Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

#35521

Wild Zontargs wrote:This is just glorious: [image too big to inline here]
"4chan shits on Zoe Quinn by supporting the people she shits on"

TL;DR: 4chan donates thousands to the Women in Gaming project Zoe Quinn crapped on, donates their share of the future profits to colon cancer (aka butt hurt) research, and designs a clean, normal gamer girl character for the game, just to fuck with Zoe Quinn. For two days running, they're the top donators. SJWs screech that 4chan money is tainted and they shouldn't take it. The charities tell the SJWs to piss off. 4chan laughs their collective ass off.

Oh, that is genius. I can't think of anything that would piss off the SJWs better than that.

#35522

another lurker wrote:
James Caruthers wrote: No, but it is murder if they need your organs to live and you deliberately unplug them and let them die.

Why bitches so afraid of being labeled as a murderer? Just admit it's murder, claim it's justified because of bodily autonomy and get on with your day, you killer, you.
Pro-lifers make a big point of saying that unplugging someone from your organs is 'just letting die' and is therefore 'morally acceptable'. They do the same with ectopic pregnancies - cutting out a fallopian tube and letting the embryo die is totes ok, whereas dissolving it with a drug is MURDER, or removing blood supply to the uterus = murder.

Pro-lifers also tend to favor the death penalty.

Me, I'm pro-death, so it doesn't matter to me whether abortion is murder, killing lifers in prison is murder or fur is murder. They all sound awesome.

I think most liberals are probably pro-death, especially SJWS, but they don't want to admit it because that's not a very 'social justice' worldview to have.

Like, the SJL might claim to be against the death penalty, but you give them a loaded weapon of their choice, put them in a consequence-free environment and trot out some unarmed and bound political opponents (famous religious right lobbyists, pro lifers, nonviolent white supremacists, MRAs, gender egalitarians, slyempitters, etc) and they'd go nuts as long as they were assured their flock never found out about it.

What we consistently see from social justice warriors, and Quinn is a great example, is that their behavior never matches their dogma.

#35523

Opyt wrote:real horrorshow:
I don't know that they needed to doxx Skep. As she's pretty open about what she does.

I think it's pretty hilarious that OB seems so upset that someone might have free time.

When people are that self righteous they have no need to care about consequences as the end justifies the means. At the time Skep was arguing with them and they wanted to put a stop to the Nugent talks. So the fact doxing could have caused serious implications for Skep's family and her patients was irrelevant. They are nasty, hateful bigots who enjoy being part of a hateful, bigoted ideology as it empowers them to behave the way they want.

Svan poisoning the well with her 'Some say Dawkins is a Fascist..' style posts is typical of the sort of hateful smearing they think passes for intelligent and thoughtful discourse. They seriously think banning, attacking and blocking anyone who disagrees with them is FreeThought. They are deluded. Luckily most people are wise to them now. They are so obvious and shameless in what they are doing I am amazed they do not want to crawl into a hole with embarrassment. The lack of self reflection is breathtaking.

As to Dawkins, if he wants to express his opinion on twitter he is free to do so. If people do not like that opinion they can respond with their counter arguments. They do not get to tell him or anyone else how they should think and behave. They do not get to 're-educate' as if they are pet dogs to be trained. They do not get to try and shut him down with their pompous pronouncements. That sort of totalitarian thinking leads to misery and hell on earth.

If they want to be taken seriously they need to grow up.

#35524

JackSkeptic wrote:
If they want to be taken seriously they need to grow up.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :o

#35525

James Caruthers wrote:
another lurker wrote:
James Caruthers wrote: No, but it is murder if they need your organs to live and you deliberately unplug them and let them die.

Why bitches so afraid of being labeled as a murderer? Just admit it's murder, claim it's justified because of bodily autonomy and get on with your day, you killer, you.
Pro-lifers make a big point of saying that unplugging someone from your organs is 'just letting die' and is therefore 'morally acceptable'. They do the same with ectopic pregnancies - cutting out a fallopian tube and letting the embryo die is totes ok, whereas dissolving it with a drug is MURDER, or removing blood supply to the uterus = murder.
Pro-lifers also tend to favor the death penalty.

Me, I'm pro-death, so it doesn't matter to me whether abortion is murder, killing lifers in prison is murder or fur is murder. They all sound awesome.

I think most liberals are probably pro-death, especially SJWS, but they don't want to admit it because that's not a very 'social justice' worldview to have.

