The Refuge of the Toads

[paddybrown]

Peezus:
< A load of shite>
Over 100 women in that march were hospitalized for injuries they received from harassing men.* But Shermer accepts Sommers’ claim that there is no patriarchy, women aren’t in any way oppressed?
<A load more shite>

PZ has convinced me. The patriarchy is real. The fact that some women in a protest from 100 years ago were injured by men proves that patriarchy exists. No men on protests have ever suffered violence at all.

Students from the Maryland Agricultural College formed a human shield to protect the women, but that was just benevolent sexism i.e. patriarchy again. The chief of police was fired due to the lack of police protection for the women, but ignore that.

Patriarchy is real. Case closed.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 36ee38.jpg

* That sounds like the women were the ones doing the harassing.

Ed Byrne on feminists who hark back to centuries-old injustices and say nothing's changed.

[youtube][/youtube]

[paddybrown]

Not a child sacrifice/ pedophilia thing but really creepy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Constanzo

"She gave birth to Adolfo at the age of 15".

Bet that made her eyes water. It should be "At the age of 15 she gave birth to Adolfo".

There's an Irish medieval text called Lebor Gabála Érenn, literally the Book of Taking Ireland, more usually rendered the Book of Invasions, which purports to recount the history of Ireland and the various peoples who have inhabited it from the creation of the world, which I've been reading recently. It starts with a peculiarly Irish retelling of the Genesis creation story. Adam, it says, was created at age 30, and Eve was created at age 12.

[paddybrown]

Age of consent laws were, historically, difficult to follow and enforce: legal norms based on age were not, in general, common until the 19th century, because clear proof of exact age and precise date of birth were often unavailable.[6]

Read the whole thing shitlords for context etc. etc.

I can verify this from my family history research. My great great grandmother Elizabeth Halligan was born some time in the 1850s or 1860s - I haven't found her birth record, but based on the ages given on her marriage, death and census records, there's at least eleven years' margin for error. She's the most extreme example, but there are plenty of people in my family tree who only knew approximately how old they were.

[Shatterface]

Theryn Meyer just did a video on Danielle Muscato. Enjoy!

[youtube][/youtube]

It looks like transwomen who present as female will be joining cis-gendered feminists and gay men as honorary shitlords in the next round of the Oppression Olympics.

Identity politics has come full circle: now everyone has to bow to the lived experience of men who like to fuck women.

By law.

Peezus wept.

[VickyCaramel]

Theryn Meyer just did a video on Danielle Muscato. Enjoy!

[youtube][/youtube]

It looks like transwomen who present as female will be joining cis-gendered feminists and gay men as honorary shitlords in the next round of the Oppression Olympics.

Identity politics has come full circle: now everyone has to bow to the lived experience of men who like to fuck women.

By law.

Peezus wept.

So if you are a white male facing down a rabid feminist, can't you just claim that you identify as a woman, and use your fat bearded lady status to catapult yourself to the top of the progressive stack?

And it occurs to me, why would a paedophile bother becoming a Satanist when they could just become a Muslim?

[MarcusAu]

It will be interesting to see if the 'transtrenders' such as Milo Stewart take to being in a category that includes people that look and act very much like those 'white males' that form the patriarchy that they so despise.

If the term transgender is elastic enough to describe Blair White, Danielle Muscato and Milo Stewart - then it no longer has much utility.

[Wild Zontargs]

Theses for a Progressive Reformation: part 1

It becomes increasingly clear as time goes on that we need a progressive reformation.

Wait a minute. Why just the progressives? Why not the conservatives? Anyone wanting a conservative reformation certainly has my blessing and best wishes. Really. Good luck with that. But that's not my thing. I'll stick to the lefties for now, because that's my world. That's what I'm familiar with. Plus, I think the left really should strive for a higher standard of intellectual and moral honesty. To be honest, I expect dishonesty and opportunism from the right. Rationalizing abuses of power and obscene concentrations of wealth and denying the harmful effects of these is a major aspect of what right wing politics has been demonstrably about for as long as I can remember. Witnessing the waxing of dishonesty and opportunism of liberal activism over the last several years has been especially unnerving.

So without further ado then, here are my theses:

1. Exceptionalism based on white male guilt has been a profoundly negative influence on the 1st world political left. It minimizes the flaws of foreign peoples and governments, and minimizes the strengths of western peoples and governments, and drives the profound distortions that plague the progressive world view. Recognizing this does not preclude an honest and critical assessment of western civilization past and present.

2. Karl Marx was a brilliant man with many useful insights. But the historical dialectic, this determinist, bipolar division of society into oppressive Empire and marginalized and oppressed Rebels needs to die. This is not a call for a blind moral relativism and especially not a call to exempt rich and powerful elites from scrutiny, but rather a call for a more nuanced view of history and social conflict. That said, the idea that ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ belongs at the center of any sane view of society.

3. It is flattering to believe oneself a part of a larger than life, heroic struggle against some kind of oppression or another. A world view like this adds excitement and meaning to any otherwise drab or spoilt life. It also enables self righteousness in favor of self reflection, and a tendency to demonize others. This does not mean that opposition corruption and abuse of power should not be undertaken, but rather that it be done in a spirit of sobriety and self awareness rather than a spirit of zealotry and crusade.

4. Privilege theory has done vastly more harm than good. This is not to say that discrimination cannot be identified and combated. But privilege theory is not about this. Privilege theory is all about ego. It is all about holding all white men collectively accountable for the worst actions of specific individuals, and for circumstances that are not in their power to change. Were feminist and critical race theorists to be honest, they would admit that this is all about implying collective moral superiority.

5. ‘Power plus prejudice’ – this self serving rationalization that claims that women and minorities cannot be sexist or racist because those things require power, which their self referencing dogmas claim they don’t have – needs to die. Again, were honesty to prevail, this post modern antenomianism (an old religious heresy that claimed that moral law did not apply to the ‘elect’) is all about smugness and licensing the shitty behavior of those fortunate enough to fall within the charmed circle of preferred identities privileged enough not to be ‘privileged.’

