Barack Obama, has been personally abusing women online using the 'Twitter'.

Please restrain your incredulousness, as I tell you that the source for this story has been verified as absolutely impeccable by none other than your own economics editor, Mr. Paul Mason. Mr Mason made a news piece a while ago, working with two unimpeachable sources, one of whom has long hair and definitely talks like he's an expert from the internet, the other is an anonymous source who may claim to be a joker or 'troll', but a skilled investigative journalist like Mr. Mason was able to see through this guise and determine that he is in fact sincere and reliable. This piece, as you may know, introduced the public to a computer list called the 'Atheism Plus Block Bot'. Mr Mason informed us that this was a 'shared list of abusers' of women, and endorsed it even to the extent of installing it on his own Twitter feed. This 'Block Bot' list is definitely nothing to do with politics, or, despite its name, atheism, but is certainly only a list of people who have actually abused and harassed women.

It now transpires that Mr. Obama has not only been added to this Block Bot list by the list's expert administrators, of impeccable credentials and unimpeachable integrity, but has actually been added to 'Level 1', the very worst level of abusers, described on Mr. Mason's report as 'the worst of the worst' and the 'super slimy'.

I think that Channel 4 news should expose President Obama as the harasser and abuser which he undoubtedly is.

Please email this to CH4. :lol:

[real horrorshow]

But they do have one of the best tips I have found.

Keep a stuffed animal in the front passenger seat as a reminder of a child in the backseat.
Place something in the backseat that you would need, such as a purse, briefcase or cell phone.

This is in contrast to one of the worst bits of advice I have seen, which is to have the parent remove their shoe and place it in the back seat. How often do they really think a parent is going to follow their advice if they have to constantly tie and untie their shoe each time they put and remove their child from the car. It just ain't going to happen more than a few times.

For someone wearing sensible lace-up shoes you've got a point, but it's not such daft advice for a lot of women. My high-heel addicted ex used to kick off her stilettos before driving and I've seen other women do the same. For them, chucking a shoe on the back seat as a reminder wouldn't be such an inconvenience.

If you're capable of remembering where you put your shoes, but not where you put your child, I suspect a deeper problem.

[Brive1987]

Names sounds familiar.

Go CFI.

[Tony Parsehole]

http://i.imgur.com/FY5yCqz.jpg

There, that's better!

:laughing-rollingyellow:

[Tony Parsehole]

Names sounds familiar.

Go CFI.

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2012 ... opcorn.gif

[Dick Strawkins]

Names sounds familiar.

Go CFI.

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2012 ... opcorn.gif

As far as I know, she and Watson have made up.
There is a video somewhere of them on stage being friendly somewhere from about a year ago (Watson is wearing cowboy outfit for some reason).
McGraw, even though she was one of the catalysts that started elevatorgate (she was the person that Watson criticised, comparing McGraw to people sending her rape threats), was, apart from her initial brief criticism of Watsons guys don't do that video, never really involved in any of the subsequent stuff and seems to be a very normal or even ordinary college student who didn't really regard it as a major issue in her life.

[piginthecity]

Channel 4 news have got mail :

Hello Channel 4 news -

<snarkiness snipped>

Please email this to CH4. :lol:

Already have done, Dave.

[Brive1987]

Names sounds familiar.

Go CFI
http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2012 ... opcorn.gif

As far as I know, she and Watson have made up.
There is a video somewhere of them on stage being friendly somewhere from about a year ago (Watson is wearing cowboy outfit for some reason).
McGraw, even though she was one of the catalysts that started elevatorgate (she was the person that Watson criticised, comparing McGraw to people sending her rape threats), was, apart from her initial brief criticism of Watsons guys don't do that video, never really involved in any of the subsequent stuff and seems to be a very normal or even ordinary college student who didn't really regard it as a major issue in her life.

Watson only attacks when she has podium privilege. It figures though she'd be nice in the spotlight, either to demonstrate her goodness or out of sheer gratitude for what McGraw did for her.

[bhoytony]

As far as I know, she and Watson have made up.
There is a video somewhere of them on stage being friendly somewhere from about a year ago (Watson is wearing cowboy outfit for some reason).

http://i.imgur.com/i7xG6Cv.png

[Clarence]

As far as I know, she and Watson have made up.
There is a video somewhere of them on stage being friendly somewhere from about a year ago (Watson is wearing cowboy outfit for some reason).
McGraw, even though she was one of the catalysts that started elevatorgate (she was the person that Watson criticised, comparing McGraw to people sending her rape threats), was, apart from her initial brief criticism of Watsons guys don't do that video, never really involved in any of the subsequent stuff and seems to be a very normal or even ordinary college student who didn't really regard it as a major issue in her life.

