Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

[Service Dog]

Well Elam is an asshole and AVFM is mostly a shitshow. I don't that is a stretch for anyone who spent any amount of time over there.

I totally agree. But I'm saying that mentioning that as one's 'contribution' to the subject is akin-to reminding-everyone that Slavery Was Bad in discussions about nautical boundaries & the new Pixar movie & locally-sourced cilantro substitutes & ...

[Guestus Aurelius]

Had a discussion last night re the Confederate flag controversy, and someone suggested that a major problem in the US that's never addressed is that it includes a conquered people that have never really been reconciled to the rest of the nation.
I'd never thought of The South that way, but it made considerable sense. They're told they cannot fly their flag, their culture is widely mocked, they are often looked at as inferior.
I have no idea how you tackle the problem, but I still thought it was a sharp observation.

This sounds like some recent discussions I've had, too, and I agree with your friend to an extent.

For instance, it's become fashionable for American liberals to declare that the Civil War was only about slavery, and that honoring one's fallen Confederate ancestors is equivalent to celebrating treason and racism. On the flip side, there's certainly no dearth of revisionists who aim to minimize the role of slavery in causing the war, and that's also a serious problem. Slavery, of course, was the main political issue that had long been driving a wedge between North and South, but think about how utterly stupid it is to take what sparked a war politically and use it to reduce all of the bloodshed to "being about" that one thing.

Yes, politically speaking, the Civil War was largely "about" slavery. But to the people on the ground, it didn't fucking matter what sparked the war. One's position on slavery was quite beside the point when the goddamn sky was falling. People thrust into that kind of conflict don't have the luxury of choosing sides. Your side is chosen for you. It's the side of where you live. It's the side of everyone you know and every place you've ever been. When it's us against them, it doesn't matter how things got that way, because that's how things are, and you're part of "us." When your entire world is in imminent danger, you fight for it, because what other choice do you have?

[Guestus Aurelius]

Pretty seriously ninja'd there by James Caruthers.

[Easy J]

Had a discussion last night re the Confederate flag controversy, and someone suggested that a major problem in the US that's never addressed is that it includes a conquered people that have never really been reconciled to the rest of the nation.
I'd never thought of The South that way, but it made considerable sense. They're told they cannot fly their flag, their culture is widely mocked, they are often looked at as inferior.
I have no idea how you tackle the problem, but I still thought it was a sharp observation.

The tendency of small-minded ideologues to refer to the Confederacy as merely "traitors" or "slave-owning racists, all" doesn't help. Many people in the South today, as in the rest of the USA, are racist. This is true. I have known many myself, and no I don't mean in the tumblr sense of racism, I mean the kinds who will happily refer to black people as niggers.

But the presence of racists does not reflect on the entire group. #NotAllConfederates. The Civil War was about slavery yes, but it was about many other issues as well. It's a bit simplistic to paint the Confederacy as traitors and evil racist scum. Many were fighting for the culture and country where they were raised. Brothers fought brothers and the army one joined was often determined by geography. Many of those fighting for the Union were poor immigrants who had recently come from Ireland and other places. These men were looked upon by other members of the Union as disposable second-class citizens, and their condition of poverty was exploited so they could be expended as cannon fodder in the Civil War.

Every war is composed of humans. Every side in a conflict contains good people.

If we want to argue the current Confederate Flag is not really "the" Confederate Flag, and that our present-day model is a rallying point for white supremacy, that is an argument that can be made. But I do get sick of watching stuck-up liberal snobs tear down the Confederacy without understanding the very real suffering, loyalty and bravery shown by soldiers on both sides.

I'm not sure how much of the Civil War stuff filtered down. I feel more American than a member of a conquered nation. It's more of a regional & cultural thing to me & the folks I know. A lot of the pushback is on account of the "stuck-up liberal snobs" you referred to. It's understood that there are a ton of folks out there who don't like you no matter what just because of where you're from or how you talk. You've already been othered. Southerners are the ultimate guilt-free PC scratching posts & they know it.

There is a sense that "they" will always be sneering, hostile, pricks regardless, so there's no sense trying to appease them. They're all stick & no carrot & will never like Southerners anyway (except maybe Austin-ites).The Iraq War-like reasoning that let to the recent flag stuff doesn't help, either. It comes off like the amorphous PC mob is at it again & a lot of folks don't take kindly to being pissed on & pushed around by "them". Both sides are lashing out at caricatures defined by their most obnoxious examples. It all gets dumbed down but this is my attempt at passing on the general sentiment.

My (admittedly simplistic) take on it is that they should've dealt with the flag issue a long time ago in a normal, legitimate manner. I don't see why the Confederate flag should have any official role at all anywhere. It just doesn't belong. That said, I don't have any respect for people who think responding to a mass shooting by attacking a symbol is a good idea. I heard "Elliot Rogers & the MRAs" in my head as soon as I read about it. I don't closely follow politics or current affairs because stupid outrage bait like this is just too common these days.

[Kirbmarc]

It's a piece of language designed to put a political opponent in a certain position, but I feel it's somewhat dishonest. Either men's rights are male supremacist or they are not. If they're not, then using the word "men's rights" is not only more accurate but not at all shameful. Changing what you CALL men's rights does not make it suddenly not men's rights. Calling it "human rights" is the sort of tactic that only works on the criminally stupid, IE politicians.

It's the exact same kind of rhetoric claptrap that radfems use when they say "feminism is only the belief that women are human beings, too".

MRAs and radfems use the same tactics to achieve the same goals, only from different sides. They're both equally bad. We need to move on from the idiotic "gender war" and focus on real human rights issues that concern everyone, like the rights of free speech and due process.

[Guest]

Paul Elam fucked Men's Rights into the ground so he had to come up with a new brand. So he called it MHRM.
It fools no one and no one uses it. And to the extent it gets any traction be assured that Elam will fuck that right into the ground.

You can argue back and forth whether it has more meaning or is more authentic or changes the framing or whatever and those might even be interesting discussions, but the truth is, Paul didn't give a rats ass about any of it, he just knew he had fucked Men's Rights into the ground.

Sort of like AirTran nee ValuJet.

[James Caruthers]

It's a piece of language designed to put a political opponent in a certain position, but I feel it's somewhat dishonest. Either men's rights are male supremacist or they are not. If they're not, then using the word "men's rights" is not only more accurate but not at all shameful. Changing what you CALL men's rights does not make it suddenly not men's rights. Calling it "human rights" is the sort of tactic that only works on the criminally stupid, IE politicians.

It's the exact same kind of rhetoric claptrap that radfems use when they say "feminism is only the belief that women are human beings, too".

MRAs and radfems use the same tactics to achieve the same goals, only from different sides. They're both equally bad. We need to move on from the idiotic "gender war" and focus on real human rights issues that concern everyone, like the rights of free speech and due process.