6. Privilege and inequality, where they still exist and are pressing in their nature, are now primarily economic in nature. Income inequality and the undue influence of money in politics is addressed by center-left parties only at election time. That these parties are often in the back pockets of moneyed interests perhaps explains why identity instead of economics have become such central issues on the left in the last few decades. The need for this to change is urgent.

7. Willful misuse of terms like ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, ‘homophobe’, ‘Islamophobe’ and so on was not a wise idea. People are becoming increasingly less easily emotionally blackmailed or kafkatrapped into accepting liberal positions on issues by intentionally falsified accusations of bigotry. Doing this also trivializes these terms and erodes their seriousness in the public eye. Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf?

8. Particularly galling is the exploitative misuse of bigotry smears to shield people, ideas or policies from otherwise legitimate criticism and scrutiny. Branding all opposition to mass immigration as ‘racist’ or refusal to support Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign as ‘misogyny’ would be cases in point.

9. It is incumbent upon progressive people to convince others of the merits of their world view. It is not, under any circumstances, an entitlement of progressive people to be agreed with on anything. Progressives must act accordingly at all times.

10. Thesis 9 holds true even if you have a vagina. Or black skin. Or any other marginalized identity. Identity does not determine truth (see theses 4 and 5). Progressives must stop resorting to identity to smear opponents or sidestep arguments made against their positions.

11. Your political views, voting patterns, stances on social issues, marginalized identities or any combination thereof does not make you either morally or intellectually superior to others. Stop acting as though they do.

12. People of color can be racist, even against whites. Women can be sexist, even against men. LGBT people can be cis/heterophobic. Denying this undermines the entire purpose of being against racism, sexism or homophobia. Stop falling back on the worn self serving rationalizations of privilege and power plus prejudice – see theses 4 and 5 above. Progressives will be taken more seriously when they hold themselves to their own moral codes.

13. Expressing disdain for working class and poor white men in liberal terms – implying that they're stupid, inbred, inherently racist and bigoted is the utmost height of arrogance and hypocrisy. Doubly so if this is done from the privileged upper middle class bully pulpits of academia or mainstream media. That the left has no business stigmatizing poverty for anyone, but especially on the basis of race, should require no elaboration.

14. Stop lying. Really. Just stop. Stop denying that any progressive pundit or academic holds unpopular or controversial views when it is demonstrably the case that at least some of them do. Don’t claim that there are no feminists who hate all men or equate heterosex with rape (as two examples of many) when this is demonstrably and provably the case. Once the lie is exposed, do not minimize or rationalize it, or play semantic games to avoid dealing with the implications. Admit, and distance yourselves from stupid or mean spirited views on the left.

15. Deal with dissent and counter arguments in an open and honest manner. Stop with such passive-aggressive behaviors such as playing stupid and willfully misinterpreting or misunderstanding arguments that challenge your world views. Correctly understand opposed arguments before responding to them – even if they trigger you in some way, and address their central thesis and main supporting points when in contention with them.

16. Do not cherry pick opponent’s arguments and present them out of context in order to make them say something they're not.

17. Do not derail conversations by making issues out of minor details in opponent's arguments that are not essential to their main point or thesis.

18. Do not exploit faux outrage – of the ‘I just can’t even’ variety – or treat opponent's arguments as morally abhorrent or intentionally provocative or insulting without clear evidence to support your outrage. Remember that emotional states do not constitute arguments. See theses 9 and 10.

19. When your views are protected in academic safe spaces, are funded by big business and the state, are protected from criticism and scrutiny by ‘harassment’ or ‘hate speech’ laws, and enjoy unchallenged favorable bias in mainstream media outlets, the group that you belong to can no longer call itself or the people it claims to represent ‘marginalized.’ The status enjoyed by feminism and anti-racism in western societies are the very textbook definitions of privilege.

20. Your emotional states are not claims on other people’s behaviors. It is not incumbent on males to cross the street or vote for Hillary Clinton because you’re a woman (see thesis 5) and are afraid of the consequences of males not complying with what would, if honestly assessed, be prejudiced and ideological assumptions underlying those fears.

[Wild Zontargs]

Theses for a Progressive Reformation: part 2

21. The left has an academia problem. There’s nothing wrong with being a leftist academic. But too much time in Ivory Tower echo chambers creates distance from the realities of common people, and over reliance on self-referencing theory that seems to have to take precedence over reality whenever the two conflict. Academic disdain for the plebs, when it happens, does not belong on the left.

22. Academia has a left problem. It is no secret now that political correctness and an ideological chill effect prevails on many campuses. Censorship and no-platforming of right leaning speakers is merely the tip of the iceberg. Leftist ideologues act as gate keepers, barring career progress for academics who don't tow the correct line. This is not a healthy thing for a democratic polity.

23. Let’s be honest here: Do any of you really believe this postmodernism crap? If morality and even man's basic means of acquiring moral knowledge are really socially constructed and merely reflections of existing prejudices, than how can you be so sure that feminism and multiculturalism are truly preferable to patriarchy and racism? Because you sure act as if they are.

24. The black studies and women’s studies departments do not speak for all people of color and women. Stop acting as if they do. They speak for a cult of ideologues and the closed body of self referencing work it produces. Where external (or even internal) criticisms of cherished doctrines are frowned upon as being ‘oppressive’, you've created a credentialized ideological echo chamber.

25. There is a crucial difference between advocating for equal rights for a discriminated against group, and simply being partisans in favor of that group. Progressives have lost sight of the difference long ago. This was supposed to be about bring women and minorities to parity with white males, not simply being pro-woman, pro minority, right or wrong. See theses 1 and 2.

26. There is a crucial difference between ‘harassment’ and ‘hate speech,’ on the one hand, and disagreement in good faith with the tenets of social justice academia, on the other. Learn what that difference is and see to it that it is respected in legislation, in academia, in the workplace, online and in all of your personal relationships.

27. For God’s sake (no pun intended), learn the difference between a race and a religion. Stop treating religion as a proxy for race, and stop assuming that despite for religions coded white (Christianity) is fair game while despite for religions coded brown/black (Islam) somehow equates to racism or colonialism. See theses 1 and 5 in the previous entry.