And we know what happened next: Abbie became the first "Witch of the Week" and then was elevated to lifetime status as "witch" for daring to defend her.
McGraw probably wisely (but it was a bit cowardly) kept her head down after the big brouhaha started. The reason I don't think she 'got on with her life' in the sense of simply not caving is because she removed her blog and most of her prior social media. She went ghost very quickly.

Please remember she was merely a student on a college campus and if there are any places in the country more SJW infested I don't know what they are. If she had gotten a reputation as a 'sister punisher' or 'anti-feminist' it might have made campus life unbearable.

[DownThunder]

She and watson have made up?

"Im sorry I implied that you were a misogynist spewing puppet who sends rape threats"

Said no watson ever.

[Old_ones]

Names sounds familiar.

Go CFI.

Self-pitying victim post from Watson in 5... 4...

[welch]

Names sounds familiar.

Go CFI.

Oh FUCK yeah, that's awesome as shit!

[welch]

As far as I know, she and Watson have made up.
There is a video somewhere of them on stage being friendly somewhere from about a year ago (Watson is wearing cowboy outfit for some reason).
McGraw, even though she was one of the catalysts that started elevatorgate (she was the person that Watson criticised, comparing McGraw to people sending her rape threats), was, apart from her initial brief criticism of Watsons guys don't do that video, never really involved in any of the subsequent stuff and seems to be a very normal or even ordinary college student who didn't really regard it as a major issue in her life.

And we know what happened next: Abbie became the first "Witch of the Week" and then was elevated to lifetime status as "witch" for daring to defend her.
McGraw probably wisely (but it was a bit cowardly) kept her head down after the big brouhaha started. The reason I don't think she 'got on with her life' in the sense of simply not caving is because she removed her blog and most of her prior social media. She went ghost very quickly.

Please remember she was merely a student on a college campus and if there are any places in the country more SJW infested I don't know what they are. If she had gotten a reputation as a 'sister punisher' or 'anti-feminist' it might have made campus life unbearable.

Um, not really. She simply didn't want that to be the only thing she was known for in her life, and quite intelligently did the exact perfect thing to ensure that. She walked away from the drama, and in doing so, showed she was in fact really fucking smart. Watson and Hensley could have learned a lot from her.

She also never *wanted* to be the focal point. She just wanted to be a person going to school and getting a job.

If one wishes the drama to stop following one, one stops participating in it. That's all it really takes.

[Old_ones]

Want to know what rights men have that women don't have?

[youtube]YGbDm48X5nI[/youtube]

Too bad. Rob isn't going to tell you. He is going to launch into a smug rant about Jim Crow, and how atheists have trouble getting elected to public office.

[piginthecity]

I can believe that Watson can make up with someone on a personal level. Watson is all about creating drama online, with such an abundance of possible people to pick and choose from, there's no reason to carry on attacking someone who isn't providing drama-generating material on the internet.

This is the reason why, in general, women feminists are less bad than the men feminists. By virtue of their gender, women feminists are actually able, in principle, to forgive transgressors and accept apologies, or decide to not take offence at a particular thing, or that context matters in a particular case, or even admit that a reaction of theirs was exaggerated. Male feminists, on the other hand, because their anger is always righteous and on behalf of others, can never let up, because in doing so, they would be exceeding their authority. If they ever back off then they're joining the oppressors.

[didymos]

Elyse's comedy career is surely going to take off:

:bjarte:

[Brive1987]

I'm privileged to be able to witness this forming consensus:

[didymos]

Yeah, totally. Muhammad was practically a feminist.

[Tapir]

Patreon!

[Dick Strawkins]

Yeah, totally. Muhammad was practically a feminist.

Mohammed would have hated Dawkins, so he's half way there already.

[didymos]

Whoah. So deep.

[Dick Strawkins]

Stick to things she knows.

Sommelier?

[acathode]

Want to know what rights men have that women don't have?

[youtube]YGbDm48X5nI[/youtube]

Too bad. Rob isn't going to tell you. He is going to launch into a smug rant about Jim Crow, and how atheists have trouble getting elected to public office.

I find it kinda sad, how these SJW atheists will whine whine whine about how atheists in US are discriminated against, and how it's horrible that you can loose your job if your boss finds out and how if you're a store owner you can loose all your customers if your local community finds out etc etc... and then someone disagree with them slightly about gender equality and they turn around and go "OMG THIS PERSON DOESN'T BELIEVE IN FEMINISM THE EXACT WAY AS I DO! MISOGYNIST! Lets call their boss and have them fired! Lets get a boycott going!"....

