The Refuge of the Toads

[John D]

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/wp-con ... ldiers.jpg

Nazi #1: "Ve have zee best tanks in zis war!

Nazi #2: Ya... but I heard ve can't make enough of zem because zey are so complex and expseeve.

Nazi #1: Ya ya... but after ve lose zis war we can make great jokes! hahaha... ve vin in zee long run.... ya!

[feathers]

I can find these too> hehe.

download/file.php?id=3721.jpg

king_tiger_Destroyed_39.jpg

It's just taking a nap.

[feathers]

Every playboy centerfold.

So The Shaving started somewhere around 1998 and developed from a careful Brazilian stripe to the full camel toe. Interesting.

[John D]

Every playboy centerfold.

So The Shaving started somewhere around 1998 and developed from a careful Brazilian stripe to the full camel toe. Interesting.

Also interesting to see when beaver shots start. Early 1970s shots show a furry muff. Prior to that all muffs are covered by crossed legs, furniture, pants, hands, flowers, and all manner of objects.

My porn life really began when I discovered Penthouse in the late 1970s. At the time there were three main porn mags. Playboy was going for "tasteful", Hustler was going for full hardcore, and Penthouse had well photographed models in more hardcore poses. Penthouse was my favorite at the time.

[Steersman]

Evidence that Steersman is an authoritarian cunt:

:lol: Some butthurt there? Also some evidence, circumstantial at least, that you seem incapable of calling a spade a shovel? Maybe because you too have Muslim relatives?

In any case, relative to the first, you might note the following from Wikipedia (yeah, the "cess-pit of lies" particularly when the facts contradict "your" dogma - funny that):

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. The freedom of speech is not absolute; the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the freedom, and it has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech.

We can maybe quibble until the cows come home about the specific consequences of that quite reasonable principle, but the fact of the matter is that many "Western democracies" subscribe to it, if not make it a central and guiding one.

As for the place where the rubber meets the road, the specific application of that principle that you rather pointedly refuse to consider - rather like the hoity-toity upper-class English twit who wouldn't say "shit" if their mouth was full of it, there is more than a little justification for arguing that the Quran is largely, if not entirely, one egregious mass of steaming horseshit and outright hate speech. Curious that you would apparently go ballistic, with justification, if people were to be saying the same about any group - Blacks, Chinese, Jews, chess-players, square-dancers, etc., etc. - as what the Quran says about other religions and groups other than Muslims, yet you apparently give them a pass? Something does not compute.

Deport the fuckers - every last one of them - and close the borders to them: at least those who won't repudiate those decidedly odious aspects.

[feathers]

Also interesting to see when beaver shots start. Early 1970s shots show a furry muff. Prior to that all muffs are covered by crossed legs, furniture, pants, hands, flowers, and all manner of objects.

My porn life really began when I discovered Penthouse in the late 1970s. At the time there were three main porn mags. Playboy was going for "tasteful", Hustler was going for full hardcore, and Penthouse had well photographed models in more hardcore poses. Penthouse was my favorite at the time.

I think I still have this one somewhere:

http://graphic-server.com/cgi-bin/oldma ... 198012.JPG

[Bhurzum]

Deport the fuckers - every last one of them - and close the borders to them: at least those who won't repudiate those decidedly odious aspects.

Fuck that.

Use them as moving targets for the armed forces and save some tax payers money in the process. The scumbags make excellent "fast movers" when their backs are on fire.

Also, unlike the standard "falling plate" targets we use, they're biodegradable.

You say "Moslem" and I say "training value" ;)

[Talker]

How I got through grad-school:

cook ramen with only about 1/3 the water
when the noodles are mostly ready, throw in two eggs, some cheese, and anything else in the fridge
finish cooking while stirring and smoking a pre-dinner ciggy
eat the "eggy mass" while watching Twin Peaks

Apparently how my daughter is getting through university:

Butter two slices of bread.
Toast a third slice.
Put toasted slice onto one of the buttered slices.
Add salt & pepper to taste.
Put second buttered slice on top of toasted slice.
Eat

When my daughter told me about this 'toast sandwich' a while back I just assumed she was being a student, but apparently it is a real thing that I've just discovered from this wikipedia entry was in Mrs Beeton's famous book and is served up (in fancier form, natch) by Heston Blumenthal.

[Gumby]

Deport the fuckers - every last one of them - and close the borders to them: at least those who won't repudiate those decidedly odious aspects.

Fuck that.

Use them as moving targets for the armed forces and save some tax payers money in the process. The scumbags make excellent "fast movers" when their backs are on fire.

Also, unlike the standard "falling plate" targets we use, they're biodegradable.

You say "Moslem" and I say "training value" ;)

I think you just gave the Steersbot his first orgasm that he didn't have to pay for.

[Bhurzum]

I think you just gave the Steersbot his first orgasm that he didn't have to pay for.

There was no clear consent.

I have been violated.

This is why I need PZ.

[free thoughtpolice]

OMG! Hey guise! It turns out that Jenny and Bewildered Ape are actually genius satirists and atheist anti-feminists are just too retarded to see it.
[youtube]rkrLtXN2m9Q[/youtube]
Oh and Bewildered Ape's next big troll job will be to dump Jenny for the much younger and prettier JJtalkz.

[Service Dog]

Such advice! You have some serious experience with parenting or child psychology, I assume? Or is this another knee-jerk, unthinking reaction to feminism? If feminism says something is wrong, it must be right, huh? Of course, it is just about always little girls and not little boys, but because feminists insist there is sexism everywhere, that means there is never any real sexism anywhere.

I don't always agree with Andrew, but if IIRC, he's raising two little girls on his own. I have two of my own and am sheltering another as her parents get their life together. So I must wonder exactly what experience or scientific/academic knowledge you're bringing to bear here. What you advocate doesn't exactly seem sound.

Your persuasive arguments that not entering such contests encourage obesity or being a starving third-world child should carry exactly as much weight as the evidence allows. The many papers that tie such childhood displays to eating disorders should be safely ignored?

This isn't little girls playing dress-up. Nor is it athletics or dance, wherin the child is displaying a degree of hard-earned skill. This is about appearance. This is really about parents, nearly inevitably a mother, making a child jump through hoops to be "attractive."

Also, while science fairs and chess matches and atheletics CAN be a means for parents to live vicariously through their children, many kids actually enjoy these things. Volunteer at a local school, it is fun and as educational for you as it is for the kids. I've volunteered at my kid's school for years, as a chess coach and teaching guitar and ukulele. Helping on your dreaded science fair. Not as entertaining as the adventures of Honey-Boo or whatever, but instructive in it's own right.

"Honey-boo-boo!" is no-more conclusive proof of anything, than would-be me rebutting with "Beyonce!"

My reply to Kirbmarc was indeed "kneejerk": I simply reversed every assertion he made, & I asserted the opposite.
I provided no less citation for my claims than he-did.
I relied less than-he on my claims being self-evident: I explained my position & am happy to provide more evidence.

But you're wrong... my anti-feminism is hardly "kneejerk" or "unthinking"...that's like characterizing Orwell's anti-communism as unthinking & kneejerk, after he volunteered & was shot in the neck in the Spanish Civil War. I arrived at my current views via a long thoughtful process, including having-been a doctrinaire feminist.

I've volunteered in the nyc public school system across decades & seen the body-shy fashion & AIDS-fearing youth culture of the late 80's & early 90's... transform into the more gender-specific, showy trends of the last decade & a half. Most relevant were the years when I was a professional dancer, assisting with for-credit & afterschool dance programs. There I saw immigrant parents sometimes concerned with tight but all-covering costumes, midwestern white parents uncomfortable with hip-hop gyrations, kids grappling awkwardly with their own shifting identity-- experimenting via trial & error to incorporate nascent sexuality into their repertoire. Perhaps most harrowing-- were daughters of carribean immigrants in Brooklyn, who conflated Knowing About sex with Being A Slut... any girl who revealed a lack-of-ignorance about birth control or her own body-- was ganged-up on by suspicious peers-- projecting their own confusion by witchhunting each-other.

I find the iconography of child beauty pageants to be in poor taste. But dolling-up children like psychedelic wedding cakes has an upside: it places the ritual firmly in the realm of the unreal: alongside dreams, fantasies, murky primal sexual symbolism... but demarcated as apart-from the mundane side of life. I doubt social scientists can point to the exact 'right' line between healthy & unhealthy emphasis on superficial displays of self.

But if ya want science, start with the Norwegian "Brainwash" documentary series... start with #2, since that's the one I recall best: It debunks feminist scholarship on gender-differences being 'socialized', and shows the most-privileged nations exhibit the most-gendered personal choices of self-determination. Feminism's crusade against girls' displays of femininity is based on a false presumption that feminine girls are victims.

[Tigzy]

My porn life really began when I discovered Penthouse in the late 1970s. At the time there were three main porn mags. Playboy was going for "tasteful", Hustler was going for full hardcore, and Penthouse had well photographed models in more hardcore poses. Penthouse was my favorite at the time.

Mine began in the roughly the same era, though it was difficult to know which periodicals were involved as I found all my grot pics as kid playing around abandoned railway lines. I don't know what it was about abandoned railway lines in the UK at the time, but they attracted torn-out 'nudey mag' (as we used to call them) pages as turds might attract a swarm of bluebottles*. Being that young, it seemed incomprehsensible to me why a bloke would want to buy a magazine devoted to 'nudey ladies' when there were plenty of motorbike and car magazines available. Also, despite being so young, it still struck me as vaguely...wrong that you'd sometimes find pages where the private parts of the good lady had been inexplicably ripped out. That in particular seemed very weird, even though - bizarrely enough - it seemed perfectly reasonable back then to expect to find such excerpts from choice periodicals in the bushes around abandoned railway lines.

*Thinking about it, it might be something to do with them being used as fly-tipping sites, especially if there were WW2 bomb craters nearby - as there was with my old railway line. Abandoned bomb craters used to attract broken fridges, lost shoes, carrier bags of discarded clothing and car parts like...well, like an abandoned railway line attracted pre-internet free porn, I guess. I once found a pair of car seats and knackered coffee-table which I used to make the den of all dens: the seats tastefully arranged parlour-style around the coffee table under the canopy of two trees whose branches had knotted together above. It was a real gentleman's pad and I was pretty chuffed with it - until I went to visit it the next day to find that some fucker had nicked me car seats and kicked my coffee table over. Shite!

In any case, I don't care what people say about the 1970s - it was my golden era. Despite the seedy underbelly described above, to me it was all hot sunshine, skateboards, Seven-Up and Panda Pops, Star Wars, Superman and school summer holidays which seemed to last forever. During the great heatwave and drought of '76 we all had to sleep in the back garden at night - fucking brilliant! A great decade to be a kid, IMO.

[Tigzy]

'Abandoned bomb craters'

Okay, the 'abandoned' there is nonsensical. But you know what I mean anyways.

[KiwiInOz]

And no, I will not buy a smelly wee beasty ferrret.

Ferrets are cute enough, but you couldn't do better than a guinea-pig for company. They snuggle and burble and are the closest you can get to a tribble.

Also I find the 'pit is good company for those lonesome times even when I cannot muster the spoons to post.

Laughter, coffee and guinea-pigs and/or cats. Plus move somewhere warm, by which I do NOT mean a crematorium. And as for sleep-overs, the 'pit is your real family and we got a lot of couches between us. We could club together for a round-the-world ticket, you get a REAL holiday and we get to keep you here. Just sayin'.

I was thinking the same. We can pass the fedora around, and there are a few spare beds and/or couches here in Australia.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Christ, anyone can do Spaghetti Carbonara. Do I post the recipe here, or will there be a separate thread?

Oh yes, by all means, DO post your Carbonara recipe here. Let's see if I'll get to point and laugh or just nod approvingly.

I'll also share my recipe for pissiladiere, then.

It's pissaladière. I'm not sure I'll want your recipe if you can't even get the name right. :o :lol:

[Shatterface]

'76 was Ladybird Summer.

Hard to picture it if you weren't there but try to imagine a red and black blizzard that lasted weeks.

[Gumby]

It's pissaladière. I'm not sure I'll want your recipe if you can't even get the name right. :o :lol:

I'm sure Matt will Google a recipe that will meet your exacting standards.

[Kirbmarc]

:lol: Some butthurt there? Also some evidence, circumstantial at least, that you seem incapable of calling a spade a shovel? Maybe because you too have Muslim relatives?

It's only evidence that you're unable to understand liberal democracy, and you're unable to understand why anyone would defend the rights of others if not for some personal connection.

Why don't you compile a list of all people with Muslim relatives, or of anyone with Muslim friends, and send them to the "evacuation camp" too, regardless of whether or not they support Islamism?

As for the place where the rubber meets the road, the specific application of that principle that you rather pointedly refuse to consider - rather like the hoity-toity upper-class English twit who wouldn't say "shit" if their mouth was full of it, there is more than a little justification for arguing that the Quran is largely, if not entirely, one egregious mass of steaming horseshit and outright hate speech.

The same thing is true for the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Dianetics, etc. There's no clear definition of "hate speech". There can never be one. It's an illiberal concept. The limits of free speech, in a liberal society, have to clearly defined and based on clear concepts of harm, like in the case of blackmail, slander, libel, false accusations, perjury and false alarms.

"Hate speech" simply means speech we generally dislike. A book like the Mein Kampf is nothing but "hate speech", and yet the US allows the Nazi party to exist. Other countries are going down an authoritarian path by banning Holocaust denial.

Just to clarify this to you and anyone else who's too stupid to understand it, defending the right to express stupid, hateful ideas doesn't mean defending the stupid, hateful ideas. Holocaust denial is just as idiotic as the flat earth hypothesis, and incredibly vile. But the counter to bad speech isn't censorship, it's good speech.

Holocaust deniers deserve to be mocked, satirized and criticized, not put in jail. Germany and the other countries who have adopted laws against Holocaust denial have taken a dangerous step towards authoritarianism. Ironically enough they're following the footsteps of the Nazis, who put people in jail for having wrong ideas.

The same thing is true for Islamism.

Curious that you would apparently go ballistic, with justification, if people were to be saying the same about any group - Blacks, Chinese, Jews, chess-players, square-dancers, etc., etc. - as what the Quran says about other religions and groups other than Muslims, yet you apparently give them a pass? Something does not compute.

I don't "give a pass" to the Quran. I'm all for mocking, satirizing, criticizing, and desecrating it. It's a pile of junk, and it's frequently vile.

But so are many, many other books: the Bible, Dianetics, Mein Kampf, the Gor series, etc. People have the right to read junk, to have stupid ideas, to believe in stupid things (even though luckily only few people take the Gor series seriously).

I don't want anyone to go to jail or be deported for their opinions, no matter how stupid and vile they might be. Incidentally, I don't want people to go to jail just for being racists and using "nigger" in the way you'd want to do (no matter how much you think that I'm "going ballistic"). I simply want to call them out for what they are, and if they insist with their flawed analogies to "cunt", make them and others understand how stupid they are.

I want you to stay here, Steers. I want everyone to know how much of a pretentious, incoherent, idiotic buffoon with delusions of intellectual grandeur you are. Because you can't even keep your logic straight. You want to argue that speech is harmless when you do it, but hate speech if people you don't like are doing it. I argue that speech is always harmless, although it's not always socially acceptable or ethical or clever. Laughing at a funeral, or "appropriating" "nigger" as a white person doesn't physically harm anyone: it only reveals to the world that you're a dumb cunt.

Deport the fuckers - every last one of them - and close the borders to them: at least those who won't repudiate those decidedly odious aspects.

This is considered hate speech. According to your logic we should deport you, too. Presumably to a robot factory.

[Shatterface]

Steers would never gain entry to the UK. He'd never get through the metal detectors.

[Semi]

And she's basically done. Artists like Ke$ha are like bananas. They have a very short shelf life if they are not constantly performing and releasing hits and making the scene, which she has NOT been doing for years. She's up against hitting her stale date. If she were supremely talented, then she might push on through this, but she can barely sing.

Nobody out there is waiting for the next Ke$ha album.

With that sort of music, I can tell you straight up as someone involved in the field, it's almost ALL the producer and a few minions (e.g. programmers - not in the coding sense, but in the sense of people who are adept with sequencer programs) and maybe a couple of session musicians. But most of it's pure computer artistry, there's very little input from the singer - unless the singer is really really good, of course.

