Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#4741

It really is kind of like staggered clockwork. A couple weeks go by, we start getting bored, and then someone over at FTB goes ballistically nutso. Wheee! So much fun.

FTB: FunTimeBaboons.

:think:

Or something.

#4742

dogen wrote:
dogen wrote:On the subject of preferred pronouns: if I need to memorize a different set of pronouns for each person I interact with, then surely the grammatical point of a pronoun (being able to refer to someone without using their given name) becomes lost?
To be a bit clearer: once pronouns become specific to each person, their main utility -- that of being generic -- goes away. Comments?

Solution: remove gender from everyone's pronouns. There is no good reason to have different ones based on either biological-sex or gender-role-preference anyways. Call everyone the same pronouns.

#4743

windy wrote:I wish I could still be surprised by these things. A secular Muslim woman writes a book about the spread of reactionary Islam and the need of reform, and Swedish SJWs accuse her of only acting on behalf of "liberal white men" :doh:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/article21147990.ab
People who lack my experiences seem to have trouble understanding what I'm talking about. Many of these people act in the debate as defenders of the light and call themselves anti-racists. Anna Ardin, with a background in the Social Democratic 'Faith and Solidarity' movement, went as far on Twitter when she accused me of agitating against Muslims. She also accused me of not having written my book myself because it favors only "liberal white men's interests"
...
I have realized that clan mentality in the form of identity politics looms over the public debate in Sweden. Opinions are valued based on who presents them rather than factual arguments. The "clan" is more important than the expressed content. It is a deeply disturbing phenomenon.

It is Sweden. Ground zero where patient zero was identified to account for the crazy SJW pandemic sweeping the world.

Anyway, you want to see clan mentality? Up here in the frozen north, land of the free, home of the brave (or something like that) known far and wide as the fabled Canukistan of the free and the brave and the boring and bold moosen, we had the Conservative Immigration Minister Chris Alexander gets defensive at his excellent Islamic Centre adventure

So, this was an interfaith meeting, where Shia and Sunni mingle and try to pretend that there are only minor differences in their faith and try really hard not to make takfir on each other because they are all Muslims together.

BTW ... this is like having a gathering of Irish Catholics and Orangemen under cover of the polite fiction that "we are all God-fearing Christians" so there will be no problem, but no strong drink will be served as a precaution".

So, as sure as God made little green apples ... you know that even sans strong drink, there will be an issue at some point.

You see when we organized small majalis in our home and we invite Mawlana Baqari or any other Mawlana for that matter to recite majalis and if we have extended invitation to our Sunni friends to attend the majalis, as a courtesy we always let the Mawlana know prior to reciting majalis, that there will be Sunni Muslims in the audience, that way Mawlana is well informed to communicate the message without offending them, here we have Conservative Immigration Minister invited to speak at the Eid event and Mawlana has no inkling whatsoever, he is kept in the dark, he has no knowledge whatsoever about this speaker, this lack of communication has cost us our unity, it has cost all the believerâ€™s pain, anguish and agony to hear pro Zionist Conservatives using our sacred pulpit to accused Islamic Republic of Iran as oppressive, brutal, and freedom suppressor.

Glad I was not there. I would have been LMAO so hard everyone would have wanted to behead me. Oh and ya, read the article if you want an account of what transpired cause there were three incidents apparently.

Pogsurf · #4744

Too funny. I can't drag myself away.

Benson now has a post up called 'Comment-liking crime' where she describes LousyCanuck's behaviour as 'creepy, disgusting and loathsome'.

Nice network of bloggers you have got there FtB. :lol:

#4745

Thibeault saying "no less than you have done to Dawkins" is priceless.

#4746

John Greg wrote:Even more funnsies: Ophie is now comparing LousyCanuck to us Pit peeps (http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ing-crime/).

Man oh man, that must make him just seeth. HAHAHAHA; funfunfun. Atta boy Jason; keep 'em rollin'! :clap:

Fuck the Finns...

https://archive.is/DilFY

Shatterface as Guest · #4747

What the fuck is 'gender critical' anyway?

Shatterface

Shatterface as Guest · #4748

Its unfair to compare Lousy to the Pit because none of us have actually been accused of rape.