(Also, with the same logic believers are being discriminated in Sweden, since we'd never elect someone who was publicly deeply religious)

[free thoughtpolice]

Patreon!

Maybe someone needs an extreme wine taster?

[Aneris]

I came across this interesting interview with Professor Alan Charles Kors who teaches the intellectual history of the 17th and 18th centuries at the University of Pennsylvania. I probably don't share his views on other matters — he's a liberatarian conservative (and I'm not) — but it gives some more context.

[youtube]jjPYjvOnPx4[/youtube]

The interview touches on topics that are pretty much the same as they are in the Atheist-Skeptics community, just on campus. Freeze Peach and debate culture, harassment, infantilisation of students and so on.

It was known before that the troubles in the atheist-skeptics movement aren't some isolated issue, but connected to the larger SJW phenomenon that can be observed all over the place. But it seems to go much further than that, otherwise how come that the very same keywords and topics come up in such different cases? Kors also wrote a book on the subject, “the Shadow University: The Betrayal Of Liberty On America's Campuses”. It's averaged 4.5 stars and the top reviewer writes:

The obvious result is a rise in the cost of university education. The less obvious result is that university administrations begin to do all kinds of things that they aren't qualified to do. Kors and Silverglate focus on administrators limiting freedom of speech, starting with rules that are poorly drafted and ending with internal court systems that afford defendants very few rights.

I recall this was an issue too, and it now strikes me that the Social Justice League's agenda was about establishing such internal court systems for conferences too, when I am not mistaken. And then indirectly, they would also police the movement. They certainly want that conference police matters and not legal authorities.

Back to the interview: At some point they discuss that the 1970s gave students great opportunities and freedoms, but revoked them again... he observes:

The same generation that gave us the free speech movement, gave us speech codes. The same generation that gave us the last year of mandatory chapel [...] has now given us mandatory sensitivity training and diversity education [... interviewer interjects: different religion, but its still there...] and the same kids who got themselves treated as young adults, and smoked pot openly on college lawns everywhere now ban drinking beer in dormitories. It's a generational swindle of epic proportions.

[fuzzy]

Sangria

[real horrorshow]

Stick to things she knows.

Sommelier?

no, she already employs her own children in that role. Elyse in charge of a wine cellar, would be on a par with Lot's wife in charge of a slug sanctuary.

[Walter Ego]

I'm privileged to be able to witness this forming consensus:

Watson is a lush? That's old news.

[Richard Dworkins]

Get off twitter, stop self medicating and go get some help?

[BarnOwl]

Maybe someone needs an extreme wine taster?

No, I think Oz Clarke has that covered.

[youtube]aTzPozCEt9E[/youtube]

[James Caruthers]

Speaking of tears

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

Speaking of Laurie:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews ... Descending

*intro snipped for length*
SEX
The central thesis of the book and the one which underpins the majority of her arguments is the claim that capitalism itself has a fear of female flesh. In order to address this claim it is necessary to read it metaphorically; capitalism after all doesn't think anything, its blind self expansion admits of no agency, certainly not one with an irrational fear of female bodies. Therefore in order to justify her claim Penny would have to demonstrate why the invisibility or the degradation of the female body was a necessary structural component of capitalist economy. She utterly fails to do this. Instead she takes this claim as given and proceeds to give us a break down of why advertising, the media (of which she's a part) and pornography are all ways in which this fear is manifest.

I'm in complete agreement that the representations of women in popular culture are unhealthy and predicated on consumerist rather than emancipatory values, however Penny's arguments are thoroughly confused as to the origin and alternative to these representations, and it is here that her essentialist utopianism comes in. There is a tension throughout the book between Penny's rejection of the images of women and female sexuality offered by contemporary capitalism and her continual references to some authentic experience of the body or sex that exists beyond it. She cites both Baudrillard and Lacan in her exposition; however, if Penny's intention was to evoke these thinkers to defend her theses then they were poor choices. Lacan's work in particular stands against such a reading. It is one of the most basic of Lacan's propositions that there is no intelligible experience of the sexualised body prior to that body's alienation within a system of signs. The signifier allows us to make reality intelligible but at the price of never being able to truly signify what we are or desire. In Lacan's terms this is called the barred Subject, or the subject of lack. All signs that we appropriate (or are sold to us) can never truly be the thing in itself and inevitably fall by the wayside as desire moves on to some other object.

In contrast, Penny's notion which continually appears and counts as one of her prime theoretical failures is that underneath all the signs, all the representations and narratives that we are pressured to appropriate, there is some real sex, some un-sublimated authentic sex involving your real body and real sexual identity. This is nothing but another version of the myth of origins positing a thoroughly disalienated self in some distant past where before we were corrupted by the temptations of consumerism we had full access to "sex and sublimity" (pg 16). It's a view that was thoroughly blown out of the water by Foucault over 30 years ago in his History of Sexuality. Penny offer a familiar story, ultimately reducible to religious motifs involving fall and redemption, not to mention the worst kind of utopian autonomous thought (Proudhon being an example). Of course all of this has little to do with materialism.

