Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

#46921

As long as he doesn't compare himself to the Beatles, he'll be fine. Oh, wait.

#46922

Service Dog's pool ball story stops all further debate on this topic.

:lol: :clap: :dance:

#46923

Gumby wrote:
Service Dog wrote:In New York, it's legal to make a "citizen's arrest", detaining someone until the cops arrive & take custody. But there's a stipulation: the crime must have "in fact" occurred. "In fact" means civilian citizens don't have the power to make a determination of 'reasonable suspicion' or 'probable cause' or any other legal standard... except being CORRECT about the arrested person actually having committed the crime. There's no margin for error. If you arrest the wrong suspect-- or no crime was committed-- the arresting citizen can be charged with Kidnapping.

I view Citizen Tigzy's stunt similarly: it's like Tigzy said 'watch this...' proceeding to sink a tricky pool ball without looking/ causing the jukebox to start playing/ causing everyone to start dancing & a shy nerd to find the courage to kiss another shy nerd. Tigzy's tweet is justified by it having gone-off like clockwork. This may sound like post hoc ergo propter hoc... but no more so than an unscientific guess being proved true by empirical experiment.

It might be =prudent= to speculate that Tigzy's pool shot might have gone wrong & caused the cuckoo clock to go-off/ so the retarded cook drowned in boiling fry oil. But nothing of the sort actually happened, so it's silly handwringing to find fault with Tigzy for hypothetical shit that never happened. Like 'what if' Tigzy was the source of the Duke Lacrosse accusation or the Rolling Stone fratrape hoax or 9/11!11!!1!!!!

I recently heard two writers mocking a current novelist for the archaic delusion of writing 'for posterity', as if that's a hopelessly quaint, old-fashioned thing to do... similar to ending any modern novel with a stern methodist morality-sermon about the wages of sin. That's how I view this business of worrying about how Tigzy's tweet, or the Honour Of The Slymepit, will be 'percieved' by hypothetical disinterested bystanders. A phantom -audience, supposedly sitting in judgement, is a dangerous delusion: because it make virtue-signaling seem wise. Just do the right thing. Don't worry about how uninformed bystanders & enemies will spin it.
Where are you getting this utter shit about virtue signalling? On what basis are you making statements that people said what they said out of concern for what other people - real or hypothetical - might think about the pit? What a load of utter fucking nonsense. I and others disagree with Tigzy's action, and our concerns are hand-waved away as "virtue signalling", without the slightest bit of evidence to support such a claim. That's just fucking nonsense-spinning worthy of FTB. This place gets sillier every day.

My rant was almost-entirely a reaction to Kirbmarc:

Kirbmarc wrote:And if you look at what happened from a neutral point of view they seem to have a point (well, kind of) this time. A person who doesn't know how nasty PZ is, and how shoddy his reporting on the grenade case was, can easily be swayed to agree that PZ is unfairly attacked by people who have no qualms using a likely mentally ill woman against him.

I think Tigzy's tweet was elegant & effective. Also ethical. I can also see the side of those who think the tweet veered into danger zones best avoided. Only Kirbmarc's comments raised my hackles enough for me to bother to reply. But, even then, my dissenting opinion is a vague swirl of gut reactions. So I wrote what was tentatively going thru my head, didn't single-out Kirbmarc by name, & posted what I posted.

#46924

Shatterface wrote:Yes, I'm spud-shaming her.

All she ever does at these things is get mashed anyway

#46925

Lying about Dawkins has become the equivalent of Lying for Peezus on FreethoughtBlogs

Take this observation by a commenter called microraptor:

I still remember how startled I was while reading The God Delusion for the first time when I got to the section where he outright dismissed the harm caused to children who were raped by Catholic priests.

How can you be startled by reading something that is not there? And how can you still remember being startled by reading something that is not there? Let's see what Dawkins actually wrote.

Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience (composed, admittedly, of Dublin intellectuals and presumably not representative of the country at large). But I was reminded of the incident later when I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents' church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst. She wrote:
Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as 'yucky' while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest - but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares.
Admittedly, the sexual fondling she suffered in the priest's car was relatively mild compared with, say, the pain and disgust of a sodomized altar boy.