28. Pursuant to 21 above, stop with the Islamic exceptionalism already. Please. Just stop. You'd be the first to object to dominionist theologians who want biblical law for western nations, so stop pandering and kowtowing to Islamist migrants who want Shari’a law. Sharia law does not belong in the west. Period.

29. There’s a difference between an honest and critical analysis of Islamic theology on the one hand, and hatred for Muslim people and advocacy of abuse against them on the other. Please display knowledge of this difference during discourse on the subject. See theses 7, 8, 15–18 in the previous entry.

30. Much of the concern that westerners have with Islamism lies with just how illiberal it is. They have no concept of separation of church and state. They have blasphemy laws. They execute people who renounce the faith. They call for the infiltration of and, if possible, the conquest of non Islamic societies. What business do progressive leftists have with any of this? Why do we want it in our countries?

31. The treatment of women, LGBT people, non Muslims, the wrong kinds of Muslims and so on in places like Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State and Taliban controlled Afghanistan should especially concern progressive people. Or is their plight not important because their oppressors aren’t white, Christian or European? Think long on the racism implicit in this line of reasoning. See thesis 1 in the previous entry.

32. Mass immigration. Just mass immigration. Stop and think. By flooding a polity in unskilled laborers, you drive wages down and prices up, and strain existing infrastructure, compromising the government’s ability to provide essential services to its population. The poor and lower rungs of the working classes pay the price for this. If support for mass immigration is therefore progressive, who needs conservatives? See theses 7 and 8 in the previous entry.

33. Reconciling support for mass immigration, especially from Islamic societies with support for radical feminism, queer politics, trans-rights and so on makes squaring the circle look easy, logical and obvious. Unless the name of the game is ‘destroy western civilization by whatever means are necessary,’ which progressives insist it isn’t whenever the far right suggests this, pause and reflect on this. See theses 1, 7 and 8 in the previous entry.

34. Being offended isn't an argument. Stop acting like it is. Hurt feelings do not absolve you of the requirement that you prove your point. See theses 15, 18 and 20.

35. Stop denying or handwaving events that are harmful to your narrative. Do not say that there are no false claims of campus date rape or that there are no substantiated claims of migrant rape, especially in Europe. It’s hard to keep information away from people in the social media age. Even if most moderators on social media pages are progressives who work hard to suppress such news. The news will get out, and it will damage your credibility if you've previously tried to suppress it.

36. Most mainstream media and especially most social media platforms have a strongly progressive/liberal bias. Just admit it. They do. Consider how this might invalidate your claims that your charmed circle of preferred identities are marginalized. See thesis 19. And claiming corporate concentration of media ownership does not get you out of this. Rather, ponder instead the relationship between rapacious capitalism and social liberalism.

37. Laws and corporate policies that limit or suppress free speech almost always work to the ultimate benefit of the powerful. Censorship has very rarely, if ever, really benefited marginalized people. Using hate speech and harassment laws and allegations of bigotry to smear or silence people empowers state and corporate power much more than it empowers marginalized minorities. It is a strategy the left needs to reconsider.

38. Left of center activists have no business trying to get people fired from their jobs due to their political beliefs. For how long did leftists object, and rightly so, when this was done to them? Have we forgotten the red scare and McCarthyism? Supporting the sacking of white nationalists and Christian fundamentalists sets a dangerous precedent that progressives will be reminded of when this is, once again, done to them and they object to it.

39. Any kind of ‘leftism’ that measures progress by how many women and people of color are CEOs of or sit on the boards of directors of fortune 500 corporations is hardly a leftism worth having. The problem here is not equal opportunity to serve in senior management if qualified, but of ignoring the huge concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of so few senior personnel.

40. An off color joke or remark that offends a minority, or a male complementing a female coworker can result in legal settlements worth millions of dollars and destroy multiple careers while abuse of the rights of the workers, union busting, outsourcing, predatory marketing practices, accountancy scandals, environmental degradation and corruption of public officials – among other abuses – barely warrant legislative and quite often media attention. I shouldn’t have to say this is a problem, but I do have to. Frequently.

[Billie from Ockham]

So if you are a white male facing down a rabid feminist, can't you just claim that you identify as a woman, and use your fat bearded lady status to catapult yourself to the top of the progressive stack?

Hm. You mean something like identifying as a man when giving my talk, but then warning people that I identify as a woman when taking questions, so none can challenge any claims that I just made or the evidence that I gave (or neglected to give) in support...? That sounds totes cool.

[MarcusAu]

And now a short break

[youtube][/youtube]


Normal service will resume shortly

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Meyers has a jihadist all of his own. How long before fly, my pretty, fly?

http://i.imgur.com/Sxop576.png

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... nt-1053168

[Aneris]

Theses for a Progressive Reformation: part 1

It becomes increasingly clear as time goes on that we need a progressive reformation.

Wait a minute. Why just the progressives? Why not the conservatives? Anyone wanting a conservative reformation certainly has my blessing and best wishes. Really. Good luck with that. But that's not my thing. I'll stick to the lefties for now, because that's my world. That's what I'm familiar with. Plus, I think the left really should strive for a higher standard of intellectual and moral honesty. To be honest, I expect dishonesty and opportunism from the right. Rationalizing abuses of power and obscene concentrations of wealth and denying the harmful effects of these is a major aspect of what right wing politics has been demonstrably about for as long as I can remember. Witnessing the waxing of dishonesty and opportunism of liberal activism over the last several years has been especially unnerving.

So without further ado then, here are my theses:
<snip>

They're good! My only critique, after a first reading is that it's more a collection of points, which don't address deeper reasons which generate the problems that are being criticized, e.g. why identity politics (as conceived by the faction) is wrong etc.

[free thoughtpolice]

Meyers has a jihadist all of his own. How long before fly, my pretty, fly?

http://i.imgur.com/Sxop576.png

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... nt-1053168

I hope PZ hasn't inspired a a dying person to shiv a a religious person that tried to help in their own delusional way.

[katamari Damassi]

Just watched Hunt For the Wilderpeople and just want to say that I hope you kiwis are traeting Taika Waititi well. He's a national treasure.