Indeed, her claim that capitalism runs scared from the female body would seem to be contradicted by pornography itself. Is it not the case that what marks out the ever expanding taxonomy of pornographic representations is an endless fascination with the materiality of the body? Extreme close-ups that appear more like gynaecological examinations, scatological obsessions and any number of genital combinations that test the capacity of the female body to its limits. Penny fails to notice that it's precisely this promise to "show it all" to leave no sexual possibility unexplored that leverages pornography's appeal as the sexual discourse without limits, that offers tailor made satisfaction to fit the polyphony of contemporary desires. The utopian myth of a real encounter with the body is a necessary component that gears pornography as a commodity to such an extent that it can elevate base bodily functions to the level of a sublime object.

Penny also exaggerates the role of pornography in forming a kind of new totality of alienation, one distinct from the "sweaty reality of sex" (pg 14). A more considered view would recognize that pornography is just one (admittedly quite prominent) narrative of sexual relations engaged in a battle of competing hegemonies along with other apparatus such as the church, the state, and numerous other representations circulating in cultural life, all of which vary across nations and ethnicities. After all even Mills and Boon novels are still going strong in 2011! That's not to disparage the claim that pornography has such a strong influence in western society today. I merely point out that the socially constituted nature of sexual practices is nothing new.

CONFESSION
I will gloss over the chapter where she gives the reader a breakdown of her eating disorders as a teenager. This confessional style which while claiming not to glamorise such afflictions does in its form and style do exactly the opposite. This need to tell it all, to confess and leave no part of one's existence concealed is a symptom of the "I Tweet therefore I am" generation which knows no bounds between public and private and whose utterances have been reduced to an endless stream of banal confessions and commentary in sound bite form. This the latest incarnation of confessional discourse that again as Foucault points out has been at the base of power relations and the production of sexualities for near 300 years. The inclusion of this chapter seems designed to give a "realtime" example of how the "eroto-capitalist horror" blights the lives of women. Well at least if you're white and middle class, the demographic that predominantly suffers from eating disorders; a fact she avoids in favour of speaking from a position of false universalism. Eating disorders are a serious problem but Penny only muddies the waters. I will just add that in the book she claims that her problems began after the breakdown of her parents' marriage; not to labour the point but if I were her psychoanalyst I'd probably start there rather than with an analysis of consumer capitalism.

POLITICS
The most important point to make about this book is not that her theories are squiffy or that her style is like a dilettantish sixth-former; it's that from her autonomist utopian theory ultimately springs utterly bankrupt and conservative politics. This fact is made most clear in her discussion of domestic work and the exploitation of immigrants by rich families and employers. Incredibly she claims that the reason such exploitation exists is because men and women can't decide on who does the dishes! Men think it's a women role and those women then employ cheap help to do it for them. The demographic from which these theories emanate is made obvious by this quote: "of the women I spoke to who had found a workable solution to the sharing of domestic work in their household, 90% employed some sort of home help, from a weekly cleaner to a live in au-pair" (pg 60). A workable solution? A privileged middle class solution more like it. These are the people that Penny is writing about and for. This is further illustrated (along with a slavish elevation of lifestyle politics) when she writes: "I know plenty of young women my age, educated and emancipated, who view the baking of immaculate muffins and the embroidering of intricate scarves and mittens as exciting hobbies, pastimes which should be properly performed in high-wasted fifties skirts and silly little pinafores."(pg59) And also "How many times have you heard a home-based women say, her resentment tinged with a hint of pride, that her husband just can't take care of himself - or, if he sometimes deigns to do the dishes, that he's `well trained'."(pg58) Households on the lowest incomes can't afford to have women who stay at home and as for muffins and mittens this is little more than a projection of Penny's own privileged upbringing and environment. None of this has any theoretical value and belongs more in the advice column of Glamour magazine than what is supposed to be a piece of leftist feminist writing.

For the Pièce de résistance we have Penny's solution to the problem of domestic exploitation: "Men and women have been passing the buck for too long. We need to confront our own hypocrisy and find equable, less exploitative solutions to the dichotomy of domestic dysfunction, before more harm is done." (pg 62) That's right, middle class men and women have to sort out a cleaning rota and then there you have it, problem solved! A statement bereft of all class and economic analysis, blind to the fact that it is the economic disparity not the gender disparity that in the last instance puts people into servitude. This statement alone that apes the worst, most confused aspects of liberal thought should be enough to dissuade any left wing group from giving Penny a platform. Here she reveals her dearth of politics in one fell swoop.