"Dismissed the harm," you say, o dishonest Pharyngula commenter? No, you are dismissed. Liar.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160128083 ... rinciples/

#46926

Service Dog wrote: . . . Tigzy was the source of the Duke Lacrosse accusation or the Rolling Stone fratrape hoax or 9/11!11!!1!!!!

Damn You Tigzy! Damn You To Hell!

#46927

Anyone notice that people like Dawkins were generally successful outside the A/S movement and are generally a part of it in an effort to assist, educate. Sure they get speaking fees, but these are hardly a drop in the bucket compared to what they make otherwise.

The SJW's on the other hand seem to be he ones who are trying to leach money off the movement.

T-shirts, "jewelry"( cat turds) Patreon , legal defence funds,the list goes on.

How are they different than Peter popoff and his ilk? ( besides the success that is)

#46928

Much as I hate to break the rhythm of self-flagellation, here is some light entertainment:

[youtube]mcDgOGC5Lcc[/youtube]

Yes, it's a few years old and it's a fake, but—well, doesn't that seem appropriate?

#46929

Satan wrote:
Hunt wrote:The only good reason to involve this woman is if she's evil, and we don't know that.
Posting rape allegations to social media is evil. Cross the line of running to the public for attention, rather than trying to establish a criminal case, and whatever blowback happens is entirely deserved.

Not sure if Satan can be considered a unbiased source when discussing evil. :think:

#46930

DaveDodo007 wrote:
Satan wrote:
Hunt wrote:The only good reason to involve this woman is if she's evil, and we don't know that.
Posting rape allegations to social media is evil. Cross the line of running to the public for attention, rather than trying to establish a criminal case, and whatever blowback happens is entirely deserved.
Not sure if Satan can be considered a unbiased source when discussing evil. :think:

Who would know better?

#46931

comhcinc wrote:The SJWs are out in force at the Friendly Atheist in a blog post about NECSS

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... witterfeed

I wonder if the SJWs are going to go after the friendly atheist for posting a link to the video.

#46932

Sargon just visited the Slymepit for the first time, while on str :hankey: eam, after seeing it referenced on the Dawkins thread on FTB.

[youtube]TKzt8Da1Uco[/youtube]
(stream still live)

He liked what he saw! Including the Cunties 2015

#46933

He said he's going to browse for a while, and likely join.

#46934

Kirbmarc wrote:For the record I think that people have gone overboard with the mockery and the focus on Elyse.

We should mock bad ideas and lolcow-ish attitudes, point out dishonest behavior and lies (Avicenna, Carrier) and mental distortions and hypocrisy (Myers on women, Myers on Islam) but an obvious case of a trainwreck of mental and legal issues shoud be left to the legal system and to mental health professional to handle.

I don't think it does much good to say focusing on Elyse has 'gone overboard', unless you specify where you draw the line between 'on board' and 'overboard'. To me, the validity of scrutinizing Elyse went UP during the time she was under the microscope here: for example, making fun of the Smash Party was mostly shadenfreude, UNTIL Elyse's boyfriend was accused of rape at the Smash Party/ and Elyse broke with SJW orthodoxy/ siding with the accused man/ against the female accuser.

I guess you're drawing the line by being on board with mocking 'bad ideas and lolcow-ish attitudes, point out dishonest behavior and lies... and mental distortions and hypocrisy'/ but you consider "mental and legal issues" overboard. To me, that's backward. Legal issues seem very worthy of public discussion, and mental health stuff is central to the human condition-- thus worthy of remark. It's the mocking of lolcows that I think might be Too Much.

I am concerned that the term "trainwreck" indicates you are applying a victorian, middle-class, matronly judgement... as if we should avoid Rubbernecking at the Trainwreck, because it's Not Nice, and let the workingmen concern themselves with sorting-out the wreckage.
Avert thy gaze!

I say Hell No to that. I wanna know what makes the heart of darkness tick. I'm not going to delegate that to "legal system and mental health professionals". Or the nanny state.

And elyse is damn lucky that I don't pass the buck to the pros. Otherwise the judge, the prosecution and her own counsel would be opening packages containing all her public posts about using drugs and getting drunk-- since she was arrested & court-ordered to not drink as a condition of her release. Im under no ethical obligation to not send that-stuff to the judge. But I do follow a voluntary prohibition against seeking realworld repercussions for people's online stupidity... you're welcome, elyse. You don't deserve it.

(The victorian worldview I alluded-to is all too close to the default paradigm of feminism, if you ask me.)

#46935

Love Sargons "this week in stupid"

The guest host this week might be giving him a run for his money. ( he was hilarious)

#46936

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/busin ... hapes.html

Barbie Adds Curvy and Tall to Body Shapes

When it comes to Barbie’s body, it will no longer be one size fits all.

On Thursday, Mattel unveiled curvy, petite and tall versions of its iconic fashion doll whose unrealistically thin shape has attracted criticism for decades. The three body types will also be sold in an assortment of skin tones, eye colors and hairstyles.

The move is about more than just making Barbie look different. While Barbie was once Mattel’s powerhouse brand, sales have plummeted in recent years as the doll has struggled to remain relevant to little girls who do not look like her and who play with toys other than dolls.

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/01/ ... ter675.jpg

I feel sorry for little girls. As a little boy I had G.I JOE, he-man, and Transformers. I never needed the dolls (or action figures) to look like me for me to enjoy them. Not saying it wouldn't be cool because it would and I see nothing wrong with Mattel expanding Barbie. I just don't like the reasoning some people are giving.

That said fat Barbie doesn't look right. They didn't really change the face, arms, or legs. It just looks like she is bloated.
I would totally do Black Barbie.

#46937

Xenu wrote:He said he's going to browse for a while, and likely join.

He isn't welcome. We have enough fat opinionated neckbeards around here.

We need more tits not more moobs.

#46938

Service Dog wrote:
My rant was almost-entirely a reaction to Kirbmarc:

Kirbmarc wrote:And if you look at what happened from a neutral point of view they seem to have a point (well, kind of) this time. A person who doesn't know how nasty PZ is, and how shoddy his reporting on the grenade case was, can easily be swayed to agree that PZ is unfairly attacked by people who have no qualms using a likely mentally ill woman against him.
I think Tigzy's tweet was elegant & effective. Also ethical. I can also see the side of those who think the tweet veered into danger zones best avoided. Only Kirbmarc's comments raised my hackles enough for me to bother to reply. But, even then, my dissenting opinion is a vague swirl of gut reactions. So I wrote what was tentatively going thru my head, didn't single-out Kirbmarc by name, & posted what I posted.

Well that wasn't virtue signalling, rather the merest of hypotheticals, but whatever. I'm done with this idiocy.

#46939

comhcinc wrote:
Xenu wrote:He said he's going to browse for a while, and likely join.

He isn't welcome. We have enough fat opinionated neckbeards around here.

We need more tits not more moobs.

Maybe we can tell him that if he wants to join, he needs to have two hot young female friends join, too.

#46940

Came across this FB thread , re: NECSS and Dawkins.
Notable for the unusual rape allegations.
I have been informed the accuser and zir's supporter later in the thread are both actually real people...

https://www.facebook.com/jflcroft/posts ... 219028459#

http://i.imgur.com/APC0PmN.png

#46941

comhcinc wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/busin ... hapes.html

Barbie Adds Curvy and Tall to Body Shapes
When it comes to Barbie’s body, it will no longer be one size fits all.

On Thursday, Mattel unveiled curvy, petite and tall versions of its iconic fashion doll whose unrealistically thin shape has attracted criticism for decades. The three body types will also be sold in an assortment of skin tones, eye colors and hairstyles.

The move is about more than just making Barbie look different. While Barbie was once Mattel’s powerhouse brand, sales have plummeted in recent years as the doll has struggled to remain relevant to little girls who do not look like her and who play with toys other than dolls.
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/01/ ... ter675.jpg

I feel sorry for little girls. As a little boy I had G.I JOE, he-man, and Transformers. I never needed the dolls (or action figures) to look like me for me to enjoy them. Not saying it wouldn't be cool because it would and I see nothing wrong with Mattel expanding Barbie. I just don't like the reasoning some people are giving.

That said fat Barbie doesn't look right. They didn't really change the face, arms, or legs. It just looks like she is bloated.
I would totally do Black Barbie.

You are totally fucking wrong! Fat Barbie is the best of the bunch. Would do. Add red hair and freckles and shes a solid 9.5. I mean... how does Afro-Barbie even stand on those tiny peg legs. Wetback-Barbie is too fucking tall... and Ayrab-Barbie is too short. Yep Fat-Cracker-Barbie is the winner..... no question about it.

#46942

Really? wrote:
comhcinc wrote:
Xenu wrote:He said he's going to browse for a while, and likely join.

He isn't welcome. We have enough fat opinionated neckbeards around here.

We need more tits not more moobs.
Maybe we can tell him that if he wants to join, he needs to have two hot young female friends join, too.

3 and they have to post for at least 4 months and have at least 2000 post each. At which time we can review his application before rejecting it and having him reapply after six months.

#46943

Where is Burka Barbie?

#46944

Where is Burka Barbie?

#46945

Old but timely?

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

#46946

deLurch wrote:Where is Burka Barbie?

She cannot appear I. Public w/o her husband or a male member of the family.

#46947

Spike13 wrote:
deLurch wrote:Where is Burka Barbie?

She cannot appear I. Public w/o her husband or a male member of the family.

She states this is true feminism.

#46948

Xenu wrote:He said he's going to browse for a while, and likely join.

We don't want them types around these here parts. No sireee bob.

Let's no-Slympit him now!!!!!

Also...Steersman. I mean, its cruel. Few can handle Steersman and survive sane.

#46949

HoneyWagon wrote:Came across this FB thread , re: NECSS and Dawkins.
Notable for the unusual rape allegations.
I have been informed the accuser and zir's supporter later in the thread are both actually real people...

https://www.facebook.com/jflcroft/posts ... 219028459#

http://i.imgur.com/APC0PmN.png

It only gets weirder (or starts to make sense) when you discover 'Ember' is a transsexual. And a bitter one at that.

Here's xir pinned tweet....

http://i.imgur.com/4pBrGAH.jpg

My guess is DJ hooked up with some star-struck bloke at TAM a few years back who has since transitioned and now regards all previous sexual activity as RAEP.

#46950

Or is Wetback-Barbie really Ching-Chong-Ding-Dong-Barbie? Mattel really needs to do a better job of identifying their identity. People without a clearly aligning ethnic background suffer from poor self-esteem.

They need official names:

Ayrab-Barbie = Fatima
Ching-Chong-Ding-Dong Barbie = Ho
Afro-Barbie = Tayanalaquisha
Fat-Cracker-Barbie = Missy

#46951

jimthepleb wrote:
Suet Cardigan wrote:Speaking of shit-stirring:

Gotta love him. I think he's funny, sometimes misguided, but generally funny and very very smart.

Richard Dawkins is more popular than Jesus.

Guest_0048cc29 · #46952

I don't know what the SlymePit is.
It's probably the 4chan of atheism.
It's probably really good isn't it?

That's about 45 minutes into his stream.

And then he finds out about the Cunties.

#46953

Noticed PZ post about the 30 year Challenger disaster:

Worked hard in the lab? Check (great scientist)
Listened to NPR? Off course (great non capitalist intellectual)
Didn't get much work done that day? Check (great humanist)

It's a solid C. If he had wanted an A he should have begun the story thus:

I remember that day clearly, after my vegan breakfast i cooked for myself and my tr.. My wife, i spent my drive to the lab (in a prius) thinking about the difficulties and harrasment that transadvocates face on the internet. I stopped at the cornershop for some organic pitabread and talked to my friend the devout muslim Muhammed. We had seen a young Christopher Hitchens on the news the night before and we agreed that his islamophobia was sickening. I have always hated the guy. At least we could agree on one thing: feminism.

#46954

Guest_0048cc29 wrote:
I don't know what the SlymePit is.
It's probably the 4chan of atheism.
It's probably really good isn't it?
That's about 45 minutes into his stream.

And then he finds out about the Cunties.

The 4chan of atheism? We are much better than that.

#46955

Xenu wrote:He said he's going to browse for a while, and likely join.

Can someone tell him to email slymepit@gmail.com if he wants to join? I'm having to trawl through a ton of spurious registrations.

#46956

Uh oh - check out JK Rowling's twitter. She's getting some social justice dispensed to her. :lol:

Dumbledore is gay - kewl!

Yes, Hermione can be black - awesome!

I'm apparently friends with a rude man who says 'cunt' - OMG UGH YOU VILE MISOGYNIST ABUSER!!!

#46957

deLurch wrote:Where is Burka Barbie?

Do they have a Yazidi Skipper?

#46958

KiwiInOz wrote:
jimthepleb wrote:
Suet Cardigan wrote:Speaking of shit-stirring:

Gotta love him. I think he's funny, sometimes misguided, but generally funny and very very smart.
Richard Dawkins is more popular than Jesus.

There's also a .31496780045368 probability that Dawkins really exists.

#46959

Tigzy wrote:Uh oh - check out JK Rowling's twitter. She's getting some social justice dispensed to her. :lol:

Dumbledore is gay - kewl!

Yes, Hermione can be black - awesome!

I'm apparently friends with a rude man who says 'cunt' - OMG UGH YOU VILE MISOGYNIST ABUSER!!!

It's basically the SJW version of "Tits or GTFO".

#46960

Tigzy wrote:Uh oh - check out JK Rowling's twitter. She's getting some social justice dispensed to her. :lol:

Dumbledore is gay - kewl!

Yes, Hermione can be black - awesome!

I'm apparently friends with a rude man who says 'cunt' - OMG UGH YOU VILE MISOGYNIST ABUSER!!!

That is awesome. Rowling is the best. Started out with very low privilege but didn't bitch. She just worked hard and used her creativity and business sense to become one of the richest women on the planet.

#46961

VickyCaramel wrote: I don't want to give away the game but... He posted the video, he argued long enough for several feminists to say dumb shit people can latch onto. He then deletes the tweet and steps away while hundreds of people jump into the fray. Go look at the NECSS twitter feed, they are getting pounded like a German school girl in a refugee camp.

:o :o :o

:lol: :lol: :lol:

VickyCaramel wrote: This is a master class in trolling.

It could look like that. Aye.

#46962

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

#46963

Service Dog wrote:
My rant was almost-entirely a reaction to Kirbmarc:

Kirbmarc wrote:And if you look at what happened from a neutral point of view they seem to have a point (well, kind of) this time. A person who doesn't know how nasty PZ is, and how shoddy his reporting on the grenade case was, can easily be swayed to agree that PZ is unfairly attacked by people who have no qualms using a likely mentally ill woman against him.
I think Tigzy's tweet was elegant & effective. Also ethical. I can also see the side of those who think the tweet veered into danger zones best avoided. Only Kirbmarc's comments raised my hackles enough for me to bother to reply. But, even then, my dissenting opinion is a vague swirl of gut reactions. So I wrote what was tentatively going thru my head, didn't single-out Kirbmarc by name, & posted what I posted.

I can understand why you disagree, but this isn't "virtue-signalling" or "defending the honor of the Slymepit". I don't give a damn about people finding us virtuous or honorable. Most of them won't.

What I do care about is not giving ammunition to PZ' narrative that he's a brave fighter for equality and the rights of women when he's just a shit-stirrer and a clickbait idiot.

You might be surprised, but a relatively large number of people still find the SJW shtick appealing. People like Michael Nugent used to side with Myers and the SJWs. Nugent even sided with Myers against Thunderfoot.

If we want to isolate the SJWs we need to make them look like the assholes that they are. We can't make them look like they have a point.

If we send people with obvious issues to PZ to make him look bad, many people who don't know how bad PZ can be are going to think that he's right when he says that "the misogynists" are toying with the lives of women. It doesn't matter who "the misogynists" might be, what matters is that Myers can say "they say that they care a lot about false accusations and evidence but when they're trying to trick me they don't give a shit, and use anyone as a pawn".

People tend to frown upon this kind of behavior. I don't care that this makes us look bad. I care, however, that it may make PZ look good, just like TF's attitude made PZ look good to Nugent.

"Neutral" people matter. They're the ones who don't have the patience to get a thorough course on PZ History or SJWology. When PZ or any other SJWs is made clearly look like a hypocrite or an idiot (like in the case of Godfrey Elfwick) the "neutral" people are going to point and laugh. If we use a woman to get back at PZ, they're going to think that maybe he has a point, that maybe the C.H.U.D.S. are real.

We whine and moan about the "SJW infiltration" of the atheist community. One reason why the community was vulnerable to SJWs is that many non-SJWs were lead to sympathize with Rebecca Watson or with other "oppressed women". And this was also because of what is generally perceived to be unethical or just highly dickish behavior, like rape threats or writing her "you're a slut-bitch-cunt-whore".

This doesn't just happen in atheism, and doesn't just happen to "Victorians". Charlie Brooker is a comedian who doesn't pull punches on any subject. He's mocked everything from politics to TV. And yet he's also supported the SJW idea that "women play the Internet on hard mode". Why? There are many reasons, of course, but one of those reasons is that some women actually get some obnoxious online abuse.

People in general don't like trolls, and like "victims of trolls".

Of course the SJWs are abusing of their victim cards, and their authoritarian ideas are insane. This isn't a good reason to feed their narratives about being victims in the first place.

Of course I don't mean that we shouldn't mock the SJWs, or criticize them. Normal people are going to read mockery and criticism and think that the SJWs are crybabies if they take them so personally.

But if we actually cross some line, if we do something that makes them look like real victims, "normal" people are going to drink some of the SJW cool-aid.

If someone calls Melody Hensley "Smellody" and she cries in a corner, if somebody tells Sarkeesian that she sucks and she says that's harassment, or if someone creates a fake SJW who complains that "Dark Vader eats watermelons", "normal" people are going to laugh at Melody, Sarkeesian or at the SJWs.

If somebody posts rape and death threats to Hensley or Sarkeesian people are going to sympathize with them.

Now between those two extremes there's a whole gamut of behaviors. I don't think that what Tigzy has done is remotely as bad as posting death threats, but I think that it crosses the line between what is seen as legitimate mockery and making PZ look like a tool and a dickish move that make people sympathize with PZ.

You may disagree with me, and that's fine. But if you think that I'm just worrying about "reputation" and "honor" you're very mistaken. I'm worried about exposing the SJWs, make people laugh at them, dissociate from them, and reject their ideas. I'm worried about, you know, actually exposing the stupidity, lies and hypocrisy of SJWs.

#46964

Lsuoma wrote:
Xenu wrote:He said he's going to browse for a while, and likely join.
Can someone tell him to email slymepit@gmail.com if he wants to join? I'm having to trawl through a ton of spurious registrations.

For any new people. This is the boss. His word is law.

Sock puppets are not allowed.

No Doxxing.

Tits or go fuck yourselves.

#46965

comhcinc wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
Xenu wrote:He said he's going to browse for a while, and likely join.
Can someone tell him to email slymepit@gmail.com if he wants to join? I'm having to trawl through a ton of spurious registrations.

For any new people. This is the boss. His word is law.

Sock puppets are not allowed.

No Doxxing.

Tits or go fuck yourselves.

Boss? I thought this was an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

#46966

jimthepleb wrote:Honour of the Slymepit.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

#46967

Sargon has now linked the pit on his video.

#46968

"Hey everyone, welcome to the Slymepit, feel free to look around...but actually we all just post in one big continuous thread for maximum chaos and ninjitsu, so really just look there..... and then fuck off."

#46969

Why did you put quote marks around what you said?

#46970

I hear Sargon just ate a sandwich. More details as they become available.

#46971

Spike13 wrote:
welch wrote:
HunnyBunny wrote:I suggest Steers has bigger problems to worry about than redefining the members of the class 'woman'. He has to come up with a way to deport 20 million muslims from the EU, and find a country to take them. That should keep him occupied for a few years.

Good luck with that one Steers.
I'm still waiting for him to explain how testing everyone entering a country for "the muslim" by making them pee on a book will work. Not the theory, the implementation details. I mean, just the book transport mechanisms along would keep people employed for life, and completely revitalize paper publishing. And think of all the Imams needed to ensure the (pre-peed) Qurans are proper and holy!

Best jobs program ever, and the lazy ass can't even give it a moment's thought beyond his watersports fetishizing.
Why waste paper and then you have the public irination problem, who's going to mop up all that piss? ( certainly not ChrisChristie, but that's another subject)
Simply do what was done during the inquisition, offer the new arrivals some cured ham or chorizo. If they don't eat there's your proof!