Like, the SJL might claim to be against the death penalty, but you give them a loaded weapon of their choice, put them in a consequence-free environment and trot out some unarmed and bound political opponents (famous religious right lobbyists, pro lifers, nonviolent white supremacists, MRAs, gender egalitarians, slyempitters, etc) and they'd go nuts as long as they were assured their flock never found out about it.

What we consistently see from social justice warriors, and Quinn is a great example, is that their behavior never matches their dogma.

I have no hearburn per se about the death penalty, provided something like DNA evidence exists, since there have been many cases where innocent people have been killed.

This might be weird, but sometimes I wonder if death is actually less a punishment that life imprisonment. I'm mean, since I don't believe in life after death, and there is no evidence for it, when a person is dead he/she is dead. They don't suffer after that. They don't exist to suffer. I wonder if making someone think about it for the rest of their life might be the greater punishment. Of course if they are a psychopath, they wouldn't care. Who knows. It's just something to think about.

#35526

austin wrote:This might be weird, but sometimes I wonder if death is actually less a punishment that life imprisonment.

Robert Gleason, Jr., for example, went beyond just wondering about this.

#35527

FYI, DNA evidence isn't foolproof, especially as some forensic labs have been shoddy with their lab work, and one lab worker downright lied about evidence.

#35528

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Badger3k wrote:In related news, Stefunny gets an ascii penis pic. What, was she expecting a bird sitting on it, digging it's claws in?

No, Iâ€™m not mad. Iâ€™m sad that on top of this guy (yes, by the name, this is a guy) being unable to comprehend or construct an argument, he canâ€™t even manage to construct a competent proxy penis with which to harass me.
He didn't manage to construct a competent proxy penis with which to harass her?

For shame!!! :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

At least we now know it couldn't have been a pitter.

:cdc:

What a disgusting grab of the patriarchical levers, in order to use them to assign a gender to someone. Won't Stefunny think of the genderfluids?

#35529

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Badger3k wrote:In related news, Stefunny gets an ascii penis pic. What, was she expecting a bird sitting on it, digging it's claws in?

No, Iâ€™m not mad. Iâ€™m sad that on top of this guy (yes, by the name, this is a guy) being unable to comprehend or construct an argument, he canâ€™t even manage to construct a competent proxy penis with which to harass me.
He didn't manage to construct a competent proxy penis with which to harass her?

For shame!!! :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

At least we now know it couldn't have been a pitter.

:cdc:

It was shit, and looks more like a sad dog than a human penis:
http://i.imgur.com/qGh0zBV.png

But along comes an old friend of the 'Pit to show us how it should be done:
http://i.imgur.com/XkwiICx.png

Hang on a minute, what's with all the white spaces? They make this image look really shit and amateurish.

Shouldn't these have been spotted during the comment "Preview"?

Doesn't this look like some sort of basic "noob" mistake in itself?

What kind of cunt would have such a lack of integrity and self-respect as to miss this?

http://i.imgur.com/5591Sju.png

Oh, Peezus Christ.

#35530

http://ladygeekgirl.files.wordpress.com ... 52-480.jpg

#35531

Pit, thanks for all the Youtube suggestions. I'll be filling the empty hours of this weekend chasing them down. Much appreciated. Love this place.

Also, thanks to Oafie for sticking your head in here to fill the empty space between stalking Dawkins's tweet account, needling your Jaclyn Glenn voodoo doll, & midrashic parsings of Sam Harris's works to find wymen hatred. Do be a dear & donate some token fraction of your trust fund income to the A+ Indigogo fundraiser. We know you're aware of it & the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. Don't let A+ be the baby FTB left in the dumpster.

#35532

Funky little street festical down my way this afternoon and evening. About 50 different food trucks and carts with a wild range of offerings -- Mexican, Salvidorian, Spanish, Guatemalian, Fijian, Italian, Crispy Creme donuts -- tons of stuff. And only about a block away from me. They've closed down the main downtown street from 3 to 10 pm, and everyone gets to get fat. Fun stuff. And some very, very good food too.

#35533

Hunt wrote::lol: Uhg, the alien cyst argument. THAT again.

"Oh no... not again!"

[youtube]y-sBROXalU4[/youtube]

#35534

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Skep Tickle, unlike Benson (or me), actually HAS a job, and one that makes a lot of difference and good in other people's lives. Benson is just a bitter blogger bound to bear her bitter boredom.