*conclusion snipped for length*

[Southern]

I'm glad that I gave up WoW in 2010. Fuck Blizzard. And Ghostcrawler is a twat. I heard he got fired?

Yes he did. But now we got Celestalon, who is Chief Twat 2.0. Such as dismissing people trying to tell him that one of the new Mage Lv 100 talents makes one of the Frost Mage's Lv 91 perks useless, and he dismissing that as "the ability is still useful" (no, you twat, just listen to what people are saying to you, the ability is bugged).

[James Caruthers]

Someone made the point on twitter the other day that the only real argument that the SJWs have in their favour is the dictionary definition of feminism :

the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.

Of course in most dictionaries (Aron Ra's excluded, naturally) there are two definitions of feminism, and the second:

organized activity in support of women's rights and interests

is usually not mentioned in this regard.

But forgetting about the second definition for a second, you can see why the first is a powerful rhetorical tool.
It basically states the underlying consensus that we have reached in western society - that men and women should be treated equally under the law and should have equal opportunity in society.
Virtually all sane people believe this. The only dissenters seem to be extreme outliers like religious fundamentalists, extreme comservative traditionalists and occasionally extremists from either side of the political gender camps, but for the most part there is no disagreement over this. Feminists believe this, and so do those who don't call themselves feminists (which includes the vast majority of women), and most MRAs (I guess.)

There is a constant game of bait and switch played out each time the subject of people rejecting modern feminism heads its rear.
The political version of feminism that is being rejected (rape culture, privilege olympics, mansplaining, the patriarchy et al) is suddenly forgotten and those who reject it are accused of rejecting the very notion of equality itself.

*snip*
Neo-feminism attracts followers with its simple dictionary definition message of equality and only then indoctrinates its followers with it's conspiracy theory like ideology of the patriarchy running society, of men in general (rather than a few rich men in particular, and some women) benefiting from the system as it stands. Of society as a shole conspiring against women to allow for rape culture and glass ceilings, rather than these being aspects of the evolution of society as consensus opinion gradually changes.

It is a shame that the very aspect of the atheist movement that should have been best equipped to resist this - namely skepticism - was the first to fall, and for that I will always blame Myers who tossed skepticism out the window in favor of sticking with his skepchicky friends and the mistaken assumption that his own sexual prudery and lack of experience has given him some kind moral authority.

Myers is the first to resort to 'dictionary feminism' whenever neo-feminism is challenged and the first to claim 'dictionary atheism' is invalid because there is so much more to atheism, in his mind, than the simple definition offered in the dictionary.

I'm not a neo-feminist, but I am a dictionary feminist and I think it would aid our own rhetoric if we need make the distinction better known.

This all boils down to the classic leftist tactic I mentioned earlier, where you give incredibly bad ideas beautiful names like "Happy Fun Time Peace, Love and Prosperity Bill" and then when people protest against the bill itself (which criminalizes having a penis, reduces the burden of proof in rape cases, requires Crystal Clear Constant Consent and increases the mandatory minimum sentence for all sex-related crimes), they are accused of being against happiness, fun, peace, love, prosperity and the passage of time.

:cdc:

Most MRAs are dictionary feminists. If there was some example of real legal inequality between men and women, they'd support fixing that problem. But there isn't (in the US) and when MRAs then bring up the legal inequalities men face, then it's "drinking your male tears" because feminism has effectively spread the belief that men can't suffer anything that women don't suffer worse. So you get Steve Shives laughing at the pain of fathers forever separated from their children, while simultaneously talking about the HORRIBLE INJUSTICE of crazy fuckers on the bus bothering women (when in reality, crazy fuckers on the bus bother both genders, but nobody cares when it happens to a man lol.)

[Southern]

As far as I know, she and Watson have made up.
There is a video somewhere of them on stage being friendly somewhere from about a year ago (Watson is wearing cowboy outfit for some reason).

http://i.imgur.com/i7xG6Cv.png

No, fool. This is Jenny McReight cosplaying as a cowboy.

[James Caruthers]

Ahh, dictionary definitions as the description of implementation, policy, and efficacy.

Have I told you guys about Communism?

Dammit, ninja'd.

I still hear that retarded argument about how communism isn't a failure because "No True Communism."

[James Caruthers]

(2) IMO feminism-as-equality-for-women-and-men really needs to sort out what it means by "equality". So often it appears the goal is to get 50% (or more) of top spots filled by women. I agree that equality of the opportunity to end up in a top spot is desirable, but the demand for numerical equality in all fields in all desirable fields at top levels suffers from several problems, including that women & men seem to have different preferences that become apparent as they gravitate towards areas of skill/expertise, jobs, & careers.