Shatterface

#4749

Damn, I can just imagine Myers looking over this Ophie/trans thing and hoping like a bastard that he doesn't get drawn into it. Ophie or the horde? Chubby little fuck must be sweating like a glassblower's arse right now. :lol:

Shatterface as Guest · #4750

I can't see how Opie can continue at FTB now. It's not just that Lousy and Gabriel have turned on her, it's more that Myers has declined to defend her. He must know what's going on. This, more even than his smears, shows what a cowardly little shit he is.

Shatterface

#4751

Shatterface as Guest wrote:I can't see how Opie can continue at FTB now. It's not just that Lousy and Gabriel have turned on her, it's more that Myers has declined to defend her. He must know what's going on. This, more even than his smears, shows what a cowardly little shit he is.

Shatterface

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Part of me wonders if some combination of Peezus/Zvanitee/Regretta are trying to do conflict resolution behind the scenes, before Ophie/Frodo/Ronald Mcdonald/Thimbledick turn the entire blog network into Thunderdome. If they manage then they could buy some time, but I'd be really surprised if Ophie ever let go of a grudge, and a lot of them seem to be forming. FTB seems to be accumulating sweaty dynamite at an alarming rate, and even if it doesn't go up in this episode, a serious, network altering, blast may be inevitable in the not too distant future.

:popcorn:

#4752

mike150160 wrote:
BarnOwl wrote:Very late to the round of Mornington Crescent, but I'm invoking the Thornthwaite Modification to the Guy's Hospital Exception of 1922.

Balham.
Balham!? fucking Balham! You could have done that with an ordinary diagonal. I'm invoking trans rules: Westphalia

Weren't you in kip?

I'm sure you were in kip.

#4753

Tigzy wrote:Damn, I can just imagine Myers looking over this Ophie/trans thing and hoping like a bastard that he doesn't get drawn into it. Ophie or the horde? Chubby little fuck must be sweating like a glassblower's arse right now. :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Freakin' hilarious. They have the emotional maturity and impulse control of a 5-year-old with oppositional defiant disorder.

#4754

Jan Steen wrote:http://i.imgur.com/gklMwOL.jpg

:laughing-rollingyellow:

Ape's was fantastic as well! Especially since the artful deformation in your more recent ones are well-made caricature, adding to the satire. It was before, but you reached a level over time that you could also appear in more credible outlets than the Slymepit.

#4755

Feathers, Oglebart, Billie, Aneris... you guys are aces. Thank you :dance:

#4756

If I'm not wrong, Ophelia is FtB's 3rd largest draw, after Peez and Ed. If Ed doesn't step in and fix things, he'll soon be downgrading to chuck roast after years of tenderloin and short ribs.

Hey Jason and other assorted slackwits! Did any of you notice that Alex Gabriel loathed Avicenna? And one of the two is missing? Remember Alex was the first to point the finger of transmisogyny at Ophelia... and now look at y'all.

Maybe FtB has a ringer in its midst. Maybe he's a Slymepitter :lol:

http://imgur.com/p9gWV6v.png

#4757

dogen wrote:
dogen wrote:On the subject of preferred pronouns: if I need to memorize a different set of pronouns for each person I interact with, then surely the grammatical point of a pronoun (being able to refer to someone without using their given name) becomes lost?
To be a bit clearer: once pronouns become specific to each person, their main utility -- that of being generic -- goes away. Comments?

Pronouns that are person-specific are known as names.

#4758

Prompted from the incident, I looked...

It seems the accusations aren't entirely unfounded.

http://i.imgur.com/a2zO1n4.png

Wikipedia wrote:Bindel's writings on gender reassignment surgery, transsexualism and transgender issues have upset people in transsexual and transgender communities, particularly a piece published in 2004 piece which cast transsexual people as ungenuinely transitioning while ridiculing their experiences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Bin ... sgenderism

Ms Benson reports about what other people do all the time, yet finds it offensive when others notice her public activity, too (her facebook activity is directly visible in the feed to her friends).

#4759

Slight change of subject - so who here has been frothing at Heina then?

Has Clarence come back, or something?

#4760

Tigzy wrote:Slight change of subject - so who here has been frothing at Heina then?

Has Clarence come back, or something?

Maybe she got the 'Pit confused with the spermicide she used. And what passes for her mouth. :mrgreen:

#4761

John Greg wrote:HAHAHAHA. Holms the ever-retarded has this to say about Ophie and her angry thread:

It seems likely to me that CuriousOnLooker / TransPerson is a shit-stirrer from slymepit, and it would not surprise me if this entire thing is ginned up by various stealth accounts / fresh accounts of theirs. The bugle has sounded, much cackling is being had over there.
Much cackling indeed. Moron. :dance:

It's always our fault.

Ophie thinks so too:

Ophelia Benson says

July 24, 2015 at 3:49 pm

Thatâ€™s not the suggestion. â€œGinned upâ€=exacerbated. I think thatâ€™s almost certainly the case. Iâ€™m getting very slime-esque comments from new accounts.

#4762

Tigzy wrote:Slight change of subject - so who here has been frothing at Heina then?

Has Clarence come back, or something?

I admit it, it was me. I thought no one would notice my frothing, but I guess it boiled over. I just can't contain my burgeoning interest in what Heina is doing with other people who I don't know or care about, in the privacy of her home. :(

#4763

Tigzy wrote:Slight change of subject - so who here has been frothing at Heina then?

Has Clarence come back, or something?

They have simply gone from torturously twisting the truth to making things up entirely. She's jealous because she's such a minor player and we don't talk about her much.

#4764

Tigzy wrote:Slight change of subject - so who here has been frothing at Heina then?

Has Clarence come back, or something?

OK she got me, I've never had condomless sex with her husband. To my knowledge. It weren't me OK?

#4765

I think it's pretty shitty to use the word filter option to edit others words, yet ban anyone else who does it.

Oh, and much :popcorn: for FtB and their excellent soap opera.

#4766

Or Heina is part of the backchannel distraction team "Look, OMG, it's the Slymepit! Must be their fault! Don't think for yourselves! "

#4767

Tigzy wrote:Slight change of subject - so who here has been frothing at Heina then?

Has Clarence come back, or something?

When was the last time she was even mentioned here? clickwhore

Shatterface as Guest · #4768

Aneris wrote:Ms Benson reports about what other people do all the time, yet finds it offensive when others notice her public activity, too (her facebook activity is directly visible in the feed to her friends).

Bindel is notorious in the UK and Benson has no excuse for not knowing as people have pointed it out to her over and over again.

Shatterface

#4769

Brilliant.
Everything is brilliant.

#4770

I actually resent them labelling all the people they disagree with as Slymepitters. They are erasing our lived experience. Isn't that some sort of cardinal SJW sin? Oh, it's okay when they do it. Nevermind.

#4771

DW Adams wrote:
Tigzy wrote:Slight change of subject - so who here has been frothing at Heina then?

Has Clarence come back, or something?
When was the last time she was even mentioned here? clickwhore

You're not gonna believe where that came from.

It's a verbatim quote. But it's not from the 'Pit. It's from Miri Mogilevsky (Brute Reason) on FTB, responding to an article written by Dr Nerdlove. I am not joking.

http://web.archive.org/web/201503191006 ... polyamory/

http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ... HA-GIF.gif

#4772

"On Ophelia Benson and The Future of Life on Earth"
https://4amfeminism.wordpress.com/2015/ ... -on-earth/

#4773

Kirbmarc wrote:
Old_ones wrote:I've unfollowed a number of my fb friends because of this. I get tired of seeing approvingly posted Sarkeesian videos and rants about "white males". I haven't openly spurned them, though, because I'm hoping some of them will grow out of it once the various criticisms of SJWism become more widely appreciated. OTOH, I think its definitely straining my relationships with some of my friends from HS when we meet in person. I get sick of talking/arguing about feminism and race relations every time I see them, and if my former best friend's wife calls me a "white male" in that disgusted tone of voice she uses one more time, I might snap and tell them to find a new friend.

I don't demand my friends pass political litmus tests to stay friends with me (although at this point I would be wary about cozying up to outspoken SJW types I didn't already know) but a the same time I have to want to hang out with them if it is going to work. Certain religious and political beliefs seem to be very effective at turning people into obnoxious boors. IMO its kind of extreme to break off a friendship over a difference of opinion, but if the real reason is that the person turned into a fart-sniffing douchebag, then that's a totally different kettle of fish (to use a steersism).
Then I think I'm lucky I live in ~~Switzerland~~ Patriarchy Country. There are very few SJWs in sight, even among the academics I've worked with. Most people I've known in academia were leftists but far closer to Bernie Sanders than to Melissa McEwan.

And when I step out of the ivory tower there's a healthy mix of libertarians, mostly secular conservatives and moderately religious leftists and conservatives waiting for me.

The only almost-SJW I've met outside of the internet is a stoner guy who believes he knows everything about Jamaican culture because he smokes joints while he listen to Bob Marley, yo. He's not a transracial, though, only a "white ally".

I should clarify that I have plenty of friends who are non-SJW, and a few who lean in that direction but are kind and easy to get along with. The key problem is with a group who grew up with me in a very liberal college town, who are white and middle class to upper middle class, and who include people I've known for about 20 years at this point (since I was about 12) and their spouses. By virtue of the fact that I've had a weird life and an education that exposed me to a lot of diversity, I have contacts across the US, and a large number of friends and acquaintances who are from other countries (particularly African and Asian countries). Its odd, but in my personal experience, the white collar, white suburbanites are the worst people with respect to the social justice dogmatism.

The other problem that causes me to hide a lot of my fb friends is woo/pseudoscience/pseudomedicine. I have a number of friends who think that vaccines cause autism, that pharma is suppressing the real cure for cancer (marijuana of course) and that the main public health problem that people face in the US is all this "un-natural" stuff, like chemical additives in our food and GMOs. Sometimes I will actually engage and argue with this sort of stuff because of how bothersome I find it, but if I'm not that close to the person posting it then I'll often just hide their posts. I think the medical woo crowd is more widespread than than the SJW crowd in my circle of friends.

#4774

And Oolon is also correct, and Ophelia Benson is not. The question: â€œare trans-woman women?â€ (if this was indeed the question) can be answered with â€œyesâ€ and â€œnoâ€ and the answer is of course â€œyesâ€, since the trans-person at that point has apparently declared what she prefers. I didn't think this was controversial at all. It's common convention in all cases I know, including the last case in the A/S sphere with Dave Muscato becoming Danielle Muscato. If there is some other confusion, a trans woman is by common logic part of the greater set â€œwomanâ€. It's a special case, a subset. It's rather astonishing how she managed to screw that up.

#4775

comhcinc wrote:So the question for the pitt is if all this is true with PeeZus and this shit did come from that sex tape does that matter to you?

Well, I'm not a f****** n******, can I still bang his daughter?

#4776

Tony Parsehole wrote:Brilliant.
Everything is brilliant.

So, someone who calls themselves Tony Parsehole has just raped me on the Slymepit. I guess this is what they call "the price to pay" for defending the right of ancient Egyptian corpses to rise up in protest at boys pretending to be girls, and of course vice - hmm..... - versa. [/Ophelia]

#4777

HunnyBunny wrote:It's all ok, the whole topic of trans-everything has been Hornbecked and it all becomes clear.

" 'Woman' is statistical, not absolute", also "fuzzy", because micropenises.

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

So, the definitions of a woman is fuzzy and not absolute, unless it's a guy in a wig and a dress. Then it is absolute. Full stop.

Will this be on the Professors final?

#4778

Pitchguest wrote:

It's a verbatim quote. But it's not from the 'Pit. It's from Miri Mogilevsky (Brute Reason) on FTB, responding to an article written by Dr Nerdlove. I am not joking.

From Miri's article I discover "solo polyamory".
http://web.archive.org/web/201503221218 ... y-my-take/
What a massive pile of horseshit. :drool:

#4779

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
In 2008, multiple obama campaign HQ workers were caught on video encouraging shills posing as college students to register in both their home state and college state, so as to vote twice for obama.
Are there any credible sources for that? All I have found thus far is evidence of some ACORN employees falsifying reg forms for personal gain to meet minimum stats and to qualify for bonuses.

Yeah -- they're caught on camera doing it.

#4780

Billie from Ockham wrote:Maybe I scroll by too quickly and missed it, but the ACORN debate would be an order of magnitude more useful is someone posted the false-registration rates for other organizations, in order to avoid the "experiment with no comparison group" problem.

So as to apply the "two wrongs make a right" solution?

#4781

Just wanted to share: I spatchcocked for the first time last night, and I really liked it.

#4782

Some of us have been speculating on the authenticity of Brother Nathanael. This video came up on my youtube chan:
[youtube]SnqbRWgzPg4[/youtube]

#4783

Lsuoma wrote:
John Greg wrote:Even more funnsies: Ophie is now comparing LousyCanuck to us Pit peeps (http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ing-crime/).

Man oh man, that must make him just seeth. HAHAHAHA; funfunfun. Atta boy Jason; keep 'em rollin'! :clap:
Fuck the Finns...

https://archive.is/DilFY

Try Google Translate ... stick the url into Detect Language and translate into your native language. I hear this works.

#4784

Andrew, apparently archive.is is blocked in Finland, it's not a language issue.

#4785

Tigzy wrote:Slight change of subject - so who here has been frothing at Heina then?

Has Clarence come back, or something?

Not as far as I can recall. So who here has been frothing at Heina? Fess up now before we have to come looking for ya (like that would ever happen).

#4786

Ms Benson published the following comment as guest post in defence of her not answering the question...

Benson Guest Post wrote:What the hell is so difficult about a yes-and-no answer to the â€œtrans women are womenâ€ question? For some, perhaps even most, purposes, yes, absolutely. For other purposes (womenâ€™s reproductive health, family policy, FGM), no.

This is no different from any other socially constructed group identity. Is Barack Obama African American? Yes. And no. [...]

Source: https://archive.is/NMTKB

Postmodernist end-stadium? Or channeling â€œtransraceâ€ Ms Dolezal?

:think:

African-American
adj. of or pertaining to or characteristic of Americans of African ancestry or their history or culture.
n. an American whose ancestors were born in Africa, especially a United States citizen of African descent.

It has to be a misunderstanding, such inane is this entire trainwreck of thought. Then again, FreethoughtBlogs. There is nothing socially constructed about Africa, about having ancestors from that continent or about Barack Obama, unless the sign side (the signifier) is now meant as â€œsocially constructedâ€ which would slide this trainwreck into pure obscurantist murk, which is probably worse as then everything with a name is â€œsocially constructedâ€ â€” your mom, socially constructed.

#4787

I've long made the argument that the eventual downfall of the modern SJW culture is their views on gender and especially how it relates to trangenderism and sexuality. It's simply unsustainable, as in reality it's something much more regressive, and doesn't fit in neatly with the rest of their beliefs.

The obvious thing to say, is that while somewhat rare it happens that someone is in a sexed body of a certain type (male or female), and has a brain makeup that's strongly of the opposite type. There's nothing wrong with this, and people should be treated with respect and dignity. But at the same time, it is an outlier and as such mistakes will be made so we all have to just move forward with an open mind and be understanding of the other person.

Is that' fucking difficult? Well, it is if you want to make gender/sexuality a fucking political statement and for it to be something you can mold in others. That's why the above paragraph...which IMO is the best understanding for everybody involved..is simply a non-starter. Because innate brain makeup means that people are not as moldable as they want them to be.

#4788

Aneris wrote:And Oolon is also correct, and Ophelia Benson is not. The question: â€œare trans-woman women?â€ (if this was indeed the question) can be answered with â€œyesâ€ and â€œnoâ€ and the answer is of course â€œyesâ€, since the trans-person at that point has apparently declared what she prefers. I didn't think this was controversial at all. It's common convention in all cases I know, including the last case in the A/S sphere with Dave Muscato becoming Danielle Muscato. If there is some other confusion, a trans woman is by common logic part of the greater set â€œwomanâ€. It's a special case, a subset. It's rather astonishing how she managed to screw that up.

By that logic, faux leather is leather because it is presenting as leather.

The argument is not whether all modifying adjectives make the noun something other than what it would be without the modifier. That's just silly and the post that Skep Tickle pointed us to makes it clear that at least some modifiers, such as "long" or "wide," do not change the (long or wide) thing from being what it was without the modifier. But some modifiers clearly do imply that the noun being modified is quite quite different from the same noun without the modifier, and "faux" or "fake" or "pretend" (as an adjective) are clear examples. So the real question is whether "trans" as a modifier is more like "long" or "faux" ... and that's not a slam-dunk either way ... and that's what people are asking Ophelia Benson.

#4789

Karmakin wrote:I've long made the argument that the eventual downfall of the modern SJW culture is their views on gender and especially how it relates to trangenderism and sexuality. It's simply unsustainable, as in reality it's something much more regressive, and doesn't fit in neatly with the rest of their beliefs.