[Wild Zontargs]

They're good! My only critique, after a first reading is that it's more a collection of points, which don't address deeper reasons which generate the problems that are being criticized, e.g. why identity politics (as conceived by the faction) is wrong etc.

Unfortunately, I don't see any of the offenders listening to Agent Commie. The only positive coverage I've seen of his blog comes from center-left or right-leaning people. I actually picked this up in the Slate Star Codex weekly reddit politics thread, which tends to be less "progressive" than the blog's comment threads, and even there the top-rated response assumed this was some right-winger "shit[ting] on the left".

[katamari Damassi]

When I converse with SJW's I simply replace the term racism with prejudice or bigotry, only because I don't want the argument derailed by semantics, but I've never understood the SJW definition of racism as "power + prejudice". I'm white, but I'm just Joe Schmoe. What power do I have? I can't hire or fire anyone. My vote only counts as much as anyone else's. What power over anyone do I have?

[katamari Damassi]

I guess my point was: If racism equals prejudice plus power, then I can't be racist because I have no power.

[Wild Zontargs]

I guess my point was: If racism equals prejudice plus power, then I can't be racist because I have no power.

Ah, but it's not individual power, it's institutional power. If you have fewer oppression points than your opponent, you have institutional power over them, and are therefore racist.

Yes, that's just as fucking retarded and disgusting as "he's black, blacks are stupider than whites, therefore he's stupid". They don't care.

[free thoughtpolice]

I guess my point was: If racism equals prejudice plus power, then I can't be racist because I have no power.

Haven't heard of White Power? Cis male ASAB? Check your privilege.

[KiwiInOz]

Just watched Hunt For the Wilderpeople and just want to say that I hope you kiwis are traeting Taika Waititi well. He's a national treasure.

That he is, and it was a quintessential kiwi movie.

He's also just directed the latest Thor movie, which is not a quintessential kiwi movie. Unless you count The Almighty Johnsons as inspiration.

[Kirbmarc]

They're good! My only critique, after a first reading is that it's more a collection of points, which don't address deeper reasons which generate the problems that are being criticized, e.g. why identity politics (as conceived by the faction) is wrong etc.

Unfortunately, I don't see any of the offenders listening to Agent Commie. The only positive coverage I've seen of his blog comes from center-left or right-leaning people. I actually picked this up in the Slate Star Codex weekly reddit politics thread, which tends to be less "progressive" than the blog's comment threads, and even there the top-rated response assumed this was some right-winger "shit[ting] on the left".

Then the left is doomed. If they carry on doubling down on identity politics, po-mo radfeminism and critical race theory and on excusing Islamism fewer and fewer people will vote for them, until they'll be reduced to a small minority of academics and haughty kids. If this trend continues right-wing parties will win pretty much everywhere, since middle and working class people will be more and more disgusted with the left. The tide is turning and if the left doesn't take its head out of its ass it will die a quiet death.

[Kirbmarc]

I guess my point was: If racism equals prejudice plus power, then I can't be racist because I have no power.

Ah, but it's not individual power, it's institutional power. If you have fewer oppression points than your opponent, you have institutional power over them, and are therefore racist.

Yes, that's just as fucking retarded and disgusting as "he's black, blacks are stupider than whites, therefore he's stupid". They don't care.

It's all based on the idea that racism isn't just one of the many products of in-group morality/out-group hostility but actually some sort of collective thought that pervades "white people". According to po-mo critical race theory everything in society is based around the supremacy of white men (of the cis/het variety).

Ideas which are neutral, like personal responsibility or the value of hard work or liberal democracy or innocent until proven guilty or even an effort not to take racial/gender differences into account are always "dog whistles", things that aren't meant in good faith or have a meaning but are only used as a code not to show that you're oppressing others.

Statistical trends about differences or simply the fact that it's easier to see people that look like you if there are more people who look like you are, to a po-mo critical race theorist, examples of institutional racism. Men have "tall privilege" because they're taller than women (I'm not kidding) and so do tall women. Society, according to SJWs, must specifically and explicitly always cater to the "oppressed" no matter what, so in the case of "tall privilege" we must make everything "accessible" to short people (because being short is a lack of privilege) no matter how much discomfort is inflicted on tall people (because they're privileged and can deal with it, don't cry "tall tears").

I remember the "lovely" Kassiane from Atheism+, an epileptic who demanded that the entire world didn't have flicking lights or strobes because otherwise the whole world was going to murder her. And she threatened violence on those who dared to have a bike with non-functioning lights, because that would have been self-defence. She and her illness were the most important thing in their entire world, and society had to revolve around her.

Every disadvantage or even simple inconvenience that "oppressed" people experience or simply perceive ("listen and believe!") is due to to oppression. "Oppressed people" aren't expected to deal with their issues like adults, but to be pampered and cared for by the "privileged" people. The "oppressed people" aren't even supposed to explain you what they want or why, that's "emotional labor" and "they're not there to educate you"!

The logical conclusion of the SJW theory is the enslavement of "oppressors" to the "oppressed" through guilt and shame. "Oppressors" have to fight for the "oppressed", to give them money and cater to their feelings, and to degrade themselves because "they don't get ally cookies" and "don't have to make it all about them". They're supposed to deal with being verbally abused and exploited with resigned dignity and never voice objections or defend themselves, because that's "bigotry" and "privilege-'splaining". On the other hand if someone even makes a joke about the "oppressed people" then the outraged pour their "I can't even" and they're "fire him!" all over the social media.

Basically by the simple act of existing while white, able-bodied, mentally competent and male you're a potential threat to all non-whites, all disabled people, all mentally ill and deficient people and of course all women (the fact that you might be gay isn't an excuse, you're Schroedinger's Rapist anyway). You have the job of showing them that you're not a threat by doing things for them, it's your duty to be informed, active on their behalf, available, and to zip it when they tell you to shut up.

That's "equality" in SJW land.

[ROBOKiTTY]

It's a common problem of old, inaccurate transliterations which weren't based on a standardized system but on the subjective judgment of the sinologist who drafted them, and were often based on phonological systems of Latin or French, not on that of English.

Lee Kuan Yew was born in 1923, many years before the HànyǔPīnyīn became the international standard for Romanization of Standard Chinese (1982). I guess that the Mandarin pronunciation of his name was probably romanized through one of the then still wildly used missionary systems, which didn't have a letter or combination of letters to express the nasal velar sound /ŋ/.

That's why 孔夫子, Kǒng Fūzǐ, became "Confucius" (note the absence of the cluster "ng" for /ŋ/).

It's a bit weird that the "ng" is absent in Lee Kuan Yew's name since when he was born he was educated in a family where the standard was a British education, and then Brits had already adopted (since 1892 at least) the Wade-Giles system which DOES use the graphic cluster "ng" to transliterate [ŋ]. Maybe his parents used an archaic transliteration to homage an ancestor with the same name? It wouldn't be unusual. Either that or whoever romanized his name interpreted the ideograms in a wrong way and didn't take into account the real pronunciation.

For Feng Leng (or Fong Leng: that's the most common spelling according to Google), the problem might be a similar transliteration issue. I'm not a sinologist myself so I can't fully understand the rules for ideogram composition, but it's possible that whoever transliterated the Chinese characters made a mistake. The name seems to have been transliterated by using a more modern system which isn't Pinyin (possibly Wade-Giles?) and again, it's possible a mistake was made.

Keep in mind that standardized transliterations only appeared after 1982 (so only thirty-four years ago). If the brand used for the fructose has been around for a longer time (maybe because it was the brand of an old family business) it's possible that it's kept the same only to simplify things and/or for reasons of family pride.

Oops, yes, it is Fong Leng. I accidentally misspelt the first syllable in pinyin.

I'm no sinologist either, just a random phonologist, but I'm ethnically Chinese myself, and my impression is that the explanation is much simpler: Chinese culture doesn't consider phonetic accuracy a top priority.

I'm not too sure about the history of it, but phonaesthetics and sound symbolism are very important in modern Chinese culture. While it's a bit of a Wild West out there, since no central authority can impose its standards on everyone, there is a prevailing theme in how most people approach the idea of transforming names between languages. In the absence of any ruleset (e.g. pinyin), there are roughly three principles: phonosemantic aesthetics, tradition, and phonetic faithfulness.

In practice, this means that names should sound fine and imply good (or at least appropriate) things; names should be transformed without violating an uncodified tradition; and names should be kind of phonetically faithful. Generally, the last one tends to suffer the most.

The first principle, of course, is extremely subjective. It could be as silly as someone deciding that 'Kuang' in English sounds less dignified than 'Kuan', or that 'Yew' is more pleasant-sounding (or -looking on paper) than 'Yow'. The Taiwanese company Foxconn officially called 'Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.', even though its name is really pronounced 'khung khai' /xʊŋ.xai/ in Mandarin and 'hong hai' /hɔŋ.hai/ in Taiwanese Hokkien. Why did they change it? Probably phonosemantic aesthetics again. Maybe they didn't want the first syllable to look like an English word with undesirable connotations ('hung'), be suggestive of Hong Kong, or just sound bad.

Tradition basically means that you are discouraged from changing an established spelling. This is why Cantonese-speaking people use the spelling 'Lee' even though it's really pronounced 'lay' /lei/ in Cantonese, why Hong Kong is never spelt 'Hoeng Gong', why Tsinghua University hasn't changed its name to follow pinyin, etc.

Phonetic faithfulness is perhaps the least important of the three. It's really more of a suggestion.

Why did I even bring up this seemingly unrelated and irrelevant point? I think that it's a really good metaphor for an endemic problem in Chinese culture: people value appearances and subjective impressions over getting closer to the truth. They don't so much care about getting things right as they are about looking as though they got things right. And while that might be good for social cohesion, it's not good for social progress to mutually agree that the emperor's rotund rear is well-clothed.

[paddybrown]

Right wing false flag operations are REAL!

[youtube][/youtube]

[rayshul]

i love all you faggots
i'm drunk
and you're my favourites

[MarcusAu]

i love all you faggots
i'm drunk
and you're my favourites

No comment

Any response I make could be considered rape.

[HoneyWagon]

i love all you faggots
i'm drunk
and you're my favourites

I find most people like me better when they're drunk.

[feathers]

I THINK IM GONNA START A PATREON INSTEAD*

Boss: Hey Boxing Fan, i have a new project for you. A client hired a random guy to do a PHP website for her but he never finished. Lots of fun stuff, Laravel, mail module, Bank info processing, Facebook and Google login, cloud images hosting, etc. Its a big project.

Boxing Fan: Let me guess, she want us to finish the project, keeping the code already done to save cost?

Boss: Of course but don't worry, the code is a thing of beauty.

Boxing Fan: You're being sarcastic right?

Boss: mmm... I don't remember if i asked you already but you do PHP?

Boxing Fan: You did and i used to, like 10 years ago. May i remind you you hired me as a IOS and Android dev?

Boss: Well, shit. Too late and good luck.

What's the name of that blog again where webdevs shared such horror stories...

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

^ Forevervirgin.com?

[ROBOKiTTY]

I THINK IM GONNA START A PATREON INSTEAD*

Boss: Hey Boxing Fan, i have a new project for you. A client hired a random guy to do a PHP website for her but he never finished. Lots of fun stuff, Laravel, mail module, Bank info processing, Facebook and Google login, cloud images hosting, etc. Its a big project.

Boxing Fan: Let me guess, she want us to finish the project, keeping the code already done to save cost?

Boss: Of course but don't worry, the code is a thing of beauty.

Boxing Fan: You're being sarcastic right?

Boss: mmm... I don't remember if i asked you already but you do PHP?

Boxing Fan: You did and i used to, like 10 years ago. May i remind you you hired me as a IOS and Android dev?

Boss: Well, shit. Too late and good luck.

What's the name of that blog again where webdevs shared such horror stories...

Coding Horror, The Daily WTF, etc.

[Kirbmarc]

Why did I even bring up this seemingly unrelated and irrelevant point? I think that it's a really good metaphor for an endemic problem in Chinese culture: people value appearances and subjective impressions over getting closer to the truth. They don't so much care about getting things right as they are about looking as though they got things right. And while that might be good for social cohesion, it's not good for social progress to mutually agree that the emperor's rotund rear is well-clothed.

This trait might be exasperated in a culture where individualism is stifled in favor to a family and social centered focus, like Chinese culture (I'm oversimplifying, I know). However deep down this is a key component of human nature.

Social cohesion, peer pressure, in-group morality and out-group hostility and group loyalty are dominant traits in pretty much all human cultures, because societies and groups where infighting is kept to a minimum while the "enemy" is quickly and more easily identifiable are generally more successful, and they help to prop up the élites who hold power in those societies and groups. People become powerful through social connections, and they need social and group cohesion and loyalty to stay in power.

Personal curiosity and experimentation to get closer to the truth are a luxury that is usually reserved only to an ideally easily controllable minority. Most of the times accuracy only matters when it's convenient. Inconvenient truths and inconvenient research of the truth interferes with social narratives, and so it's made into a social issue, or a group issue. That's the real purpose of censorship, of smears, of the chilling effect of labels, of taboos.

Technological progress is convenient, so it's encouraged as long as it doesn't threaten the basis of the social narrative that keeps the élites in power. Having better food production, tools, weapons, logistics, tactics, strategy and propaganda than your neighbor is always an advantage, so the élites encourage the development of food production, of manufacturing, of technological research and of studies which can train priests, teachers, "experts" and journalists who can support the propaganda line. Healthcare and sanitation are also an advantage, so they're encouraged as long as they're not too costly and doesn't threaten the profit margins for the élites. The same is true for transportation, storage, distribution, etc. Entertainment is an advantage if it can used for propaganda purposes, so friendly entertainers are encouraged. And of course you need education to train people for all those other people and for propaganda purposes, so you encourage it, too.

The biggest difference between dictatorships/oligarchies/absolute monarchies on one side and liberal democracies on the other side is that in liberal democracies a relative wealth of the citizens is the main source of wealth for the élites (through taxes) and of support (through votes) so the élites have some sort of incentive to keep at least a relatively large number of people relatively wealthy and productive.

However even in liberal democracies the élites try to "game the system". If you have a block of people who votes for you no matter what you do just because they believe that the other side is going to kill them, persecute them or destroy their way of life then you don't need to actually do things for them. If you control people through guilt and shame you don't need to even look appealing to them. Propaganda and indoctrination are great ways to achieve this goal. If you have a strong hold on higher education you can produce an intellectual élite which subjugates any intellectual rebellion and can police thoughtcrime (i.e. criticism and information).

This is the political use of the SJWs. They're a muzzle on criticism of the action of some élites which can get away with much more than they should. They can shout "racist!" at someone who criticizes mass immigration or affirmative action, or "sexist!" at someone who criticizes Hillary Clinton. And what's even better is that they do it for free, or might have pay for it! It's the perfect political con.

[feathers]

So if you are a white male facing down a rabid feminist, can't you just claim that you identify as a woman, and use your fat bearded lady status to catapult yourself to the top of the progressive stack?

Given the postmodernist creed as I've come to know it, it should be perfectly acceptable to claim that you have a fluctuating gender identity- lgtbqw where w is for weathercock- which manifests itself in you changing gender in the middle of a conversation.

[feathers]

Just watched Hunt For the Wilderpeople

Is that what fans of the late Gene Wilder are called?

[Kirbmarc]

Religion and ideology are great for rulers and élites because they make people work for your goal for free and without questioning orders. They short-circuit brains and dominate actions of people who believe what you're telling them and act with no hope of reward, at least not "in this life". If you're skilled and unscrupulous enough you can have willing slaves and live like a king only through guilt, shame, small, inexpensive emotional awards like the feeling of moral superiority and the hope of a future reward which never comes.

The SJW forgot to give their "allies" (slaves) some future cookies, and as a secular ideology they can't project the reward (or a punishment) in the afterlife, so they're stuck with narcissists, masochists, people who are in the movement to exploit it or who have big flaws of character that they wish to "cleanse" through a sterling ally record and cheap apologies. Or a combination of all four.

[screwtape]

So if you are a white male facing down a rabid feminist, can't you just claim that you identify as a woman, and use your fat bearded lady status to catapult yourself to the top of the progressive stack?

Given the postmodernist creed as I've come to know it, it should be perfectly acceptable to claim that you have a fluctuating gender identity- lgtbqw where w is for weathercock- which manifests itself in you changing gender in the middle of a conversation.

I like the concept of weathercocks. Male when the wind is in the west, female when it blows from the east, and you finally get to fuck yourself properly during a tornado.

[HoneyWagon]

Reminder...Danielle is a young 32 years young
http://i.imgur.com/gvcgZqZ.png

https://twitter.com/daniellemuscato/sta ... 3317177344

[feathers]

Reminder...Danielle is a young 32 years young
http://i.imgur.com/gvcgZqZ.png

https://twitter.com/daniellemuscato/sta ... 3317177344

So Danielle is going to pave the way for men wearing tights and a skirt?

After all, it's not unheard of in history.

[MarcusAu]

So the present can be distinguished from the past and can be said to be better. (That is if the metric of: 'legality of pants-wearing by AFAB members of Senate' is used.)

Does that mean that present day America is not as bad as it could be? Alternatively, it could mean that there are a lot of issues in the world that need attention but that there are some 'activists' that have nothing better to do than talk about trivialities on twitter all day.

[katamari Damassi]

The logical conclusion of the SJW theory is the enslavement of "oppressors" to the "oppressed" through guilt and shame. "Oppressors" have to fight for the "oppressed", to give them money and cater to their feelings, and to degrade themselves because "they don't get ally cookies" and "don't have to make it all about them".

The thing about "they don't get ally cookies" reminds me of something I heard many years ago. I worked a job that required my spending hours traveling in my car. I somehow started listening to this call-in advice show on the Catholic radio station. These were fanatics. So this woman calls and she's the mother of toddler and wants to know how to raise him without any positive reinforcement because "virtue should be its own reward." And she was told how. I thought it was chilling. I remember thinking that poor kid is going to live a miserable life. That seems to be the SJW plan for allys.

[Kirbmarc]

The logical conclusion of the SJW theory is the enslavement of "oppressors" to the "oppressed" through guilt and shame. "Oppressors" have to fight for the "oppressed", to give them money and cater to their feelings, and to degrade themselves because "they don't get ally cookies" and "don't have to make it all about them".

The thing about "they don't get ally cookies" reminds me of something I heard many years ago. I worked a job that required my spending hours traveling in my car. I somehow started listening to this call-in advice show on the Catholic radio station. These were fanatics. So this woman calls and she's the mother of toddler and wants to know how to raise him without any positive reinforcement because "virtue should be its own reward." And she was told how. I thought it was chilling. I remember thinking that poor kid is going to live a miserable life. That seems to be the SJW plan for allys.

That's the recipe to breed rage, bitterness and resentment. I wouldn't be surprised if, when he's in his teens, the child of this woman will choose to spend all of her money on drugs and booze, if he doesn't straight up murder her during an argument.

That's why wary of the "allies" who apologize and debase themselves too often. They're the ones that I can as a danger to the "oppressed" if they snap. Either that or they're former bad apples and edgelords who are hiding behind the ally mask. I can understand why radical feminists think that all men suck, they've alienated everyone who's not a ball of pent-up rage and hatred (and self-hatred) or who's not a perv using radical feminism to exploit them.

[feathers]

Look, if we're over page 1000 anyway, why not go for 65536 posts and see if phpBB blows up.

[Spike13]

Look, if we're over page 1000 anyway, why not go for 65536 posts and see if phpBB blows up.

Are you mad!!!

May as well spit in the face of an angry, bearded, Old Testament god!

[MarcusAu]

So that's a yes then.

[deLurch]

The thing about "they don't get ally cookies" reminds me of something I heard many years ago. I worked a job that required my spending hours traveling in my car. I somehow started listening to this call-in advice show on the Catholic radio station. These were fanatics. So this woman calls and she's the mother of toddler and wants to know how to raise him without any positive reinforcement because "virtue should be its own reward." And she was told how. I thought it was chilling. I remember thinking that poor kid is going to live a miserable life. That seems to be the SJW plan for allys.

What does that leave for the kid? The alternative of punishment or being left alone as his or her high point for doing well?

[Hunt]

Look, if we're over page 1000 anyway, why not go for 65536 posts and see if phpBB blows up.

Because phpBB64K is a myth. Nothing will happen.

[Hunt]

But I'm going to start writing all my posts in COBOL anyway, just in case.

[Hunt]

So that's a yes then.

What was the question again? In English this time.

[Shatterface]

Boris johnson speaks sense about Saudi Arabia.

Guardian outraged, government distancing itself.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ent=safari

[katamari Damassi]

The thing about "they don't get ally cookies" reminds me of something I heard many years ago. I worked a job that required my spending hours traveling in my car. I somehow started listening to this call-in advice show on the Catholic radio station. These were fanatics. So this woman calls and she's the mother of toddler and wants to know how to raise him without any positive reinforcement because "virtue should be its own reward." And she was told how. I thought it was chilling. I remember thinking that poor kid is going to live a miserable life. That seems to be the SJW plan for allys.

That's the recipe to breed rage, bitterness and resentment. I wouldn't be surprised if, when he's in his teens, the child of this woman will choose to spend all of her money on drugs and booze, if he doesn't straight up murder her during an argument.

That's why wary of the "allies" who apologize and debase themselves too often. They're the ones that I can as a danger to the "oppressed" if they snap. Either that or they're former bad apples and edgelords who are hiding behind the ally mask. I can understand why radical feminists think that all men suck, they've alienated everyone who's not a ball of pent-up rage and hatred (and self-hatred) or who's not a perv using radical feminism to exploit them.

I wish I could remember the name of the show. I had a morbid fascination with it for some time. It alternated between two hosts. A sweet voiced woman who was not a psychologist so I don't know what her qualifications to counsel people were. She offered the most insane advice on child rearing-which seemed to be the majority of questions that she received/answered. I remember that she had to take a couple of weeks off because her son committed suicide. That didn't cause her any introspection though. She was back offering the same crazy child rearing advice as before, and her audience(aware of the suicide because they always offered condolences)kept asking for it.
The other host was a psychologist(I want to say his name was Ray Garini? But google searches yielded nothing so I'm probably wrong.)and his parenting advice was less batshit than the woman's but it was still very stern. He struck me as a repressed gay. He was always going on about his various manly pursuits(his bench pressing ability, etc..) He was married and he and his wife had adopted like ten kids of various races-his black son was mentioned at least once in every show. I don't think they had any biological offspring. Their marriage sounded sexless. Anyhoo, he often dabbled in apologetics and invoked quantum theory to explain transubstaniation. It was pure sophistry, but his audience ate it up.

[feathers]

Boris johnson speaks sense about Saudi Arabia.

Guardian outraged, government distancing itself.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ent=safari

Boris Johnson accused Saudi Arabia of abusing Islam and acting as a puppeteer in proxy wars throughout the Middle East, in remarks that flout a longstanding Foreign Office convention not to criticise the UK’s allies in public.

The foreign secretary told a conference in Rome last week that the behaviour of Saudi Arabia, and also Iran, was a tragedy, adding that there was an absence of visionary leadership in the region that was willing to reach out across the Sunni-Shia divide.

At the event, Johnson said: “There are politicians who are twisting and abusing religion and different strains of the same religion in order to further their own political objectives. That’s one of the biggest political problems in the whole region. And the tragedy for me – and that’s why you have these proxy wars being fought the whole time in that area – is that there is not strong enough leadership in the countries themselves.”

Here's to hope that more politicians will show balls the coming year(s).

[Hunt]

Catholics have always struck me as the nuttiest of Christians. People go on and on about the craziness of Mormons. All the Mormons I've met seem to live their lives pretending they don't know the tenets (or tenants, if you prefer) of their own religion, but Catholics FUCKING BELIEVE IT, and parade it and think they've got actual intellectual bona fides backing them up.

[feathers]

Catholics have always struck me as the nuttiest of Christians. People go on and on about the craziness of Mormons. All the Mormons I've met seem to live their lives pretending they don't know the tenets (or tenants, if you prefer) of their own religion, but Catholics FUCKING BELIEVE IT, and parade it and think they've got actual intellectual bona fides backing them up.

Slightly bold statement, I think. The catholics are a very large group of people from different cultures all over the globe. Many of them are only cultural catholics for its entourage and traditions (face it, they have the more beautiful churches), many mostly use it to channel their age-old superstitions.

[MarcusAu]

Catholics have always struck me as the nuttiest of Christians. People go on and on about the craziness of Mormons. All the Mormons I've met seem to live their lives pretending they don't know the tenets (or tenants, if you prefer) of their own religion, but Catholics FUCKING BELIEVE IT, and parade it and think they've got actual intellectual bona fides backing them up.

As a former catholic - I don't think that most believe it. For instance, many will go against the church's teaching on abortion when it comes to the crunch. They will go along each Sunday - or if that is too much on Easter & Xmas - and send their kids to the local religious school, but apart from that it is mostly a tribal identity (at least in the West / 1st world).

it's set up so that the bible is interpreted by the local priest, and though families may have a copy they don't read it day to day. Probably preferring apologist literature instead - if they are going to read anything. I think there is something to the woman involved that keep the system running (or at least they did in the past) - ie encouraging church going and other traditions.

Which is why they don't particularly like being backed into a corner and defend their actual beliefs - as it is all rather quantum. For instance - technically they believe in transubstantiation (the host actually transforming into JC) - and that it is not just a metaphor. They can't really deny it as the principle was important enough to die (or kill) over in the past.

Also, they have (or used to have) an interest in keeping the old school conservatives (ie pre Vactican II) and the newer flock united, and this is paradoxically easier to do when people assume that they have something in common, but don't have to know precisely what the details are.

Though they don't consciously formulate it as such - but in effect it's Orthodoxy (belief) vs Orthopraxy (action).

I guess I don't think it as weird as it is familiar to me - I find Gnosticism more interesting - as it has some of the same roots but went in a completely different direction with it - showing that people can believe everything.

[John D]

Catholics have always struck me as the nuttiest of Christians. People go on and on about the craziness of Mormons. All the Mormons I've met seem to live their lives pretending they don't know the tenets (or tenants, if you prefer) of their own religion, but Catholics FUCKING BELIEVE IT, and parade it and think they've got actual intellectual bona fides backing them up.

Slightly bold statement, I think. The catholics are a very large group of people from different cultures all over the globe. Many of them are only cultural catholics for its entourage and traditions (face it, they have the more beautiful churches), many mostly use it to channel their age-old superstitions.

I think it depends on the particular Catholic. I have several close friends who are Catholic. One of my buddies has a gay son, has used birth control, swears like a fucking storm trooper... etc. When I call out the contradiction between his behavior and the church's dogma he says "God says we are all sinners!" Haha.

This friends mother is another story however. She REALLY thinks all forms of abortion are murder.... even in cases of rape, incest, etc. and no exception for mothers health. She goes into a furry over this topic! A true believer in this case... once the sperm enters the egg you have a person with a sacred soul.

[John D]

Just when I really start to hate people something wonderful happens. I love people!

[youtube][/youtube]

[MarcusAu]

Oh you've opened Pandora's box now - just wait for all the xmas music videos to come.

[deLurch]

Catholics have always struck me as the nuttiest of Christians. People go on and on about the craziness of Mormons. All the Mormons I've met seem to live their lives pretending they don't know the tenets (or tenants, if you prefer) of their own religion, but Catholics FUCKING BELIEVE IT, and parade it and think they've got actual intellectual bona fides backing them up.

As a former catholic - I don't think that most believe it. For instance, many will go against the church's teaching on abortion when it comes to the crunch. They will go along each Sunday - or if that is too much on Easter & Xmas - and send their kids to the local religious school, but apart from that it is mostly a tribal identity (at least in the West / 1st world).

it's set up so that the bible is interpreted by the local priest, and though families may have a copy they don't read it day to day. Probably preferring apologist literature instead - if they are going to read anything. I think there is something to the woman involved that keep the system running (or at least they did in the past) - ie encouraging church going and other traditions.

Which is why they don't particularly like being backed into a corner and defend their actual beliefs - as it is all rather quantum. For instance - technically they believe in transubstantiation (the host actually transforming into JC) - and that it is not just a metaphor. They can't really deny it as the principle was important enough to die (or kill) over in the past.

As a former Catholic I can confirm the interpretation. People are Catholic because their parents were Catholic, and their parents were Catholic etc. etc.

The Catholic masses are so monotonous in ritual proclamations & responses. Sit, stand, kneel, sit... All of the readings are on a 4 year rotation so even that gets old fast. I don't think most Catholics think that deeply about what is said. The kids just go through the sacraments because they are either made to or they know it is expected of them. It is a community. Of course they gave me a fine enough education for me to decide that the core tenets are bullshit by the time I was exiting grade school and my Catholic high school education even more firmly cemented it to the point where I could articulate my issues in a reasoned manner and feel confident about my choice.

I guess if any of them do question it but continue, they remember the clear children's stories of Jonah and the Whale, and Noah's Ark and let stuff slide as either poetic truth, or more fables but feel the religion overall is still important. I still have trouble believing all the people walking up to the alter really believe they are eating a dead guy. They just let it slide and don't think about it due to endless repetition.

[Dave]

Catholics have always struck me as the nuttiest of Christians. People go on and on about the craziness of Mormons. All the Mormons I've met seem to live their lives pretending they don't know the tenets (or tenants, if you prefer) of their own religion, but Catholics FUCKING BELIEVE IT, and parade it and think they've got actual intellectual bona fides backing them up.

This is the shittiest COBOL program Ive ever seen.

[MarcusAu]

Catholicism Obviously Bollocks Or Lies.

[Suet Cardigan]

Oh you've opened Pandora's box now - just wait for all the xmas music videos to come.

It's far too early for Xmas songs.

Except this one: