Re: Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 6:39 pm
No snide comment could garnish. I am silenced.Brive1987 wrote:
Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/
No snide comment could garnish. I am silenced.Brive1987 wrote:
Boiled vegetables and fried meat. No gravy.Service Dog wrote:No snide comment could garnish. I am silenced.Brive1987 wrote:
Dr. Richard Carrier PhD needs to learn how to set the cutlery. :snooty:Brive1987 wrote:[tweet.][/tweet]
Initially I thought "good for you" before I checked my bigotry of low expectations.
There's a gravy divot waiting in the potatoes. It just hasn't fallen off Carrier's face yet.ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote: Boiled vegetables and fried meat. No gravy.
Tears of loneliness. Better than gravy.ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Boiled vegetables and fried meat. No gravy.
The meat looks overdone and dryApe+lust wrote:Tears of loneliness. Better than gravy.ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Boiled vegetables and fried meat. No gravy.
I would normally say you could net that off with a mouthful of sloppy potato.Michael J wrote:The meat looks overdone and dryApe+lust wrote:Tears of loneliness. Better than gravy.ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Boiled vegetables and fried meat. No gravy.
Looks like someone just got a new cookbook from Amazon:ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Boiled vegetables and fried meat. No gravy.Service Dog wrote:No snide comment could garnish. I am silenced.Brive1987 wrote:
Actually, that could just as well be a description of Carrier's dancing as his cooking.
Interesting observations and, apparently, an interesting case of moving the goal posts: "would you believe ...?"another lurker wrote:She is being deliberately obtuse because she knows she can't win this.Kirbmarc wrote:Tigzy wrote: I've already given her plenty of evidence. She's being idiotically stubborn about Goldsmith.
Reminds me of this video that I just watched the other day.
Pseudo-intellectuals and how to spot them:
[.youtube]4yKF-Su6bhw[/youtube]
One of the most annoying things that dishonest interlocutors do, and I am glad he pointed this out, is switch between *literal* and non-literal meanings. The SJW's with whom I was discussing the right of big burly hiruste penis owning men to claim that they are 'real women for sure' and then use women's bathrooms/change rooms/shelters/locker rooms/prisons used a similar tactic on me. I kept asking if all it took is 'feelz' to overcome objective reality, if all of the above, including sports, and as an example, MMA, should be unisex. One of the answers I got was that yes, MMA is *already* unisex, so what's your problem? Of course, they were using a different meaning of unisex - as in, men can do MMA and women can do MMA. They knew goddamn well that I was talking about men beating the shit out of women in MMA, but couldn't admit it, as that would destroy their argument. ....
And that Steven Crowder guy had a good video on Stefonknee as well. He brought up a couple points that I had not considered. If Stefonknee is realy, truly, a 6 year old girl as 'she' claims, then what is 'she' doing kissing bikers? Isn't that pedophilia? .... I mean, how far do we take this, if subjective feelz, as a general rule, always trump objective reality?
And that "precise definition of terms" [my emphasis there] is what the doofuses who pander to the likes of Bruce Jenner and Zinnia Jones want to abrogate and repudiate. No wonder that "Professing Feminism" (and/or its reviewers) objected to the "virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students" in the "Women's Studies" courses in various universities of America – which has clearly been one of the main precursors to that whole transgender debacle.There are even broader claims which can be made for science and the scientific method. As an essential part of his characteristic procedure, the scientist insists on precise definition of terms and clear characterization of his problem. It is easier, of course, to define terms accurately in scientific fields than in many other areas. It remains true, however, that science is an almost overwhelming illustration of the effectiveness of a well-defined and accepted language, a common set of ideas, a common tradition. The way in which this universality has succeeded in cutting across barriers of time and space, across political and cultural boundaries, is highly significant. Perhaps better than in any other intellectual enterprise of man, science has solved the problem of communicating ideas, and has demonstrated the world-wide cooperation and community of interest which then inevitably results.
Indeed. And, relative to the point about being underdeveloped, something on the reading habits in that benighted neck of the woods: Manji also said something to the effect of the minds of Saudi students being "poached" in religious studies - a rather apt phrase I thought.Za-zen wrote:And this is why the pseudo intellectuals (or just plain idiots who've learned the jargon) on the left don't understand why Trump (he is an asshole no doubt) resonates with people, and under estimate him at their peril.Steersman wrote:Indeed. You might be interested in this recent post "Why I am a Islamophobe" which has recently been profiled & discussed on WEIT. And then there's Kenan Malik's "the islamophobia myth" from some 10 years ago. ....Za-zen wrote:Since when is islamaphobia a bad idea?!
Fuck islam, it's a stupid idea which anyone with any respect for reality or the progression of the human race should wish to see thrown into the bin of "stupid fucking ideas stupid fucking apes had, before they grew up". ....
But part of the "problem" is that there are, apparently, some reasonable precepts and morals in the Quran, some reasonable "wheat" along with the rather large amounts of odious and poisonous "chaff". A problem when even people like Maryam Namazie - gawd luv her for her efforts - think that various UN laws on refugees should somehow Trump individual State's rights to protect themselves from barbarians at the gates:
[.tweet][/tweet]
People in the US fundamentally understand that islam is not compatible with western society, in any form that is recognizable as islam. A large part of the reason Islamic societies are so under developed is Islam, they are five hundred years behind us in societal advancement. They never had an enlightenment moment, it hasn't come yet. It is anti western precisely because it is anti individual liberty, THE very value at the core of the enlightenment, that set free science/art/literature, PEOPLE!
I half agree with the Dick Carrier. That is an awesome shirt.
Carrier is fucking lying. PZ has characterized it as a "rape accusation." Unless Carrier is saying that PZ was lying.Brive1987 wrote:An astute commentator at Carrier's asked him, on his coincidences post, about the improbability of having three false rape accusations leveled at FtB bloggers.
Carrier's response below. it is amazing that they still don't understand that few believe these three raped anyone - the meta issue is the hypocrisy of their facilitation of similarly unproved rape and harrassment narratives.
http://i.imgur.com/plUhWmA.jpg
And what the fuck is he talking about? Both PZ and Lousy Canuck broke the news of the rape accusations against them themselves.Brive1987 wrote:An astute commentator at Carrier's asked him, on his coincidences post, about the improbability of having three false rape accusations leveled at FtB bloggers.
Carrier's response below. it is amazing that they still don't understand that few believe these three raped anyone - the meta issue is the hypocrisy of their facilitation of similarly unproved rape and harrassment narratives.
http://i.imgur.com/plUhWmA.jpg
PZ and Lousy Canuck when they're accused of rape:ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Brive1987 wrote:An astute commentator at Carrier's asked him, on his coincidences post, about the improbability of having three false rape accusations leveled at FtB bloggers.
Carrier's response below. it is amazing that they still don't understand that few believe these three raped anyone - the meta issue is the hypocrisy of their facilitation of similarly unproved rape and harrassment narratives.
Exactly. Meyers in particular has gone over his own experience of sexual assault/rape accusation time and time again (usually in response to an upsurge in outrage from the Pit). Every time his story has changed, except for one unchanging fact: he definitely did not assault the girl, she made it all up, and he was lucky to get his story in before she had a chance to tell hers.
Excellent, but is that a CHOAD rather than a CHUD?Ape+lust wrote:
This week, Chubb, a global insurance company, announced “trolling insurance,” for its U.K. customers. A person can now buy insurance protection against online harassment. Policyholders will be able to claim up to £50,000 to pay for, among other things, therapeutic counseling, time spent not being able to work, or having to move. This idea, sound on the surface, is in the end, another lady tax.
I particularly liked this exchange in the comments:NPR wrote:All right, this next story begins a simple question. Should women have to register for the draft? Turns out the answer is anything but simple. The Supreme Court seemed to settle things decades ago, but the basis for that ruling is gone after the Pentagon opened all military positions to women.
First dude wrote:By far our deadliest recent conflict was Viet Nam, a war fueled in large extent by drafting young males into combat. Had we faced the grim reality of our daughters also being in those body bags coming back, I doubt we would have become involved at all. Minimally, our Victorian values would never have allowed that obscene war to drag on for ten years.
A volunteer army invites military adventurism, as does an all-male draft as well as a system that drafts women but for non-combat roles only. Drafting women into combat is our best safeguard against such recklessness.
Second dude wrote:Are you suggesting we somehow value women's lives differently than men's lives?
First dude wrote:Yes
Second dude wrote:Okay. I agree that that's reality. I guess what I was really wondering was if people think it's right and that we should use it to the end you suggest, though.
First dude wrote:Hi, {Second dude}. Good points.
As to whether people think it (i.e., that putting a different value on human life is predicated upon gender) is right, I’d have to say that most people probably just don’t give it much thought. Things have always been a certain way so—in the line of thinking that I’m projecting here—it “must be right.”
As to whether we should use that erroneous notion (That there’s a sliding scale for the value of human life), I’d have to say this: If our reluctance to see our daughters in particular put into harm’s way gives us pause when considering rushing into fruitless conflicts, then—yes—I think we should use that bias. It might not be the best reason for avoiding unnecessary war, but if it works..............
Third dude wrote:We certainly value their work less.
First dude wrote:Whether you're right or wrong re: work, {Third dude}, the issue here is draft registration.
Second dude wrote:But according to {First dude's} post, we value their lives MORE.
I'm sure that any SJW that takes it up will assume that Chubb will take their word for their harrassment. It will be a money spinner until they realise that insurance companies don't operate on "believe the victim"Skep tickle wrote:Online Harassment Insurance Is Useful, But It’s Another Tax On Women For Being Women
- by Soraya ChemalyThis week, Chubb, a global insurance company, announced “trolling insurance,” for its U.K. customers. A person can now buy insurance protection against online harassment. Policyholders will be able to claim up to £50,000 to pay for, among other things, therapeutic counseling, time spent not being able to work, or having to move. This idea, sound on the surface, is in the end, another lady tax.
I would know the sight and texture of Instant Buds Potatoes anywhere.Brive1987 wrote: Initially I thought "good for you" before I checked my bigotry of low expectations.
There is one more.Really? wrote:And what the fuck is he talking about? Both PZ and Lousy Canuck broke the news of the rape accusations against them themselves.Brive1987 wrote:An astute commentator at Carrier's asked him, on his coincidences post, about the improbability of having three false rape accusations leveled at FtB bloggers.
Carrier's response below. it is amazing that they still don't understand that few believe these three raped anyone - the meta issue is the hypocrisy of their facilitation of similarly unproved rape and harrassment narratives.
http://i.imgur.com/plUhWmA.jpg
What a fucking cumguzzling retard who doesn't know how to research or is lying.
No doubt the examples you've given are more or less plausible characterizations of some people which might be a reasonable description of this prototypical - and stereotypical - entity known as "the social justice warrior!!". And which might reasonably be construed as being worthy of condemnation.cnut the great wrote:Think about it. What do the accusations against anonymous mooks like ElevatorGuy and DrBuzzo have in common with the accusations against well-known figures Radford, Shermer, and Krauss? They all serve to raise the profile of the one (re)broadcasting them, who can signal their virtue by righteously damning these men, thereby showing their concern for keeping (privileged, white, conference-hopping) women safe and comfortable.Steersman wrote:And, pray tell, what would that "bullshit ideology" consist of? Inquiring minds and all that.
If the goal were to actually keep women safe, we would see vigorous pursuit of fact-finding, rather than the social construction of a cacophonous clown-horn threat narrative, spun out from nothing less than the Emperor’s finest invisible raiment. ....
While I expect there are any number or cases where the use of that term - and the other ones - is justified, using them inappropriately tends to be counterproductive at best - like the little boy crying "wolf" once too often. "We" might also keep in mind something from Emerson I ran across yesterday evening:"Social Justice Warrior" (abbreviated "SJW") is a snarl word used primarily by right-wingers on the internet (although even some hardline Maoists use the term[1]) to describe liberals, progressives, feminists, and supporters of political correctness. ....
It is now most often used by modern conservatives on the internet - especially Gamergaters, MRAs and reactionary and neoreactionary bloggers - to refer to anyone who expresses a point of view that is to the left of [4-chan].
Never understood why somebody would take pictures of their food to show everyone. "Look everyone, I'm having sustenance!".Brive1987 wrote: Initially I thought "good for you" before I checked my bigotry of low expectations.
Yes sir, it is. Angry and average sized. Be afraid.Service Dog wrote:Excellent, but is that a CHOAD rather than a CHUD?Ape+lust wrote:
You cheapened it!fuzzy wrote:
Never understood the allure of brussels sprouts. Some people gobble them down like candy. To me they're sour little green testicles.Brive1987 wrote: Initially I thought "good for you" before I checked my bigotry of low expectations.
Her contempt for the people who give her money is amazing. As is their indulgence.Brive1987 wrote:Just a reminder that Watson has missed 6 weekly vlogs in a row.
I think we can call it.
http://i.imgur.com/QqdsE3O.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/TmUnRAw.jpg
Exactly right, Michael. I hope they bring this on, because, when there's a claim it'll be in the commercial interest of the company to investigate, and bogus victimhood claims will now be insurance fraud.Michael J wrote:I'm sure that any SJW that takes it up will assume that Chubb will take their word for their harrassment. It will be a money spinner until they realise that insurance companies don't operate on "believe the victim"Skep tickle wrote:Online Harassment Insurance Is Useful, But It’s Another Tax On Women For Being Women
- by Soraya ChemalyThis week, Chubb, a global insurance company, announced “trolling insurance,” for its U.K. customers. A person can now buy insurance protection against online harassment. Policyholders will be able to claim up to £50,000 to pay for, among other things, therapeutic counseling, time spent not being able to work, or having to move. This idea, sound on the surface, is in the end, another lady tax.
[youtube]EuJzSTNDUGI[/youtube]I make a meal for my friends, try to make it delicious
Try to keep it nutritious, create wonderful dishes
Not one of them thinks about the way I feel
Nobody compliments the meal
I got hurt feelings, I got hurt feelings
I feel like a prized asshole, no one even mentions my casserole
I got hurt feelings, I got hurt feelings
You could've said something nice about my profiteroles
[youtube]MtntTvuv8Aw[/youtube]piginthecity wrote:Can we all just stop these snide and unwarranted attacks against Dr. Richard Carrier (PhD and Michelin Star).
His meal was cooked from SCRATCH.
By his OWN HANDS.
And it was DELICIOUS (the internet says so three times so it must be true)
http://pangrammaticon.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... again.htmlHermann Steinpilz wrote:While I agree that Connie St Louis is to blame for starting the controversy, it is also worth examining the cultural climate in which the lies and smears by such a disreputable "science journalist" could be taken as scripture and amplified a thousand-fold -- without any proper investigation -- against the word of an eminent scientist with a stellar reputation. Isn't this extraordinary? I believe it is a symptom of the cancer in our society, and especially in academia, that is identity politics.
Identity politics is practiced and propagated by people who are commonly labelled Social Justice Warriors. Of course, the term 'warrior' is sarcasm. They are the opposite of warriors. What they do is little else but language policing, witch-hunting on Twitter, and smearing their opponents. They do almost nothing to actually promote social justice, because they are mainly interested in signalling their own righteousness, not in changing the economic status quo. Like any cult-like or quasi-religious group, they also cherish a good number of dogmas. And these, I think, hold the key to understanding the Tim Hunt debacle.
Here are some SJW articles of faith:
1. Listen and believe (also known as Shut up and Listen). The words spoken by a member of an oppressed minority should not be questioned. As a black woman (or a WoC -- a Woman of Colour -- as an SJW would put it), Connie St Louis should not be challenged. You do not ask for evidence when a WoC asserts something. You listen and believe.
2. Punching up. A member of an oppressed minority (which in SJW world includes women) is entitled to behave in a nasty way, by virtue of being oppressed. Such behaviour is called 'punching up'. Connie St Louis can lie and smear to her heart's content; she is just punching up.
3. Check your privilege. Privileged people have an undeserved advantage in our society. So it is only reasonable to take them a notch down. Tim Hunt's status as a celebrated scientist has given him enormous privilege; this made him fair game.
4. White males are inherently privileged. In a just world they should not have this privilege. Therefore, white men must be vilified at every opportunity. Even other white males (especially 'feminist allies') will engage in this pastime. This explains why some of the loudest critics of Tim Hunt were men as white and privileged as he. They were signalling their ally status to the other SJWs. They were saying "Yes, we are white men, unfortunately, but we are fighting on the right side."
5. The Patriarchy is real. People like Tim Hunt represent the Patriarchy. The Patriarchy must be destroyed. You can't create an omelette without breaking eggs. Even if Sir Tim proved to be a decent fellow, the destruction of his reputation was in the interest of a good cause, and therefore defensible.
6. Members of an oppressed minority cannot be sexist or racist. SJWs have invented the convenient notion that sexism or racism are to be defined as "prejudice + power". Oppressed minorities lack power, therefore they cannot be sexist or racist. QED. On the other hand, almost anything even slightly critical uttered by a white man about a member of an oppressed minority is labelled sexism or racism. At the very least, he is punching down (the opposite of punching up, therefore bad).
7. Criticism is victim blaming. Criticizing members of an oppressed minority for not doing enough to improve their own situation is victim blaming.
8. Criticizing SJWs is harassment. When SJWs are attacked for their lies and smear tactics they will immediately curl up and play the victim. They will label the attacks as harassment.
9. Doubling down. If you do not immediately accept criticism from the SJWs, if you dare to object, you are 'doubling down'. If you do that, you are wrong, because SJWs are always right.
Etc.
It is my contention that the behaviour of the more rabid critics of Tim Hunt is perfectly explained by the assumption that they are SJWs who adhere to these dogmas.
See, I heard people talking about this, and the focus was on protecting the Sarkesians of the world, but I really think this is much more targetted at the Hunt's and the Taylor's and the Sacco's.Skep tickle wrote:Online Harassment Insurance Is Useful, But It’s Another Tax On Women For Being Women
- by Soraya ChemalyThis week, Chubb, a global insurance company, announced “trolling insurance,” for its U.K. customers. A person can now buy insurance protection against online harassment. Policyholders will be able to claim up to £50,000 to pay for, among other things, therapeutic counseling, time spent not being able to work, or having to move. This idea, sound on the surface, is in the end, another lady tax.
I find her concern for high taxes to be selective, disingenuous.Skep tickle wrote:Online Harassment Insurance Is Useful, But It’s Another Tax On Women For Being Women
- by Soraya ChemalyThis week, Chubb, a global insurance company, announced “trolling insurance,” for its U.K. customers. A person can now buy insurance protection against online harassment. Policyholders will be able to claim up to £50,000 to pay for, among other things, therapeutic counseling, time spent not being able to work, or having to move. This idea, sound on the surface, is in the end, another lady tax.
I would gladly pay 200 dollars for the chance to eat such a dinner, chez Richard... partly because I know what I will be getting for dessert afterwards.piginthecity wrote:Behold the new dawn of fashion and chic for the 21st Century !
http://i.imgur.com/3a800cz.jpg
Dinner plate and shirt matching floral motifs !
Carrier revolutionises yet another field of human achievement.
"Richard Carrier PhD's Polyamorous Lifestyle Meals For One"SM12 wrote:
I would never pay that, because I have to save my money for the signed, limited hardback edition of his self-published, peer-reviewed recipe book.
It seems as though his wife supported him financially for many years, while also doing most of the cooking.piginthecity wrote:"Richard Carrier PhD's Polyamorous Lifestyle Meals For One"SM12 wrote:
I would never pay that, because I have to save my money for the signed, limited hardback edition of his self-published, peer-reviewed recipe book.
Yes, it's notable that neither his years of faithful domestic help to his breadwinner wife or his hectic multi-girlfriend oriented social life of which the rest of us can only dream have yielded any pics of Carrier cuisine, but a lonely meal of plain meat and one vegetable is up on the internet and begging for our validation.SM12 wrote:It seems as though his wife supported him financially for many years, while also doing most of the cooking.piginthecity wrote:"Richard Carrier PhD's Polyamorous Lifestyle Meals For One"SM12 wrote:
I would never pay that, because I have to save my money for the signed, limited hardback edition of his self-published, peer-reviewed recipe book.
He had a good thing going for him until she found out about his polyamorous lifestyle.
Request a noise log to fill in, yourself.paddybrown wrote:The council are now going to investigate the complaint by giving my neighbour noise logs to fill in.
Skep tickle wrote:Online Harassment Insurance Is Useful, But It’s Another Tax On Women For Being Women
- by Soraya ChemalyThis week, Chubb, a global insurance company, announced “trolling insurance,” for its U.K. customers. A person can now buy insurance protection against online harassment. Policyholders will be able to claim up to £50,000 to pay for, among other things, therapeutic counseling, time spent not being able to work, or having to move. This idea, sound on the surface, is in the end, another lady tax.
If your music can be heard at all inside of other people's homes, then it's too loud and should be switched to headphones. It's not fair otherwise. Music evokes various emotions far stronger than the ordinary random household sounds (dishes, doors, etc), and it can evoke very different emotions from person to person. Being a captive audience to someone else's choice in music can make people quite miserable. The same goes for workplace music, with the only exceptions being when the music is necessary for customer ambience. People shouldn't play it loud enough that their co-workers or neighbours can hear it at all when they're at their work stations or in their homes.paddybrown wrote:I need to vent a bit.
Just received a second noise complaint from the City Council on behalf of one of my neighbours. Got the first one about a month ago, alleging that I was playing the same song on repeat all day, and banging doors and walls. This is mostly bullshit. I practice my guitar in the evenings. Sometimes I'll play the same song two or three times in a row, against a backing track or the original recording, to get it right. The banging doors and walls thing is just made up, but I figure the music thing probably has some justice to it, so I spend a substantial amount of money on a digital interface so I can play through my computer speakers - much quieter than my practice amp (my proper amp lives at the band's practice space out of town), no louder than listening to mp3s or watching Youtube - or through headphones. I've always had a rule of not playing before 10am or after 9pm, and I very rarely play that early or that late.
The new complaint claims I play from 6 to 11pm most nights. It's addressed to "the occupier" even though I wrote to the council after the first complaint, so they know my name.
The council are now going to investigate the complaint by giving my neighbour noise logs to fill in. If they document it accurately I'm pretty confident the council will say it's perfectly reasonable to practice a musical instrument at a reasonable volume in the evenings after work, or late morning/early afternoon at the weekends. But if they're prepared to make shit up like playing the same song all day, banging doors and walls, and playing to 11pm, who's to say they'll document it accurately?
I live in a terraced house. I remember when I first moved in, having grown up in a detached house, it took me while to get used to being able to hear the people next door, and not think there was someone in my house when the neighbours went up and down the stairs. My neighbours on both sides seem to be new, I don't know either of them and I don't know which of them made the complaint. I hope I haven't got one of those crazy neighbours who objects to any noise at all. Still. I've inherited a third of the proceeds of selling my mum's house, and am looking to upgrade my accommodation. Somewhere a bit further away from other people might be nice.