One presumes that, in order to meet the feminist mandate of 50% women in all high-salary, powerful jobs, feminists will have to force many women kicking and screaming into those fields, forcing them away from their preferred career path of wife and mother with an easy, low-stress, part-time office job and rewarding family life.

But I suppose that's a sacrifice those women must make for equality. :snooty:

[sinister]

Whoah. So deep.

I notice people saying dumb things all day. I call it "tech support," but I imagine the patriarchy is involved with that. Shanley seems pretty adamant about that. I am glad I get to code most of the time, that way I mostly don't have to deal with people's technical "special needs."

On that note: here is my ham-fisted segue into something related to special snowflakes.
I have found some interesting changes in the data we get from prospective students for recruitment and retention analytics.

• Gender is moving towards being stored as a 2 digit field as standard, instead of a M/F character field.
• We now not only have to track what a student defines their race and ethnicity as, but also, the history of the claims of race and ethnicity. (I did not see any reason to believe you could only change this a specified amount of times or at a limiting frequency.)
• You can choose to be all ethnicities and races at the same time.
• Parents are no longer allotted gendered roles, and you can have more than two families, (used to be tracked by married family or 2 divorcee families), now, its just links as many people as necessary to a student.
• There are more than ten ways to spell Katelynn.
• Finally, and most shockingly, there are still students applying to top tier college institutions without personal email accounts and no internet access in their homes. :(

Well, I guess that is enough evidence that I live a boring life. I need to get outside more. :lol:

[Pagancat]

James the conclusion was the best part.

Laurie Penny is not alone in being given a platform to spout this kind of rubbish. Since the economic crisis of 2008 a whole host of opportunists have appeared carrying what looks like a red flag but on closer inspection is just a large trust fund.

I find it interesting(and predictable) that the ones squealing loudest about privilege are the ones practically swimming in it. Also I'm wondering if she really called the police over unkind amazon reviews? Although I suspect its hyperbole I secretly hope she did. That poor copper who had to take that call.

[Pagancat]

Also I have to ask, did you write that review?

[dogen]

This all boils down to the classic leftist tactic I mentioned earlier, where you give incredibly bad ideas beautiful names like "Happy Fun Time Peace, Love and Prosperity Bill" and then when people protest against the bill itself (which criminalizes having a penis, reduces the burden of proof in rape cases, requires Crystal Clear Constant Consent and increases the mandatory minimum sentence for all sex-related crimes), they are accused of being against happiness, fun, peace, love, prosperity and the passage of time.

Rather lazy of you to call it a leftist tactic. After all, which administration gave us the PATRIOT act?

[Tribble]

Names sounds familiar.

Go CFI.

RUH! ROH!

[Old_ones]

Want to know what rights men have that women don't have?

[youtube]YGbDm48X5nI[/youtube]

Too bad. Rob isn't going to tell you. He is going to launch into a smug rant about Jim Crow, and how atheists have trouble getting elected to public office.

I find it kinda sad, how these SJW atheists will whine whine whine about how atheists in US are discriminated against, and how it's horrible that you can loose your job if your boss finds out and how if you're a store owner you can loose all your customers if your local community finds out etc etc... and then someone disagree with them slightly about gender equality and they turn around and go "OMG THIS PERSON DOESN'T BELIEVE IN FEMINISM THE EXACT WAY AS I DO! MISOGYNIST! Lets call their boss and have them fired! Lets get a boycott going!"....

(Also, with the same logic believers are being discriminated in Sweden, since we'd never elect someone who was publicly deeply religious)

To be fair, he doesn't really engage in any character assassination or threatening in the video. I just found it equal parts funny and annoying that Rob couldn't be bothered to even discuss the topic of his video. He has put out videos in the past where he would go into depth about various laws and political issues and peoples' misinterpretation of them, and he would base them on the text of the laws and actual examples. He has been talking about feminism more and more though, and his feminism videos are all this empty rhetoric and condescending horseshit. He reminds me a little of PZ Myers, actually. The man can talk intelligently about a lot of different issues, but get him going on feminism and everything he produces is some mixture of sloppy argument and hostile bluster. Very similar to people who are smart about most things, but have crazy beliefs about religion or conspiracy theories, IMO.

I agree with you about feminists having problems looking in the mirror though. They deal with criticism the same way Scientology does, and that isn't a selling point for their movement.

