The Refuge of the Toads

[NoGodsEver]

... Bart Ehrman has struck a low blow:

I don’t think there is any doubt that Jesus existed. There are a couple of scholars who’ve argued he didn’t exist. There are a lot of voices out there saying that he didn’t exist. But they’re not by scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines. There are voices on the internet. But there are voices on the internet for all sorts of things. Scholars who study this stuff really, there isn’t any, it’s not a question that’s debated among my colleagues. It is not debated. Because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Poor Dick is huffing and puffing about that one.

I'd say Robert Eisenman, Markus Vinzent, and Herman Detering, to name three, qualify as "actually trained" scholars. The jibe at "internet voices" is fatuous, as everyone, Ehrman included, has an internet presence now. And the reason the historicity of Jesus is not debated -- read 'questioned'; the nature of Jesus' historicity is adamantly debated -- among Ehrman's colleagues is because nearly all his colleagues are believers.

Unfortunately, the Bayesian gimmick has become popular among mythicists, and Average Dick has staked out his claim as the high priest of Bayes. So now, most anti-mythicist rhetoric is focused on trashing Carrier as a gonk. Which is, as we all know, so very easy to do.

Does Robert Price count, or is he too much of a gibbering goofball?

[NoGodsEver]

Is Jenna Talackova a "real woman"?

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1119614/image ... cebook.jpg

Real enough to win beauty pageants, clearly. Real enough to arouse men. If you're looking for someone to bear your children on the other hand, no.

Nice pic of Ivanka Trump. Do you have one of Talackova?

[Tigzy]

Heh. Nerd of Redhead. http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warri ... yapper.htm

[Matt Cavanaugh]

It's rarely possible to positively prove something in History. Delbrück made a compelling argument -- exhaustively researched & impeccably reasoned -- that the Greeks outnumbered the Persians at Marathon. But he never proved it, never could.

You could say similar about the Oxfordians.

Most definitely. It's not a knock, merely the way History works.

With the Shakespeare authorship question, one must start with details, such as:

Number of biographical references in Hamlet -
Edward de Vere, 30+
William Shaksper, 0

but it takes far more preponderance of evidence to build the case that Hamlet & all Shakespeare's works were written likely by the one man, and almost definitely not by the other.

With Marathon, Delbrück could quickly rule out as nonsensical that the Persians had 1 million men. But he needed to interpret tactics, factor in geo-political knowledge of the period & region, actual human physical capabilities (determined by real tests with real young men), and more, to make the full case. Compelling but impossible to prove definitively .


For Jesus, there are actually three camps:
A. The gospels are based, more or less loosely, on the exploits of one, real man;
B. The gospels are pure allegory & exegesis on OT and jewish apocryphal texts;
C. The gospels do contain garbled elements from assorted historical figures & events, but were originally written as allegory to be understood as allegory. Later, multiple recensions converted them into historical claims.


Ehrman falls decidedly in camp A. Carrier seems to be in B., but he is mostly a mythicists side-kick, crudely & ignorantly parroting mythicists themes* while playing his one schtick of Bayes over & over. Carrier is to mythicism what Gallagher was to comedy.


* For example: evidence is accumulating of an ubiquitous idea among 1st century BC - 1st century AD Jews, of a heavenly Son of Man who would descend to Earth and set up a kingdom. (As found in the book of Enoch and The Ascension of Isaiah, etc.) The early gnostic christian idea of a Joshua redivivus heavenly spirit, descending to possess the body of a man, has long been recognized. Carrier fixates on the transit of Isaiah in the Ascension through the several levels of heavens to argue that all early christians believed Jesus was crucified in heaven, not on earth.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Does Robert Price count, or is he too much of a gibbering goofball?

Price counts. If being a gibbering goofball excluded one from the ranks of biblical researchers, there'd be no one left.

[Badger3k]

... Bart Ehrman has struck a low blow:

I don’t think there is any doubt that Jesus existed. There are a couple of scholars who’ve argued he didn’t exist. There are a lot of voices out there saying that he didn’t exist. But they’re not by scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines. There are voices on the internet. But there are voices on the internet for all sorts of things. Scholars who study this stuff really, there isn’t any, it’s not a question that’s debated among my colleagues. It is not debated. Because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Poor Dick is huffing and puffing about that one.

I'd say Robert Eisenman, Markus Vinzent, and Herman Detering, to name three, qualify as "actually trained" scholars. The jibe at "internet voices" is fatuous, as everyone, Ehrman included, has an internet presence now. And the reason the historicity of Jesus is not debated -- read 'questioned'; the nature of Jesus' historicity is adamantly debated -- among Ehrman's colleagues is because nearly all his colleagues are believers.

Unfortunately, the Bayesian gimmick has become popular among mythicists, and Average Dick has staked out his claim as the high priest of Bayes. So now, most anti-mythicist rhetoric is focused on trashing Carrier as a gonk. Which is, as we all know, so very easy to do.

Even if they aren't believers, it's been a part of western society for so long that most don't even consider the question of whether Jesus existed or not. The assumption has been that someone existed.

[Ericb]

Heh. Nerd of Redhead. http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warri ... yapper.htm

and Greg Laden


http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warri ... weenie.htm

[Badger3k]

It's easy to spot a kid who might grow up to be a transwoman: they are born with nipples.

Silly, nipples prove that everyone is a little bit gay!

[/PZ Myers, crack developmental biologist]

Speaking of nipples...
[youtube]FXI21S4ZWJU[/youtube]

[Kirbmarc]

Heh. Nerd of Redhead. http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warri ... yapper.htm

FTB in general: http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warri ... owlers.htm

[Guest_df4fcc85]

scientificamerican.com/article/software-error-doomed-japanese-hitomi-spacecraft/?print=true

Software Error Doomed Japanese Hitomi Spacecraft
Space agency declares the astronomy satellite a loss
Satellite recast in form of Death Blossom

Japan’s flagship astronomical satellite Hitomi, which launched successfully on February 17 but tumbled out of control five weeks later, may have been doomed by a basic engineering error. Confused about how it was oriented in space and trying to stop itself from spinning, Hitomi's control system apparently commanded a thruster jet to fire in the wrong direction — accelerating, rather than slowing, the craft's rotation.

On 28 April, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) declared the satellite, on which it had spent ¥31 billion (US$286 million), lost. At least ten pieces — including both solar-array paddles that had provided electrical power — broke off the satellite’s main body.