Two points.

1. It's interesting to see how Ophie instinctively named her 3x print screens. Do an HJ and see that it's always about doxxing and real world pushback.

2. Given Skep included the full article here, I doubt very much there was a "spike" in hits from the pit to the original pile of dung.

#35535

Just...just read it:

https://storify.com/SamanthaAllen/conve ... hris-sacca

#35536

John Greg wrote:Funky little street festical down my way this afternoon and evening. About 50 different food trucks and carts with a wild range of offerings -- Mexican, Salvidorian, Spanish, Guatemalian, Fijian, Italian, Crispy Creme donuts -- tons of stuff. And only about a block away from me. They've closed down the main downtown street from 3 to 10 pm, and everyone gets to get fat. Fun stuff. And some very, very good food too.

We have the same thing in my old neighborhood every year. Food trucks galore, multiple stages with bands all playing simultaneously, and closed-off main street. Also, throughout the extended neighborhood, people donate their front porches and 50 to 75 additional bands rock out about three square miles. It's a blast.

#35537

Also, in a discussion about that, I found this bit of genius:

Um.....

#35538

Kate Leth makes a confession, and shittywebcomics explains how (they hope) the future will be, now that social justice warriors have been allowed to shit all over cultures they never had any interest in being a part of.

#35539

SoylentAtheist wrote:
Mykeru wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote: I've seen the picture of the author. Here it is. Even assuming she's not a Poe, I doubt she even has a husband.
Holy shit. That's a hell of a nasty hambeast.
There are large women married to large men.

I have seen a woman so large that she is on disability for it, however she gets laid quite often by skinny guys just because she puts herself out there and tries and hits guys up. If you try enough times, you will eventually get lucky.

Joe Rogan said it best: "She ain't the best ride, but there's no line".

#35540

Opyt wrote:real horrorshow:
I don't know that they needed to doxx Skep. As she's pretty open about what she does.

I think it's pretty hilarious that OB seems so upset that someone might have free time.

This is coming from someone who does vanity searches of her name and gets upset when people talk about her in places she would never go (not here, obviously) or never normally hear about it. I'm sure Ophie takes this to heart - it feeds her ego and confirms her importance and relevance. To what, we're not sure.

#35541

Yeah, in regards to "doxxing" Skep by pointing out how important her job is: I was under the impression that it was fairly common knowledge, although now I'm questioning what that knowledge is as I only remember "Women's Health" and "Doctor".

#35542

Badger3k wrote:Skep - you made the greats!

Oafie has a post all about you. Of course, it's a copy of comments here (hi Oafie! Sit down, enjoy yourself, maybe register and we can talk without you banning anyone...ha ha, I kid, we know you can't do that).

:D Hey, I made the big time! Oh, wait, that's just Benson's blog.

Badger3k wrote:The kicker:
She must think Iâ€™m enormously important.
No, not important, just funny. You're a basket case, Oafie, and reading you is like watching a train wreck. You think you're so important, with the Treaty and all (ha), and the idea that you can tell a person like Dawkins (or anybody else) what they have to do...funny. Skep will have to answer (if she wants) about her motivations, but I think it's an intellectual exercise. Watching you go ballistic over Jaciyn Glenn, for example, makes it an interesting case study. I think that's the way Skep thinks, and I imagine she applies it to everything. Just my guess.

About the only thing important about you, Oafie, is that you're so self-important and unaware. Shame on you for not linking, though, but then again that's par for the course with you. At least you didn't say you got it in an email. And for those keeping track, when I looked, she had a whole 9 comments, and the second was the Lord Pizzle hisself.

Hahaha. Yeah, intellectual exercise is a good way to put it. I'm fascinated with how dysfunctional they are. Checking in to see what's up is a fun thing to do with a few minutes of spare time, break up all the work I bring home & do at night and on weekends & vacations.

Opyt wrote:Congratulations Skep, though I think I'm to blame for it, egging you on with those tweets that I found humorous.

Nah. AFAICT, it's disgust at their tactics & hypocrisy that "egg on".

real horrorshow wrote:...
Oafie wrote:This is someone with a real job, a demanding, professional job, and this is how she spends her free time...

And you know this how Oafie? Why, because you doxxed her, that's how.

Opyt wrote:real horrorshow:
I don't know that they needed to doxx Skep. As she's pretty open about what she does.

The doxxing was intended as a corrective measure - intended as punishment, and possibly as a warning to others. (Other women?)

Opyt wrote:I think it's pretty hilarious that OB seems so upset that someone might have free time.

Mmm.

I'm interested: Does Benson not think Myers have "a real job, a demanding, professional job"? Did she see any problem with Avicenna writing thousands and thousands of words per post while in a presumably demanding clinical training portion of medical school? :think:

In closing, I might as well try to help a "fellow" female atheist out w/ any attention that might come my way from FTB post-Benson's-post:
Hey, Ophelia Benson and any other FTB'ers cruising the 'Pit:
Could you puh-lease show your co-blogger Yemmy some compassion & recognition and at least acknowledge somewhere at FTB (other than her own blog) this attack she suffered at an atheist event recently? Thanks in advance!

#35543

Avicenna has even claimed that the slymepit is responsible for him failing out of med school or some shit.

The guy is mental.

Clearly, the gold standard of "it's okay when we do it" is being applied re: having a "real job" while blogging about drama and following what people post.

#35544

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
It was shit, and looks more like a sad dog than a human penis:
http://i.imgur.com/qGh0zBV.png

#35545

Immanuel K wrote:
Guestus Aurelius wrote:
Immanuel K wrote: Beer with me...

Can a penis wielder be female?
Or a clitoris bearer be all male?
Privilige might be showing, but whats really worth knowing:
Can a Guiness identify as Pale Ale?
You're a very rare bird, Immy Kâ€”
A philosopher with Slymepit cachet.
But while you pwn the written word,
Your nym remains unregistered,
And that's a black mark on your rÃ©sumÃ©.
IÂ´m just a writing flatulist
But that BLACK mark remark was totes racist!
Please rephrase duller, as a mark of color
For the cause of greater social justice!

Playing the race card there, eh, PÃ©tomane?
Has too much FTB driven you insane?
You're a special snowflake,
So just for your sake,
I'll rephrase: register your name!

#35546

Lsuoma wrote:
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
It was shit, and looks more like a sad dog than a human penis:
http://i.imgur.com/qGh0zBV.png
<CarlySimon>
You're So Vein...
</CarlySimon>

You prob'ly think this schlong is about you...

#35547

BaconNutellaFiend wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
It was shit, and looks more like a sad dog than a human penis:
http://i.imgur.com/qGh0zBV.png
<CarlySimon>
You're So Vein...
</CarlySimon>
You prob'ly think this schlong is about you...

http://m.c.lnkd.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/1/0 ... c6c64b.jpg

#35548

Easy J wrote:Pit, thanks for all the Youtube suggestions. I'll be filling the empty hours of this weekend chasing them down. Much appreciated. Love this place.

There is also the video (channel) thread next door full with excellent channels to watch.

And Baud2Bits has a new one as well, there seems to be Ray Comfort season at the moment as several tubers made videos about him. The big question is about whether Ray is a true believer, or a charlatan, or both (a hypocrite, end justify means type).

[youtube]uDZWjJI2SDo[/youtube]

#35549

Some clown troupe imbecile wrote:No one has the right to make use of anothersâ€™ body without their permission. Period.

I don't get this zeal for stances like the above clown troupe blurt. What, you went to bed last night, woke up the next morning and found you'd been broken into and now have a squatter? That it came out of nowhere? A large part was already there, it only took a little extra to green light it, a procedure which usually takes place at the express consent of the now occupied. It didn't appear without warning out of the wide blue yonder.

It thus seems needlessly problematic to frame it as though this is something that happened to them unbeknownst to them, and as a willful act of occupation by the fetus.

As for that whining busybody desperate to remain relevant as dotage coldly claws at her faculties. People get to spend their free time however they choose to and not merely engaged at what some pious and bitter nun would have, or approve of them do.

austin wrote:They don't suffer after that. They don't exist to suffer.

In my view, if suffering is the objective then something may be amiss.

#35550

Aneris wrote:
Easy J wrote:Pit, thanks for all the Youtube suggestions. I'll be filling the empty hours of this weekend chasing them down. Much appreciated. Love this place.
There is also the video (channel) thread next door full with excellent channels to watch.

And Baud2Bits has a new one as well, there seems to be Ray Comfort season at the moment as several tubers made videos about him. The big question is about whether Ray is a true believer, or a charlatan, or both (a hypocrite, end justify means type).

