The Refuge of the Toads

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Although I could be wrong in my priorites... I just had a lengthy exchange with and anti-SJW atheist who cannot grasp the idea that evidence and proof are not interchangeable words.
No doubt he has spent most of his time as an atheist watching rhetorical arguments against feminism with one side refusing to engage, unlike most of us who have spent hours trying to unravel the bullshit of William Lane Craig, and having to know a trick or two.

There was a time when i didn't really care that people were coming to disbelief through reasons other than reason. But that's how the SJWs got in in the first place. After Social Justice, it could be some ideology which is just as nasty, our own people don't seem to be well inoculated against bullshit.

Do you even skeptic bro?

After the schism I saw self-proclaimed skeptics gleefully abandon every value I thought the word stood for. It was enough that I started to wonder if maybe I was the one who had gone insane. Nobody is truly impartial with their skepticism, but I like to think the people around here are at least aware of that fact and have a sense of humor about it. My wife and I were just arguing about the Stanford rape case and she asked me how much of what I was saying had to do with me hating feminists.

*glare*

"A lot."

My wife is more anti-neofeminist than I am. She is really concerned about our boys going off to college in an era where just a few words can ruin a young man's future. It is so utterly strange when SJW men and mothers of boys just think that their kids or they and their friends will be immune somehow. They must believe they are amongst the saved.

[Bhurzum]

I am not surprised. It kinda reminds me of racial lynchings. There are a lot of motherfuckers out there just hoping for something like this to happen so they can grab their ropes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

[youtube]kL1zs4OKYAU[/youtube]

[Billie from Ockham]

Also, in this video: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2HfIfsZH8k), (created immediately after the DCMA takedown) Mykeru said that the purpose of uploading it was because he referenced it in other videos. So it may indeed have just been the original without modification or comment.

Yep. It does seem that way, as Mykeru says (in the video above) that it was a "mirror."

If true, then YouTube was correct to pull it down and deny his appeal. There is no "because I have referenced it" or "people need to see this" exemption to copyright rules. He is free to create a larger/longer video that explains why her video is important and includes clips from it to make his point (i.e., invest the time to make a comment-with-clips video response ... something that I know that he could do [and do well]), but you can't put up a copy of something someone else made and then took down just because you want it to still be available. And, again, there is no "because this might be evidence of a crime" exemption, either.

(You all did see the "if true" at the start of the previous paragraph, yes?)

[comhcinc]

What is it about holding public protests today where people run around in very public places holding signs and shouting slogans and then get all pissy when someone pays attention to them. :think:
[youtube]Z5zmFV3-fAc[/youtube]

I just got to watch this whole thing.

It seems clear to me that these people are actually embarrassed by their actions and that's why they don't want to be filmed.

It makes me want to get a camera and go film people.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

What is it about holding public protests today where people run around in very public places holding signs and shouting slogans and then get all pissy when someone pays attention to them. :think:
[youtube]Z5zmFV3-fAc[/youtube]

I just got to watch this whole thing.

It seems clear to me that these people are actually embarrassed by their actions and that's why they don't want to be filmed.

It makes me want to get a camera and go film people.

I've thought about that as well. There's various hives of SJW scum and villainy close by, and several SJW types frequent a coffee shop I visit on occasion. I've had some exchanges that might garner a lulz or two. You folks won't believe It, but I have a bit of talent for pissing people off. It might be amusing at some point to get some pitters together to get some footage for posterity.

[Really?]

I think Thunderfoot's wrong to compare his channel traffic to the attendance of a meatspace event, though he probably knows it's a bit unfair and is just doing it to pour salt on the wound, but like some people in the FA comments pointed out, you can get a higher turnout at a pride parade hosted in a single city. As a national event this was still embarrassing, and I'd be willing to bet there were more atheists living in DC who didn't show up than traveled from elsewhere to be at the event. And I don't just mean the closeted type.

It is crazy and perhaps inconvenient, but the young people who will drive the future don't care about books and were born a decade after Bill Nye made his last episode. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people watch YouTube videos about atheism and how literally everything is rape (Laci Green!). We are in a time when we are trying to push logic and reason when people want strict adherence to authority. It is hard to win.

[Really?]

What is it about holding public protests today where people run around in very public places holding signs and shouting slogans and then get all pissy when someone pays attention to them. :think:
[youtube]Z5zmFV3-fAc[/youtube]

I just got to watch this whole thing.

It seems clear to me that these people are actually embarrassed by their actions and that's why they don't want to be filmed.

It makes me want to get a camera and go film people.

I've thought about that as well. There's various hives of SJW scum and villainy close by, and several SJW types frequent a coffee shop I visit on occasion. I've had some exchanges that might garner a lulz or two. You folks won't believe It, but I have a bit of talent for pissing people off. It might be amusing at some point to get some pitters together to get some footage for posterity.

They are totalitarian assholes. These men and women want to and need to control the narrative. By definition they think they are superior to everyone else. Therefore they deserve freedoms that others don't because they are evil.

[comhcinc]

I've thought about that as well. There's various hives of SJW scum and villainy close by, and several SJW types frequent a coffee shop I visit on occasion. I've had some exchanges that might garner a lulz or two. You folks won't believe It, but I have a bit of talent for pissing people off. It might be amusing at some point to get some pitters together to get some footage for posterity.

I can too. I am also assured by a lot of people that I am kinda scary looking. It must be the way I carry myself because I am only 5'7(I honestly don't believe it). Anyway I think I would get a lot less "stop or I am going to break the camera" and a lot more calling the police over.

Oh the pipe dreams.

[comhcinc]

...the young people who will drive the future don't care about books and were born a decade after Bill Nye made his last episode...

I have always found Bill Nye to be kinda boring. As a young'un I was about Beakman's world. Speaking of which he still has it.

[youtube]sT_bTnkwLuE[/youtube]

[Bhurzum]

It makes me want to get a camera and go film people.

A few channels for inspiration:

TedTheAtheist (Mainly bible thumpers)

[youtube]53tjhxffbq0[/youtube]

Angry Gay Pope (almost exclusively targets Scientology)

[youtube]y_Ln9ncwqP4[/youtube]

LaughingAtLiberals (Very mixed bag)

[youtube]Func7GV9YoE[/youtube]

[Guest_84d94f98]

I've thought about that as well. There's various hives of SJW scum and villainy close by, and several SJW types frequent a coffee shop I visit on occasion. I've had some exchanges that might garner a lulz or two. You folks won't believe It, but I have a bit of talent for pissing people off. It might be amusing at some point to get some pitters together to get some footage for posterity.

10 Hours of Walking in {city} with a Trump Hat

[jet_lagg]

Damn. Kimbo Slice is gone. MMA fans will scoff, given his actual credentials, but that guy embodied the 1980's style machismo I dimly remember from my youth. I'll miss him.

http://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/16009 ... ies-age-42

[comhcinc]

Damn. Kimbo Slice is gone. MMA fans will scoff, given his actual credentials, but that guy embodied the 1980's style machismo I dimly remember from my youth. I'll miss him.

http://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/16009 ... ies-age-42

Really? The guy was good at knocking out untrained fighters in backyards.

He was the essence of all talk with nothing to back it up.

[Hunt]

My wife and I were just arguing about the Stanford rape case and she asked me how much of what I was saying had to do with me hating feminists.

*glare*

"A lot."

Not that I want to sow discord between you and your wife, but you're right. You simply can't disconnect the nuttiness of feminism from cases like this. It drives the narrative, and we live in an age when he or she who tells the best, most emotive story wins. Nobody can tell me that campus rape hysteria doesn't play a significant part in cases like this with a straight face, or they shouldn't be able to. Therefore nobody can tell me that the entire climate of feminist dominance on campuses doesn't play a part. The girl's statement includes her signing a "Rape Victim" statement before she even left the hospital! ; before hapless Brock had probably even sobered up. And by the way, the hospital she was taken to was undoubtedly Stanford Medical Center, which is affiliated with the university. It would be really nice if none of this mattered, but of course it does. All of it matters.

Excerpt from the girl's statement:

Again, you were not wrong for drinking. Everyone around you was not sexually assaulting me. You were wrong for doing what nobody else was doing, which was pushing your erect dick in your pants against my naked, defenseless body concealed in a dark area, where partygoers could no longer see or protect me, and my own sister could not find me.

Though no penis ever had an appearance in this case, this was read in court, in a fucking court of law! In today's climate, this guy never had a single chance in hell from the moment Swedes laid their Swedey hands on him to the moment the system decided he must be guilty. Imagine a comparable statement being read to a woman in court.

[comhcinc]

You I don't mind Tfoot visiting and using us as a resource.

But you could say hi every now and then dude.

:greetings-wavingyellow:

[SM12]

I am not surprised. It kinda reminds me of racial lynchings. There are a lot of motherfuckers out there just hoping for something like this to happen so they can grab their ropes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

[youtube]kL1zs4OKYAU[/youtube]

The English are the best. The English are the best. I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest . The English are the best.

They don't write songs like that anymore....

[Sunder]

The dumb tits are now in the "NO U" phase. Ahermit has broken out the 10yo memespeak in an effort to seem hip as he responds for the 8,512th time in this thread alone.

http://i.imgur.com/m4iDJUM.jpg

[Bhurzum]

The English are the best. The English are the best. I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest . The English are the best.

They don't write songs like that anymore....

No offense intended to any boxhead 'pitters.

[Bhurzum]

Fuck me, I love this woman!

[youtube]G5-5cpdAvB8[/youtube]

[KenD]

What is it about holding public protests today where people run around in very public places holding signs and shouting slogans and then get all pissy when someone pays attention to them. :think:
[youtube]Z5zmFV3-fAc[/youtube]

They are totalitarian assholes. These men and women want to and need to control the narrative. By definition they think they are superior to everyone else. Therefore they deserve freedoms that others don't because they are evil.

The ones who crack me up are the entitled wankers who's first reaction is to go whine to the nearest police officer.

"Excuse me officer, this mean man is harassing me by legally filming my antics in a public space, please make him go away".

What's the bet that those Occupy SJWs identify as anarchists and would usually be found condemning the police as fascist pigs?

Here they are upset that those tools of state oppression won't step in to restrict the rights of people who dare to hurt their delicate feelings.

[MarcusAu]

I am not surprised. It kinda reminds me of racial lynchings. There are a lot of motherfuckers out there just hoping for something like this to happen so they can grab their ropes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

[youtube]kL1zs4OKYAU[/youtube]

The English are the best. The English are the best. I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest . The English are the best.

They don't write songs like that anymore....

I'm just glad that Flanders and Swann are still making songs.

[MarcusAu]

...the young people who will drive the future don't care about books and were born a decade after Bill Nye made his last episode...

I have always found Bill Nye to be kinda boring. As a young'un I was about Beakman's world. Speaking of which he still has it.

[youtube]sT_bTnkwLuE[/youtube]

I still miss Magnus Pyke

[Brive1987]

Fuck me, I love this woman!

[youtube]G5-5cpdAvB8[/youtube]

What powers mirrors?

:lol: :lol:

[Brive1987]

By any chance, do you knows the details of Mykeru's video that was flagged? Was it really mostly or entirely a copy or "mirror" of a Stollznow video?

My understanding & memory of the video is that it was a flat out mirror for prosperity.

- Soylent f98

Correct.

[Brive1987]

That was something I never thought I'd see.

[youtube]ulAyuC3hHRc[/youtube]

[VickyCaramel]

Although I could be wrong in my priorites... I just had a lengthy exchange with and anti-SJW atheist who cannot grasp the idea that evidence and proof are not interchangeable words.
No doubt he has spent most of his time as an atheist watching rhetorical arguments against feminism with one side refusing to engage, unlike most of us who have spent hours trying to unravel the bullshit of William Lane Craig, and having to know a trick or two.

There was a time when i didn't really care that people were coming to disbelief through reasons other than reason. But that's how the SJWs got in in the first place. After Social Justice, it could be some ideology which is just as nasty, our own people don't seem to be well inoculated against bullshit.

Do you even skeptic bro?

After the schism I saw self-proclaimed skeptics gleefully abandon every value I thought the word stood for. It was enough that I started to wonder if maybe I was the one who had gone insane. Nobody is truly impartial with their skepticism, but I like to think the people around here are at least aware of that fact and have a sense of humor about it. My wife and I were just arguing about the Stanford rape case and she asked me how much of what I was saying had to do with me hating feminists.

*glare*

"A lot."

Interesting. Now I no longer work, I sometimes have day-time television on as background noise. The format is usually that of a woman coming on and giving a sob story, then the deadbeat-dad or abusive husband comes on to try to give his side of the story while the audience jeers and the host belittles him. Obviously the whole thing is setup that way, a hatchet job.

The interesting thing is that I find myself looking for evidence the woman is lying, playing it up or being manipulative... which is surprisingly often. And even when the guy is a complete bastard I find myself thinking "Stupid bitch shouldn't have married him then".

I know find myself doing the exact same thing in these rape cases we are hearing about, putting myself in the place of the defense lawyer. My sense of fair play and that the deck has been stacked makes me want to side with the underdog.

Lets face it, why is Stanford sex assault case newsworthy? It's two middle class white kids having a drunken fumble, meanwhile people are being convicted every day of brutal violent rapes, child rapes and a myriad of sex crimes far worse than this which are not headline news.

[rayshul]

Ok pitters, wish me luck, got a job interview tomorrow. For a job I might actually be able to talk about!

:D

[Brive1987]

Ok pitters, wish me luck, got a job interview tomorrow. For a job I might actually be able to talk about!

:D

Break a leg. But I'm confident you'll nail it without luck having to make an appearance.

[Kirbmarc]

We could be losing sight of the fact that Social Justice is the new religion. We are all still fighting the good fight, it's just that Soc-Jus and Islam are bigger threats than Christianity, which in some cases has suddenly become our ally.

Of the three Islam, and especially the Wahabi/Salafi, is by far the biggest threat to secularism worldwide. SJWs are one of the threats to liberalism and democracy at home, along with the alt-right, though.

I'm not sure Christianity as a whole is an "ally". The Catholic Church is divided between old authoritarian reactionaries and young confused Cafeteria Catholics who in some cases can be convinced to support some illiberal SJW measures (like Twitter censorship) in the name of "tolerance". The current Pope compared the Charlie Hebdo shootings to the "logical reaction" of wanting to punch someone in the face if they insult your mother. And this is coming from a guy who belongs to the Church which claims to be all about forgiveness and turning the other cheek.

Some organized Protestant Churches might be more interested in protecting the values of liberalism and Enlightenment, like Mill's standards, but I actually doubt it. The individual Christians who care about liberalism and freedom of speech are our "allies", not Christianity as whole. Hell, even the individual Muslims who care about liberal values (even though there are only a few of them out there) are our "allies". It's not a coincidence that authoritarian Regressive Leftists like CJ "Plagiarist" Werleman attack Maajid Nawaz.

But the best "allies" for people who care about freedom of speech, secularism, due process etc. (no matter what these people think) are people in business. That's why the SJWs are trying to make them think that they represent the will of powerful special interests.

If you're interested in protecting freedom of speech on the Internet, vote with your wallets. If Google or Twitter or Youtube or Facebook or another big hub bend to the desires of the SJWs, abandon them. Make them balk at the idea of losing money. That's all they care about anyway. The SJWs are trying to convince them that they represent the will of the majority of the people who use their services, and that they'll lose money unless they start "fighting harassment" (i.e. restrict free speech according to the SJW rules).

The only reason they haven't obeyed them completely is because they're not sure that the SJWs can carry on their threats.

The CEO of Twitter is SJW-friendly (he wore a BLM t-shirt) but he's also reluctant at going full SJWs because he's afraid of losing everyone who's not a SJW. The same is true for every other big company.

The strength of the SJWs comes from their media. People who are leftists but are pissed off by the authoritarianism of the SJWs should desert the media which are supporting those measures, like the Guardian or MNSBC. Stop clicking on their articles, stop watching them, don't be tempted by clickbait. It's not easy, and I for one link to them a bit too much, but it's the way to go.

And the same thing is true for gaming media. If gaming journalism is corrupt, boycott the corrupt media and start websites about reviews from gamers and for gamers.

Lather, rinse, repeat for the atheist "movement". Stop attending conferences, stop using media, or being part of associations which support illiberal SJW decisions, like the NECSS or American Atheists. Only support causes and people that you think are worth supporting, not those who want to purge the anti-SJW.

The best ally you can have is the one who depends on your money. The SJWs know this, and that's why they target big business which depend on public relations (and so are easy to threaten with online campaigns). It's time for people who care about freedom of speech, due process, and other liberal and Enlightenment values to do the same. Keep the Internet free by rejecting those who clam to wish to protect the poor Damsels in Distress. Make people who care about liberalism (no matter if they're atheist, Christians, or whatever) know what's going on so that they can act.

The issues with authoritarianism in Islam are much harder to deal with. Even in this case, however, the best way to fight authoritarians is to target their sources of income. IF we wanted to at least partially tame Muslim authoritarians we should stop the funds that countries like Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states send to Salafi/Wahabi imams, expel those imams who are involved in terrorism or subversive activities, and watch carefully what all imams and "community leaders" say and do.

If they preach ideas which go against liberal values we shouldn't give them public money or associate with them.

But realistically all of this is unlikely to happen until the "West" frees itself from the energy blackmail of the countries which control OPEC.

What we little people can do is boycott the media who are too cowardly to show Mohammed cartoons or point out the issues with Islam, and don't vote for people who are clearly buddy-buddies with authoritarian Muslims (like Corbyn in the UK).

Also, keep people aware of the dangers, by pointing out SJW and Islamic authoritarianism, by mocking them relentlessly, by exposing their stupidity, lies, double standards, hypocrisy, and by making people in business know that at least some of their costumers care about real diversity of ideas, not just diversity of skin color or gender or sexual preferences, and that catering to every group of easily offended authoritarians is a sucker's game.

[Hunt]

Lets face it, why is Stanford sex assault case newsworthy? It's two middle class white kids having a drunken fumble, meanwhile people are being convicted every day of brutal violent rapes, child rapes and a myriad of sex crimes far worse than this which are not headline news.

It's newsworthy because the blond-haired, bubble blue eye to-be olympian falls from grace, is revealed as Mr. Hyde. Contra the lyrics, everyone seems to know what it's like to be the bad guy behind blue eyes or at least be able spot him in a lineup. Blue eyes' father inadvisedly uses the word "action" and is similarly smeared, while anyone above moron grade knows exactly what he meant, and didn't mean. They attack a desperate father trying to protect his son and call him a monster. Sometimes SJW are just fucking evil beyond belief.

[Hunt]

Anyway, enough of this light fluff. Now I'll be serious...

[Hunt]

I remember the worst advice anyone ever gave me for a job interview was "don't let them see you sweat." By the end of it I think I was soaking.

So sweat all you want.

[VickyCaramel]

Dr Randomercam on Aron Ra:

[youtube]w3OoIAXPta0[/youtube]

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god now Aron?

Merriam Webster defines Atheist thusly:~ "a person who believes that God does not exist"
Apparently atheism is a belief and a positive claim. Strangely there is no mention in a belief in social justice.

And interestingly Rational Wiki, which is now a Soc-Jus clusterfuck run by Aron's friends, has a page on Argumentum ad dictionarium. I am surprised they haven't picked him up on his mistake.

[feathers]

It seems clear to me that these people are actually embarrassed by their actions and that's why they don't want to be filmed.

It makes me want to get a camera and go film people.

I've heard that Melody Hensley has a cheap used camera for sale. I'm sure it can also do movies.

[feathers]

The English are the best. The English are the best. I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest . The English are the best.

They don't write songs like that anymore....

I like Chinese
I like Chinese
They only come up to your knees
Yet they're always friendly, and they're ready to please

[VickyCaramel]

We could be losing sight of the fact that Social Justice is the new religion. We are all still fighting the good fight, it's just that Soc-Jus and Islam are bigger threats than Christianity, which in some cases has suddenly become our ally.

Of the three Islam, and especially the Wahabi/Salafi, is by far the biggest threat to secularism worldwide. SJWs are one of the threats to liberalism and democracy at home, along with the alt-right, though.

I'm not sure Christianity as a whole is an "ally". The Catholic Church is divided between old authoritarian reactionaries and young confused Cafeteria Catholics who in some cases can be convinced to support some illiberal SJW measures (like Twitter censorship) in the name of "tolerance". The current Pope compared the Charlie Hebdo shootings to the "logical reaction" of wanting to punch someone in the face if they insult your mother. And this is coming from a guy who belongs to the Church which claims to be all about forgiveness and turning the other cheek.

Some organized Protestant Churches might be more interested in protecting the values of liberalism and Enlightenment, like Mill's standards, but I actually doubt it. The individual Christians who care about liberalism and freedom of speech are our "allies", not Christianity as whole. Hell, even the individual Muslims who care about liberal values (even though there are only a few of them out there) are our "allies". It's not a coincidence that authoritarian Regressive Leftists like CJ "Plagiarist" Werleman attack Maajid Nawaz.

But the best "allies" for people who care about freedom of speech, secularism, due process etc. (no matter what these people think) are people in business. That's why the SJWs are trying to make them think that they represent the will of powerful special interests.

If you're interested in protecting freedom of speech on the Internet, vote with your wallets. If Google or Twitter or Youtube or Facebook or another big hub bend to the desires of the SJWs, abandon them. Make them balk at the idea of losing money. That's all they care about anyway. The SJWs are trying to convince them that they represent the will of the majority of the people who use their services, and that they'll lose money unless they start "fighting harassment" (i.e. restrict free speech according to the SJW rules).

The only reason they haven't obeyed them completely is because they're not sure that the SJWs can carry on their threats.

The CEO of Twitter is SJW-friendly (he wore a BLM t-shirt) but he's also reluctant at going full SJWs because he's afraid of losing everyone who's not a SJW. The same is true for every other big company.

The strength of the SJWs comes from their media. People who are leftists but are pissed off by the authoritarianism of the SJWs should desert the media which are supporting those measures, like the Guardian or MNSBC. Stop clicking on their articles, stop watching them, don't be tempted by clickbait. It's not easy, and I for one link to them a bit too much, but it's the way to go.

And the same thing is true for gaming media. If gaming journalism is corrupt, boycott the corrupt media and start websites about reviews from gamers and for gamers.

Lather, rinse, repeat for the atheist "movement". Stop attending conferences, stop using media, or being part of associations which support illiberal SJW decisions, like the NECSS or American Atheists. Only support causes and people that you think are worth supporting, not those who want to purge the anti-SJW.