[comhcinc]

... Bart Ehrman has struck a low blow:

I don’t think there is any doubt that Jesus existed. There are a couple of scholars who’ve argued he didn’t exist. There are a lot of voices out there saying that he didn’t exist. But they’re not by scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines. There are voices on the internet. But there are voices on the internet for all sorts of things. Scholars who study this stuff really, there isn’t any, it’s not a question that’s debated among my colleagues. It is not debated. Because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Poor Dick is huffing and puffing about that one.

I'd say Robert Eisenman, Markus Vinzent, and Herman Detering, to name three, qualify as "actually trained" scholars. The jibe at "internet voices" is fatuous, as everyone, Ehrman included, has an internet presence now. And the reason the historicity of Jesus is not debated -- read 'questioned'; the nature of Jesus' historicity is adamantly debated -- among Ehrman's colleagues is because nearly all his colleagues are believers.

Unfortunately, the Bayesian gimmick has become popular among mythicists, and Average Dick has staked out his claim as the high priest of Bayes. So now, most anti-mythicist rhetoric is focused on trashing Carrier as a gonk. Which is, as we all know, so very easy to do.

There is little debate among scholars because while a good circlejerk is fun every now and then, it gets old after a while. The Big Dick is the only person I am aware of that uses math when it comes to history. I hate to go all William Gilmore Simms but at the end of the day Jesus being real or not doesn't matter.

[dogen]

scientificamerican.com/article/software-error-doomed-japanese-hitomi-spacecraft/?print=true

Software Error Doomed Japanese Hitomi Spacecraft
Space agency declares the astronomy satellite a loss
Satellite recast in form of Death Blossom

Japan’s flagship astronomical satellite Hitomi, which launched successfully on February 17 but tumbled out of control five weeks later, may have been doomed by a basic engineering error. Confused about how it was oriented in space and trying to stop itself from spinning, Hitomi's control system apparently commanded a thruster jet to fire in the wrong direction — accelerating, rather than slowing, the craft's rotation.

On 28 April, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) declared the satellite, on which it had spent ¥31 billion (US$286 million), lost. At least ten pieces — including both solar-array paddles that had provided electrical power — broke off the satellite’s main body.

I have friends who help build the microcalorimeter on Hitomi. This whole episode is a major bummer for them.

[welch]

You keep acting as if Steerzo has any interest in talking WITH people. He doesn't. He never has. He wants to bludgeon them senseless with walls of text that are pull quotes from other people. Pinker et al, or dictionaries or anything that anyone *else* wrote. He's a parrot with a list of wikipedia URLs.

the shorter version of an encounter with steerzo:

[.youtube]Fa8Iap7Ta1k[/youtube]

What a fucking ignorant dickhead you are - if you don't like where the chips fall then don't play the game. Or find out where to get better cards. Notwithstanding you having your head up your arse, I've actually been "talking WITH people" by providing justification for my arguments - kind of the sine qua non of rational conversation. If you have some facts that refute my arguments then put them on the table. Otherwise, it just looks like you're blowing smoke out of your ass.

Steers, it may be a good idea to engage in some reflective thinking on this issue.

Has anyone, ever, anywhere on the internet where you have dumped this shitty pointless argument, responded to your points with anything other than derison, anger, reasoned answers why you are wrong, unreasoned answers why you are a fuckhead for promoting this? I have seen people from radfems to quasi-MRAs tell you to gtfo, I never seen anyone come within even a parsec of concluding you have a fraction of a rational point on this.

Your biggest problem in your internet discussions is failure to see when enough is enough, time move on, get over it, shut the fuck up.

In a sense, Steerzo is the biggest tone troll in the world. It's all he has. He flings his pedantic, superannuated opinions at people with links that he really never bothers to read past the first sentence that he thinks backs them up, and then when people tell him to fuck, preferably off, he gets so butthurt because he's "trying to be reasonable" or wanting to have a Serious Discussion.

He wants none of the sort. The only difference between one of his screeds and Zvan is...well the source.

He flings data around as if existence of data is all you need, which is nonsense. But he's incapable of interpretation or analysis. He flings links as if that's all he needs, and then when someone returns fire in the same way, he suddenly dances all around it, because in his world, it's unpossible that data can conflict. Or that two people with different backgrounds and experiences can look at the same data and reach different conclusions yet neither is wrong. Analysis and interpretation don't exist for him, just blind quoting and links.

See his reaction to Jett Lagg's list of dictionary pulls. There's no thought or response, just the standard Steerzo reaction, blind and unthinking as ever. "Well, well, MY sources disagree, so therefore I'm not wrong". Over and over. Hell, even when people show his own sources don't say what he wants, he presses on as if somehow everyone disagreeing with him just acquired a learning disability.

Andrew did that once or twice, but the difference is, and why I respect him a LOT more than Steerzo even though I disagree with him almost constantly, is that when I showed him his sources didn't in fact agree with his point, his response was what you'd want. "Well...okay, so I have to do more research". FUCK YEAH! That's how it's supposed to work.

Steerzo is no more capable of doing that than he is of flying unassisted. Once he's staked out a position, he's going to hold that position no matter what, and he'll happily misquote, selectively quote or bludgeon people so that they either agree with him or walk away. He counts that as a victory, even though in the former case, they're most likely doing it just to shut him up.

And oh heaven help you if you point out that one of his ideas is provably fucking stupid. He'll defend it unto death and then as a final dodge?

"LOL! I WAS JOKING, I TROLLED U"

But for all his rationality, it takes me half a paragraph and one clip from "The Critic" to basically turn him into PZ. And I don't even have to directly address him to do it.

Steerzo is a failed male version of Zvan at the end of the day. At least she occasionally scares someone.

[comhcinc]

And the reason the historicity of Jesus is not debated -- read 'questioned'; the nature of Jesus' historicity is adamantly debated -- among Ehrman's colleagues is because nearly all his colleagues are believers.

I had an inkling this was probably the case.

As embarrassing as Carrier is, he does seem at least to be right in that there is no genuine evidence for Jesus's existence. Ehrman's dismissive hand waving away of this problem, as far as I can see, never seems to be accompanied by an actual refutation. This would be trivially easy to do if the evidence was there (cf. evolution vs creationism).

There is little evidence that any one person existence 2000 years ago. There is also little evidence that any one person didn't exist either. The issue is Carrier is attempting to dismiss Jesus because of the whole god aspect. That isn't really what historians are interested in and frankly for most I feel his "because math" argument is just annoying.

[welch]

I've been in conversation with Michael Nugent concerning (John (Greg) Watson), and he shared what we knew already. His suicide was not despair or depression, but a rational response to what he regarded as an unacceptable situation, viz. being homeless in Canada as a sixty-year-old man without a safety net (which he has already done for a year).

I'm still upset that JGW did this, but it was a rational, long-considered act and I respect him for doing it.

I don't want to press the point too much since I have very little to go on, but I'm inclined to disagree. My guess is that JG suffered from some type of longstanding depression that he never got a handle on, and eventually it overpowered his will to continue living. I don't want to be a dick about this, and I know some people here will disagree with me, but that's my take on it. I can still sympathize deeply with his plight and certainly not excoriate him for doing what he did, but he wasn't dealing with intractable illness, or pain, or anything like that. He did mention suffering from some severe anxiety about re-entering homelessness but that could also have been a manifestation of depression; they often go hand in hand. Yes, people do often commit suicide due to mental disorder, but we don't usually "give them a pass" for it. We call it tragic, we don't call it rational.

I guess it boils down to the fact that there's a 'pro-choice/pro-life' controversy here, and I'm pro-life.

He'd made up his mind.

[welch]

No. Steers doesn't understand people communicating on the internet.

He's asked for people to use emoticons while talking to him so he can understand when we're being funny and when we're making a serious point, because he just doesn't know how to read conversational communication.

He doesn't mean to be like this, as far as I can tell. He just thinks you're having a different conversation from the one you're actually having.

It's like autism but on the internet.

Even people on the spectrum aren't steerzo. They at least understand other people aren't them and are different, and have different opinions. They may not *understand* said opinions, but they allow for them to exist.

Steerzo can't even do that.

[welch]

It is generally true, to some extent at least, that "language is usage". But that doesn't necessarily mean that the usage is particularly accurate or holds much water - as in the sunrise example I provided earlier.

What the fuck does this even mean? What is generally true, to some extent that ''language is usage''?

Languge is usage.

Outside usage it's just vibrations in the air or scribbles on a page.

What the fuck do you mean by that doesn't necessarily mean that the usage is particularly accurate or holds much water?

By what other criteria do we judge the meaning of a word other than by it's usage?

Do you understand what we mean by the statement that usage determines meaning?

That usage is constitutive of that meaning?

Do you understand what constitutive means?

Do you get any of this at all?

I'll put it in terms you understand by Wikying it for you:

Adjective

1.having the power or authority to constitute, establish or enact something
2.having the power or authority to appoint someone to office
3.extremely important, essential
4.that forms a constituent part of something else
5.(biochemistry) (of an enzyme) that is continuously produced at a constant rate

1. and 3. are the relevant definitions here.

Usage has the power or authority to constitute, establish or enact the meaning of a word.

Think of it like legal tender; the exchange of money - its usage - constitutes it's value. If money cannot be exchanged for goods and services it no longer functions as money. That might sound tautological but it's true. You can't unilaterally decide that leaves are money, or that $4 is enough to buy you a Mercedes.

Communication, the exchange of meaning, constitutes the meaning of the words used.

And usage is extremely important and essential because outside that usage there is no meaning.

If you think otherwise give examples of words that have meaning outside their usage.

In Steerzo's world, "gay" is forever "happy", "queer" is forever "a bit non-normal", and "football" only refers to one sport. He is the unchanging rock that wishes that fucking stream would leave him alone, and why do people keep pilling dynamite around his base?

[DaveDodo007]

And the reason the historicity of Jesus is not debated -- read 'questioned'; the nature of Jesus' historicity is adamantly debated -- among Ehrman's colleagues is because nearly all his colleagues are believers.

I had an inkling this was probably the case.

As embarrassing as Carrier is, he does seem at least to be right in that there is no genuine evidence for Jesus's existence. Ehrman's dismissive handwaving away of this problem, as far as I can see, never seems to be accompanied by an actual refutation. This would be trivially easy to do if the evidence was there (cf. evolution vs creationism).

True enough, every time I disagreed with a Jesus was real theologian they waved their phd at me. :bjarte:

[welch]

Well, thanks for that. But maybe because I've been Googling "woman", going to a definition provided by one dictionary, and then going from there. However, even accepting the fact that some dictionary definitions for "female" utilize "can"

Not "some" dictionary definitions. Every single one of the top google hits except the one you chose to go with. If we're going to be insufferably pedantic, let's be insufferably pedantic.

I don't see your point. Consider its definition as indicated at the top of a Google search:

can kan
verb
1. be able to: "they can run fast"
2. be permitted to: "you can use the phone if you want to"

I'm certainly willing to permit Bruce Jenner to "bear offspring or produce eggs" whenever he wants to, but the question is whether he is able to.

And there we go with the motte and bailey again. The word can introduces ambiguity that you're ignoring with regards to the menopausal women aren't women argument, as it just requires possibility, and possibility becomes a more philosophical debate. This has nothing to do with trans women, which is why your question about them was irrelevant. I'll go a step further and say I consider the question "are trans women really women?" to be bordering on incoherent. The word woman has a fuzzy definition (to apparently every English speaker in the world except you). The phrase "real woman" further complicates things and makes the question unanswerable without providing additional context.

Is Jenna Talackova a "real woman"?

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1119614/image ... cebook.jpg

Real enough to win beauty pageants, clearly. Real enough to arouse men. If you're looking for someone to bear your children on the other hand, no.

Dude, you are talking to someone attempting to serious put forth the argument that once a woman goes through menopause, she is no longer a woman.

Menopause = Nature's SRS surgery.

Read that and then wonder why he only uses the one dictionary term that agrees with his point (and not really). Seriously.

He's an idiot. He attempts to hide it, but he is a fucking idiot. There's no point in seriously discussing anything with him, because his goals only require that you either tell him he's right, (and sincerity is SO not required) or, you stop talking to him. That's his goal. To be the only one left talking.

I mean, do you think I call him Steerzo because I feel it's some kind of rational retort? Shit no, but it gets under his skin like nothing else can. Deliberate, calculated irrational responses make him go bugfuck. And Steerzo gone bugfuck is like an especially nice day at the women's jogging trail.

As far as Jenna Talackova goes...I'd hit that.

[welch]

I've got Netflix and I'm pretty sure they don't have any series where the main character is black, other than reruns of Luther from the BBC.

House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Marco Polo, Daredevil, Jessica Jones...

Luke Cage doesn't start until September.

DS9.

Not a Netflix show though.

That's what I was wondering: are we talking netflix-created shows, or shows on netflix. I'd almost think it'd have to be the former.

[screwtape]

I've had enough of seeing you fuckers quote Steerzo's endless BS, so I plan to Wonderize him later today. I'll post an announcement when I've done so.

Your forum, your rules. I'm content with the ignore function for those I cannot stand, and my two scrolling fingers for their quotations.

Steersman may irritate the hell out of us for his dogmatic tenacity to some odd ideas, but he also runs out and engages with our common enemies on their home turf. I wouldn't want to discourage that. ;)

[welch]

I'd say Robert Eisenman, Markus Vinzent, and Herman Detering, to name three, qualify as "actually trained" scholars. The jibe at "internet voices" is fatuous, as everyone, Ehrman included, has an internet presence now. And the reason the historicity of Jesus is not debated -- read 'questioned'; the nature of Jesus' historicity is adamantly debated -- among Ehrman's colleagues is because nearly all his colleagues are believers.

Unfortunately, the Bayesian gimmick has become popular among mythicists, and Average Dick has staked out his claim as the high priest of Bayes. So now, most anti-mythicist rhetoric is focused on trashing Carrier as a gonk. Which is, as we all know, so very easy to do.

There is little debate among scholars because while a good circlejerk is fun every now and then, it gets old after a while. The Big Dick is the only person I am aware of that uses math when it comes to history. I hate to go all William Gilmore Simms but at the end of the day Jesus being real or not doesn't matter.

That's kind of where I am on it. There's never going to be unequivocal proof he existed or didn't, so it's all up to the individual. And most of the "problems" caused by Jesus aren't anything he did, it's all his fucking followers and the people who are against his followers. Fuck, stop being dicks to people based on religious belief or lack thereof, and things get better quickly.

[johnself]

Reposting because it seems relevant: Carrier almost certainly pose as a sock on this thread (Zbykow, newly registered user) to defend "the historicity of Jesus":
http://vridar.org/2016/04/15/what-does- ... /#comments

Things go south and he resorts to the usual "you don't understand probabilities" and jumping between topics. Here is one comment:

Tim Hendrix: You are arguing based on what your intuition tells you we should do and not what probability theory actually tells us we have to do. Probability theory has to be the arbiter of truth and what you are saying just does not follow as far as I can see. Please just start with p(~h|b.E) and try to derive your expression, I promise you that it can’t be done symbolically.

Zbykow/Carrier skips on to next topic...

[Tigzy]

Steersman may irritate the hell out of us for his dogmatic tenacity to some odd ideas, but he also runs out and engages with our common enemies on their home turf. I wouldn't want to discourage that. ;)

Have to admit, this is why I can't loathe Steers - well, not wholly at least. If his obtuseness here drives you bugnuts, think what it must do to some poor unsuspecting SJW when he plops his behemothic, unyielding ass into xir safe space.

[Scented Nectar]

I can't whistle, and 99.99% of the time I prefer men. Since I'm female, does this mean I have to become a trans-man? :shock:

Whistling is easy - just pucker your lips and blow a little. Placement of the tongue is important, too. I could walk you through the steps, if you like.

Thanks, but others have tried. I make do with my pseudo whistle that's more of a wheezy hiss - like a deformed 'S' sound. Just when no one's around. Plus I'm semi-tone-deaf and fully key-deaf. The world couldn't take it if I learn to whistle. :shifty:

[welch]

Steersman may irritate the hell out of us for his dogmatic tenacity to some odd ideas, but he also runs out and engages with our common enemies on their home turf. I wouldn't want to discourage that. ;)

Have to admit, this is why I can't loathe Steers - well, not wholly at least. If his obtuseness here drives you bugnuts, think what it must do to some poor unsuspecting SJW when he plops his behemothic, unyielding ass into xir safe space.

Is he engaging or simply opening fire on them the exact same way he does here? Is he discussing with them, or just going in to fling verbiage and links at them to piss them off and see how long it takes him to get banned?

Another way of putting it: how often is the response to him anything but a short countdown to "banned". Nugent engages or tries to. Steerzo, not so much.

[AndrewV69]

Is Jenna Talackova a "real woman"?

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1119614/image ... cebook.jpg

Real enough to win beauty pageants, clearly. Real enough to arouse men. If you're looking for someone to bear your children on the other hand, no.

FAIL.

Agreed. She has no waist and for some reason my dick is not stirring at all. Just a sec I am going to Google this chick and see what her story is.
...

OK I see what the issue is. She is transgender. Now that is interesting. I pay no attention to beauty contests but I am surprised that I did not remember her name as I was aware that there was some controversy a few years ago about some trans and a beauty contest but in my defense I never bothered to look into it.

Welp, speaking for myself she looks like she passes. My bet is if I had met her in a bar I would have taken her home. But I am pretty sure now that once I got her clothes off my erection would disappear.

I base this on the fact that seeing her picture in a bikini resulted in zero reaction from my dick.

[Gumby]

I've been in conversation with Michael Nugent concerning (John (Greg) Watson), and he shared what we knew already. His suicide was not despair or depression, but a rational response to what he regarded as an unacceptable situation, viz. being homeless in Canada as a sixty-year-old man without a safety net (which he has already done for a year).

I'm still upset that JGW did this, but it was a rational, long-considered act and I respect him for doing it.

That's what I got out of my behind the scenes conversations with him.

tl;dr: This.

[free thoughtpolice]

PZ plugs Karen Stollznows new book.
https://archive.is/PTIgE

One thing it lacks is reverence for organized skepticism — many skeptics are portrayed as jerks. It’s almost as if the author’s insider familiarity with the skepticism movement has disillusioned her.

Gosh, I wonder if she portrays some skeptics as mentally unstable harridans that try to ruin the lives of ex-boyfriends by making false accusations about them and flip out and violently assault their domestic partners? :think:

[deLurch]

Extra twist on the UK student who lied about getting raped to get out of her exams. (Oh, and she received 2 years in jail)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... years.html

After searching her property, they found a journal where she documented her increasingly alarming thoughts and fantasies, including the names and offences of rapists and sexual offenders from around Scotland.

It makes me wonder how many of these feminists who go on and on about rape culture might actually be letting loose their personal fetish and obsessions on society.

[screwtape]

The news here says there are twelve female candidates to appear on Canadian banknotes (of which we have less than twelve denominations). I have heard of the author of the silly Anne of Green Gables series that has polluted Canadian media for so long, but the rest were strangers to me. So I looked up one of the other names on the shortlist and found this:

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

Were he able, Sydney Camm would be spinning in his grave. This "Queen of the Hurricanes" simply managed a production line. If that's all we can come up with it would be better to keep quiet and say nothing about new banknotes.

[d4m10n]

Gender studies ftw

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22not+ ... obo+sex%22

Enjoy.

[Kirbmarc]

That's kind of where I am on it. There's never going to be unequivocal proof he existed or didn't, so it's all up to the individual. And most of the "problems" caused by Jesus aren't anything he did, it's all his fucking followers and the people who are against his followers. Fuck, stop being dicks to people based on religious belief or lack thereof, and things get better quickly.

If things were so easy we would have achieved world peace hundreds of years ago.

Religions and ideologies aren't simply private beliefs. They inform people's political behavior, and end up becoming everyone's business. Theocratic or authoritarian politicians in a position of power are a threat to anyone who disagrees with them, and often even to people who agree with them but aren't enthusiastic enough.

The world is full of people who are either charismatic true believers who set up authoritarian regimes or talented con artists who manage to use religions and ideologies for their goals. Some people are even a bit of both. And the consequences of an authoritarian theocracy or ideological movements in a position of power are pretty dire. We've all seen the damage created Nazism, Communism, Fascism (often endorsed by religious figures) and more recently by Islamism. Other associations, from the Catholic church to Scientology, have done less visible and less widespread but not necessarily less heinous damage.

We've even seen it, on a comparatively smaller scale, with the rise of the Social Justice Warriors.

Criticizing religions and ideologies is therefore a moral duty for those who care about keeping the authoritarian nutters as far away from a position of power as possible. Satire and mockery become effective tools. Of course those who fight against the authoritarians have to be careful not to cross the line into authoritarian actions themselves, and they have to figure out which tactics will produce less pain and grief.

But sitting around and signing "why can't we all be friends" just doesn't work. It has never worked and, knowing human psychology, it will never work. People are tribalistic and authoritarian by nature. Being intellectually honest enough to acknowledge one's own in-group/out-group bias, and to concede that people with ideas we dislike have the right to decide what to do with their lives takes a lot of training and a lot of effort. It's far easier to follow a charismatic leader who tells us what we want to hear, and to want to shape society according to our own beliefs.

[Tigzy]

Is he engaging or simply opening fire on them the exact same way he does here? Is he discussing with them, or just going in to fling verbiage and links at them to piss them off and see how long it takes him to get banned?

Whenever I've seen Steers at work in another forum, he always been pretty much the same there as he is here - utterly obtuse, relentlessly verbose, deploys all his usual cliches and footnotes. And that's what so funny about it - he's always so stubbornly the same whenever he goes to bestow his wisdom elsewhere. All too often, it's like witnessing a fat man chewing on a hamburger insolently barging in on a group of self-reinforcing anorexics. He's just so amusingly rude about where he decides to plant his cumbersome presence. I find it as funny as fuck.

Bear in mind that this is all in relation to SJW forums and discussions, so it really doesn't matter to me one jot if someone stinks up their spaces for a bit.

Another way of putting it: how often is the response to him anything but a short countdown to "banned". Nugent engages or tries to. Steerzo, not so much.

It's enjoyable while it lasts, IMO. I see him as a kind of proxy troll. As for Steers' own motives - I have no idea. The bloke is unfathomable to me. If he really is a troll, then he displays a level of dedication which is utterly self defeating - seriously, that amount of screed for some yukyuks? Then again, if he's not a troll...well, just I don't know what he is.

[comhcinc]

I'd say Robert Eisenman, Markus Vinzent, and Herman Detering, to name three, qualify as "actually trained" scholars. The jibe at "internet voices" is fatuous, as everyone, Ehrman included, has an internet presence now. And the reason the historicity of Jesus is not debated -- read 'questioned'; the nature of Jesus' historicity is adamantly debated -- among Ehrman's colleagues is because nearly all his colleagues are believers.

Unfortunately, the Bayesian gimmick has become popular among mythicists, and Average Dick has staked out his claim as the high priest of Bayes. So now, most anti-mythicist rhetoric is focused on trashing Carrier as a gonk. Which is, as we all know, so very easy to do.

There is little debate among scholars because while a good circlejerk is fun every now and then, it gets old after a while. The Big Dick is the only person I am aware of that uses math when it comes to history. I hate to go all William Gilmore Simms but at the end of the day Jesus being real or not doesn't matter.

That's kind of where I am on it. There's never going to be unequivocal proof he existed or didn't, so it's all up to the individual. And most of the "problems" caused by Jesus aren't anything he did, it's all his fucking followers and the people who are against his followers. Fuck, stop being dicks to people based on religious belief or lack thereof, and things get better quickly.

Yeah and here's the thing. Let's say Carrier was right and more so have some real impossible to refute proof. That doesn't really change things for historians. People in the pass believed so that is what you are dealing with.

The stupid thing to me is that Carrier could use this math stuff on other questionable people and maybe (with the help of a more compelling writer) get a neat little series of popular history books.

[comhcinc]

The news here says there are twelve female candidates to appear on Canadian banknotes (of which we have less than twelve denominations). I have heard of the author of the silly Anne of Green Gables series that has polluted Canadian media for so long, but the rest were strangers to me. So I looked up one of the other names on the shortlist and found this:

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

Were he able, Sydney Camm would be spinning in his grave. This "Queen of the Hurricanes" simply managed a production line. If that's all we can come up with it would be better to keep quiet and say nothing about new banknotes.

Damn can't we Americans do anything without being copied by you people?

[Really?]

Reposting because it seems relevant: Carrier almost certainly pose as a sock on this thread (Zbykow, newly registered user) to defend "the historicity of Jesus":
http://vridar.org/2016/04/15/what-does- ... /#comments

Things go south and he resorts to the usual "you don't understand probabilities" and jumping between topics. Here is one comment:

Tim Hendrix: You are arguing based on what your intuition tells you we should do and not what probability theory actually tells us we have to do. Probability theory has to be the arbiter of truth and what you are saying just does not follow as far as I can see. Please just start with p(~h|b.E) and try to derive your expression, I promise you that it can’t be done symbolically.

Zbykow/Carrier skips on to next topic...

Most of this stuff is a big snooze for me, though I know a lot of others are interested. It is amusing to see Carrier try to write without his customary "I suspect that he is a moral criminal and what he is saying reminds me of the early writings of the Boston Strangler. I'm not saying that he is the Boston Strangler, but it is worth asking him where he was on the nights the crimes were committed."

[welch]

That's kind of where I am on it. There's never going to be unequivocal proof he existed or didn't, so it's all up to the individual. And most of the "problems" caused by Jesus aren't anything he did, it's all his fucking followers and the people who are against his followers. Fuck, stop being dicks to people based on religious belief or lack thereof, and things get better quickly.

If things were so easy we would have achieved world peace hundreds of years ago.

Religions and ideologies aren't simply private beliefs. They inform people's political behavior, and end up becoming everyone's business. Theocratic or authoritarian politicians in a position of power are a threat to anyone who disagrees with them, and often even to people who agree with them but aren't enthusiastic enough.

The world is full of people who are either charismatic true believers who set up authoritarian regimes or talented con artists who manage to use religions and ideologies for their goals. Some people are even a bit of both. And the consequences of an authoritarian theocracy or ideological movements in a position of power are pretty dire. We've all seen the damage created Nazism, Communism, Fascism (often endorsed by religious figures) and more recently by Islamism. Other associations, from the Catholic church to Scientology, have done less visible and less widespread but not necessarily less heinous damage.

We've even seen it, on a comparatively smaller scale, with the rise of the Social Justice Warriors.

Criticizing religions and ideologies is therefore a moral duty for those who care about keeping the authoritarian nutters as far away from a position of power as possible. Satire and mockery become effective tools. Of course those who fight against the authoritarians have to be careful not to cross the line into authoritarian actions themselves, and they have to figure out which tactics will produce less pain and grief.

But sitting around and signing "why can't we all be friends" just doesn't work. It has never worked and, knowing human psychology, it will never work. People are tribalistic and authoritarian by nature. Being intellectually honest enough to acknowledge one's own in-group/out-group bias, and to concede that people with ideas we dislike have the right to decide what to do with their lives takes a lot of training and a lot of effort. It's far easier to follow a charismatic leader who tells us what we want to hear, and to want to shape society according to our own beliefs.

However, "why can't we be friends" wasn't my point. As you point out, religion is far more than just a definition of one's relationship with the universe. The existence of a central figure or not isn't really that important once you get a few centuries away from it, and I doubt it's that important even when said figure is alive or not. People want to be "right", people want to be superior, and people want to know it's not their fault. Religion is pretty awesome at all of that.

Buddhism doesn't depend on Siddartha being a real guy, any more than the various native american pagan traditions really depend on spirit animals actually talking to people. It gives people a structure with which to both run their lives and feel superior to other groups. I think that deep down, Carrier et al think, somehow, that if they can just definitively prove jesus didn't exist, then Christianity will somehow cease to exist.

And yet Christians are the deluded ones.

[welch]

Is he engaging or simply opening fire on them the exact same way he does here? Is he discussing with them, or just going in to fling verbiage and links at them to piss them off and see how long it takes him to get banned?

Whenever I've seen Steers at work in another forum, he always been pretty much the same there as he is here - utterly obtuse, relentlessly verbose, deploys all his usual cliches and footnotes. And that's what so funny about it - he's always so stubbornly the same whenever he goes to bestow his wisdom elsewhere. All too often, it's like witnessing a fat man chewing on a hamburger insolently barging in on a group of self-reinforcing anorexics. He's just so amusingly rude about where he decides to plant his cumbersome presence. I find it as funny as fuck.

Bear in mind that this is all in relation to SJW forums and discussions, so it really doesn't matter to me one jot if someone stinks up their spaces for a bit.

Another way of putting it: how often is the response to him anything but a short countdown to "banned". Nugent engages or tries to. Steerzo, not so much.

It's enjoyable while it lasts, IMO. I see him as a kind of proxy troll. As for Steers' own motives - I have no idea. The bloke is unfathomable to me. If he really is a troll, then he displays a level of dedication which is utterly self defeating - seriously, that amount of screed for some yukyuks? Then again, if he's not a troll...well, just I don't know what he is.

He's someone who enjoys being a dick. Which is fun, let's be clear. There are times when being a dick is fun as HELL. But it can't be your only approach to the world, it just isn't terribly effective as the only tool in the toolbox. And there are times when I think encouraging Steerzo to go and shit on people's parades is almost an act of striking cruelty, for the same reason I think the assholes in the SJW world who encourage people like Triggly and Big Red to go do that shit they do is cruel.

I mean, if you want to sabotage a group of people, it's a fantastic tactic. It plays to the "the extreme is the average" thing humans like to do, and ensures the more reasonable people are ignored. Look at the damage Elam et al have done to Men's Rights. They haven't damaged Feminism, (which is their supposed goal), one bit. But they have ensured that a man making even the most mild, polite, reasoned criticism of feminism is instantly put in the same bin as Elam and his batch of screaming twats.

You couldn't kill a movement's credibility better with a nuke. People have lived through nukes. AvFM's hatchet job is way more thorough.

Steerzo being encouraged to be a raging fuckwad in other people's comment posts makes it harder for the folks who actually are trying to discuss things like sane human beings.

[AndrewV69]

Andrew did that once or twice, but the difference is, and why I respect him a LOT more than Steerzo even though I disagree with him almost constantly, is that when I showed him his sources didn't in fact agree with his point, his response was what you'd want. "Well...okay, so I have to do more research". FUCK YEAH! That's how it's supposed to work.

I am more interested in the truth than being right. As far as I am concerned my pwecious fee fees are of no consequence compared to that. I can not even recall saying "I told you so" when I am proven right.

I also do not care who or what you are. If I was wrong when speaking what I believe to be true has cast someone in a negative light, then I will apologize as appropriate (for some reason this appears to be very important for small children especially).

[ERV]

[youtube]weEV0Jf0Urk[/youtube]

I like it, but its 100% identical to Zedds original, just Kesha singing. Huh.

[rayshul]

I've had enough of seeing you fuckers quote Steerzo's endless BS, so I plan to Wonderize him later today. I'll post an announcement when I've done so.

I know since I'm not a Consul of Rome I don't have the Right of Veto, but I will nonetheless veto the motion. I was not a fan when it happened to Wonderist, and I would definitely not be a fan if it happened to Steers. For all his stubborn dumbfuckery on certain subjects, he also has his good moments.

Of course, it's your place, so do as you wish, but don't be surprised if some people here start considering you a fascist tit or something...

I'd second this from Phil. I like Steers. But your word is law, glorious leader.

(Promise not to quote him again.)

[Kirbmarc]

However, "why can't we be friends" wasn't my point. As you point out, religion is far more than just a definition of one's relationship with the universe. The existence of a central figure or not isn't really that important once you get a few centuries away from it, and I doubt it's that important even when said figure is alive or not. People want to be "right", people want to be superior, and people want to know it's not their fault. Religion is pretty awesome at all of that.

Buddhism doesn't depend on Siddartha being a real guy, any more than the various native american pagan traditions really depend on spirit animals actually talking to people. It gives people a structure with which to both run their lives and feel superior to other groups. I think that deep down, Carrier et al think, somehow, that if they can just definitively prove jesus didn't exist, then Christianity will somehow cease to exist.

And yet Christians are the deluded ones.

If Carrier really thinks that if he could somehow dissolve or Christianity by proving that Jesus didn't exist through his Bayesian analysis he's much stupider than I gave him credit for.

The Bible has a terrible track record at explaining things and at dealing with reality. And yet lots of people choose to believe in it anyway.

The question of the existence of Jesus is a purely academic one. Even if Carrier's conclusions were widely accepted in the bible studies community Christianity would survive in some way. Sure, some people could leave Christianity if the academic world started to consider Christ a mythological figure, but the major religious authorities would say something along the lines that "Christ's existence is highly improbable, which proves he's a miracle which violates the laws of the physical world" and they'd cover their ass.

The real reason why Christianity is in crisis in the West is that many Westerners care more about other things, namely getting stuff they like. Capitalism is the real enemy of religion. Also the SJW ideology has showed up as a potential competitor at attracting people who want to feel special, right, superior and never guilty.

[comhcinc]

If Carrier really thinks that if he could somehow dissolve or Christianity by proving that Jesus didn't exist through his Bayesian analysis he's much stupider than I gave him credit for.

Why else make it the focus of a career?

[Steersman]

I've had enough of seeing you fuckers quote Steerzo's endless BS, so I plan to Wonderize him later today. I'll post an announcement when I've done so.

I know since I'm not a Consul of Rome I don't have the Right of Veto, but I will nonetheless veto the motion. I was not a fan when it happened to Wonderist, and I would definitely not be a fan if it happened to Steers. For all his stubborn dumbfuckery on certain subjects, he also has his good moments.

Of course, it's your place, so do as you wish, but don't be surprised if some people here start considering you a fascist tit or something...

I'd second this from Phil. I like Steers. But your word is law, glorious leader.

(Promise not to quote him again.)

Getting this in before the FT bans me to the outer darkness - "with extreme prejudice", thanks rayshul. And Phil. And screwtape. And anyone else who I might have missed who expressed similar opinions.

Though, in passing, not sure that anathematizing people quoting me reflects all that well on the supposed claim to fame of the Pit - i.e., free speech and all that.

[Tigzy]

He's someone who enjoys being a dick. Which is fun, let's be clear. There are times when being a dick is fun as HELL. But it can't be your only approach to the world, it just isn't terribly effective as the only tool in the toolbox. And there are times when I think encouraging Steerzo to go and shit on people's parades is almost an act of striking cruelty, for the same reason I think the assholes in the SJW world who encourage people like Triggly and Big Red to go do that shit they do is cruel.

Almost an act of striking cruelty? C'mon. At worst, Steersman is an irritant - if anyone thinks him anything worse than that, then the interwebz prolly ain't the best place for them. I've never seen him flood a board with porn or dox anyone. What he does is simply sit there and waffle, waffle, waffle while remaining utterly impervious to counter arguments and board etiquettes. People are free to ignore him if they wish. People can - and do - ban Steersman quite easily and without consequence. Steers, for all his faults, is hardly some uber-evil channer.

Steerzo being encouraged to be a raging fuckwad in other people's comment posts makes it harder for the folks who actually are trying to discuss things like sane human beings.

Steers doesn't need any encouragement - that much is clear. And if saner, better posters - and by extention, the content of their posts - are dismissed because the association with Steers, then those doing the dismissing are likely to be just as obtuse and unreasonable as Steers himself. So why waste time with them?

[Cunning Punt]

I've had enough of seeing you fuckers quote Steerzo's endless BS, so I plan to Wonderize him later today. I'll post an announcement when I've done so.

I know since I'm not a Consul of Rome I don't have the Right of Veto, but I will nonetheless veto the motion. I was not a fan when it happened to Wonderist, and I would definitely not be a fan if it happened to Steers. For all his stubborn dumbfuckery on certain subjects, he also has his good moments.

Of course, it's your place, so do as you wish, but don't be surprised if some people here start considering you a fascist tit or something...

I'd second this from Phil. I like Steers. But your word is law, glorious leader.

(Promise not to quote him again.)

Besides we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

[Cunning Punt]

I've had enough of seeing you fuckers quote Steerzo's endless BS, so I plan to Wonderize him later today. I'll post an announcement when I've done so.

I know since I'm not a Consul of Rome I don't have the Right of Veto, but I will nonetheless veto the motion. I was not a fan when it happened to Wonderist, and I would definitely not be a fan if it happened to Steers. For all his stubborn dumbfuckery on certain subjects, he also has his good moments.

Of course, it's your place, so do as you wish, but don't be surprised if some people here start considering you a fascist tit or something...

I'd second this from Phil. I like Steers. But your word is law, glorious leader.

(Promise not to quote him again.)

Besides we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

[Cunning Punt]

How did that happen?

[Kirbmarc]

I've had enough of seeing you fuckers quote Steerzo's endless BS, so I plan to Wonderize him later today. I'll post an announcement when I've done so.

I know since I'm not a Consul of Rome I don't have the Right of Veto, but I will nonetheless veto the motion. I was not a fan when it happened to Wonderist, and I would definitely not be a fan if it happened to Steers. For all his stubborn dumbfuckery on certain subjects, he also has his good moments.

Of course, it's your place, so do as you wish, but don't be surprised if some people here start considering you a fascist tit or something...

I'd second this from Phil. I like Steers. But your word is law, glorious leader.

(Promise not to quote him again.)

Thirding this. Steersman is supremely annoying, especially because at times he seems so close to an epiphany. But he doesn't deserve to banned or relegated to his "safe space". Neither did JimHabegger.

Steersman hasn't doxxed anyone, or posted illegal material, or made threats to anyone. Those are the only three reasons why anyone should be banned from the Pit, IMHO.

[Gumby]

http://i.imgur.com/N6f7ftT.png

[Aneris]

The whole internet runs on quoting people who are wrong and then perhaps saying something slightly less wrong and interesting. Please don't ban him, Lsuoma. Steersman belongs into this forum like broken quotes and the undead thread. We have to endure him.

[Steersman]

I've had enough of seeing you fuckers quote Steerzo's endless BS, so I plan to Wonderize him later today. I'll post an announcement when I've done so.

Your forum, your rules. I'm content with the ignore function for those I cannot stand, and my two scrolling fingers for their quotations.

Indeed - one would also think that people have broken fingers or something.

Steersman may irritate the hell out of us for his dogmatic tenacity to some odd ideas, but he also runs out and engages with our common enemies on their home turf. I wouldn't want to discourage that. ;)

Thanks muchly for that vote of confidence. :-) Particularly as I think that "engaging common enemies on their home turf" is rather important - which people other than myself here do; yuk-yuks are all fine and dandy but they hardly move the ball downfield very far. But, speaking of which, I'm reminded of a post at the Edge that (I think) Brive linked to way-back-when on Internet Silos; a relevant quote or two:

We should be worried about online silos. They make us stupid and hostile toward each other.

Internet silos are news, information, opinion, and discussion communities that are dominated by a single point of view. Examples are the Huffington Post on the left and National Review Online on the right, but these are only a couple of examples, and not the worst, either. In technology, Slashdot is a different kind of silo of geek attitudes. ....

It shouldn't be surprising that silos are fun and compelling for a lot of us. They make us feel like we belong. They reinforce our core assumptions, and give us easily-digestible talking points, obviating the necessity of difficult individual thought. They appeal to our epistemic vanity and laziness. ....

My solution? For one thing, you can do your part by regularly visiting the opposition and showing them in conversation how reasonable you can be. There's little more upsetting to a silo than infiltration by an intelligent, persistent individual.

Sea-lioning for the win! ;-)

[Kirbmarc]

If Carrier really thinks that if he could somehow dissolve Christianity by proving that Jesus didn't exist through his Bayesian analysis he's much stupider than I gave him credit for.

Why else make it the focus of a career?

Pathological narcissism. Carrier wants to become famous as "the man who proved that Jesus doesn't exist". The effects of his proof on Christianity don't really matter as long as he gets the fame he thinks he deserves.

[Tigzy]

The whole internet runs on quoting people who are wrong and then perhaps saying something slightly less wrong and interesting. Please don't ban him, Lsuoma. Steersman belongs into this forum like broken quotes and the undead thread. We have to endure him.

Steersman is our collective hairshirt. He is the sour fruit we suck upon between courses in order to cleanse the palate. He is like the tumours of Nux, horrible but beloved and tattooed with smiley faces. He is not the hero we need but the one we deserve. Or is it the one we don't deserve but the one we need? Who knows. He is a veritable pot boiling over with conundrums. We watch, ever awed, as he descends like the Dark Knight upon Gotham, swooping down on the cowering SJW herd with his battle cry of 'I really must take issue with this.'

[Steersman]

<snip>
I'd second this from Phil. I like Steers. But your word is law, glorious leader.

(Promise not to quote him again.)

Thirding this. Steersman is supremely annoying, especially because at times he seems so close to an epiphany. But he doesn't deserve to banned or relegated to his "safe space". Neither did JimHabegger.

Thanks.

Steersman hasn't doxxed anyone, or posted illegal material, or made threats to anyone. Those are the only three reasons why anyone should be banned from the Pit, IMHO.

Close to an epiphany yourself regarding limitations on free speech? ;-)

[free thoughtpolice]

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=9352846

Sarah W. Holmes

Abstract

This article examines the treatment of the pelvis in the Pilates exercises “Single Leg Stretch” and “Leg Circles.” The teaching practices of the hips, as commonly explained in Pilates educational manuals, reinforce behaviors of a noble-class and racially “white” aesthetic. Central to this article is the troubling notion of white racial superiority and, specifically, the colonizing, prejudicial, and denigrating mentality found in the superiority of whiteness and its embodied behaviors. Using the two Pilates exercises, I illuminate how perceived kinesthetic understandings of race in the body may be normalized and privileged. By examining the intersections between dance and Pilates history, this article reveals the ways embodied discourses in Pilates are “white” in nature, and situates Pilates as a product of historically constructed social behaviors of dominant Anglo-European culture.

Is the Cambridge University Press a real thing?

[Tigzy]

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=9352846

Sarah W. Holmes

Abstract

This article examines the treatment of the pelvis in the Pilates exercises “Single Leg Stretch” and “Leg Circles.” The teaching practices of the hips, as commonly explained in Pilates educational manuals, reinforce behaviors of a noble-class and racially “white” aesthetic. Central to this article is the troubling notion of white racial superiority and, specifically, the colonizing, prejudicial, and denigrating mentality found in the superiority of whiteness and its embodied behaviors. Using the two Pilates exercises, I illuminate how perceived kinesthetic understandings of race in the body may be normalized and privileged. By examining the intersections between dance and Pilates history, this article reveals the ways embodied discourses in Pilates are “white” in nature, and situates Pilates as a product of historically constructed social behaviors of dominant Anglo-European culture.

Is the Cambridge University Press a real thing?

Yes, it's very much a real thing. Carrier would probably cut off his own cock to get published by them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge ... sity_Press

Given the content of that pilates fucking thing, Carrier might not even have to go that far.

Holy shit.

[Steersman]

The whole internet runs on quoting people who are wrong and then perhaps saying something slightly less wrong and interesting. Please don't ban him, Lsuoma. Steersman belongs into this forum like broken quotes and the undead thread. We have to endure him.

Thanks - though it seems a bit of the proverbial "left-handed compliment". :-) Like Tigzy's amusing "hair shirt" comment. Or like the Buckley's cough medicine commercials: "A history of bad taste"; ""Let the people who love you give you comfort. We're here to make you better." ;-)

[Kirbmarc]

Steersman hasn't doxxed anyone, or posted illegal material, or made threats to anyone. Those are the only three reasons why anyone should be banned from the Pit, IMHO.

Close to an epiphany yourself regarding limitations on free speech? ;-)

I never said that free speech has NO limits. I only said that "hate speech" isn't a good principle for those limits.

Threats or posting child pornography directly cause real harm by spreading either intimidation through the promise of violence or the results of the sexual exploitation of a child. "Hate speech" is a vaguely defined term for speech which we think might cause harm, even though they cause no direct harmful effect.