Not that I support or reccommend any of this, just trying to help.

But we're talking about potentially millions of people a week! the infrastructure for that would be huge, and it would all be new pork. I mean, people already here ain't stopping eating bacon just for some test facility at every international airport, seaport, train station and other form of customs area.

There aren't that many pigs.

#46972

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:http://i.imgur.com/iHMJATp.png

Gilliel couldn't tell you the temperature outside, without inserting a blatant lie.

#46973

Breaking news: Sargon has just picked his nose. No word yet on whether he ate it or just rubbed it on his jeans.

#46974

Service Dog wrote: I don't think it does much good to say focusing on Elyse has 'gone overboard', unless you specify where you draw the line between 'on board' and 'overboard'. To me, the validity of scrutinizing Elyse went UP during the time she was under the microscope here: for example, making fun of the Smash Party was mostly shadenfreude, UNTIL Elyse's boyfriend was accused of rape at the Smash Party/ and Elyse broke with SJW orthodoxy/ siding with the accused man/ against the female accuser.

I guess you're drawing the line by being on board with mocking 'bad ideas and lolcow-ish attitudes, point out dishonest behavior and lies... and mental distortions and hypocrisy'/ but you consider "mental and legal issues" overboard. To me, that's backward. Legal issues seem very worthy of public discussion, and mental health stuff is central to the human condition-- thus worthy of remark. It's the mocking of lolcows that I think might be Too Much.

Are we equipped to talk in a meaningful way about legal and mental health issues, or are we going to be just armchair lawyers and psychologists/psychiatrists spewing clueless shit just because it tickles our fancy?

Anyone can discuss the impact of SJWs on everyday life. It's far harder to judge a single complicated case of a bundle of legal and mental issues.

Also the goal of mocking and criticizing the SJWs is to make people realize how awful they are. The goal of scrutininzing every move of Elyse MoFo is...what exactly? Morbid curiosity? To feel better than her? To analyze her private life as a test subject for our ideas about the law and psychiatry/psychology?

General legal issues and general psychological/psychiatry issues are good arguments of public discussion. The single case of a human tragedy really isn't. There is a reason why lawyers and psychologists/psychiatrists don't discuss their client's lives in details.

I am concerned that the term "trainwreck" indicates you are applying a victorian, middle-class, matronly judgement... as if we should avoid Rubbernecking at the Trainwreck, because it's Not Nice, and let the workingmen concern themselves with sorting-out the wreckage.
Avert thy gaze!

No, the Victorians were those who went to see the Elephant Man and the other circus freaks to feel better than those "degenerates".

Just like today people tune in to stare at reality shows and gossip about celebrities to feel better than the morons in the Big Brother house or of the drug addicts and cheaters who they secretly envy for being richer and more successful than them.

I happen to think that private lifes should usually stay, you know, private. It's one thing when it's someone like Carrier who has the habit of exposing intimate details of his life to the public (because he's an egocentric idiot).

But to peer into someone else's life just to document it for our own enjoyment looks pretty morbid and messed up to me. Elyse may have turned her life into a circus freak show. It doesn't mean that we have to watch it, or that it's even useful to watch it.

Sometimes it's more humane to leave people's private lives alone.

#46975

Gumby wrote:I hear Sargon just ate a sandwich. More details as they become available.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/53483524.jpg

#46976

Gumby wrote:I hear Sargon just ate a sandwich. More details as they become available.

Where is the upvote/fuck off button?

#46977

Gumby wrote:
JackSkeptic wrote:Who the hell woke up Steersman? I thought he was hibernating.
The correct term is "sleep mode".

wait, does he write his active storage to disk when he quiesces?

#46978

SARGON WATCH - MINUTE 11

This just in: Sargon of Akkad said to be considering usernames for his Pit registration. Vegas bookmakers are giving the odds on something containing "Sargon" at 1:1. More details as they become available.

#46979

pro-boxing-fan wrote:
Gumby wrote:I hear Sargon just ate a sandwich. More details as they become available.
Where is the upvote/fuck off button?

I only have a fuck off button. Just click on the "Logout [ pro-boxing-fan ]" link at the top right of the page and I get fucked off.

#46980

Yay Gumbers!

HAHAHA.

What's Sargon doing now?

...

Now?