The best ally you can have is the one who depends on your money. The SJWs know this, and that's why they target big business which depend on public relations (and so are easy to threaten with online campaigns). It's time for people who care about freedom of speech, due process, and other liberal and Enlightenment values to do the same. Keep the Internet free by rejecting those who clam to wish to protect the poor Damsels in Distress. Make people who care about liberalism (no matter if they're atheist, Christians, or whatever) know what's going on so that they can act.

The issues with authoritarianism in Islam are much harder to deal with. Even in this case, however, the best way to fight authoritarians is to target their sources of income. IF we wanted to at least partially tame Muslim authoritarians we should stop the funds that countries like Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states send to Salafi/Wahabi imams, expel those imams who are involved in terrorism or subversive activities, and watch carefully what all imams and "community leaders" say and do.

If they preach ideas which go against liberal values we shouldn't give them public money or associate with them.

But realistically all of this is unlikely to happen until the "West" frees itself from the energy blackmail of the countries which control OPEC.

What we little people can do is boycott the media who are too cowardly to show Mohammed cartoons or point out the issues with Islam, and don't vote for people who are clearly buddy-buddies with authoritarian Muslims (like Corbyn in the UK).

Also, keep people aware of the dangers, by pointing out SJW and Islamic authoritarianism, by mocking them relentlessly, by exposing their stupidity, lies, double standards, hypocrisy, and by making people in business know that at least some of their costumers care about real diversity of ideas, not just diversity of skin color or gender or sexual preferences, and that catering to every group of easily offended authoritarians is a sucker's game.

When I mention Christians as allies, I do not mean for free speech and liberalism, I mean against Islam... because religions never need much encouragement to hate each other.

And I disagree with the idea that capitalists are our potential allies. At least they aren't natural allies. You are talking about SJWs coercing them with shame, and we should coerce them with our cash. But in which direction would they naturally go? Obviously they would go with censorship. They can then provide a safe space for advertisers which are free of any criticism of inferior products or shady business practices. They can stop us squabbling about important issues like freedom and democracy, and guide us into squabbling about unimportant things for which they happen to have the solution, for this special one off price of $99.99, while stocks last.

And in that very last sentence I used at least four marketing tricks, because marketing is a science based on persuading and manipulating people, in which they use every possible trick to leverage every single penny they can get. Given the chance you bet they would try and control what we talk about and where.

[MarcusAu]

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god now Aron?

Merriam Webster defines Atheist thusly:~ "a person who believes that God does not exist"
Apparently atheism is a belief and a positive claim. Strangely there is no mention in a belief in social justice.

And interestingly Rational Wiki, which is now a Soc-Jus clusterfuck run by Aron's friends, has a page on Argumentum ad dictionarium. I am surprised they haven't picked him up on his mistake.

I remember Aron Ra being quite proud of the fact that he read the Indian Vedas (sp) and took his son to a Hindu /Zen temple to learn more about religion. Surely, he could have learned all he needed by reading the dictionary definitions.

Also, you could look up the dictionary definitions for 'Medicine' or 'Science' but both would be of little use unless you can test if the method used to carry them out actually does what it's proponents say it does.

[MarcusAu]

Anyway, I'm off to slaughter a lamb, and smear the blood around me in a pentagram in order to bring good fortune to Rayshul in her job interview.

[Hunt]

Anyway, I'm off to slaughter a lamb, and smear the blood around me in a pentagram in order to bring good fortune to Rayshul in her job interview.

But smearing it in a circle is what assures success. The pentagram means....oh hell, does anyone have MarcusAu's cell?

[VickyCaramel]

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god now Aron?

Merriam Webster defines Atheist thusly:~ "a person who believes that God does not exist"
Apparently atheism is a belief and a positive claim. Strangely there is no mention in a belief in social justice.

And interestingly Rational Wiki, which is now a Soc-Jus clusterfuck run by Aron's friends, has a page on Argumentum ad dictionarium. I am surprised they haven't picked him up on his mistake.

I remember Aron Ra being quite proud of the fact that he read the Indian Vedas (sp) and took his son to a Hindu /Zen temple to learn more about religion. Surely, he could have learned all he needed by reading the dictionary definitions.

Also, you could look up the dictionary definitions for 'Medicine' or 'Science' but both would be of little use unless you can test if the method used to carry them out actually does what it's proponents say it does.

He must know, he must fucking know! Part of me is thinking, "That must be some great pussy!".

We have been here before with theists lying for Jesus and all that. You have people like WLC who are philosophers and have to be frauds to so carefully craft their apologetics in order to hide their fallacies. And we know Ra wasn't indoctrinated into this as a child, so I am really having a hard time believing that the ideology is allowing him to reconcile feminism with reason, because frankly he doesn't expouse it for the most part, he does no really look like he has bought into it.

I can understand these guys who have married feminists wanting to keep quiet and avoid it, but for fucks sake, when you see that I just can't help thinking he is being dishonest. The willful ignorance in not accepting that he knows of any feminists except dictionary feminists and Jaclyn Glenn is fucking breathtaking.

[Bhurzum]

Ok pitters, wish me luck, got a job interview tomorrow. For a job I might actually be able to talk about!

:D

I hope your interview ends better than this one...

[youtube]iRtBvo9grLw[/youtube]

Best of luck!

[MarcusAu]

He must know, he must fucking know! Part of me is thinking, "That must be some great pussy!".

We have been here before with theists lying for Jesus and all that. You have people like WLC who are philosophers and have to be frauds to so carefully craft their apologetics in order to hide their fallacies. And we know Ra wasn't indoctrinated into this as a child, so I am really having a hard time believing that the ideology is allowing him to reconcile feminism with reason, because frankly he doesn't expouse it for the most part, he does no really look like he has bought into it.

I can understand these guys who have married feminists wanting to keep quiet and avoid it, but for fucks sake, when you see that I just can't help thinking he is being dishonest. The willful ignorance in not accepting that he knows of any feminists except dictionary feminists and Jaclyn Glenn is fucking breathtaking.

I can understand having difficulty in giving up an ingrained belief. Over the past couple of years, I have been becoming less and less concerned with the 'feminist' ideal position, though I wouldn't exactly call myself an anti-feminist (yet!).

Also, from his perspective, Jaclyn Glenn (or whoever) could still be a feminist, even if she does not choose to identify as one.

I think he wants to tell everyone to fuck off, and that he just does not wish to discuss it anymore.

[Kirbmarc]

When I mention Christians as allies, I do not mean for free speech and liberalism, I mean against Islam... because religions never need much encouragement to hate each other.

Of course. But are they reliable allies? Or are they likely to side with Islam about certain specific issues, like censorship or blasphemy laws or the validity of religious courts? I think that Christians, both the reactionaries and the confused-semi SJ ones, are likely to support censoring "harassment" as well. The Christians are going to try to stop the SJWs from passing any legislation which forbids them from saying "homophobic" or "transphobic" things, and they're not going to be happy with Islam in schools or with more social power to Muslims, but many of them share the same concerns about "obscenity" or "blasphemy" that Muslims do.

And I disagree with the idea that capitalists are our potential allies. At least they aren't natural allies. You are talking about SJWs coercing them with shame, and we should coerce them with our cash. But in which direction would they naturally go? Obviously they would go with censorship. They can then provide a safe space for advertisers which are free of any criticism of inferior products or shady business practices. They can stop us squabbling about important issues like freedom and democracy, and guide us into squabbling about unimportant things for which they happen to have the solution, for this special one off price of $99.99, while stocks last.

And in that very last sentence I used at least four marketing tricks, because marketing is a science based on persuading and manipulating people, in which they use every possible trick to leverage every single penny they can get. Given the chance you bet they would try and control what we talk about and where.

You're forgetting something, I think. Of course most people would want their products to be free from criticism and to be better manipulate their potential clients, but they don't want other people's products to be free from criticism and free for the manipulations of others. And most of all they don't want to invest money in shit that doesn't sell.

The SJWs want to impose one way to think about things. The laws that they want are by their nature exclusionary and reductive, and create a market made of people who want stuff which is forbidden or discouraged. Somebody will want to appeal to that market.

Prohibiting something is only going to make people want it, and make people who sell the forbidden stuff very rich. It has happened with alcohol or drugs. It can easily happen with open spaces with no censorship.

If Facebook or Google or Twitter follow some SJ guidelines for "harassment" and such they'll become unpopular, and the more strictly they follow those rules the more unpopular they'll become. Many people will start using other services which are less SJ-friendly.

I'm not saying that capitalists cannot be tempted by the chance to shield their products from criticism through SJ laws. They can, and this is why the SJ are trying to get them on their side. But if the SJ way becomes unpopular and stops helping people to sell products, while the anti-SJ way becomes what people want, the capitalists will go with the flow.

Ultimately it's all a matter of popularity, and the more rabid and demanding the SJW become the more unpopular they'll be with saner people. That's why we need to mock them, knock them off a peg, make them angry, expose them and turn them into laughingstocks, so that nobody who wants to sell anything will touch them with a ten foot pole.

For example, if "Anita-recommended" games gather dust on the shelves the industry will drop her like a hot potato. Actually I think that this is one of the reasons why she's moving on to making videos about famous women in history. She saw no money in the long run in sticking it to games.

[Service Dog]

Also, in this video: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2HfIfsZH8k), (created immediately after the DCMA takedown) Mykeru said that the purpose of uploading it was because he referenced it in other videos. So it may indeed have just been the original without modification or comment.

Yep. It does seem that way, as Mykeru says (in the video above) that it was a "mirror."

If true, then YouTube was correct to pull it down and deny his appeal. There is no "because I have referenced it" or "people need to see this" exemption to copyright rules. He is free to create a larger/longer video that explains why her video is important and includes clips from it to make his point (i.e., invest the time to make a comment-with-clips video response ... something that I know that he could do [and do well]), but you can't put up a copy of something someone else made and then took down just because you want it to still be available. And, again, there is no "because this might be evidence of a crime" exemption, either.

(You all did see the "if true" at the start of the previous paragraph, yes?)

Fair Use is determined on a 'case by case' basis. So the "rules" you cite aren't ironclad rules, merely 'factors courts will consider', and thus exemptions do exist.
Using this source: http://fairusetube.org/guide-to-youtube ... s-fair-use
...YouTube wasn't correct to pull down Mykeru's video & deny appeal.

FACTOR 1: THE PURPOSE AND CHARACTER OF THE USE
(a) commercial or non-commercial
(b) transformative rather than merely derivative

Mykeru is strong on (a) because his use is non-commercial, which is more-likely to be held to be Fair Use. Specifically, Mykeru is engaging in criticism, which is a well-established grounds for fair use.

As for (b), let's assume Mykeru's video was an extremely-derivative clone of Stollznow's. "Even if a use does not necessarily alter the original in substance, if it does something to add a new meaning or message to it, it is still likely to be considered transformative." Stollznow used her video to raise funds. Mykeru re-purposed it to criticize Stollznow's unethical behavior. It would be absurd to demand that Mykeru "transform" the video (by drawing a hitler moustache on stollznow, for example) to satisfy a quirk of Fair Use law.

If Mykeru DID append a new message in any way-- even in the title or lowbar, that counts toward transformation.

FACTOR 2: THE NATURE OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK (creative vs. factual)

Stollznow's video isn't creative like a ballet dance. It's only creative like a lie. Likewise, it's factual, like testimony. The 'factual' nature of the video counts in Mykeru's favor.

FACTOR 3: THE AMOUNT AND SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE PORTION DEFENDANT USED

At first glance, Mykeru's use of 100% of Stollznow's video counts against him. But Mykeru had good reason-- presenting hard evidence in the most fair manner-- to let Stollznow's video "speak for itself", unbridged, rather than poison the well with his own commentary or re-edit. You'd be hard-pressed to show which-part of her video was irrelevant to Mykeru's point & should-have been excluded.

FACTOR 4: THE EFFECT OF DEFENDANT'S USE ON THE POTENTIAL MARKET OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK

There is no risk Mykeru's video will "directly compete" or "substitute" for Stollznow's video "in the marketplace".
{ChillingEffects also notes: The burden of proof here rests on the defendant for commercial uses, but on the copyright owner for noncommercial uses. ... It is important to note that courts recognize that some market harm may come from fair uses such as parodies or negative reviews, but that such market harm does not militate against a finding of fair use." }

The Center for Social Media's 'Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video', lists six uses as being probable fair use

1.Commenting on or critiquing of copyrighted material
2. Using copyright material for illustration or example
3. Capturing copyrighted material incidentally or accidentally
4. Reproducing, reposting, or quoting in order to memorialize, preserve, or rescue an experience, an event, or a cultural phenomenon
5. Copying, reposting, and recirculating a work or part of a work for purposes of launching a discussion
6. Quoting in order to recombine elements to make a new work that depends for its meaning on (often unlikely) relationships between the elements

This morning I watched a video about Christian YouTubers using DMCA claims to silence criticism from atheists. The video pointed-out that copyright law has a purpose. And the purpose is not "to censor". Stollznow's DMCA was an attempt to dox & silence criticism, nothing more.

[Mykeru]

By any chance, do you knows the details of Mykeru's video that was flagged? Was it really mostly or entirely a copy or "mirror" of a Stollznow video?

My understanding & memory of the video is that it was a flat out mirror for prosperity.

- Soylent f98

I never saw the original Mykeru version, but recently saw a mirrored version that clearly was modified post-KS's DCMA claim (PM me for the link if you want). The begining has a screen shot of the old versions page showing the YouTube's explanation for why it's no longer available. It also now has a "Ticker Scroll" commentary at the bottom that explains the context (and also mentions the DCMA claim).

Also, in this video: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2HfIfsZH8k), (created immediately after the DCMA takedown) Mykeru said that the purpose of uploading it was because he referenced it in other videos. So it may indeed have just been the original without modification or comment.

The DMCA'd version was a mirror of the original without modification which I put up in addition to the handful of videos I did on the topic because, at the time, the SJWs learned a new phrase "cherry picking" and I wanted to be able to point to the complete video -- which I still don't see as any kind of creative content -- should the need arise. The tickered version I did for mirroring elsewhere and yes, please tell me what I already know, that falls more into "Fair Use" due to the commentary.

The fact remains that Stollznow's pre-emptive copyright strike, and follow-up scary letter that targeting the rest of the content and so it's not just that mirror, was nothing more than her attempting to whitewash the internet of her prior actions.

However, after speaking to my attorney who spoke to hers, it seems that Stollznow's actions were simply lashing out after which she hid begin some "family emergency" to avoid discussion and won't even address the issue for three weeks, after which I doubt she can do a thing about the strike. She has no plan, no end game and approached this in a tactically incoherent way. Apparently, for all the litigious posturing her red-haired SJW of a lawyer did, she has yet to actually view my content that she claimed was actionable.

Crazy is as crazy does.

[VickyCaramel]

When I mention Christians as allies, I do not mean for free speech and liberalism, I mean against Islam... because religions never need much encouragement to hate each other.

Of course. But are they reliable allies? Or are they likely to side with Islam about certain specific issues, like censorship or blasphemy laws or the validity of religious courts? I think that Christians, both the reactionaries and the confused-semi SJ ones, are likely to support censoring "harassment" as well. The Christians are going to try to stop the SJWs from passing any legislation which forbids them from saying "homophobic" or "transphobic" things, and they're not going to be happy with Islam in schools or with more social power to Muslims, but many of them share the same concerns about "obscenity" or "blasphemy" that Muslims do.

It depends. First point is that I am in the UK, we don't have much of a problem with Christianity, but we do have the muslim migrants as a threat!
When it comes to the establishment, if the archbishop speaks out... whatever he says is going to draw some support, but also a lot of flack just by virtue of us resenting unelected men in frocks telling us what to do. Generally they are pretty left leaning, but they aren't idiots and they know that they have to reflect the will of the public because they are already seen as out of touch -- and we know where that will end up in the future because a storm is brewing!
So I think even the establishment know that if we are going to speak out against islam, you will also have to allow free speach about all religions... and as god is on their side they are obviously going to win that battle and gain some converts.

As for the average Christian in the street, for them religion is a hobby they do on sundays, the rest of the week they have the same concerns as the rest of us. We do not have the religious right over here... and as far as i can tell they are dying out over there too! And of course you really aren't facing the same threats we are... even so you apparently want to build a wall around Mexico and you have a lot of fucking guns so I am sure you will be okay.

And I disagree with the idea that capitalists are our potential allies. At least they aren't natural allies. You are talking about SJWs coercing them with shame, and we should coerce them with our cash. But in which direction would they naturally go? Obviously they would go with censorship. They can then provide a safe space for advertisers which are free of any criticism of inferior products or shady business practices. They can stop us squabbling about important issues like freedom and democracy, and guide us into squabbling about unimportant things for which they happen to have the solution, for this special one off price of $99.99, while stocks last.

And in that very last sentence I used at least four marketing tricks, because marketing is a science based on persuading and manipulating people, in which they use every possible trick to leverage every single penny they can get. Given the chance you bet they would try and control what we talk about and where.

You're forgetting something, I think. Of course most people would want their products to be free from criticism and to be better manipulate their potential clients, but they don't want other people's products to be free from criticism and free for the manipulations of others. And most of all they don't want to invest money in shit that doesn't sell.

The SJWs want to impose one way to think about things. The laws that they want are by their nature exclusionary and reductive, and create a market made of people who want stuff which is forbidden or discouraged. Somebody will want to appeal to that market.

Prohibiting something is only going to make people want it, and make people who sell the forbidden stuff very rich. It has happened with alcohol or drugs. It can easily happen with open spaces with no censorship.

If Facebook or Google or Twitter follow some SJ guidelines for "harassment" and such they'll become unpopular, and the more strictly they follow those rules the more unpopular they'll become. Many people will start using other services which are less SJ-friendly.

I'm not saying that capitalists cannot be tempted by the chance to shield their products from criticism through SJ laws. They can, and this is why the SJ are trying to get them on their side. But if the SJ way becomes unpopular and stops helping people to sell products, while the anti-SJ way becomes what people want, the capitalists will go with the flow.

Ultimately it's all a matter of popularity, and the more rabid and demanding the SJW become the more unpopular they'll be with saner people. That's why we need to mock them, knock them off a peg, make them angry, expose them and turn them into laughingstocks, so that nobody who wants to sell anything will touch them with a ten foot pole.

For example, if "Anita-recommended" games gather dust on the shelves the industry will drop her like a hot potato. Actually I think that this is one of the reasons why she's moving on to making videos about famous women in history. She saw no money in the long run in sticking it to games.

It isn't so much about controlling criticism although that is a bad thing for them, and it certainly isn't the case that most companies want to criticize their rivals! Very few people in business actually want to destroy the competition... there are just too many reasons why it is a bad idea to try, and so many reasons why having a healthy industry is good. But as an example, it is well known that when Nike starts and ad campaign, lots of people think, "Yeah, I could use a new pair of sneakers", and a large number of those people will prefer Addidas, so their sales go up too, and visa-versa. Whats good for one is actually good for all and most good businessmen know this.

But what they would really like you to do is have influence over what you talk about, to stop talking about ISIS and start talking about that sporting event... and the great sneakers they are all wearing.
Better still, to talk about this new research that shows that a good quality pair of sneakers helps you get laid more and live longer... but they don't want to hear any opinions that say the research is pseudo science.

As another example, i have sat in meetings about how a company can reduce it's carbon footprint and switch to using more environmentally friendly products. But very little of the discussion is about saving the planet, most of it is about if the core demographic care about environmental issues, can we reach a new kind of customer who do, how do we reach them, how can we get people talking about green issues, where are people talking about green issues and do they have any money?

So being able to influence what people do and don't talk about is worth billions. You can bet your life cash is already changing hands to ensure certain topics trend or get promoted while inconvenient talking points disappear. We know it happens in politics, we can be sure it happens in business too.

I am certain part of the reason that the media has been so quick to cater to SJWs is that they are twenty-something idiots with disposable income that will buy any old shit if you can convince them it's trendy. They will whine all day about the use of child labour in the third work, but camp out all night to get the latest iPhone.

[John D]

What is it about holding public protests today where people run around in very public places holding signs and shouting slogans and then get all pissy when someone pays attention to them. :think:
[youtube]Z5zmFV3-fAc[/youtube]

I just got to watch this whole thing.

It seems clear to me that these people are actually embarrassed by their actions and that's why they don't want to be filmed.

It makes me want to get a camera and go film people.

These cunts don't want to be filmed because they are afraid their parents will see them and cut off their fucking allowance. Also, any image of them may be used to prove they are on the list of potential heroin addicts and rapists found at all Occupy events.

[MarcusAu]

These cunts don't want to be filmed because they are afraid their parents will see them and cut off their fucking allowance. Also, any image of them may be used to prove they are on the list of potential heroin addicts and rapists found at all Occupy events.

Jings! Didn't you get out of the wrong side of bed this morning.

[Karmakin]

It isn't so much about controlling criticism although that is a bad thing for them, and it certainly isn't the case that most companies want to criticize their rivals! Very few people in business actually want to destroy the competition... there are just too many reasons why it is a bad idea to try, and so many reasons why having a healthy industry is good. But as an example, it is well known that when Nike starts and ad campaign, lots of people think, "Yeah, I could use a new pair of sneakers", and a large number of those people will prefer Addidas, so their sales go up too, and visa-versa. Whats good for one is actually good for all and most good businessmen know this.

But what they would really like you to do is have influence over what you talk about, to stop talking about ISIS and start talking about that sporting event... and the great sneakers they are all wearing.
Better still, to talk about this new research that shows that a good quality pair of sneakers helps you get laid more and live longer... but they don't want to hear any opinions that say the research is pseudo science.

As another example, i have sat in meetings about how a company can reduce it's carbon footprint and switch to using more environmentally friendly products. But very little of the discussion is about saving the planet, most of it is about if the core demographic care about environmental issues, can we reach a new kind of customer who do, how do we reach them, how can we get people talking about green issues, where are people talking about green issues and do they have any money?

So being able to influence what people do and don't talk about is worth billions. You can bet your life cash is already changing hands to ensure certain topics trend or get promoted while inconvenient talking points disappear. We know it happens in politics, we can be sure it happens in business too.

I am certain part of the reason that the media has been so quick to cater to SJWs is that they are twenty-something idiots with disposable income that will buy any old shit if you can convince them it's trendy. They will whine all day about the use of child labour in the third work, but camp out all night to get the latest iPhone.

Fuck marketing.

I actually say this to SJW's all the time. If you want to get your pitchforks and go after the marketers and all that stuff, you know something, I'll probably be right there next to you. But you rarely if ever see that. And even when they're complaining about marketing, it's never really ABOUT the marketing. It's about the creator or the audience or whatever.

Anything but to put blame on marketing.

SJW-dom is based on a lot of academic sociological theory. Marketing is basically an applied form of sociological theory. SJW-dom is just a way for people to blame others for their own bigoted beliefs. Full stop.

[Skep tickle]

Re Thunderf00t, Steve Shives, & Reason Rally

I know Tf00t was relying on the feed, which had major issues including no audio later in the day, but AFAICT he also cherry-picked - showed clips of the pablum - showing the chaff not the wheat. The SJW approval (Shives, etc) AFAICT could only be from them, too, focusing narrowly on the parts that met their expectations.

The focus of the 2 days of lobbying before the Rally, and the Rally itself, was on church-state separation. There had been 2 lobbying days before the Rally; SCA says that 300 legislators (or, their offices & staff) were visited. (I went to my US Rep's office.) There were some excellent speakers, none of whom Tf00t mentioned or excerpted. I most enjoyed the 2 politicians, a U.S. representative from Hawaii who served in the military & is Hindu, and a candidate for state office in IIRC Maryland. They each spoke clearly, firmly, and well about the importance of church-state separation. We need more people like this in government.

One of the clips of Shives' video that Tf00t excerpts is Shives saying that speaker(s) said let's include Muslims and noone booed, or if they disagreed they kept quiet. Well, of course - Steersman wasn't there. ;) But frankly the people there who'd be most likely to boo that statement were the few Christian protestors, fire-&-brimstone types, one of whom asked police who were moving them along "Why don't you just go spit on the WW2 memorial?".

I don't know specifically which speaker Shives was referring to, but Namazie was the speaker who best fit the "anti-Islam" niche. Her speech was excellent, IMO. Here's the text: http://maryamnamazie.com/reason-rally-2 ... ecularism/

Here are excerpts from her text, with the line that Shives seems to have referred to approvingly in bold - but note all the rest of it, too, which he seems to have conveniently missed or glossed over. (Crowd gave loud positive reactions throughout the speech, not just at the bolded line). Some of the ellipses are mine, some are in the original. (Headed to work, can't fine tune it, go to the link if any questions about the original)

... Wherever the theocrats have power, it is the beginning of the end of reason, freedoms, and rights for everyone.

Despite this, there are some on the Left – and I say this as someone on the Left – who defend Islamism as a defence of “people’s culture and religion.”

Thanks but no thanks. Islamism is not our culture; it is the culture of our fascists.

If it were people’s culture, the theocrats would not need to ban everything, including music like in Mali. Recently, the Iranian regime flogged 35 boys and girls for attending a graduation party.

They would not need to terrorise populations through indiscriminate violence if everyone agreed with them.

There would not be mass migration from countries where they rule. ...

When people say that secularism is a “western neo-colonial” demand, I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. Because no one understands the need for the separation of religion from the state more than those living under the boot of the theocrats – be it the Islamists, the Buddhist-Right, Hindu-Right, Christian-Right, Jewish-Right…

Of course there are differences amongst and within this phenomenon and of course the Islamists are the worst because of the sheer extent of their power but fundamentally the consequences of theocratic rule on people’s lives are the same.

Any degree of power for them means a corresponding degree of lack of rights and freedoms for us.

This is ignored by those on the Left who side with the Islamists at the expense of dissenters. I don’t side with US militarism to oppose the Islamic regime of Iran; they should learn to do the same. It’s called multi-tasking; fighting on several fronts at the same time.

As Algerian Sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas says: “By supporting fundamentalists, they simply chose one camp in a political struggle, without acknowledging it.”

The far-Right does the same thing – conflating Islamists with migrants and Muslims and blaming us all for Islamism’s crimes. Whether it’s Pegida or Stop Islamisation of America or the English Defence League shamefully placing collective blame on dissenters, victims and survivors.

I don’t blame all Americans for the KKK, the bombing of Iraq and Donald Trump – this is after all also the country of the 1912 Bread and Roses strike, Joe Hill and the magnificent civil rights movement – so please don’t blame us all for Islamism or terrorism by calling for the profiling of Muslims or closed borders for victims fleeing for their lives.

This is why identity politics is bogus. It erases social and political movements; class politics; the choices we make; where we stand – despite our names, our immigration status and our places of birth. ...

Identity politics or multiculturalism as a social policy makes it hard to see this immense dissent and our common humanity irrespective of our differences…

And Dave Rubin was there. No, he hasn't been associated with atheism before this but he has been firmly against the Regressive Left & uses that term frequently. His style is tuned to 1:1 interviews, not speechifying to a crowd, but he was there & he did fine. He did not say the word "Regressive" :) but he firmly conveyed a message for classic liberalism & against authoritarianism. (I'm forgetting exactly what he said on Saturday at the Rally vs what he said on Sunday at the "miniconference", so I won't try to be more specific about his speech.)

[Kirbmarc]

It depends. First point is that I am in the UK, we don't have much of a problem with Christianity, but we do have the muslim migrants as a threat!
When it comes to the establishment, if the archbishop speaks out... whatever he says is going to draw some support, but also a lot of flack just by virtue of us resenting unelected men in frocks telling us what to do. Generally they are pretty left leaning, but they aren't idiots and they know that they have to reflect the will of the public because they are already seen as out of touch -- and we know where that will end up in the future because a storm is brewing!
So I think even the establishment know that if we are going to speak out against islam, you will also have to allow free speach about all religions... and as god is on their side they are obviously going to win that battle and gain some converts.

As for the average Christian in the street, for them religion is a hobby they do on sundays, the rest of the week they have the same concerns as the rest of us. We do not have the religious right over here... and as far as i can tell they are dying out over there too! And of course you really aren't facing the same threats we are... even so you apparently want to build a wall around Mexico and you have a lot of fucking guns so I am sure you will be okay.

I'm not American, actually. I live in Switzerland.

However there's a resurgence of Christian reactionaries on the right, and quite a number of SJW Christians on the Left where I live. You're right that the average Christians don't really give a shit about their religion, but the Catholic establishment is pretty influential in the Catholic parts of Switzerland (such as the canton where I live) and most of them are either reactionaries or reactionaries who pretend to be leftists. They're far better than the Muslims, mind, but they salivate at the idea of banning "obscenity" and "insults".

Maybe the Anglican church is much better than this. I can't tell.

What's really keeping Muslims at bay here isn't Christianity but the concerns of the common folk, who are for a tight control on all immigration and for freedom of speech and liberal values, mostly because all cantons hate the other cantons and they don't like being told what to do by them.

It isn't so much about controlling criticism although that is a bad thing for them, and it certainly isn't the case that most companies want to criticize their rivals! Very few people in business actually want to destroy the competition... there are just too many reasons why it is a bad idea to try, and so many reasons why having a healthy industry is good. But as an example, it is well known that when Nike starts and ad campaign, lots of people think, "Yeah, I could use a new pair of sneakers", and a large number of those people will prefer Addidas, so their sales go up too, and visa-versa. Whats good for one is actually good for all and most good businessmen know this.

I'm talking about medias and services on the Internet. Social networks are more than happy to destroy their competition, or even better let their competition destroy themselves. Just look at what happened to MySpace, or to what's happening to LinkedIn.

But what they would really like you to do is have influence over what you talk about, to stop talking about ISIS and start talking about that sporting event... and the great sneakers they are all wearing.
Better still, to talk about this new research that shows that a good quality pair of sneakers helps you get laid more and live longer... but they don't want to hear any opinions that say the research is pseudo science.

Well, yes, but they're doing this already, to great results. Ads are everywhere on the Internet. Companies don't need censorship to get people to talk about their latest trends. They already do.

So being able to influence what people do and don't talk about is worth billions. You can bet your life cash is already changing hands to ensure certain topics trend or get promoted while inconvenient talking points disappear. We know it happens in politics, we can be sure it happens in business too.

This already happens. They track your interests and give you ads consistent with them. They use the search engines and social networks to promote good news about their products, and try to hide bad news. Soft power is the key. It's invisible, so most people don't care about it.

An explicit approach, with rules and "anti-harassment tools" would reveal the game, make it explicit. Companies won't do it unless they're 100% sure that only few will object.

I am certain part of the reason that the media has been so quick to cater to SJWs is that they are twenty-something idiots with disposable income that will buy any old shit if you can convince them it's trendy. They will whine all day about the use of child labour in the third work, but camp out all night to get the latest iPhone.

And this is true. SJ is marketed as trendy and hip, since it markets itself as modern and progressive.

What we need to do is try to reveal how "uncool" SJ is, how pathetic and idiotic it looks from a neutral perspective, how much unfunny and bigoted their members are. For example hookup culture is being turned into a minefield by SJ rules about rape. If SJWs are successfully portrayed as people who don't want you to drink and have sex because that's rape (which by and large is true, except for the people they like) their popularity will plummet.

[Guest_df4fcc85]

FACTOR 4: THE EFFECT OF DEFENDANT'S USE ON THE POTENTIAL MARKET OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK

There is no risk Mykeru's video will "directly compete" or "substitute" for Stollznow's video "in the marketplace".
{ChillingEffects also notes: The burden of proof here rests on the defendant for commercial uses, but on the copyright owner for noncommercial uses. ... It is important to note that courts recognize that some market harm may come from fair uses such as parodies or negative reviews, but that such market harm does not militate against a finding of fair use." }

I'm on Mykeru's side and I am not a lawyer, but if Stollznow has taken down her video AND owns the copyright to it, then mirroring it certainly does "substitute" for Stollznow's video "in the marketplace". This is a "product" she removed from the Marketplace. Mykeru's mirror completely substitutes for that and in a way that presumably gets Google to find the mirror and not the (removed) original.

That's one reason the fair use stuff is bullshit from the get go. The whole, it's done case by case, and no lawyers can definitely say that's fair use and that's not is crap.

In this day and age mirroring a removed video that is being criticized elsewhere in what would most people would consider fair use fashion, must be fair use. And yet, it's really doubtful as to whether it is or not.

[jet_lagg]

He must know, he must fucking know! Part of me is thinking, "That must be some great pussy!".

We have been here before with theists lying for Jesus and all that. You have people like WLC who are philosophers and have to be frauds to so carefully craft their apologetics in order to hide their fallacies.

I can't remember the details, but I saw something online once where Craig essentially told a Christian that they shouldn't even be reading what atheists have to say, to leave that up to people equipped to dismantle the arguments, the master debaters.

:cdc:

It was very revealing I thought, a rare moment of honesty. God's existence is a revealed truth to him, and the foundation of everything worthwhile, everything that could ever be worthwhile. From that vantage his actions make sense. Debates aren't a tool for getting at the truth (he already has that). Debates are an incredibly dangerous battleground in which impressionable minds might have the truth wrested from them. In that environment winning is the only thing that matters.

With social justice being a sort of secular religion it's not surprising to see similar strategies. Arthur Chu saying how he purges himself of dangerous thoughts and sees debate as a meme war is a perfect parallel. Cheap rhetorical tricks from people like Aron Ra are likewise akin to the Christian nonsense like "look at that sunset! There's your proof of God!" It's not something a skeptic should ever fall for. Or at the very least it's something they should recognize when it's pointed out to them.

[JayTeeAitch]

What is it about holding public protests today where people run around in very public places holding signs and shouting slogans and then get all pissy when someone pays attention to them. :think:
[youtube]Z5zmFV3-fAc[/youtube]

Melissa Click Syndrome.

Always have you phone ready to record if you encounter SJWs. You will have back-up evidence if you need it, plus material to upload to YT, so you can mock and humiliate them. The snowball effect of crazy SJWs getting exposed on social media, YouTube, etc. is having an effect. People are starting to see them for what they are - cults. And that is not a spelling mistake.

The part when the guy goes to the cops is pretty hilarious. I got a chuckle out of the way they stared at him with blank hostility when he tries to complain about being filmed. Oddly enough, I think these guys are getting so paranoid about being filmed, precisely because they're afraid of ending up on Youtube. Self-fulfilling prophecy, really.

I thought the guy, with the camera, following him around, was acting like a right prick and so did the cops*. If the camera guy had just been generally filming then that would be a totally different story.

If he'd asked for an interview got a refusal and then moved on then no a fucking problem. Instead he followed him round like a shit stain.

*I'm not saying the cops were wrong - they were just being an arse about being right.

[comhcinc]

I thought the guy, with the camera, following him around, was acting like a right prick and so did the cops*. If the camera guy had just been generally filming then that would be a totally different story.

If he'd asked for an interview got a refusal and then moved on then no a fucking problem. Instead he followed him round like a shit stain.

*I'm not saying the cops were wrong - they were just being an arse about being right.

Which guy? There were at least two guys that went to the cops. Are you talking about the guy that knocked the camera man down? Are you talking about the woman who didn't let the camera man stand still and film the speakers? Did you watch the whole video?

[JayTeeAitch]

I thought the guy, with the camera, following him around, was acting like a right prick and so did the cops*. If the camera guy had just been generally filming then that would be a totally different story.

If he'd asked for an interview got a refusal and then moved on then no a fucking problem. Instead he followed him round like a shit stain.

*I'm not saying the cops were wrong - they were just being an arse about being right.

Which guy? There were at least two guys that went to the cops. Are you talking about the guy that knocked the camera man down? Are you talking about the woman who didn't let the camera man stand still and film the speakers? Did you watch the whole video?

I can;t remember, been a few days since i watched it. Probably the guy who's in the still of the vid.

[some guy]

... I am not a lawyer, but if Stollznow has taken down her video AND owns the copyright to it, then mirroring it certainly does "substitute" for Stollznow's video "in the marketplace". This is a "product" she removed from the Marketplace. Mykeru's mirror completely substitutes for that and in a way that presumably gets Google to find the mirror and not the (removed) original. ...

"Substitute in the marketplace" does not mean "a distribution of the work in the marketplace that differs from what the copyright holder desires". (if it did, then virtually every case of use (fair or otherwise) would do so). Rather, almost always it's assessed by looking at whether the use of the work is interfering with the creator's ability to reap the benefit (financial or otherwise, tangible or intangible) of their creation.

[comhcinc]

I thought the guy, with the camera, following him around, was acting like a right prick and so did the cops*. If the camera guy had just been generally filming then that would be a totally different story.

If he'd asked for an interview got a refusal and then moved on then no a fucking problem. Instead he followed him round like a shit stain.

*I'm not saying the cops were wrong - they were just being an arse about being right.

Which guy? There were at least two guys that went to the cops. Are you talking about the guy that knocked the camera man down? Are you talking about the woman who didn't let the camera man stand still and film the speakers? Did you watch the whole video?

I can;t remember, been a few days since i watched it. Probably the guy who's in the still of the vid.

That guy didn't go to the cops. He is the guy that was upset that the camera man wanted look him in the eye instead of keeping him in focus with the view finder.

[JayTeeAitch]

Which guy? There were at least two guys that went to the cops. Are you talking about the guy that knocked the camera man down? Are you talking about the woman who didn't let the camera man stand still and film the speakers? Did you watch the whole video?

I can;t remember, been a few days since i watched it. Probably the guy who's in the still of the vid.

That guy didn't go to the cops. He is the guy that was upset that the camera man wanted look him in the eye instead of keeping him in focus with the view finder.

Ok, i'll give the cops a pass then. My issue with the camera guy is with the way he followed look me in the eye guy around at the start.

[comhcinc]

Ok, i'll give the cops a pass then. My issue with the camera guy is with the way he followed look me in the eye guy around at the start.

He didn't do that. You know you could have rewatched the video at this point.