[Tribble]

As far as I know, she and Watson have made up.
There is a video somewhere of them on stage being friendly somewhere from about a year ago (Watson is wearing cowboy outfit for some reason).
McGraw, even though she was one of the catalysts that started elevatorgate (she was the person that Watson criticised, comparing McGraw to people sending her rape threats), was, apart from her initial brief criticism of Watsons guys don't do that video, never really involved in any of the subsequent stuff and seems to be a very normal or even ordinary college student who didn't really regard it as a major issue in her life.

Cowards like Watson and Myers only attack from safety. For example, Myers is completely milquetoast when he's in public, barely able to be even slightly rude. Watson seems to do the same thing, though she's a little more aggressive than Myers.

[TiBo]

Steamplunk flavored "Dishonored GOTY" was @ sale for small bucks, glad I bought it.

[youtube]MZSAxJjXP0I[/youtube]

atmosphere/gfx/gameplay VERY nice (unlike eyecandy-online bioshock infinte)
multilevel KI that deserves its name
DLCs add extensive content + good fun

[AndrewV69]

In other news, I have been expecting this women against feminism business for some time.

Now that apparently it is here and not just on tumblr (see link above) but also a twatter hashtag #WomenAgainstFeminism I can not shake the feeling that it is "too soon". Dunno why, just a feeling.

Anyway Huffington Post has noticed and say that 'Women Against Feminism' Is A Thing. And We're Confused.

A group of women - some 3,400 (and counting) - are riling up against modern feminism and "its toxic culture", by posting anti-feminist messages to a Facebook group 'Women Against Feminism'.

One reason I suppose I have this feeling that it is "too soon", is that while I have been expecting this kind of thing to happen, I did not expect it to start now, but in another six years or so. I also see real major societal changes in another 80 years (well more like 70 now).

More here on Reddit and The Spearhead.

This is not the first time, and no doubt not the last time I totally misjudge. For example Anders Breivik blindsided me cause I was expecting this type of political mass killing to happen in Sweden and not Norway.

[Pitchguest]

Elyse's comedy career is surely going to take off:

:bjarte:

I don't want your damn lemons!

[youtube]ELkgiJD9KuM[/youtube]

[Pitchguest]

Steamplunk flavored "Dishonored GOTY" was @ sale for small bucks, glad I bought it.

[youtube]MZSAxJjXP0I[/youtube]

atmosphere/gfx/gameplay VERY nice (unlike eyecandy-online bioshock infinte)
multilevel KI that deserves its name
DLCs add extensive content + good fun

I fucking loved Dishonored. Can't wait for the sequel. (They say it's officially in development.)

[James Caruthers]

Want to know what rights men have that women don't have?

[youtube]YGbDm48X5nI[/youtube]

Too bad. Rob isn't going to tell you.

Aaaaaand the comments are already deflecting into "what about women in the third world?"

Yes, what about them? Why do feminists treat Ayaan Hirsi Ali so badly? Why don't feminists focus on the problems women face in Islamic (or simply tribal) cultures?

And furthermore, what about the menz in those cultures? Why not look at how bad the life of a child soldier sucks in Africa? Would you rather be raped or have an AK put into your hands at age 8 and be told to how to kill? Nah, but clearly, the only problems in shitty countries are problems women face.

No MRA I know of is against equality feminism in countries like Afghanistan. But feminists don't TALK about Afghanistan unless they want to use it to form a tenuous link to imply the West is "just as misogynistic," even though they never prove it with evidence.

It's a pretty damn simple question, "what legal rights do I have for being a man, that you don't have because you're a woman." You ask a black person that in 1950 and they could rattle you off a list. Ask a gay person that now and they could give you a few bullet points. Ask a feminist? "PFFST, YOU MISOGYNIST, WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN?"

And the thing is, you could ask one of those evil menz that same question with the genders flipped, and most guys could think of at least one legal right women have because they're women, that men don't have because they're men. 8-)

[didymos]

Elyse's comedy career is surely going to take off:

:bjarte:

I don't want your damn lemons!

[youtube]ELkgiJD9KuM[/youtube]

That's how you do a "When life gives you lemons..." joke. One of the best rants ever.

[James Caruthers]

Also I have to ask, did you write that review?

No, but the brilliant fucker who did is the one who should have written the book, and let Penny handle the review!

Maybe Penny can hire him/her as a ghost writer.

[KiwiInOz]

Names sounds familiar.

Go CFI.

Congratulations Stef.

[sinister]

This all boils down to the classic leftist tactic I mentioned earlier, where you give incredibly bad ideas beautiful names like "Happy Fun Time Peace, Love and Prosperity Bill" and then when people protest against the bill itself (which criminalizes having a penis, reduces the burden of proof in rape cases, requires Crystal Clear Constant Consent and increases the mandatory minimum sentence for all sex-related crimes), they are accused of being against happiness, fun, peace, love, prosperity and the passage of time.