That was my argument yes. I realize some people on the pit sympathize heavily with the MRA as I used to but no longer do. I still think men's issues are important but feel we need a better group to address those problems. My impression of AVfM and many MRAs is that they are incompetents or scammers out for themselves, targeting an outcast demographic who feel isolated.

https://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com ... truckload/

Perhaps Black Pill MGTOW can explain this. I doubt anyone here would accuse him of being anti-MRA.^

That said, I still like Dr. Randomercam because I get the impression he knows full well what he is doing and only does it because he feels (for whatever reason) that he must play the same game as feminists in order to receive the same attention.

[Easy J]

Had a discussion last night re the Confederate flag controversy, and someone suggested that a major problem in the US that's never addressed is that it includes a conquered people that have never really been reconciled to the rest of the nation.
I'd never thought of The South that way, but it made considerable sense. They're told they cannot fly their flag, their culture is widely mocked, they are often looked at as inferior.
I have no idea how you tackle the problem, but I still thought it was a sharp observation.

This sounds like some recent discussions I've had, too, and I agree with your friend to an extent.

For instance, it's become fashionable for American liberals to declare that the Civil War was only about slavery, and that honoring one's fallen Confederate ancestors is equivalent to celebrating treason and racism. On the flip side, there's certainly no dearth of revisionists who aim to minimize the role of slavery in causing the war, and that's also a serious problem. Slavery, of course, was the main political issue that had long been driving a wedge between North and South, but think about how utterly stupid it is to take what sparked a war politically and use it to reduce all of the bloodshed to "being about" that one thing.

How does one minimize slavery? I know you're referring to guys debating it's role in starting the war, but it just seems strange to me that they would want to emphasize the political &/or legal issues of disagreement to try to score points for a side that defended that. Had the North preemptively invaded with no legal foot to stand on in order to abolish slavery, I'm not sure the legalistic arguments for the Confederacy would have much more force.

[/quote]Yes, politically speaking, the Civil War was largely "about" slavery. But to the people on the ground, it didn't fucking matter what sparked the war. One's position on slavery was quite beside the point when the goddamn sky was falling. People thrust into that kind of conflict don't have the luxury of choosing sides. Your side is chosen for you. It's the side of where you live. It's the side of everyone you know and every place you've ever been. When it's us against them, it doesn't matter how things got that way, because that's how things are, and you're part of "us." When your entire world is in imminent danger, you fight for it, because what other choice do you have?[/quote]

Yeah. A lot of their critics would've done the same thing (assuming they had the guts) had they lived in that place & time. I'm always surprised to notice that this isn't basic common sense. That attitude strikes me as a sort of hubris, as if they're so special that they would've been far above the influences of any time or culture. As if their own precious views are a product of their unique genius & owe nothing to their own times & culture.

[Couch]

Well it could just be we're misunderstanding him because of spellchecker typos. Wrack/rack and the like. Given the number of fedoras in our avatars, he may just be calling us a hat site.

Ha Ha!! :clap: :dance:

So, with HJ, what's his day-to-day schtick? Is there anywhere one can go to regularly find him/engage him? I googled his name and found an old deviantart site with some really lame pics with self-conscious captions; and nothing but tumbleweeds since about 2009...

hjhornbeck.deviantart.com/

I noticed a couple of youtubes which I think are his; which I'll try and wade through tonight. If I don't come back I'll have doubtless seen the light and will likely be holding court at FfTB's brown-channel spilling my guts on the lot of youse cunts.

[Service Dog]

It's the exact same kind of rhetoric claptrap that radfems use when they say "feminism is only the belief that women are human beings, too".

MRAs and radfems use the same tactics to achieve the same goals, only from different sides. They're both equally bad. We need to move on from the idiotic "gender war" and focus on real human rights issues that concern everyone, like the rights of free speech and due process.

Can you show examples of the MRAs' talking-point about only-wanting equal treatment under the law--- being contradicted by the "same tactics" radfems use?

[feathers]

I wrote to Ikea via their webform, but they didn't seem to understand what I was asking. They simply told me that the assembly only has 25 steps, ignoring my main point which was that it was incomplete. So, fuck it. I'll buy one somewhere else, already assembled. The do-it-yourself gimmick isn't fun for me when the assembly can't be done due to bad parts or bad technical writing.

Trust me, everything in the Ikea instructions finally makes sense. As with Jehovah, though, it can take some time before you realise it :angelic-sunshine:

Honestly, I've never had any problems with Ikea assembly (working alone, with the exception of a large wardrobe cabinet) and the result is normally acceptable or even good for normal household use. They were amongst the first with the build-it-yourself concept and looking at their worldwide success and virtually all DIY stores imitating them, they seem to have struck a chord.

[Couch]

This is going to be us in a couple weeks:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... render.jpg

Sweet. I have always wanted a fancy suit.

The cultural appropriation of 'white tie' aka 'top-hat-and-tails', by the Japanese, at surrender ceremonies, is a major pet peeve of mine.

I've been railing against it for yonks and it feels like no-one is listening. I can't even.

[Kirbmarc]

Had a discussion last night re the Confederate flag controversy, and someone suggested that a major problem in the US that's never addressed is that it includes a conquered people that have never really been reconciled to the rest of the nation.
I'd never thought of The South that way, but it made considerable sense. They're told they cannot fly their flag, their culture is widely mocked, they are often looked at as inferior.
I have no idea how you tackle the problem, but I still thought it was a sharp observation.

The tendency of small-minded ideologues to refer to the Confederacy as merely "traitors" or "slave-owning racists, all" doesn't help. Many people in the South today, as in the rest of the USA, are racist. This is true. I have known many myself, and no I don't mean in the tumblr sense of racism, I mean the kinds who will happily refer to black people as niggers.

But the presence of racists does not reflect on the entire group. #NotAllConfederates. The Civil War was about slavery yes, but it was about many other issues as well. It's a bit simplistic to paint the Confederacy as traitors and evil racist scum. Many were fighting for the culture and country where they were raised. Brothers fought brothers and the army one joined was often determined by geography. Many of those fighting for the Union were poor immigrants who had recently come from Ireland and other places. These men were looked upon by other members of the Union as disposable second-class citizens, and their condition of poverty was exploited so they could be expended as cannon fodder in the Civil War.

Every war is composed of humans. Every side in a conflict contains good people.

If we want to argue the current Confederate Flag is not really "the" Confederate Flag, and that our present-day model is a rallying point for white supremacy, that is an argument that can be made. But I do get sick of watching stuck-up liberal snobs tear down the Confederacy without understanding the very real suffering, loyalty and bravery shown by soldiers on both sides.

Also, not all Southerners were part of the Confederation. West Virginia was vehemently against it. Many in the border states wanted to stay loyal to the Union and even clashed with the slave-owning aristocracy on economic bases.

The War was a complicated issue. The rich, powerful slave owners made up a minority of the Southerners. Most slave owners had no more than one or two slaves, and Lincoln's original plan was to gradually urge them to free their slaves and offer them economic compensations, in order to preserve their economic status and allow Southern economy to survive.

Lincoln's plan was thoroughly ignored after he died and most of the Radical Republicans pretended to care about black people when actually they cared more about power and money and were massively corrupted (and often actually racists and believers in white supremacy, to boot).

Many people were torn about their loyalty. Even Robert Edward Lee, the best general of the Confederacy and the chief of the Army of Virginia, had plenty of doubts and saw slavery as an institution that was going to end sooner or later. He fought for the Confederacy because Virginia, his home state, was part of the Confederacy, and as James wrote he was loyal to the place he was born in.

On the other hand immigrants from Ireland and Germany were thrown from the boats into the trenches, and Lincoln was highly unpopular among the immigrant population in New York City (in the 1864 election almost 90% of New York City voted against him and for McClellan).

Overall Lincoln had some really good ideas, and his hand was forced by Southern aristocracy, but he wasn't pure as snow: he frequently violated the habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights in general to root out the internal opposition. I'm not saying he was a monster, or a bloodthirsty tyrant, but he got dangerously close to dictatorship at times, and he was a flawed human being like everyone else.

The Radical Republicans that came into power after his death were far worse and many of them didn't even care about ethics, only about exploiting issues for political and material gains. The only people who had legitimate positions in the Republican party after the Civil War were the blacks; the politicians who came from the North into the South were often deeply corrupt.

Many carpetbaggers were businessmen who purchased or leased plantations and became wealthy landowners, hiring freedmen to do the labor. Most were former Union soldiers eager to invest their savings in this promising new frontier, and civilians lured south by press reports of "the fabulous sums of money to be made in the South in raising cotton."

I'm not saying that all of them were corrupt. Some really believed they were "civilizing" the South, and some actually did many good things by establishing schools or hospitals for blacks, or trying to get them to vote while the "Red Shirts" Democrats were suppressing their votes.

But many of them were motivated by political and personal gain, and they actually deeply harmed large sectors of society in Southern states, especially the poor whites.

[feathers]

When I become Caliph...

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/i ... nogoud.jpg

[feathers]

I'm a few pages behind, catching up... Saw this on the amazing mofo blog.

http://www.elyseanders.com/blog/2015/7/ ... exhaustion

From there, my bold:

Tupac Chopra 14 hours ago

Remember that rape is often about power. So let's just say that someone is in fact too ugly to be raped. They'll still rape you just to 'put you in your place'.

Sadly, not even hideously ugly women are safe. From Andrea Dworkin (multiple rape survivor) to blowflygirl (blogspot victim of harassment... just look at the 'highest' / top comment: http://blowflygirl.blogspot.com/2009/08 ... 4884831039 ).

Did this poster just suggest that Andrea Dworkin was hideously ugly? Oh dear.

[Brive1987]

Well it could just be we're misunderstanding him because of spellchecker typos. Wrack/rack and the like. Given the number of fedoras in our avatars, he may just be calling us a hat site.

Ha Ha!! :clap: :dance:

So, with HJ, what's his day-to-day schtick? Is there anywhere one can go to regularly find him/engage him?

You silly, stupid little boy. :naughty:

But if you really must.

https://sinmantyx.wordpress.com

[feathers]

I admit to a morbid curiosity of what aspie sex might be like.

I once tried to have aspie sex. During foreplay, we started arguing about whether calling it foreplay implied the necessity of subsequent intercourse, which would inexorably link the two phases, which would make the label "foreplay" inappropriate, given that any two inexorably-linked phases can't really be argued to be separate, such that it wasn't really foreplay - it was part of the intercourse - but without any foreplay, we couldn't have intercourse, given that sex without foreplay is like calling someone a "nigger" - not that there's anything wrong with that, but it was now already dawn and we both had places to go.

Oh. That kind of aspie. Thought it was sex with asparagus.

[HoneyWagon]

Damnit Godfrey
After I re-tweeted your animal poaching in Africa post...this account added to an animal rights list


https://twitter.com/defendanimals1
http://i.imgur.com/OBZuYAV.png

[blitzem]

FYI TEACHING OPPORTUNITY
This x-ray illustrates Throkmorton's Sign:
The penis always points to the side with the pathology

Nah, I've always carried left.

What I don't get, Phil, is how at least one of those spikes isn't exiting your skin, even just a little bit.

Unless, of course, you are channeling Malady and have put on a couple of pounds. :mrgreen:

[Tony Parsehole]

I think they added me, too

[Scented Nectar]

IKEA stores usually have a set-up near their customer service area, it's like a wall-mounted set of mini-bins; containing all their most-commonly-missing-and-lost pieces, and you can grab what you like... Could be worth calling first. Or emailing. You can't phone IKEA here in .au, not sure about over there.

It takes me an hour to get there, an hour to come home, and however long in the store itself. Spending $25 is a lot more desirable than trekking out to the store and all that hassle. Plus, I have no idea what substitute size may or may not work. Plus, I'd have to first reverse screw all the 16 screws that I've put in as squeaky tight as I could. And then, I might still have to trek out again to buy a drill. Forget it. I will probably never set foot in another Ikea again. The place just makes me pissed off on many levels - bad table, bad manual for the drawers I almost bought, the do-it-yourself warehouse section, the way one is forced to walk through the entire store maze instead of just going straight to the section one wants... I just fucking hate the place. Their store-maze/factory-hand gimmick just annoys me instead of delighting me with their unnecessary let's-pretend fun. I'll shop at places which treat me like an adult from now on.

[feathers]

People don't just "snap" and become violent, says de Becker, whose clients include federal government agencies, celebrities, police departments, and shelters for battered women. "There is a process as observable, and often as predictable, as water coming to a boil."

Everybody who has ever waited for water to boil can attest to the fact it's almost totally unpredictable. Even worse so for milk and other substances that can clot the stove.

[Tribble]

I'm a few pages behind, catching up... Saw this on the amazing mofo blog.

http://www.elyseanders.com/blog/2015/7/ ... exhaustion

From there, my bold:

Tupac Chopra 14 hours ago

Remember that rape is often about power. So let's just say that someone is in fact too ugly to be raped. They'll still rape you just to 'put you in your place'.

Sadly, not even hideously ugly women are safe. From Andrea Dworkin (multiple rape survivor) to blowflygirl (blogspot victim of harassment... just look at the 'highest' / top comment: http://blowflygirl.blogspot.com/2009/08 ... 4884831039 ).

Did this poster just suggest that Andrea Dworkin was hideously ugly? Oh dear.

Nobody with two sober brain cells to rub together believes Andrea Dworkin's rape story. What I don't understand is how a woman who wrote this can be idolized:

The discovery is, of course, that “man” and “woman” are fictions, caricatures, cultural constructs. As models they are reductive, totalitarian, inappropriate to human becoming. As roles they are static, demeaning to the female, dead-ended for male and female both. . . .
I have defined heterosexuality as the ritualized behavior built on polar role definition. Intercourse with men as we know them is increasingly impossible. It requires an aborting of creativity and strength, a refusal of responsibility and freedom: a bitter personal death. It means remaining the victim, forever annihilating all self-respect. It means acting out the female role, incorporating the masochism, self-hatred, and passivity which are central to it. Unambiguous conventional heterosexual behavior is the worst betrayal of our common humanity. . . .

The incest taboo does the worst work of the culture: it teaches us the mechanisms of repressing and internalizing erotic feeling — it forces us to develop those mechanisms in the first place; it forces us to particularize sexual feeling, so that it congeals into a need for a particular sexual “object” ; it demands that we place the nuclear family above the human family. The destruction of the incest taboo is essential to the development of cooperative human community based on the free-flow of natural androgynous eroticism. . . .

The incest taboo can be destroyed only by destroying the nuclear family as the primary institution of the culture. The nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society. One learns what one must know: the roles, rituals, and behaviors appropriate to male-female polarity and the internalized mechanisms of sexual repression. The alternative to the nuclear family at the moment is the extended family, or tribe. The growth of tribe is part of the process of destroying particularized roles and fixed erotic identity. As people develop fluid androgynous identity, they will also develop the forms of community appropriate to it. We cannot really imagine what those forms will be. . . .

As for children, they too are erotic beings, closer to androgyny than the adults who oppress them. Children are fully capable of participating in community, and have every right to live out their own erotic impulses. In androgynous community, those impulses would retain a high degree of nonspecificity and would no doubt show the rest of us the way into sexual self-realization. The distinctions between “children” and “adults,” and the social institutions which enforce those distinctions, would disappear as androgynous community develops.

Destroy the family. Fuck children. Let children fuck other children. Pretend there's no harm. It's Oggie's wet-dream.

[Gefan]

...If so, this exchange has been based on a misunderstanding, and as it appears I'm not able to exercise the kind of artistic license required to translate your scribblings, I'll avoid it in the future.

Misunderstanding, possibly. Genuine dislike (unique for me on this site), definitely.
I haven't blocked Steersman because, say what you will about him, but he's a good sport and can laugh at himself. I know I am not any kind of intellectual and am perfectly open about it. That is perhaps the biggest single point where you and I differ.

You want to drop it, fine with me.

[Scented Nectar]

I wrote to Ikea via their webform, but they didn't seem to understand what I was asking. They simply told me that the assembly only has 25 steps, ignoring my main point which was that it was incomplete. So, fuck it. I'll buy one somewhere else, already assembled. The do-it-yourself gimmick isn't fun for me when the assembly can't be done due to bad parts or bad technical writing.

Trust me, everything in the Ikea instructions finally makes sense. As with Jehovah, though, it can take some time before you realise it :angelic-sunshine:

Honestly, I've never had any problems with Ikea assembly (working alone, with the exception of a large wardrobe cabinet) and the result is normally acceptable or even good for normal household use. They were amongst the first with the build-it-yourself concept and looking at their worldwide success and virtually all DIY stores imitating them, they seem to have struck a chord.

I'm not much of a faith type, but I suppose that their unfinished step 25 in the file drawers is one of those things that only a god can understand. Us mere humans are not meant to. We just have to have faith in Ikea, and know that they are right and righteous no matter how it looks to us. I feel better now. Thanks. :)

[katamari Damassi]

Then there's the two failed marriages.
I spend too much time in the gym.
My closest friends tend to be women.
I tan (at least during the Winter).
I'm obsessively neat.

Katamarri? Have I missed anything?

Do you enjoy a penis in your mouth?

[Kirbmarc]

<snip>

Nobody with two sober brain cells to rub together believes Andrea Dworkin's rape story. What I don't understand is how a woman who wrote this can be idolized:

[quote="Andrea "child rape apologist" Dworkin"]

The incest taboo does the worst work of the culture: it teaches us the mechanisms of repressing and internalizing erotic feeling — it forces us to develop those mechanisms in the first place; it forces us to particularize sexual feeling, so that it congeals into a need for a particular sexual “object” ; it demands that we place the nuclear family above the human family. The destruction of the incest taboo is essential to the development of cooperative human community based on the free-flow of natural androgynous eroticism. . . .

The incest taboo can be destroyed only by destroying the nuclear family as the primary institution of the culture. The nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society. One learns what one must know: the roles, rituals, and behaviors appropriate to male-female polarity and the internalized mechanisms of sexual repression. The alternative to the nuclear family at the moment is the extended family, or tribe. The growth of tribe is part of the process of destroying particularized roles and fixed erotic identity. As people develop fluid androgynous identity, they will also develop the forms of community appropriate to it. We cannot really imagine what those forms will be. . . .

As for children, they too are erotic beings, closer to androgyny than the adults who oppress them. Children are fully capable of participating in community, and have every right to live out their own erotic impulses. In androgynous community, those impulses would retain a high degree of nonspecificity and would no doubt show the rest of us the way into sexual self-realization. The distinctions between “children” and “adults,” and the social institutions which enforce those distinctions, would disappear as androgynous community develops.[/i]

Destroy the family. Fuck children. Let children fuck other children. Pretend there's no harm. It's Oggie's wet-dream.[/quote]

Unbelievable. I knew Dworkin was batshit crazy but this is child rape apology on Sarah Butt's level. Does anyone feel like quoting this to Anita Sarkeesian? She's a Dworkin fan. I'd love to see how she'd twist herself into a pretzel, trying to either deny or explain away this quote.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Good heavens, an ENTIRE post?!

http://imgur.com/yHgOWSE.png

http://imgur.com/UwclhqJ.png

Two labels, two comments. Someone call an ambulance for the BBC.

Step aside chumps, empowered tweeter coming through.

I've never seen someone veer as deftly between incisive commentary and a useless, insane warbling as our Ophelia. But then again, I haven't read her blog directly for years, so maybe the "incisive commentary" bit isn't what it used to be.

She is 102 after all, the poor dear.

Since they use "Dr.", "doctoress" or "doctorette" don't even come into account. And as usual, it's Benson's typical bullshit, the same as her "because bitches ain't shit, right?".

Anyway, it now says "Dr. Kathleen Kennedy" in the BBC article.

[Gefan]

Unbelievable. I knew Dworkin was batshit crazy but this is child rape apology on Sarah Butt's level. Does anyone feel like quoting this to Anita Sarkeesian? She's a Dworkin fan. I'd love to see how she'd twist herself into a pretzel, trying to either deny or explain away this quote.

Hell of a way to start the day. Up at four am to head to the airport and the astonishing revelation that Andrea Dworkin was somehow even crazier than previously supposed.

[Really?]

Good heavens, an ENTIRE post?!

http://imgur.com/yHgOWSE.png

http://imgur.com/UwclhqJ.png

Two labels, two comments. Someone call an ambulance for the BBC.

Step aside chumps, empowered tweeter coming through.

I've never seen someone veer as deftly between incisive commentary and a useless, insane warbling as our Ophelia. But then again, I haven't read her blog directly for years, so maybe the "incisive commentary" bit isn't what it used to be.

She is 102 after all, the poor dear.

Since they use "Dr.", "doctoress" or "doctorette" don't even come into account. And as usual, it's Benson's typical bullshit, the same as her "because bitches ain't shit, right?".

Anyway, it now says "Dr. Kathleen Kennedy" in the BBC article.

Dr. Kennedy succeeded in her goal. Publicly accusing the writer of sexism has assured that any writers who contact her in the future are fucking morons.

[Sulman]

I wrote to Ikea via their webform, but they didn't seem to understand what I was asking. They simply told me that the assembly only has 25 steps, ignoring my main point which was that it was incomplete. So, fuck it. I'll buy one somewhere else, already assembled. The do-it-yourself gimmick isn't fun for me when the assembly can't be done due to bad parts or bad technical writing.

Trust me, everything in the Ikea instructions finally makes sense. As with Jehovah, though, it can take some time before you realise it :angelic-sunshine:

Honestly, I've never had any problems with Ikea assembly (working alone, with the exception of a large wardrobe cabinet) and the result is normally acceptable or even good for normal household use. They were amongst the first with the build-it-yourself concept and looking at their worldwide success and virtually all DIY stores imitating them, they seem to have struck a chord.

I'm not much of a faith type, but I suppose that their unfinished step 25 in the file drawers is one of those things that only a god can understand. Us mere humans are not meant to. We just have to have faith in Ikea, and know that they are right and righteous no matter how it looks to us. I feel better now. Thanks. :)

I think you're missing the truth, here: Ikea are obviously women-hating shitlords.

[Tony Parsehole]

Then there's the two failed marriages.
I spend too much time in the gym.
My closest friends tend to be women.
I tan (at least during the Winter).
I'm obsessively neat.

Katamarri? Have I missed anything?

Do you enjoy a penis in your mouth?

So ignorant.
You don't need to be homosexual to be gay.

[Suet Cardigan]

Unbelievable. I knew Dworkin was batshit crazy but this is child rape apology on Sarah Butt's level. Does anyone feel like quoting this to Anita Sarkeesian? She's a Dworkin fan. I'd love to see how she'd twist herself into a pretzel, trying to either deny or explain away this quote.

Hell of a way to start the day. Up at four am to head to the airport and the astonishing revelation that Andrea Dworkin was somehow even crazier than previously supposed.

She was also pro-bestiality:

Primary bestiality (fucking between people and other animals) is found
in all nonindustrial societies. Secondary bestiality (generalized erotic
relationships between people and other animals) is found everywhere
on the planet, on every city street, in every rural town. Bestiality
is an erotic reality, one which clearly place people in nature, not
above it (Dworkin 1974, p.187-8).

Needless to say, in androgynous community, human and other-animal relationships
would become more explicitly erotic, and that eroticism would not degenerate
into abuse. Animals would be part of the tribe and, with us, respected,
loved, and free (Dworkin 1974, p.188).

From: https://brian.carnell.com/articles/2000 ... nd-incest/

[Gefan]

So ignorant.
You don't need to be homosexual to be gay.

#transgay?

[Couch]

Well it could just be we're misunderstanding him because of spellchecker typos. Wrack/rack and the like. Given the number of fedoras in our avatars, he may just be calling us a hat site.

Ha Ha!! :clap: :dance:

So, with HJ, what's his day-to-day schtick? Is there anywhere one can go to regularly find him/engage him?

You silly, stupid little boy. :naughty:

But if you really must.

https://sinmantyx.wordpress.com

Jaysus. You weren't kidding. It's undergraduate, cringeworthy stuff.

Massively underdeveloped self-awareness revealed:

This is simply a place to rant and think about various issues. I am a big fan of the free market place of ideas. Please feel free to comment!

Really? So....just let me get this straight....the forum you've publicly pledged to devoting your considerable and stealthy mental super-powers to destroying with indexes - that forum - that's the one which doesn't censor or ban? :think:

[Kirbmarc]

Unbelievable. I knew Dworkin was batshit crazy but this is child rape apology on Sarah Butt's level. Does anyone feel like quoting this to Anita Sarkeesian? She's a Dworkin fan. I'd love to see how she'd twist herself into a pretzel, trying to either deny or explain away this quote.

Hell of a way to start the day. Up at four am to head to the airport and the astonishing revelation that Andrea Dworkin was somehow even crazier than previously supposed.

She was also pro-bestiality:

Primary bestiality (fucking between people and other animals) is found
in all nonindustrial societies. Secondary bestiality (generalized erotic
relationships between people and other animals) is found everywhere
on the planet, on every city street, in every rural town. Bestiality
is an erotic reality, one which clearly place people in nature, not
above it (Dworkin 1974, p.187-8).

Needless to say, in androgynous community, human and other-animal relationships
would become more explicitly erotic, and that eroticism would not degenerate
into abuse. Animals would be part of the tribe and, with us, respected,
loved, and free (Dworkin 1974, p.188).

From: https://brian.carnell.com/articles/2000 ... nd-incest/

Basically Andrea Dworkin's rules for sex were "anything, anyone, as long as it's not adult men fucking adult women".

[Scented Nectar]

I'm not much of a faith type, but I suppose that their unfinished step 25 in the file drawers is one of those things that only a god can understand. Us mere humans are not meant to. We just have to have faith in Ikea, and know that they are right and righteous no matter how it looks to us. I feel better now. Thanks. :)

I think you're missing the truth, here: Ikea are obviously women-hating shitlords.[/quote]
And here I was thinking that they just were stupid in quality control for products and manuals. Now I know they actually hate me for being a woman and are trying to discourage me from spending my money there since that would be practising financial freedom/equality regardless of sex. Fucking patriarchy! :lol:

[Scented Nectar]

So ignorant.
You don't need to be homosexual to be gay.

#transgay?

That's a word that sums up political lesbians.

[Scented Nectar]

Whoa, quote fail. Here it is again.

I'm not much of a faith type, but I suppose that their unfinished step 25 in the file drawers is one of those things that only a god can understand. Us mere humans are not meant to. We just have to have faith in Ikea, and know that they are right and righteous no matter how it looks to us. I feel better now. Thanks. :)

I think you're missing the truth, here: Ikea are obviously women-hating shitlords.

And here I was thinking that they just were stupid in quality control for products and manuals. Now I know they actually hate me for being a woman and are trying to discourage me from spending my money there since that would be practising financial freedom/equality regardless of sex. Fucking patriarchy! :lol:

[Couch]

I'm not much of a faith type, but I suppose that their unfinished step 25 in the file drawers is one of those things that only a god can understand. Us mere humans are not meant to. We just have to have faith in Ikea, and know that they are right and righteous no matter how it looks to us. I feel better now. Thanks. :)

I think you're missing the truth, here: Ikea are obviously women-hating shitlords.

And here I was thinking that they just were stupid in quality control for products and manuals. Now I know they actually hate me for being a woman and are trying to discourage me from spending my money there since that would be practising financial freedom/equality regardless of sex. Fucking patriarchy! :lol:[/quote]





Full disclosure: I'm sitting on my IKEA lounge and can see five different pieces of IKEA furniture from here, not including the one I'm sitting on. I've just turned over the cushions in the lounge and they're IKEA. There's a grotesquely oversized railway station-style clock on the wall - IKEA. The fucking cat's bowl is IKEA. Come to think of it, my cat actually has a creepily long, low build, and is suspiciously white - probably IKEA...

I've questioned my IKEA-buying many times over its 20-year span. It's concluded it basically comes down to this: The furniture is usually stylish and robust and fits in the fucking car. It's not cheap, but it's never expensive. And something I NEVER expected: some of my older IKEA pieces (including a birch [what else] dining table), I must grudgingly concede, are actually ageing stylishly.

[CuntajusRationality]

You silly, stupid little boy. :naughty:

But if you really must.

https://sinmantyx.wordpress.com

Wow, this stuff is truly awful. Here's a representative sample.

Who Says Women Are Worth Less?
FIFA, for one.

How do we expect to build a sporting culture that nurtures female athletes if we’re not willing to pay them to put in the long hours necessary to become athletes?

Professor Hornbeck doesn't seem to care that very few people are actually willing to pay to watch women's sports. In Hornbeck's view, the world owes it to them, regardless. Professional sports not as a form of entertainment; rather, it's something that we are obligated make accessible to people of all genders/sexes.

The sad thing is that in proposing this idea, Hornbeck is completely erasing the identity of para-athletes. They put in a ton of work too and it's just not fair that they aren't paid the same. We really need to build a strong sporting culture that nurtures para-athletes, otherwise how will they ever be able to turn pro?

[Sulman]

Full disclosure: I'm sitting on my IKEA lounge and can see five different pieces of IKEA furniture from here, not including the one I'm sitting on. I've just turned over the cushions in the lounge and they're IKEA. There's a grotesquely oversized railway station-style clock on the wall - IKEA. The fucking cat's bowl is IKEA. Come to think of it, my cat actually has a creepily long, low build, and is suspiciously white - probably IKEA...

I've questioned my IKEA-buying many times over its 20-year span. It's concluded it basically comes down to this: The furniture is usually stylish and robust and fits in the fucking car. It's not cheap, but it's never expensive. And something I NEVER expected: some of my older IKEA pieces (including a birch [what else] dining table), I must grudgingly concede, are actually ageing stylishly.

The Pit's more random topics are always good for a laugh :)

I buy a lot of Ikea stuff; it's a cheap way to get a place nicely decorated. Like any flatpack vendor, you have to choose carefully. The best bed I ever bought came from there; but the fibreboard stuff is the same as fibreboard stuff anywhere - it doesn't deal with material stress very well, like being torn down and rebuilt, or being moved.

I have never had a problem with assembly, but I will say that the purchase of an inexpensive cordless screwdriver (Ikea even sell one) will change your flatpack life.

[Kirbmarc]

You silly, stupid little boy. :naughty:

But if you really must.

https://sinmantyx.wordpress.com

Wow, this stuff is truly awful. Here's a representative sample.

Who Says Women Are Worth Less?
FIFA, for one.

How do we expect to build a sporting culture that nurtures female athletes if we’re not willing to pay them to put in the long hours necessary to become athletes?

Professor Hornbeck doesn't seem to care that very few people are actually willing to pay to watch women's sports. In Hornbeck's view, the world owes it to them, regardless. Professional sports not as a form of entertainment; rather, it's something that we are obligated make accessible to people of all genders/sexes.

The sad thing is that in proposing this idea, Hornbeck is completely erasing the identity of para-athletes. They put in a ton of work too and it's just not fair that they aren't paid the same. We really need to build a strong sporting culture that nurtures para-athletes, otherwise how will they ever be able to turn pro?

SJWs don't care about what you're willing or unwilling to pay for, shitlord. The fact that people are less willing to watch women's sports is a product of the Patriarchy. In the SJW utopia people will be retrained until they'll love the Big Brother watching women's sports.

Your personal feelings are only important if you're a SJW. If you're a shitlord or a minority traitor empathy goes out of the window and you need to change your Evil ways or else.

In other words: Hornbeck isn't a bug, he's a feature. The same is true for any form of SJW rejection of reality. The goal is to make people change their minds, with nagging and shaming if it's enough, by targeting their jobs if it's not. And if SJWs had any power they'd put people in jail for "hate speech" (read: disagreeing with the dogma) and would have them go through re-education camps (probably ran by the likes of Stephanie Zvan or Zinnia Jones).

[Service Dog]

.... And if SJWs had any power they'd put people in jail for "hate speech" (read: disagreeing with the dogma) and would have them go through re-education camps (probably ran by the likes of Stephanie Zvan or Zinnia Jones).

Would MRAs do the equivalent?

[Really?]

You silly, stupid little boy. :naughty:

But if you really must.

https://sinmantyx.wordpress.com

Wow, this stuff is truly awful. Here's a representative sample.

Who Says Women Are Worth Less?
FIFA, for one.

How do we expect to build a sporting culture that nurtures female athletes if we’re not willing to pay them to put in the long hours necessary to become athletes?

Professor Hornbeck doesn't seem to care that very few people are actually willing to pay to watch women's sports. In Hornbeck's view, the world owes it to them, regardless. Professional sports not as a form of entertainment; rather, it's something that we are obligated make accessible to people of all genders/sexes.

The sad thing is that in proposing this idea, Hornbeck is completely erasing the identity of para-athletes. They put in a ton of work too and it's just not fair that they aren't paid the same. We really need to build a strong sporting culture that nurtures para-athletes, otherwise how will they ever be able to turn pro?

That's a really good point. Why should this archer:

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Glob ... 2_1430.jpg

get more money and attention than this guy?

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/20 ... 36x456.jpg

I'll bet archery is pretty easy when you have at least one arm...

[katamari Damassi]

SJWs don't care about what you're willing or unwilling to pay for, shitlord. The fact that people are less willing to watch women's sports is a product of the Patriarchy. In the SJW utopia people will be retrained until they'll love the Big Brother watching women's sports.

Your personal feelings are only important if you're a SJW. If you're a shitlord or a minority traitor empathy goes out of the window and you need to change your Evil ways or else.

In other words: Hornbeck isn't a bug, he's a feature. The same is true for any form of SJW rejection of reality. The goal is to make people change their minds, with nagging and shaming if it's enough, by targeting their jobs if it's not. And if SJWs had any power they'd put people in jail for "hate speech" (read: disagreeing with the dogma) and would have them go through re-education camps (probably ran by the likes of Stephanie Zvan or Zinnia Jones).

You're wrong. In the SJW utopia all activities will be mixed gender. Men's greater average strengthen is simply the result of patriarchal conditioning. Once that is removed then men, women, gender fluids, will be equal rights on the field.

[Really?]

.... And if SJWs had any power they'd put people in jail for "hate speech" (read: disagreeing with the dogma) and would have them go through re-education camps (probably ran by the likes of Stephanie Zvan or Zinnia Jones).

Would MRAs do the equivalent?

They just want to be able to see their kids without the court-appointed chaperone because the ex-wife got the kids to say daddy touched them.

[paddybrown]

From: https://brian.carnell.com/articles/2000 ... nd-incest/

Basically Andrea Dworkin's rules for sex were "anything, anyone, as long as it's not adult men fucking adult women".

There is a large swathe of the feminist movement that is deeply fucked up about sex, which is why Dworkin struck such a chord and continues to do so. I'd characterise it primarily as a resentment of other people's sexual pleasure. They don't just resent men's sexual pleasure (and by God do they resent men's sexual pleasure), they also resent the sexual pleasure of other women, and want to do their best to ruin it. Misery loves company. There are so-called "sex-positive" feminists, who will support whatever way a woman might choose to get her rocks off, but even they are ambivalent, at best, about a man enjoying it. Most of them seem to be BDSM enthusuasts, for whom pleasure is kind of beside the point.

It's instructive that feminists seem to be more enthusiastic, or at least less critical, about BDSM than about heterosexuality. It's sex as a hobby, or a sport. It's impersonal and self-centred, and seems to have little emotional interest in the partner, who's just a means to an end to enable you to explore your relationship with your own kink. And it may be hedged around with formalised consent, but it's basically abusive. It's has everything feminists accuse straight men of.

I suppose it's the St Augustine thing again - dysfunctional people building a movement out of assuming everybody's as dysfunctional as them, and in the same way.

[Karmakin]

I suppose it's the St Augustine thing again - dysfunctional people building a movement out of assuming everybody's as dysfunctional as them, and in the same way.

More projection than a multiplex.

People tend to think that everybody else thinks the same way that they do.

[paddybrown]

You silly, stupid little boy. :naughty:

But if you really must.

https://sinmantyx.wordpress.com

Wow, this stuff is truly awful. Here's a representative sample.

Who Says Women Are Worth Less?
FIFA, for one.

How do we expect to build a sporting culture that nurtures female athletes if we’re not willing to pay them to put in the long hours necessary to become athletes?

Professor Hornbeck doesn't seem to care that very few people are actually willing to pay to watch women's sports. In Hornbeck's view, the world owes it to them, regardless. Professional sports not as a form of entertainment; rather, it's something that we are obligated make accessible to people of all genders/sexes.

The sad thing is that in proposing this idea, Hornbeck is completely erasing the identity of para-athletes. They put in a ton of work too and it's just not fair that they aren't paid the same. We really need to build a strong sporting culture that nurtures para-athletes, otherwise how will they ever be able to turn pro?

Not to mention that, until quite recently, many elite athletes competed in amateur events that they didn't get paid for at all. I remember when the Olympics and Rugby Union were strictly amateur. My dad remembers when there was a strict distinction between "gentlemen" (amateurs) and "players" (professionals) in cricket. My mum used to talk about the days when tennis players had to retire from tournament competition if they wanted to "go pro", after which they could only play in exhibition matches. It was a way of reinforcing class distinction - you needed the sort of income that would allow you time to train and play - but it didn't stop people becoming elite athletes.

[katamari Damassi]

There is a large swathe of the feminist movement that is deeply fucked up about sex, which is why Dworkin struck such a chord and continues to do so. I'd characterise it primarily as a resentment of other people's sexual pleasure. They don't just resent men's sexual pleasure (and by God do they resent men's sexual pleasure), they also resent the sexual pleasure of other women, and want to do their best to ruin it. Misery loves company. There are so-called "sex-positive" feminists, who will support whatever way a woman might choose to get her rocks off, but even they are ambivalent, at best, about a man enjoying it. Most of them seem to be BDSM enthusuasts, for whom pleasure is kind of beside the point.

It's instructive that feminists seem to be more enthusiastic, or at least less critical, about BDSM than about heterosexuality. It's sex as a hobby, or a sport. It's impersonal and self-centred, and seems to have little emotional interest in the partner, who's just a means to an end to enable you to explore your relationship with your own kink. And it may be hedged around with formalised consent, but it's basically abusive. It's has everything feminists accuse straight men of.

I suppose it's the St Augustine thing again - dysfunctional people building a movement out of assuming everybody's as dysfunctional as them, and in the same way.

I've been fascinated by the feminist BDSM enthusiasts for some time, and I think you've got a handle on it.
The paradox of how they can consider vanilla sex acts with a loving partner as degrading yet participate in acts of eroticized degradation can be explained this way(I think): 1) it's sex as performance. It's like they're actresses in a play. Reality is removed. 2) BDSM is loaded with rules and feminists seem to LOVE rules.

[Gefan]

I've been fascinated by the feminist BDSM enthusiasts for some time...

You might be the bravest person I know. It's a subject that's horrifying, even for straights.

[Billie from Ockham]

That was my argument yes. I realize some people on the pit sympathize heavily with the MRA....

On the small chance that you have me on this list, please don't confuse my feelings for Karen Straughan for sympathy with the MRA. Thanks.

[Scented Nectar]

Full disclosure: I'm sitting on my IKEA lounge and can see five different pieces of IKEA furniture from here, not including the one I'm sitting on. I've just turned over the cushions in the lounge and they're IKEA. There's a grotesquely oversized railway station-style clock on the wall - IKEA. The fucking cat's bowl is IKEA. Come to think of it, my cat actually has a creepily long, low build, and is suspiciously white - probably IKEA...

I've questioned my IKEA-buying many times over its 20-year span. It's concluded it basically comes down to this: The furniture is usually stylish and robust and fits in the fucking car. It's not cheap, but it's never expensive. And something I NEVER expected: some of my older IKEA pieces (including a birch [what else] dining table), I must grudgingly concede, are actually ageing stylishly.

Uh huh, and how much is the patriarchy, er, I mean Ikea, paying you to say those things? I'm onto you, mister! :lol:

A few times, I've actually had feminists ask me that. They asked how much the patriarchy/MRAs are paying me. I think they were serious.

[Kirbmarc]

.... And if SJWs had any power they'd put people in jail for "hate speech" (read: disagreeing with the dogma) and would have them go through re-education camps (probably ran by the likes of Stephanie Zvan or Zinnia Jones).

Would MRAs do the equivalent?

Many of them would. Aurini is a neo-Nazi: 'nuff said. RooshV is a white supremacist, Vox Day is an all-around authoritarian nutter with delusion of grandeur, Warcorpse is a moron who wishes he were in charge of society and have women make him sandwiches, Elam has said some pretty authoritarian stuff on the place of women within society (universal suffrage, for example) and about reproductive rights.

True it's #NotAllMRAs. But those are all prominent figures in the "movement", just like PZ, Zvan or Zinnia are prominent SJWs.

The vast majority of the followers on both sides are decent people who actually care about what they perceive to be real problems. But as it usual for most niche social and political movements (actually for most social and political movements in general), many of the leaders and most prominent figures are either profiteers or nuts with a lust for power.

Authoritarian nutters are more common than you'd think. Steersman is a clear example of how they think (unless he's trolling us). They have a "perfect solution" ("population transfers", anyone?) to society's ills which goes against the principles of liberal democracy but is "so perfect" and the damage done by the Evil Enemies is "so bad" that consequences and human rights be damned, it HAS to be the law of the land.

SJWs have their "safe spaces", MRAs have the "Men Going Their Own Way". SJWs have the "shitlords" to fight with any means, MRAs have the "manginas" and the "white knights".

[John D]

On a totally unrelated topic, I just moved into a 1960s quad house in suburban Detroit. It was late winter when I bought the house and didn't realize the mess my yard was in till later. I have big section of my yard run over with brush including poison ivy. I didn't want to spend weeks getting the yard up to snuff....

But then this morning, I was delighted to see that I had a family of House Wrens living in my overgrown brush pile. I love these little guys. They were singing and chasing each other and I watched them long enough to make me a little late for work. They are quick little insectivores and have a wonderful long song.

So now... I have to figure out what to do. House Wrens love to nest in brushy areas and if I clean up my yard they will not return next year. How do I keep my brush pile and not piss off my neighbors? Haha. This is a puzzle.

[Billie from Ockham]

All this chat about IKEA and the re-mention of aspie sex forces me to remind anyone who has not watched The Bridge (the Swedish/Danish version; not the awful American remake) needs to set aside some time to do so.

[Pitchguest]

The commentariat over at Ophie's on what "bovine" in "bovine opinions" refers to:

‘Bovine opinions’?!
Am I being overly sensitive by seeing that as a sexist slur? ‘Cow’ is a phase usually directed towards women. I don’t know if I’ve ever heard a man referred to as a cow (unsurprisingly as male cattle are bulls). If he wanted to talk about how everyone arguing against Hunt did so unthinkingly then the more usual epithet would be sheeplike or, if he wanted to use the proper collective term, ovine. But he chose bovine. Interesting choice of words, especially given the context.

It’s possible that “bovine ” in this context = “bullshit.” That’s not necessarily a gendered slur, or maybe I’m ignorant on that score.

I read “bovine” as a “cow” reference. Cow is used as an insult toward women more often in the UK (where of course this asinine statement came from) than in the USA.

Re “bovine”:
FWIW, the Latin word “bos”, from which “bovine” derives, is common-gendered and thus can refer to animals of either gender. Not that this tells us anything about what Simon Heffer meant by it, of course.

My reaction:

[youtube]NIgfiSzCy1o[/youtube]

[Guestus Aurelius]

You silly, stupid little boy. :naughty:

But if you really must.

https://sinmantyx.wordpress.com

Wow, this stuff is truly awful. Here's a representative sample.

Who Says Women Are Worth Less?
FIFA, for one.

How do we expect to build a sporting culture that nurtures female athletes if we’re not willing to pay them to put in the long hours necessary to become athletes?

Professor Hornbeck doesn't seem to care that very few people are actually willing to pay to watch women's sports. In Hornbeck's view, the world owes it to them, regardless. Professional sports not as a form of entertainment; rather, it's something that we are obligated make accessible to people of all genders/sexes.

The sad thing is that in proposing this idea, Hornbeck is completely erasing the identity of para-athletes. They put in a ton of work too and it's just not fair that they aren't paid the same. We really need to build a strong sporting culture that nurtures para-athletes, otherwise how will they ever be able to turn pro?

I also love when ideologues who normally all but deny the incentivizing power of capital suddenly invoke it themselves at their convenience. To be fair, I don't know if that describes Herr Doktor Hornbeck, but this kind of thing was certainly par for the course at FTB back when I lurked there, and I definitely remember commenters being dogpiled for daring to suggest that market economies tend to spur innovation.

[Eskarina]

The commentariat over at Ophie's on what "bovine" in "bovine opinions" refers to:

‘Bovine opinions’?!
Am I being overly sensitive by seeing that as a sexist slur? ‘Cow’ is a phase usually directed towards women. I don’t know if I’ve ever heard a man referred to as a cow (unsurprisingly as male cattle are bulls). If he wanted to talk about how everyone arguing against Hunt did so unthinkingly then the more usual epithet would be sheeplike or, if he wanted to use the proper collective term, ovine. But he chose bovine. Interesting choice of words, especially given the context.

It’s possible that “bovine ” in this context = “bullshit.” That’s not necessarily a gendered slur, or maybe I’m ignorant on that score.

I read “bovine” as a “cow” reference. Cow is used as an insult toward women more often in the UK (where of course this asinine statement came from) than in the USA.

Re “bovine”:
FWIW, the Latin word “bos”, from which “bovine” derives, is common-gendered and thus can refer to animals of either gender. Not that this tells us anything about what Simon Heffer meant by it, of course.

My reaction:

[youtube]NIgfiSzCy1o[youtube]

Oh dear, whatever happened to classical education, as in knowing what "Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi." means?