I am in the biz too, and I've heard her "sing" live. Not good. I see lots of singers signed for their looks and auto-tuned and produced to death. Many start out with a single that does so-so, and then they fade into obscurity because the producers move on. The chemistry has got to be right to sustain an artist because brute force can get you only so far. :)

[free thoughtpolice]

In non Steersman news, yesterday I went to the beach down the road from my den and found where a fisherman had left the filleted remains of a huge halibut (100 pounds?) with a young eagle snacking on it.

late winter 2016 016.JPG

(909.95 KiB) Downloaded 230 times

[Brive1987]

Personally I think the Cromwell is underrated .....

[Steersman]

I think you just gave the Steersbot his first orgasm that he didn't have to pay for.

There was no clear consent.

I have been violated.

This is why I need PZ.

:lol: You mean it wasn’t good for you too? ;-) However, while you might have been engaged in some trolling for fun and profit, I am also somewhat sympathetic to the underlying viewpoint – seriously held or not. And while I’m somewhat uncomfortable with your “exposition” – Muslims are, in general or theoretically at least, still humans, and there is the rather problematic aspect of “collateral damage” – in the face of the barbarisms of ISIS, and the latest outrage entailed by Iran’s “new and improved” fatwa against Rushdie, it’s hard not to argue that those Muslims at least should be killed with as little compunction as one would have for killing mad dogs – and that Islam should be extirpated, root and fucking branch.

No doubt “the West” is hardly as pure as the driven snow, but when push comes to shove – as is clearly the case, at least clearly so to those who aren’t apologists for and fellow-travelers of Islam – it seems that “the lesser of the two weevils” should carry the day. Reminds me of reading a book on some campaigns that the Canadians were involved in during WWII – The Guns of Victory by George G. Blackburn; highly recommended – in which the author described the effects of some carpet-bombing of the German positions in France by the Americans. Seems that a captured German general thought that that wasn’t entirely sporting – expecting maybe tanks at dawn, seconds observing the niceties – and the American general pointed out that war isn’t a question of sport but one of killing more of them than they kill of us.

And likewise with Islam: “we” aren’t playing cricket with them – we are, maybe arguably, in a battle if not a war with them in which Western civilization – warts and all – hangs in the balance.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'll also share my recipe for pissiladiere, then.

It's pissaladière. I'm not sure I'll want your recipe if you can't even get the name right. :o :lol:

Just for you, I'll add my secret ingredient.

[Brive1987]

Phil,
Speaking of Drancy (how the hell do people still live there?), I came across a very poignant story about one victim who passed thru on her way to Auschwitz's gas chamber - artist Charlotte Salomon. She was a German Jew who did her amazing work Life? or Theater? In Nice while trying to avoid the Nazi and Vichy police.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Salomon

[Kirbmarc]

I think you just gave the Steersbot his first orgasm that he didn't have to pay for.

There was no clear consent.

I have been violated.

This is why I need PZ.

:lol: You mean it wasn’t good for you too? ;-) However, while you might have been engaged in some trolling for fun and profit, I am also somewhat sympathetic to the underlying viewpoint – seriously held or not. And while I’m somewhat uncomfortable with your “exposition” – Muslims are, in general or theoretically at least, still humans, and there is the rather problematic aspect of “collateral damage” – in the face of the barbarisms of ISIS, and the latest outrage entailed by Iran’s “new and improved” fatwa against Rushdie, it’s hard not to argue that those Muslims at least should be killed with as little compunction as one would have for killing mad dogs – and that Islam should be extirpated, root and fucking branch.

No doubt “the West” is hardly as pure as the driven snow, but when push comes to shove – as is clearly the case, at least clearly so to those who aren’t apologists for and fellow-travelers of Islam – it seems that “the lesser of the two weevils” should carry the day. Reminds me of reading a book on some campaigns that the Canadians were involved in during WWII – The Guns of Victory by George G. Blackburn; highly recommended – in which the author described the effects of some carpet-bombing of the German positions in France by the Americans. Seems that a captured German general thought that that wasn’t entirely sporting – expecting maybe tanks at dawn, seconds observing the niceties – and the American general pointed out that war isn’t a question of sport but one of killing more of them than they kill of us.

And likewise with Islam: “we” aren’t playing cricket with them – we are, maybe arguably, in a battle if not a war with them in which Western civilization – warts and all – hangs in the balance.

If you're talking about ISIS, or Al-Nusra, or Boko Haram, then you're right, they need to be wiped away from the face of the earth. Do you know who's doing exactly that? The Kurds and the Shiites, who are Muslims, while the West sits on their collective asses. Not to say that all enemies of ISIS are pure as snow, but they certainly are much better than them.

And if we could get rid of the Wahhabi leaders or the Iranian ulemas without hurting the civilian populations of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Iran then I'd be all for pulling that trigger.

But if you insist that all Muslims are as bad as ISIS then you're as bad as ISIS, who promotes the idea that we in the West are all as bad as the Abu Grahib tortures.

[Kirbmarc]

I think you just gave the Steersbot his first orgasm that he didn't have to pay for.

There was no clear consent.

I have been violated.

This is why I need PZ.

:lol: You mean it wasn’t good for you too? ;-) However, while you might have been engaged in some trolling for fun and profit, I am also somewhat sympathetic to the underlying viewpoint – seriously held or not. And while I’m somewhat uncomfortable with your “exposition” – Muslims are, in general or theoretically at least, still humans, and there is the rather problematic aspect of “collateral damage” – in the face of the barbarisms of ISIS, and the latest outrage entailed by Iran’s “new and improved” fatwa against Rushdie, it’s hard not to argue that those Muslims at least should be killed with as little compunction as one would have for killing mad dogs – and that Islam should be extirpated, root and fucking branch.

No doubt “the West” is hardly as pure as the driven snow, but when push comes to shove – as is clearly the case, at least clearly so to those who aren’t apologists for and fellow-travelers of Islam – it seems that “the lesser of the two weevils” should carry the day. Reminds me of reading a book on some campaigns that the Canadians were involved in during WWII – The Guns of Victory by George G. Blackburn; highly recommended – in which the author described the effects of some carpet-bombing of the German positions in France by the Americans. Seems that a captured German general thought that that wasn’t entirely sporting – expecting maybe tanks at dawn, seconds observing the niceties – and the American general pointed out that war isn’t a question of sport but one of killing more of them than they kill of us.

And likewise with Islam: “we” aren’t playing cricket with them – we are, maybe arguably, in a battle if not a war with them in which Western civilization – warts and all – hangs in the balance.

The West fought the Nazis but didn't deport all Germans to some isolated place.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Christ, anyone can do Spaghetti Carbonara. Do I post the recipe here, or will there be a separate thread?

Oh yes, by all means, DO post your Carbonara recipe here. Let's see if I'll get to point and laugh or just nod approvingly.

Oh dear, European snobbery. Personally, I hardly ever use recipes, but pretty much fly by the seat of my pants if cooking, although baking is a different ballgame altogether. I would like to see a recipe thread, as I tend to steal ideas for use in my own cooking. If ever 'pitters get together in real life, there should definitely be a cook-off. Com and the Aussies can fight over whether or not a grill is a barbeque.

[Outed1TimeAsGrey!]

The great Milo/Bindle showdown.

[youtube]jLc7Iab0vtk[/youtube]

I found that interesting, but missed the lunatic screams of 'HATE SPEECH"

So this is 'sane' feminism where a definition can oppress another definition (the class of all who are male) vs (the class of all who are female)

How does a definition do this?

Also genetics has no part to play in any of this, apparently we even LEARN how much sex we want. Did you go to that class, I was probably off sick that day.

She interviewed men who hire prostitutes and is horrified that an attractive man chooses to pay for sex in large quantities. He says that if he didn't do this he might end up committing a crime out of frustration. She is horrified by his self medication and then turns to the audience and asks them why they learnt to be like this. Like what? bitch!

Totally illogical conclusion even if the guy she interviewed 'learned' to want a lot of sex. How can you go from one unusual individual and then attribute this behaviour to a hundred other semi-randomly selected men? (Oh, yeah it's all about 'class' they must all be identical because they belong to the same arbitrary definition 'all humans of the male sex')

Her numbers on men and women who kill each other - the women who get killed by partner is about right, but her "One at most a year" where the victim is male is out by a factor of 25. (Real numbers are about 100 to 25) Someone has posted the actual stats under the video.

Her form of feminism is obviously a Marxist social one where individuals and genetics don't matter. It is therefore pathological, just not as pathological as the newer generation.

[Guestus Aurelius]

<snip>What's the point of moral outrage?

<snip>

I love me some Paul Bloom.

My only beef with that article is how they use the word "trustworthy." It invites the reader to infer that SJW keyboard activists are honest in general ( :lol: ), whereas it seems to me that the researchers are really only suggesting that virtue-signalers can be "trusted" to put some of their resources where their mouths are within certain contexts related to their moral outrage. It's not "trustworthy" so much as "devotedly partisan" or, if you will, "having drunk the Kool-Aid."

Hey, wasn't there a study a few years back suggesting something like the opposite? that keyboard activists were in fact less likely than others to donate money to their professed pet causes? I can't recall the details, so I might be way off.

Anyway, yeah, it's clear that moral outrage is related to genuine feelings of disgust (see Paul Rozin, Jon Haidt), and that acting on it publicly—even with mere words of condemnation—solidifies your in-group reputation, rallies the troops, and deepens the lines separating your "tribe" from the others. Of course, we non-SJWs do it too, and I'm sure I'm doing it as I write this, but it isn't a way of life for us like it is for them. (SWIDT?)

Yet another series of observations, now scholary, that dangerously confirm our suspicions down to the detail. I would love to see something that is actually challenging it.

Re: Disgust, indeed, think of the name of this place and how it came to be: PZ Myers et al labelled other people as “slime” and then the other (ERV) comment section the “slime pit” which as then adopted as a name (I know you know, but new people may not).

Seriously, anyone who's interested in this subject, check out some of Paul Rozin's work on disgust.

[Steersman]

:lol: Some butthurt there? Also some evidence, circumstantial at least, that you seem incapable of calling a spade a shovel? Maybe because you too have Muslim relatives?

It's only evidence that you're unable to understand liberal democracy, and you're unable to understand why anyone would defend the rights of others if not for some personal connection.

Looks like you have a tendency to bend over backwards - "to positively supine lengths"

The same thing is true for the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Dianetics, etc. There's no clear definition of "hate speech". There can never be one. It's an illiberal concept. The limits of free speech, in a liberal society, have to clearly defined and based on clear concepts of harm, like in the case of blackmail, slander, libel, false accusations, perjury and false alarms. ....

The same thing is true for Islamism.

A rather moot if not highly questionable distinction between Islam and Islamism: if Muslims insist that the Quran is literally the word of gawd then they are, in my view and that of many others including Warraq, ipso facto Islamists. Refusing to address that kind of makes those doing so into Islamic apologists.

I don't "give a pass" to the Quran. I'm all for mocking, satirizing, criticizing, and desecrating it. It's a pile of junk, and it's frequently vile.

And you've been active in doing so? Calling for your government to end all faith schools including Muslim ones? Insisting they determine the funding sources for all? And all of that kind of looks like pissing into the wind, like ignoring the elephant in the living room which is Islam itself - rotten to the core.

I don't want anyone to go to jail or be deported for their opinions, no matter how stupid and vile they might be. Incidentally, I don't want people to go to jail just for being racists and using "nigger" in the way you'd want to do (no matter how much you think that I'm "going ballistic"). I simply want to call them out for what they are, and if they insist with their flawed analogies to "cunt", make them and others understand how stupid they are.

Well, I guess you can't be all bad then. However, I might suggest that, with the nigger-cunt-hypothesis at least, you're too close to the trees to see the forest. As Mark Twain put it:

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

Unexamined premises and assumptions and all that.

I want you to stay here, Steers. I want everyone to know how much of a pretentious, incoherent, idiotic buffoon with delusions of intellectual grandeur you are. Because you can't even keep your logic straight. You want to argue that speech is harmless when you do it, but hate speech if people you don't like are doing it. I argue that speech is always harmless, although it's not always socially acceptable or ethical or clever. Laughing at a funeral, or "appropriating" "nigger" as a white person doesn't physically harm anyone: it only reveals to the world that you're a dumb cunt.

You seem to have some difficulty with nuance, with differentiating between principles and policies, with recognizing that hate speech comes in a spectrum. And when it is underwritten by a claim that it comes from the grand high poobah himself (piss on him, his prophet and his holy book [ha!]) then I figure they've clearly crossed the Rubicon, that we're dealing with two entirely different kettles of fish. Huxley and Aquinas, quoted in Warraq's Why I'm Not a Muslim - something you'd be wise to read:

Timeo hominem unius libri.—St. Thomas Aquinas

The truth is that the pretension to infallibility, by whomsoever made, has done endless mischief; with impartial malignity it has proved a curse, alike to those who have made it and those who have accepted it; and its most baneful shape is book infallibility. For sacerdotal corporations and schools of philosophy are able, under due compulsion of opinion, to retreat from positions that have become untenable; while the dead hand of a book sets and stiffens, amidst texts and formulae, until it becomes a mere petrifaction, fit only for that function of stumbling block, which it so admirably performs. Wherever bibliolatry has prevailed, bigotry and cruelty have accompanied it. It lies at the root of the deep-seated, sometimes disguised, but never absent, antagonism of all the varieties of ecclesiasticism to the freedom of thought and to the spirit of scientific investigation. For those who look upon ignorance as one of the chief sources of evil; and hold veracity, not merely in act, but in thought, to be the one condition of true progress, whether moral or intellectual, it is clear that the biblical idol must go the way of all other idols. Of infallibility, in all shapes, lay or clerical, it is needful to iterate with more than Catonic pertinacity, Delenda est. —T. H, Huxley, Science and Hebrew Tradition

"Delenda est", indeed.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Snipped meself. Ouch!
"Honey-boo-boo!" is no-more conclusive proof of anything, than would-be me rebutting with "Beyonce!"

My reply to Kirbmarc was indeed "kneejerk": I simply reversed every assertion he made, & I asserted the opposite.
I provided no less citation for my claims than he-did.
I relied less than-he on my claims being self-evident: I explained my position & am happy to provide more evidence.

But you're wrong... my anti-feminism is hardly "kneejerk" or "unthinking"...that's like characterizing Orwell's anti-communism as unthinking & kneejerk, after he volunteered & was shot in the neck in the Spanish Civil War. I arrived at my current views via a long thoughtful process, including having-been a doctrinaire feminist.

I've volunteered in the nyc public school system across decades & seen the body-shy fashion & AIDS-fearing youth culture of the late 80's & early 90's... transform into the more gender-specific, showy trends of the last decade & a half. Most relevant were the years when I was a professional dancer, assisting with for-credit & afterschool dance programs. There I saw immigrant parents sometimes concerned with tight but all-covering costumes, midwestern white parents uncomfortable with hip-hop gyrations, kids grappling awkwardly with their own shifting identity-- experimenting via trial & error to incorporate nascent sexuality into their repertoire. Perhaps most harrowing-- were daughters of carribean immigrants in Brooklyn, who conflated Knowing About sex with Being A Slut... any girl who revealed a lack-of-ignorance about birth control or her own body-- was ganged-up on by suspicious peers-- projecting their own confusion by witchhunting each-other.

I find the iconography of child beauty pageants to be in poor taste. But dolling-up children like psychedelic wedding cakes has an upside: it places the ritual firmly in the realm of the unreal: alongside dreams, fantasies, murky primal sexual symbolism... but demarcated as apart-from the mundane side of life. I doubt social scientists can point to the exact 'right' line between healthy & unhealthy emphasis on superficial displays of self.

But if ya want science, start with the Norwegian "Brainwash" documentary series... start with #2, since that's the one I recall best: It debunks feminist scholarship on gender-differences being 'socialized', and shows the most-privileged nations exhibit the most-gendered personal choices of self-determination. Feminism's crusade against girls' displays of femininity is based on a false presumption that feminine girls are victims.

I'm not arguing that feminism as it stands today is pernicious and self-serving at best, evil and ultimately self-defeating at worst. I am simply saying that just because feminism says something is bad, it is intellectually dishonest to automatically take the opposite stance. They happen to be right about the child beauty pageants. There's a huge difference between having girls accept and embrace their femininity and trotting them up on a stage that encourages the worst and most superficial aspects of that femininity. You will note there is no real similar contests for little boys, although IIRC, there is a bunch of transgender kids getting in the act.

The line between healthy and unhealthy emphasis on self will be different according to each and every child. But very broadly speaking, telling a little girl that she is being judged on her "charm, poise, grace" or whatever euphemisms they use for looks is encouraging the most shallow and tacky evaluations of their whole person. Girls figure it out pretty quick. It mostly seems to be propelled by mothers, which would undoubtedly make for a good psych or evo-psych study or two.

I am pleased that you have volunteered in schools. We have absolutely zero dance programs in our school district, unless you count the cheerleading stuff. Teaching kids positive aspects about their bodies and encouraging them to be comfortable with themselves is critical.

[Lsuoma]

'76 was Ladybird Summer.

Hard to picture it if you weren't there but try to imagine a red and black blizzard that lasted weeks.

And O Levels in insane temperatures.

[Outed1TimeAsGrey!]

Every playboy centerfold.

So The Shaving started somewhere around 1998 and developed from a careful Brazilian stripe to the full camel toe. Interesting.

Damn, we wasted so much effort doing the same research. My other subject was when the pubic hair made it's first appearance. It shows up to great applause, it gets cropped and then it has gone again.

Which reminds me of being in a club many years ago chatting to a very attractive slim blonde woman who suddenly stood up, took two steps and said to another guy, "How come you've never tried to get me?" They left the club together leaving me feeling so very not an Alpha male.
Next time I saw her she was naked in Playboy.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Billie of Ockham, I would be very interested in your opinion on this piece- http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/02/23/ ... ngs-false/ Also anybody else well-versed in psychology.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Every playboy centerfold.

So The Shaving started somewhere around 1998 and developed from a careful Brazilian stripe to the full camel toe. Interesting.

Damn, we wasted so much effort doing the same research. My other subject was when the pubic hair made it's first appearance. It shows up to great applause, it gets cropped and then it has gone again.

Which reminds me of being in a club many years ago chatting to a very attractive slim blonde woman who suddenly stood up, took two steps and said to another guy, "How come you've never tried to get me?" They left the club together leaving me feeling so very not an Alpha male.
Next time I saw her she was naked in Playboy.

[youtube]BqDjMZKf-wg[/youtube]

[dog puke]

Hey John Greg...
[youtube]qHDdqubE7zQ[/youtube]
... I'm just catching up here.

You know I am a local (work in New West) and would be happy to meet/talk/coffee whatever. No moralizing or other shit. Just let me know.

Peace/love all that crap.

Oh yeah, Steersmannnn is also a local. (Just sweetening the pot.)

[Kirbmarc]

Looks like you have a tendency to bend over backwards - "to positively supine lengths"

Yeah, right. Defending freedom of thought is bending over backwards. The US constitution is Islam apology. Let's burn it and replace it with a spinning dancer.

A rather moot if not highly questionable distinction between Islam and Islamism: if Muslims insist that the Quran is literally the word of gawd then they are, in my view and that of many others including Warraq, ipso facto Islamists. Refusing to address that kind of makes those doing so into Islamic apologists.

Because Islam isn't about different interpretations. All Muslims are Wahhabi/Salafi.

And you've been active in doing so? Calling for your government to end all faith schools including Muslim ones? Insisting they determine the funding sources for all? And all of that kind of looks like pissing into the wind, like ignoring the elephant in the living room which is Islam itself - rotten to the core.

Yes. There recently has been a referendum on burqa bans where I live (Tessin/Ticino). I've supported it, and I've campaigned for a referendum on a ban of faith schools from receiving public grants, and one for all religious associations to give full disclosure of their funding to the public.

I've also cooperated with an institution which teaches Italian, German and some principles of Swiss law (including human rights) to immigrants, which included Muslim women.

What have you done about this issue, except writing "deport all Muslims" and "ban Islam" on Twitter?

Unexamined premises and assumptions and all that.

What about your unexamined premises and assumptions, Steersman, like the fact that all Muslims are as bad as the Islamists, or that natural languages should be prescriptive? Have you ever thought about examining them?

It's easy to tell others that they're biased and confused. It's far harder to confront your own biases and confusion. I've never noticed you seriously challenging your own reasoning. You're consistently stubborn and haven't cared about context, or data, or nuance.

You seem to have some difficulty with nuance, with differentiating between principles and policies, with recognizing that hate speech comes in a spectrum.

This is rich, coming from someone who has trouble telling apart a Salafi from a Sufi.

he truth is that the pretension to infallibility, by whomsoever made, has done endless mischief; with impartial malignity it has proved a curse, alike to those who have made it and those who have accepted it; and its most baneful shape is book infallibility.

Wise words. You should try to heed to them when you think about your favorite books, like the Novum Organum (which you haven't even read).

[Bhurzum]

This is rich, coming from someone who has trouble telling apart a Salafi from a Sufi.

Even I know that!

Salafi = red towel on head
Sufi = blue

Right?

;)

(Sorry, just put me on ignore...)

[Brive1987]

Cromwell.

[Billie from Ockham]

But so are many, many other books: the Bible, Dianetics, Mein Kampf, the Gor series, etc.

I am so angry, I can barely type. How you could put John Norman with Adolph Hilter, L Ron Hubbard, and Christian quacks is beyond me. Not all of us could get our hands on Playboy, Penthouse, or Hustler, you know.

[free thoughtpolice]

This is rich, coming from someone who has trouble telling apart a Salafi from a Sufi.

Even I know that!

Salafi = red towel on head
Sufi = blue

Right?

;)

(Sorry, just put me on ignore...)

A salafi is an object shaped like a small angry penis and a sufi is a coarse sponge used in the bath for skin exfoliation. :bjarte:

[Skep tickle]

MSNBC severs ties with Melissa Harris-Perry after host’s critical email

[Bhurzum]

A salafi is an object shaped like a small angry penis and a sufi is a coarse sponge used in the bath for skin exfoliation. :bjarte:

So wots an acidic jew then?

[MarcusAu]

Cromwell.

Bastard

[free thoughtpolice]

So wots an acidic jew then?

I'm not sure but I hear if you eat them you can get the shitlers. :rimshot:

[Skep tickle]

MSNBC severs ties with Melissa Harris-Perry after host’s critical email

Her side:

[Kirbmarc]

MSNBC severs ties with Melissa Harris-Perry after host’s critical email

Her side:

Smell the entitlement.

[Bhurzum]

I'm not sure but I hear if you eat them you can get the shitlers. :rimshot:

I tried to think of a decent Mussolini/Mueseli/loose stool pun.

I failed.

[Kristine]

MSNBC severs ties with Melissa Harris-Perry after host’s critical email

She should pitch a tent on the grounds, go on hungrrrl strike, and video herself kicking herself out of her own safe space. :mrgreen:

[Bhurzum]

She should pitch a tent on the grounds, go on hungrrrl strike, and video herself kicking herself out of her own safe space. :mrgreen:

How can she "pitch a tent" if she's a woman?

(I'm channeling my inner Butthead!)

http://duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress ... =500&h=378

[Billie from Ockham]

Billie of Ockham, I would be very interested in your opinion on this piece- http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/02/23/ ... ngs-false/ Also anybody else well-versed in psychology.

I can only say so much without doxxing myself, because this is something that I'm working on right now. But I can say with high confidence that psychologists in general and social psychologists in particular are some of the worst when it comes to using the "filing-drawer" and "culling" methods to pump up their data, so I'm glad that a second wave of criticism for this is hitting us/them now. What I see the most often are pathetic reasons for tossing out entire studies (which is "file-drawing"). In effect, you run the same study a bunch of times and report only the one with the "best" results. This capitalizes on the huge amount of variance across and within these studies, turning what is supposed to be an obstacle to publication into a way of reporting an effect size that is a massive over-estimate. A bit less often do the researchers just throw out a few subjects (which is "culling"). But this is probably because people know that they have to admit to removing subjects, even if they don't know that they ought to admit to also ignoring entire studies.

There is no simple solution to this. In some cases, they don't know about stats to realize that what they are doing is very very bad. In other cases, they have truly convinced themselves that the study was somehow invalid, even if the same could be said of the one that they chose to keep and publish. The suggestion that everyone register the study before it is run will never work. Simple statistical changes won't do much either.

The real problem, IMO, is the interaction between research and funding. The way that people get grants helps to push people in the direction of this kind of crap. Likewise, tenure and yearly reviews. I have never seen anyone get a negative review when it turns out that their stuff won't replicate. Instead, you hear the same old crap about "the self-correcting nature of empirical science" ... probably because the people making these decisions are pulling the same shit, themselves.

[Really?]

MSNBC severs ties with Melissa Harris-Perry after host’s critical email

Her side:

Wow. How long until she claims MSNBC is a plantation and that the execs there are racist? I mean literally. She is pretty explicit in that SJW esque letter.

[Kristine]

She should pitch a tent on the grounds, go on hungrrrl strike, and video herself kicking herself out of her own safe space. :mrgreen:

How can she "pitch a tent" if she's a woman?

(I'm channeling my inner Butthead!)

Ah, got me there! ;) She "actually keeps an image of folks" pitching tents "in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like." :lol:

[dogen]

And no, I will not buy a smelly wee beasty ferrret.

Ferrets are cute enough, but you couldn't do better than a guinea-pig for company. They snuggle and burble and are the closest you can get to a tribble.

Also I find the 'pit is good company for those lonesome times even when I cannot muster the spoons to post.

Laughter, coffee and guinea-pigs and/or cats. Plus move somewhere warm, by which I do NOT mean a crematorium. And as for sleep-overs, the 'pit is your real family and we got a lot of couches between us. We could club together for a round-the-world ticket, you get a REAL holiday and we get to keep you here. Just sayin'.

I remember our first pig. Laid on my belly, pissed on me, and then fell asleep burbling happily as I stroked it. So awesome; you are missed, Sweet William!

[comhcinc]

http://www.retroist.com/2013/06/05/trag ... ch-family/ Relevant

I got a woman from New Zealand to post a story about pro wrestling.


Tell me I am not good.

I was aware of the Von Erich family, but this is because I have a creepy interest in famous people who died young.

Then pro wrestling is for you!
http://deadspin.com/5805167/the-dead-wr ... ek-archive

See Also Chris Benoit

[Matt Cavanaugh]

MSNBC severs ties with Melissa Harris-Perry after host’s critical email

Melissa Harris Perry is mental.

[Really?]

MSNBC severs ties with Melissa Harris-Perry after host’s critical email

Melissa Harris Perry is mental.

Is she? This is likely the first time in her life that she hasn't gotten what she wants. How did you react the first time you were told no?

[Bhurzum]

She "actually keeps an image of folks" pitching tents "in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like." :lol:

I pitch a tent most mornings. Maybe I should send her some selfies for her office wall?