:cdc:

Most MRAs are dictionary feminists. If there was some example of real legal inequality between men and women, they'd support fixing that problem. But there isn't (in the US) and when MRAs then bring up the legal inequalities men face, then it's "drinking your male tears" because feminism has effectively spread the belief that men can't suffer anything that women don't suffer worse. So you get Steve Shives laughing at the pain of fathers forever separated from their children, while simultaneously talking about the HORRIBLE INJUSTICE of crazy fuckers on the bus bothering women (when in reality, crazy fuckers on the bus bother both genders, but nobody cares when it happens to a man lol.)

I don't think I agree that it is a "leftist tactic." I think it is more authoritarian oriented. Which is why you have groups like "Focus on the Family" here in the US or the "Free Worker's Party" in Germany, or the Peoples Democratic Republic of North Korea, etc. I believe it has to do more with the identitarianism which is exhibited by authoritarians. The pretty labels allow rhetoric to be spread as a message of "freedom, or equality" when it is no such thing. I don't find left / right wing ideology to be a factor in finding authoritarians. I could easily rail on about Right wing authoritarians doing crazy crap, but it isn't the "Right Wing" that makes their actions so hideous (even though I don't find the right a comfortable fit for me), it is the authoritarian behavior of those groups that makes them distinctive to me.

[James Caruthers]

This all boils down to the classic leftist tactic I mentioned earlier, where you give incredibly bad ideas beautiful names like "Happy Fun Time Peace, Love and Prosperity Bill" and then when people protest against the bill itself (which criminalizes having a penis, reduces the burden of proof in rape cases, requires Crystal Clear Constant Consent and increases the mandatory minimum sentence for all sex-related crimes), they are accused of being against happiness, fun, peace, love, prosperity and the passage of time.

Rather lazy of you to call it a leftist tactic. After all, which administration gave us the PATRIOT act?

Yeah, but the technique traces back through leftist politics (especially in universities) since the time of Marx. The oppression narrative is at the core of the liberal response, which is "everything we do is for equality." I agree politicians from both sides tend to frame their bills deceitfully, but Rethugicans are more likely to straight-up run on the "Fuck You" political platform because of the religious conservative power base and brainwashed Ayn Rand capitalists who live in poverty at 50 but still dream of one day being billionaires.

Both parties are the same party in essence, so you're right there. Both sides are authoritarian and the authoritarians all have that mommy face of "this is for your own good," which includes framing their controlling actions as protective.

[James Caruthers]

This all boils down to the classic leftist tactic I mentioned earlier, where you give incredibly bad ideas beautiful names like "Happy Fun Time Peace, Love and Prosperity Bill" and then when people protest against the bill itself (which criminalizes having a penis, reduces the burden of proof in rape cases, requires Crystal Clear Constant Consent and increases the mandatory minimum sentence for all sex-related crimes), they are accused of being against happiness, fun, peace, love, prosperity and the passage of time.

:cdc:

Most MRAs are dictionary feminists. If there was some example of real legal inequality between men and women, they'd support fixing that problem. But there isn't (in the US) and when MRAs then bring up the legal inequalities men face, then it's "drinking your male tears" because feminism has effectively spread the belief that men can't suffer anything that women don't suffer worse. So you get Steve Shives laughing at the pain of fathers forever separated from their children, while simultaneously talking about the HORRIBLE INJUSTICE of crazy fuckers on the bus bothering women (when in reality, crazy fuckers on the bus bother both genders, but nobody cares when it happens to a man lol.)

I don't think I agree that it is a "leftist tactic." I think it is more authoritarian oriented. Which is why you have groups like "Focus on the Family" here in the US or the "Free Worker's Party" in Germany, or the Peoples Democratic Republic of North Korea, etc. I believe it has to do more with the identitarianism which is exhibited by authoritarians. The pretty labels allow rhetoric to be spread as a message of "freedom, or equality" when it is no such thing. I don't find left / right wing ideology to be a factor in finding authoritarians. I could easily rail on about Right wing authoritarians doing crazy crap, but it isn't the "Right Wing" that makes their actions so hideous (even though I don't find the right a comfortable fit for me), it is the authoritarian behavior of those groups that makes them distinctive to me.

Dammit, ninja'd by 3 minutes.

Point taken, all. That said, any discussion of liberal vs conservative political parties should have the assumption of "authoritarian liberal vs authoritarian conservative" as those are the only political games in town, at least in the USA.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Stick to things she knows.

Sommelier?

She'd make a great skank ho.

[Spike13]

is itjust me or does it seem that the neo feminist movement has more than its share of low functioning drunks?