[youtube]uDZWjJI2SDo[/youtube]

Remember the good old days, when we were all fighting people like Ray Comfort instead of fellow atheists?

Good times.

#35551

Well Skep, if they did anything to effect your employment, I'd be severely disappointed in them. Not that it matters.

I'd also want them to have a few words spoken to them about "slander" & "libel".

Also relevant: defamation.

It doesn't take much, and you being a woman, it might hold a bit more weight if you bring it to a judge's attention. Especially since the OB Book Club is on your side of the country.

#35552

didymos wrote:Also, in a discussion about that, I found this bit of genius:

Um.....

She seems so willing to defend Mike Brown when he is caught on video committing a strongarm robbery, shoving and then clearly menacing a young brown skinned man a foot shorter and half his weight.
If that store employee was a young white woman with hipster glasses and fluorescent purple hair on that video you can be sure there would a line up of these hypocrites trying to give that cop a medal for shooting him, much less this sleazy campaign of maligning anyone that doesn't fall in step with their social justice lynch mob.
But what else is new. :x

#35553

real horrorshow wrote:
dogen wrote:Ghurkas are the original cutters -- their kukri must be blooded before being sheathed, and so they will cut themselves if unable to hack the head off a nearby enemy of Her Britannic Majesty.
No they don't. Gurkhas pride themselves on their turnout, so they are liable to inspection several times a day. This includes drawing their kukri. If they had to cut themselves every time they did that they'd be dead inside a week.

I was about to tell you to fuck off and die in a fire -- but then, with a little research, I discovered you're right. E.g.,

Various legends surround the use of the kukri, the most commonly cited being that every time it is drawn, blood must be shed. Sadly this is but a myth, as the kukri is used so regularly that there would be a bloodbath if it were true.

(from http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/30364.aspx)

Thanks for the info!

#35554

real horrorshow wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-840505

Tony, the proper plural form of "fetus" is "fetuses." It's a verb, not a noun. Twat.
Dude! Do you even fetus?

noun (plural fetuses)
An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.

I thought the same when I saw PG's post. But I looked into this, and it turns out 'fetus' is a verb in Latin. That's why it doesn't become 'fetii' when pluralized. So, PG is correct, if a little unclear in his post.

#35555

I got tenure. Ask me anything.

#35556

dogen wrote:I got tenure.

Me, too. And logging into this site from work is one of the few ways that I could lose it.

#35557

BlueShiftRhino wrote:
dogen wrote:I got tenure.
Me, too. And logging into this site from work is one of the few ways that I could lose it.

On what grounds?

#35558

didymos wrote:Also, in a discussion about that, I found this bit of genius:

Um.....

Rowan Kaiser's writing has always left me with the impression that he's as sharp as a butter knife.

By that I mean he looks to be as sharp as a knife made of butter.

#35559

dogen wrote:
BlueShiftRhino wrote:
dogen wrote:I got tenure.
Me, too. And logging into this site from work is one of the few ways that I could lose it.
On what grounds?

If you have to ask, then you probably don't work for a state university in a fly-over state.

Yeah, it's a hyperbole, but, right this moment, I'm fighting the urge to point out that I'm on my own machine, at home, and have never actually logged in from work.

There's only one word to describe that kind of fear when I'm doing absofuckinglutely nothing wrong. Patriarchy.

#35560

BlueShiftRhino wrote:If you have to ask, then you probably don't work for a state university in a fly-over state.

Oh, and before you ask, no, I don't work for some rinky-dink school that is named for an overweight, yellow cat on TV.

#35561

BaconNutellaFiend wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
It was shit, and looks more like a sad dog than a human penis:
http://i.imgur.com/qGh0zBV.png
<CarlySimon>
You're So Vein...
</CarlySimon>
You prob'ly think this schlong is about you...

Don't chew, don't chew

#35562

dogen wrote:I got tenure. Ask me anything.

What is the meaning of wife?

#35563

BlueShiftRhino wrote:
BlueShiftRhino wrote:If you have to ask, then you probably don't work for a state university in a fly-over state.
Oh, and before you ask, no, I don't work for some rinky-dink school that is named for an overweight, yellow cat on TV.

I was thinking "Garfield....?" then it hit me. :D

#35564

In other news, a Swedish pre-op f->m trans person is accusing a public swimming bath of discrimination since they didn't allow him/her to bathe topless and have filed a complaint to the "discrimination ombudsman": -"I feel incredibly aggrieved since I wasn't allowed in the swimming pool at the same terms as those which were interpreted as men."

Now, you could make some jokes about manboobs here... but I've pondered some and realized this raise some interesting points regarding feminism!

First of all, from the dear SJWs and feminist woman studies professors, we all know that men looking at women's breast = objectification, which hurts all women and is a really, REALLY serious problem! So, it must be pretty clear to all that by not allowing women to bathe topless, the staff is actually doing the right thing and protecting all women from the horrors of being objectified!

But hang on a second! This was a preop f->m trans* person! It wasn't a woman, it was a man, which obviously can't have her... sorry his body sexually objectified by other men and the patriarchy! Think about that for a second... it's obvious, isn't it? To end to all sexist, misogynistic advertisement, media, hell even porn - all we need to do is to replace all women models with pre-op f->m trans* persons!

When the SJWs come yelling "OMG look at this misogynism and sexism, with this half-nude woman on the cover!", the publisher just say "Sorry but that isn't a woman, that's a man on the cover, you guys really need to check your cis privlilige and stop being so transphobic!". Sarkeesian whining about princess Peach again? Miyamoto just step in and explain that Peach identify as a man but has chosen to not operate his body and to dress in a pink dress just to challenge current gender norms - problem solved...

(On a more serious note - someone else think that a pre-op f->m trans* person who go to a public swimming bath and chose to go topless might not be all that trans* and a whole lot more SJW activist? Also, personally, I'm not against topless women at public swimming baths... but I have the feeling the feminists who are protesting this "discrimination" would probably start complaining about the "male gaze" as soon as they got what they wanted. Then again, they'd probably just suggest fixing that by creating special women-only bath times...)

#35565

acathode wrote:In other news, a Swedish pre-op f->m trans person is accusing a public swimming bath of discrimination since they didn't allow him/her to bathe topless and have filed a complaint to the "discrimination ombudsman": -"I feel incredibly aggrieved since I wasn't allowed in the swimming pool at the same terms as those which were interpreted as men."

Now, you could make some jokes about manboobs here... but I've pondered some and realized this raise some interesting points regarding feminism!

First of all, from the dear SJWs and feminist woman studies professors, we all know that men looking at women's breast = objectification, which hurts all women and is a really, REALLY serious problem! So, it must be pretty clear to all that by not allowing women to bathe topless, the staff is actually doing the right thing and protecting all women from the horrors of being objectified!

But hang on a second! This was a preop f->m trans* person! It wasn't a woman, it was a man, which obviously can't have her... sorry his body sexually objectified by other men and the patriarchy! Think about that for a second... it's obvious, isn't it? To end to all sexist, misogynistic advertisement, media, hell even porn - all we need to do is to replace all women models with pre-op f->m trans* persons!

When the SJWs come yelling "OMG look at this misogynism and sexism, with this half-nude woman on the cover!", the publisher just say "Sorry but that isn't a woman, that's a man on the cover, you guys really need to check your cis privlilige and stop being so transphobic!". Sarkeesian whining about princess Peach again? Miyamoto just step in and explain that Peach identify as a man but has chosen to not operate his body and to dress in a pink dress just to challenge current gender norms - problem solved...

(On a more serious note - someone else think that a pre-op f->m trans* person who go to a public swimming bath and chose to go topless might not be all that trans* and a whole lot more SJW activist? Also, personally, I'm not against topless women at public swimming baths... but I have the feeling the feminists who are protesting this "discrimination" would probably start complaining about the "male gaze" as soon as they got what they wanted. Then again, they'd probably just suggest fixing that by creating special women-only bath times...)

:o :o :o

I put the article through google translate - from swedish to english.
This is what I got back:

The swimming requirement that swimmers will cover the breasts have got a tranny from Bagarmossen to notify VÃ¤stertorp swimming pool and sports to the Equality Ombudsman.

When the hen in the spring, along with four friends, went to the bath, they were after 15 minutes told by staff to take on the uppers.

"I feel incredibly offended when I did not get allowed in the swimming pool on the same conditions as those which were interpreted as men," writes notifier to DO.

2009, the question will arise in MalmÃ¶ where activists of the Network "bare chest" wanted to bathe topless. After a lot of attention in the recreation committee said politicians yes everyone would get to swim without top.

- It is a victory for us in the network "bare chest", said one of the activists, Sanna Ferm, to DN.se.

Chairman of the Board, Bent Forsberg (S) agreed with the activists.

- We can not have different rules for different swimming pools and when we talked on the board how the breasts should be covered, we ended up in a long and impossible discussion about how much to be covered. Now everyone will have swimwear, but we do not care about how they look, he said.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Tranny?

That's how google translates "en transperson" (a transperson/transexual)!!!

For those unfamiliar with Swedish gender politics and language, the "hen" part above is a mistranslation of the gender neutral pronoun "hen" (a trendy alternative to han (his) hon (her) .)

So then.
Who wants to start the next gender scandal in Sweden over how google translate is transphobic?
:D

#35566

acathode wrote:In other news, a Swedish pre-op f->m trans person is accusing a public swimming bath of discrimination since they didn't allow him/her to bathe topless and have filed a complaint to the "discrimination ombudsman": -"I feel incredibly aggrieved since I wasn't allowed in the swimming pool at the same terms as those which were interpreted as men." ...

Since I don't know Swedish...any idea whether this person had had "top" surgery"? ("pre-op" often referring to the "bottom surgery", AFAICT)

I might have mentioned this several weeks ago - one of my (woman) patients who has had a bilateral mastectomy for cancer told me she was topless in a public place on a hot day this summer & was stopped by someone in authority (police? not sure) who told her she had to put a top on. The way she told it, she refused, arguing that she didn't have breasts so the rule (law, actually) didn't apply to her - and the authority figure scratched his head but let her go on her way, still topless.

#35567

Dick Strawkins - interesting, with just the phrase "en transperson" or a short section of the sentence ("skyla brÃ¶sten har fÃ¥tt en transperson") it translates it as "trans person", but with more than that it translates as "tranny". I wonder why?

acathode unplugged · #35568

the article dont mention operation at all, preop is my interpretation since i cant imagine anyone caring if there were no breasts involved (would the staff even be able to tell?)

#35569

Skep tickle wrote:Dick Strawkins - interesting, with just the phrase "en transperson" or a short section of the sentence ("skyla brÃ¶sten har fÃ¥tt en transperson") it translates it as "trans person", but with more than that it translates as "tranny". I wonder why?

Swedes often treat English swear words as milder insults than English speakers usually treat them.
I suspect something like this is happening here - along with the fact that outraged language policing of this sort hasn't got as far as policing languages other than your own.
'Tranny' was probably not meant as an insult to those who compiled the Swedish English lexicon for google (although, lets face it, calling someone Tranny is now probably seen worse than being Hitler by the blockbot team.) It was probably seen as a slang term, similar to 'queer'.'

Dworkins Unplugged. · #35570

Badger3k wrote:
feathers wrote:
The incident is just the latest installment in a long line of examples of schools telling girls to cover up so they donâ€™t distract their male peers. Critics worry that these policies teach girls that itâ€™s their responsibility to prevent themselves from being ogled, rather than teaching boys to have the self-control to refrain from objectifying their classmates.

It's not like those girls never intentionally dress up sexy to, like, catch those boys' attention.
That would be thinking that girls have agency, and can take responsibility for something, and not just have to be protected by white knights. Who would think that but an MRA dudebro shitlord? Just put the girls back on their pedestals and step away from them!

Yeah that whole thing is nuts and both boil down to institutionalised misandry. Boys will be distracted by excess female flesh and thus boys must be taught not to be distracted by excess female flesh. In both sides of the discussion the girls have no agency, they are being objectified not by the lads but by the school system and some kind of faux-feminist ideology which preaches that young women have no motivations of their own, no will, no thoughts and thus cannot be held responsible for what they do.

There is some kernel of religious thinking in there. As you said, Behold semi-naked young women on pedestals, now avert your gaze sinners!

#35571

Dawkins retweeted the above.

It seems like a call to alter this idiots sign, but wouldn't that break the 'no photoshopping' rules of the Treaty of Butterflies?

Should we inform his boss, Ophelia?

#35572

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Dawkins retweeted the above.

It seems like a call to alter this idiots sign, but wouldn't that break the 'no photoshopping' rules of the Treaty of Butterflies?

Should we inform his boss, Ophelia?