The obvious thing to say, is that while somewhat rare it happens that someone is in a sexed body of a certain type (male or female), and has a brain makeup that's strongly of the opposite type. There's nothing wrong with this, and people should be treated with respect and dignity. But at the same time, it is an outlier and as such mistakes will be made so we all have to just move forward with an open mind and be understanding of the other person.

Is that' fucking difficult? Well, it is if you want to make gender/sexuality a fucking political statement and for it to be something you can mold in others. That's why the above paragraph...which IMO is the best understanding for everybody involved..is simply a non-starter. Because innate brain makeup means that people are not as moldable as they want them to be.

SJW's love to invent outrage to be outraged about as it gives them a shot of the endomorhines they crave. So things that are simple to grasp or that are a non issue for us mere mortals they find 'problematic', such as cultural appropriation or gender. It's all based on feels, which directly contradicts normal human behavior and is often racist, sexist, abelist and totally against rationalism. So it falls apart sooner or later and as the edges get frayed they chew each other up. Benson is one of many victims. My heart bleeds.

In the meantime I suspect many of them regret taking on gamers. US secularists are an easy target as due to the religious/political demographic many lean towards Cultural Marxism anyway. Gamers are highly diverse coming from all beliefs, sexualities, genders and backgrounds all over the world. One of the great things about gaming is how it has brought diversity together which lead to a greater understanding and respect. SJW's can't have that. Can't have people getting on as where is the outrage opportunity in that? Must enforce right think and wreck every culture they touch, it's the only way. Bunch of Fascists.

#4790

Tony! The Queer Shoop

24 July 2015 at 10:48 pm

Fuck. The pitters are going to be all over this too.

John Morales

24 July 2015 at 10:54 pm

Are, Tony. I have looked.

#4791

Is a man who identifies as a woman who identifies as a man a ... uhh, just what the hell is that?

#4792

JackSkeptic wrote:
Karmakin wrote:I've long made the argument that the eventual downfall of the modern SJW culture is their views on gender and especially how it relates to trangenderism and sexuality. It's simply unsustainable, as in reality it's something much more regressive, and doesn't fit in neatly with the rest of their beliefs.

The obvious thing to say, is that while somewhat rare it happens that someone is in a sexed body of a certain type (male or female), and has a brain makeup that's strongly of the opposite type. There's nothing wrong with this, and people should be treated with respect and dignity. But at the same time, it is an outlier and as such mistakes will be made so we all have to just move forward with an open mind and be understanding of the other person.

Is that' fucking difficult? Well, it is if you want to make gender/sexuality a fucking political statement and for it to be something you can mold in others. That's why the above paragraph...which IMO is the best understanding for everybody involved..is simply a non-starter. Because innate brain makeup means that people are not as moldable as they want them to be.
SJW's love to invent outrage to be outraged about as it gives them a shot of the endomorhines they crave. So things that are simple to grasp or that are a non issue for us mere mortals they find 'problematic', such as cultural appropriation or gender. It's all based on feels, which directly contradicts normal human behavior and is often racist, sexist, abelist and totally against rationalism. So it falls apart sooner or later and as the edges get frayed they chew each other up. Benson is one of many victims. My heart bleeds.

In the meantime I suspect many of them regret taking on gamers. US secularists are an easy target as due to the religious/political demographic many lean towards Cultural Marxism anyway. Gamers are highly diverse coming from all beliefs, sexualities, genders and backgrounds all over the world. One of the great things about gaming is how it has brought diversity together which lead to a greater understanding and respect. SJW's can't have that. Can't have people getting on as where is the outrage opportunity in that? Must enforce right think and wreck every culture they touch, it's the only way. Bunch of Fascists.

Bunch of Fascist Marxists or Marxist Fascists. It's all the same to the guy they are hanging from a rope or beating to death on the internet.

#4793

Scented Nectar wrote:
I would have went with Benson. They kinda look a like.

Hmm, I don't know. She might need some steroids to look similar. And facial hair. :)[/quote]

Well yeah but that is a very superficial look. Take a good long look.
http://thetyee.cachefly.net/Books/2011/ ... benson.jpg http://i.imgur.com/HSPtZMb.jpg

A quick Apelust tan and stache job and I bet you can't tell'em apart.

#4794

[youtube]JhzwSlK4uEc[/youtube]

Rewatching the above video, something occurred to me about the anti-CEDA sentiment here...
an aspect of the debate, which may not be obvious to those of you unfamiliar with this type of debate.

In the video, the columns of white text indicate the two debaters who are speaking.

But the orange and blue text indicate the notes being taken by each debater's partner, which are then used to formulate subsequent rebuttals and counter-rebuttals.

If a speaker is too incomprehensible, his own partner won't be able to write a coherent 'flow' tracking the progress of the argument/
and the team won't be able to extend their arguments forward. ...Which acts as a natural checks&balances limit-- against talking 'too fast' (being truly incoherent.)

The black teams from less-prominent schools argue that teams like Berkeley and Harvard have an unfair advantage in this obscure, rarified speed-debate. Berkeley & Harvard are each backed by a BILLION dollar endowment. The blacks claim that this type of debate doesn't just fuck-up the competitive word-game of Who Wins A Trophy... but playing a game where Harvard and Berkeley will always tend to win... has Real World consequences outside the tournament... as a privileged class of debaters-- representing only a narrow slice of society... go-on to be the Supreme Court Judges and influential Corporate Lobbyists who fuck-up America & Planet Earth.

The black kids would be the first to concede that they are no Frederick Douglass, able to beat whitey at his own game. If they were Frederick Douglass-- they'd have gotten into Harvard, been co-opted by the System, and would be pursuing Debate Trophies over Saving The World.

So saving the world falls to the ragtag likes of Team Towson & Oklahoma.

I think you can take Blackie's side that real world power is too concentrated in the Harvard elites, with real world consequences. Or take Harvard's side that elites make better rulers than a mediocre mob... but rejecting both-- as far as I can tell-- either means you cant tolerate other people debating (and you want silence), or else you can only tolerate your favorite flavor of Oxford elite debate (and you masturbate to Harry Potter movies.)

#4795

Jan Steen wrote:http://i.imgur.com/gklMwOL.jpg

Simple. Elegant. Beautiful. Powerful.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress ... woone1.jpg

https://paulrphotomedia.files.wordpress ... rbrush.jpg

http://biglychee.com/blog/wp-content/up ... rbrush.jpg

#4796

MacGruberKnows wrote:
comhcinc wrote:So the question for the pitt is if all this is true with PeeZus and this shit did come from that sex tape does that matter to you?
Well, I'm not a f****** n******, can I still bang his daughter?

I am not an expert but I think you have to be near her to bang her :shifty:

[youtube]cjNIARQGIYA[/youtube]

#4797

free thoughtpolice wrote:Thibeault saying "no less than you have done to Dawkins" is priceless.

I hope her fainting couch is ready.

I've had SJWs play these games with me too, stalking my activity so they could catch me. I just made everything private so I could be a double agent in peace. :lol:

Tibo is right that his behavior is learned. He learned it in the School of Holy Peezus and he's just doing what he's been taught. I have no problem with trolls or SJWs stalking people's comments. It's fun and funny if it ends up working and causing a witch hunt. :dance:

But poor Oafie wasn't prepared for someone to catch her with the same tactics she and others use on non-SJWs. :dance:

#4798

Tigzy wrote:Slight change of subject - so who here has been frothing at Heina then?

Has Clarence come back, or something?

Looks like a quote mined from Carrier deceiving his wife and cheating on her with married women.

#4799

DW Adams wrote:I think it's pretty shitty to use the word filter option to edit others words, yet ban anyone else who does it.

I agree. I can't shitpost volkisch with all this censorship.

#4800

Aneris wrote:And Oolon is also correct, and Ophelia Benson is not. The question: â€œare trans-woman women?â€ (if this was indeed the question) can be answered with â€œyesâ€ and â€œnoâ€ and the answer is of course â€œyesâ€, since the trans-person at that point has apparently declared what she prefers. I didn't think this was controversial at all. It's common convention in all cases I know, including the last case in the A/S sphere with Dave Muscato becoming Danielle Muscato. If there is some other confusion, a trans woman is by common logic part of the greater set â€œwomanâ€. It's a special case, a subset. It's rather astonishing how she managed to screw that up.

Like everyone else, I respect/don't give a shit that Danielle is now a woman. Her gender declaration has absolutely no effect on me and my many, many, many girlfriends. All that does matter is that Danielle does a good and fair job in her capacity as an important voice in our movement.

[youtube]Mshor653bTY[/youtube]