You just did (by posting it here). ;)

#35573

Skep & Strawkins:
It certainly would appear to violate the Treaty of Butterflies, BUT he's a creationist (I think I've seen him on ArmouredSkeptic's YT channel), which makes him an unperson. As a result, it's okay to approve of shoops that were not actual quotes. Or, IOWWDI for short. Probably doesn't help that at the very least he's white, male, cisgender, and likely heterosexual*.

* - I've never asked him, and I never will, he might have a 1:512 Native American ancestor (8*8*8*2), and therefore identify as Native American fully negating his white privilege, he could also identify as a pre-op transwoman which would further cement his status as a minority, and if he did in fact identify as a pre-op transwoman that would likely make him either homosexual or bisexual.

#35574

Dworkins Unplugged. wrote:
Badger3k wrote:
feathers wrote:[Quoting article: "The incident is just the latest installment in a long line of examples of schools telling girls to cover up so they donâ€™t distract their male peers. Critics worry that these policies teach girls that itâ€™s their responsibility to prevent themselves from being ogled, rather than teaching boys to have the self-control to refrain from objectifying their classmates."]

It's not like those girls never intentionally dress up sexy to, like, catch those boys' attention.
That would be thinking that girls have agency, and can take responsibility for something, and not just have to be protected by white knights. Who would think that but an MRA dudebro shitlord? Just put the girls back on their pedestals and step away from them!
Yeah that whole thing is nuts and both boil down to institutionalised misandry. Boys will be distracted by excess female flesh and thus boys must be taught not to be distracted by excess female flesh. In both sides of the discussion the girls have no agency, they are being objectified not by the lads but by the school system and some kind of faux-feminist ideology which preaches that young women have no motivations of their own, no will, no thoughts and thus cannot be held responsible for what they do.

There is some kernel of religious thinking in there. As you said, Behold semi-naked young women on pedestals, now avert your gaze sinners!

Looks like feminist sites agree, if not for the same reason(s) - from their POV it's misogyny - Jezebel, for example, has a number of posts critical of formal & informal dress codes (as they apply to women & girls).

Got me thinking - how about school dress codes intended to prevent gang colors & symbols. Analogous, or not? Don't tell kids not to wear gang colors, tell gang members...?

#35575

whoops, the math was 2*4*8*16, or 4 generations ago, which would make it 1:1024, although you could possibly argue for some inbreeding in there somewhere.

#35576

Opyt wrote:whoops, the math was 2*4*8*16, or 4 generations ago, which would make it 1:1024, although you could possibly argue for some inbreeding in there somewhere.

*looks at photo again* Yeah, you could probably argue for some inbreeding. :shifty:

#35577

this weeks SGU round-up.

Steve gets kudos for a positive shoutout to Michael Shermer. He gets a gold crowd for rebutting a Watsonian thrust by pointing out her googling deficiencies and directing her to a Harriet Hall article.

Watson gets a tick for keeping it down in both cases despite an audible gulp.

She loses her tick and earns a cross for a segment on "people exploiting William's death to further their own agendas" without mentioning PZ's troll against humanity.

#35578

Skep.
:naughty: I expect you to be above my insinuations. I hold you to a much higher standard than I hold myself. :naughty:

I was referring to someone that is willing to believe so strongly in a book that they've formed an entire view about how "science covers up God!"
Armoured Skeptic plug:
[youtube]nxLzmoidR5M[/youtube]

#35579

dogen wrote:
real horrorshow wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-840505

Tony, the proper plural form of "fetus" is "fetuses." It's a verb, not a noun. Twat.
Dude! Do you even fetus?

noun (plural fetuses)
An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.
I thought the same when I saw PG's post. But I looked into this, and it turns out 'fetus' is a verb in Latin. That's why it doesn't become 'fetii' when pluralized. So, PG is correct, if a little unclear in his post.

Don't question my grammar!

[youtube]c3y0CD2CoCs[/youtube]

#35580

Brive1987 wrote:this weeks SGU round-up.

Steve gets kudos for a positive shoutout to Michael Shermer. He gets a gold crowd for rebutting a Watsonian thrust by pointing out her googling deficiencies and directing her to a Harriet Hall article.

Watson gets a tick for keeping it down in both cases despite an audible gulp.

She loses her tick and earns a cross for a segment on "people exploiting William's death to further their own agendas" without mentioning PZ's troll against humanity.

Wow. She kept silent even when told to read something by the evil Dr Hall? Of the evil harassing t-shirt fame? How did she do it?
:lol: