The Refuge of the Toads

[Cnutella]

I think they like the clickbait, but I don't think they like the fact that it isn't a leftist enclave, odddly enough for the same reasons you identify - "the web we want" and the various commenting restrictions that they've been implementing, including switching off comments on more controversial topics. Plus, the small number of leftist voices not angry at them can't be reassuring.

They've been doing a small sidebar poll on reader attitudes towards the Guardian, so I think they know they have a problem, but it will be a hard one to get rid of.

[Lsuoma]

Damn that sexism in stem. Jupiter mission pic.

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/1200 ... 14ace1d734

http://www.news.com.au/technology/scien ... 95f4d3553f

Bitch, those are the "comfort women" for the real workers...

[Service Dog]

PZ is on a roll. Now he is prepared to sacrifice his mer-student fantasy just to sucker punch Carrier's AoC predilections.

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

PZ lacks the spoons to type "mature porn" into google. "I'm not interested enough to go delving in to sub-categories..."

On Jan 5 2012 PZ wrote:

"...over the years I’ve become something of a connoisseur of cephalopod porn..."

[Lsuoma]

Here's one for all the SJWs:

[youtube]x1Zuo2JtTdY[/youtube]

[Billie from Ockham]

Damn that sexism in stem. Jupiter mission pic.

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/1200 ... 14ace1d734

http://www.news.com.au/technology/scien ... 95f4d3553f

Liar! I know for a fact that that's a HuffPo editors meeting.

[SM12]

Damn that sexism in stem. Jupiter mission pic.

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/1200 ... 14ace1d734

http://www.news.com.au/technology/scien ... 95f4d3553f

Liar! I know for a fact that that's a HuffPo editors meeting.

Those women must be ruthlessly suppressing the woman of colour who want to go into STEM.

[Service Dog]

Damn that sexism in stem. Jupiter mission pic.

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/1200 ... 14ace1d734

Feminist Frequency, Tropes Against Women in Video Games
"Ms. Male Character" November 18, 2013 1.22 Million youtube views
This video covers the "Ms. Male Character" trope, in which female characters are merely variants of established male characters with stereotypical female identifiers, such as Ms. Pac-Man. It further discusses the "Smurfette Principle", where stereotypical feminine traits are all that distinguish token female characters within diverse male groups.

[Billie from Ockham]

Feminist Frequency, Tropes Against Women in Video Games
"Ms. Male Character" November 18, 2013 1.22 Million youtube views
This video covers the "Ms. Male Character" trope, in which female characters are merely variants of established male characters with stereotypical female identifiers, such as Ms. Pac-Man. It further discusses the "Smurfette Principle", where stereotypical feminine traits are all that distinguish token female characters within diverse male groups.

I look forward to an update from Ms Sarkeesian where-in she applies this thinking to the Ghostbusters reboot.

[Aneris]

last post beofre I quit monopolizing the Pit for a while.

Eve "Vagina Monologues" Ensler just wrote a cringepiece in the Guardian entitled "It's time for white people to reckon with racism". It made me laugh quite a lot. Some choice quotes..

<quoted piece>

https://web.archive.org/web/20160712125 ... sm-america

Totally reminds me of this::

46B4KFFQ85E

" Can we be quiet? Can we shut up? Can we just shut up for one moment, shut up and stop talking about us? "

You first, Eve.

Cringepiece is apt. Let's see.

What allows us to justify murder? What selfish gene prevents us from intervening in the face of blatant injustice? What history of lies and distortions have we sold ourselves that keep us in our isolated boxes of superiority and denial? What truth would we have to tell about ourselves to unravel these strangulating tentacles of racism and violence?

SJW Checklist

• Shows how much she cares; (imprecisely called) "virtue signalling". ✓
• "Shut up and listen" and other meaningless SJW propaganda ✓
• Pseudoscience, even if meant rhetorical. "What selfish gene prevents us from..." ✓
• Vapid metadiscourse without anything tangible or concrete ✓
• Critical Race Theory/identitarianism: white race vs black race with essentialistic features they share (white all guilty, black all victims). ✓
• Pure rhetorics and emotional content; conspicious lack of argument or rational approach. ✓

[Billie from Ockham]

What truth would we have to tell about ourselves to unravel these strangulating tentacles of racism and violence?

$10 says PZ got a little hard when he read "strangulating tentacles."

[Cnutella]

Feminist Frequency, Tropes Against Women in Video Games
"Ms. Male Character" November 18, 2013 1.22 Million youtube views
This video covers the "Ms. Male Character" trope, in which female characters are merely variants of established male characters with stereotypical female identifiers, such as Ms. Pac-Man. It further discusses the "Smurfette Principle", where stereotypical feminine traits are all that distinguish token female characters within diverse male groups.

I look forward to an update from Ms Sarkeesian where-in she applies this thinking to the Ghostbusters reboot.

No, see, that's totally different because they talk about queefing and wontons.

[MarcusAu]

The real controversy of the day - is that Milo's lastest speaking engagement - Gays for Trump

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/wake-up-th ... 6286695213

is appropriating Jim Sterenko's (or Marvel's I suppose) artwork:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/07/13/ ... s-and-more/

[dinkum]

Anybody post this yet?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nott ... e-36775398

"Misogyny" now a hate crime. This will turn out well.

[Cnutella]

LOL Shanley Kane

[Kirbmarc]

LOL Shanley Kane

Who wouldn't be friendly with people who tell you to fuck off?

[Cnutella]

LOL Shanley Kane

[Cnutella]

Oops, poor use of the back button on my browser. sorry all!

[Darth Cynic]

Anybody post this yet?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nott ... e-36775398

"Misogyny" now a hate crime. This will turn out well.

I was just about to - until you nijjered me - from where I encountered it at Newsweek.

The new category will include everything from verbal comments to unwanted physical approaches.

... or so sayeth the article.

Yup, no way this could or will be abused at all.

Would this make 'straight, white male' the only category in the UK for which it is not possible to perpetrate a hate crime?

[Cnutella]

Who wouldn't be friendly with people who tell you to fuck off?

The sad man actually persists in trying to win her favor after she tweeted that to him.

I have some doubts about the competency of the salesforce CEO. Having anything to do with Shanley shows remarkably poor judgement. Unless you're Weev, I suppose.

[Darth Cynic]

Damn that sexism in stem. Jupiter mission pic.

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/1200 ... 14ace1d734

http://www.news.com.au/technology/scien ... 95f4d3553f

I've been paying attention so I must ask, how do you know they identify as women and not one of the nigh on hundred gender types currently codified?

[jimhabegger]

It's important to remember that "white" societies have been tribal or agricultural until very recent times. The ideas of modernity appeared (logically enough) in the most dynamic cities or commercial hubs. Isolated communities clung to their traditional values. Many of them still do, even in Western Europe or in the US.

It's pretty stupid to think that liberal democratic values and modern societies are "white societies".

Again, I'm not sure how much this is a response to my post. I didn't say anything about democratic values and modern societies. The only thing I said about white society was that years ago in the US it was popular to think that the problems would be solved by integrating people of other races into white society. Only, I shouldn't have said "years ago." That philosophy has never changed. Policies aimed at racial inequalities have always revolved around transplanting non-white people into the economic and social networks of people who are more privileged economically, and who are mostly white, whatever the reasons for that might be.

I see my mistake now. Calling that "white society" can create some confusion, because some of the most oppressed people are also white.

[Darth Cynic]

I don't understand the significance of this, was the old guy not there when you took the photo or was he pestering your peaceful stroll trying to share the good news?

If you're talking about the old guy in the photo, that's me.

"... trying to share the good news ..." :lol: It took me a while to realize that you might be insinuating that I was pestering people, telling them about my religion. No. I don't do that. My walks by the lake are for my health.

For some reason, some people here keep insisting that you're here to evangelise, even though I haven't seen you do it (with the possible exception of your first few posts perhaps, which we more meta-evangelising).

Maybe they're trying to tell you something? Like, "We'd like to join Bahai but are afraid to ask" or so.

To be honest I haven't either in anything I have read of his but I saw the photo, the tagline and thought there's a cheap shot so I took it.

[jimhabegger]

I'm not sure that this can be accomplished by insisting to call the US a "white society".

Okay, now I get it. I might agree with you about that. Thanks.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I've been paying attention so I must ask, how do you know they identify as women and not one of the nigh on hundred gender types currently codified?

They work for NASA. I hope the Tard hasn't reached them yet.

Somehow I feel I might be proven wrong soon enough.

[Kirbmarc]

Who wouldn't be friendly with people who tell you to fuck off?

The sad man actually persists in trying to win her favor after she tweeted that to him.

I have some doubts about the competency of the salesforce CEO. Having anything to do with Shanley shows remarkably poor judgement. Unless you're Weev, I suppose.

The funniest thing about Shanley is that she used to be as racist as Weev when they were fucking in 2012 (only four years ago).

At one point that night, I put a piece of paper and a pencil in front of a black man that claimed he was an expert in scaling web infrastructure and asked him to demonstrate the use of the toupper() function in the C programming language, a challenge equivalent to asking a mathematician to multiply two whole numbers.

“When he was unable to do so, I said to him: ‘This is a bar. You’re a n—-r filling a diversity quota. Don’t front, just get wasted.’ I was removed from the bar by security shortly afterwards. Shanley came out running after me. She had found my remarks hilarious.”

For the next few months we ended up dating. Her vitriolic nature made me proud. My heart swelled when she used racial epithets to insult someone engaged in a miscegenatory relationship. She was full of hatred and racially aware.

Her campaigns have destroyed the careers of many good and decent people. Shanley acts as a very vocal advocate for women of color in the technology community now, [but] the things that once came out of her mouth about minorities and interracial relationships would be commonplace in the comments of neo-Nazi websites like The Daily Stormer.”

But coming to Peezus apparently washed away all her sins. :lol:

[Darth Cynic]

I've been paying attention so I must ask, how do you know they identify as women and not one of the nigh on hundred gender types currently codified?

They work for NASA. I hope the Tard hasn't reached them yet.

Somehow I feel I might be proven wrong soon enough.

Well given that Nottingham now has a crack police anti-misogyny squad to crack down on law 'n' order scourges like spoken words, you may well have good cause to think it will be sooner rather than later.

[JayTeeAitch]

The real controversy of the day - is that Milo's lastest speaking engagement - Gays for Trump

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/wake-up-th ... 6286695213

is appropriating Jim Sterenko's (or Marvel's I suppose) artwork:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/07/13/ ... s-and-more/

Well, Sterenko has just obliterated the competition in my league of most american face:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/37 ... 00x400.png

[Shatterface]

Here's one for all the SJWs:

[youtube]x1Zuo2JtTdY[/youtube]

For all of you having an absolute cunt of a day:

[youtube]Ao5Kq0hJwzY[/youtube]

[Cnutella]

So some of the more prominent identitarians have co-signed "An Open Letter on Identity Politics, to and from the Left". Of course, it comes with a set of demands.

We, the undersigned, are in the uncomfortable position of reporting on a problem that we are told does not exist.
We ask you to consider a few incidents...

It goes on to highlight the plight of women who are criticized for denouncing harassers:

Yet, on the occasion that we choose to forgo “open secrets” and speak publicly about the problem, we have have been told we are “vicious liars,” that we are “informants” or “McCarthyites” or “authoritarians,” that we are interested in quashing “disagreement,” or “debate.” None of us are lying. And all of us are able to identify our attackers, because they are familiar to us.

I am not sure who is being quoted here. I wonder if requests for evidence would fall into the "vicious liars" category?

We are the Left. We have always been with you. When you act for the Left, you act in our names. And it is in the spirit of collective action that we speak now, to make the following demands.

1) We call upon progressives to acknowledge that all politics are identity politics.

That sexism and racism exist cannot seriously be in doubt for any progressive person in the year 2016. Everyone has an identity; every identity is political, whether because it is marginalized or because it benefits from the marginalization of others. It is not “enlightening” or fresh or radical to ignore identity-based oppressions, or minimize them, or demand marginalized people stop talking about them. Oppression is not a “debate” or a “discussion.” It’s a fact. You can “debate” gravity all day, but that won’t change what happens when you drop a bowling ball on your foot... The outcome of sexist behaviors remains the same.
Viewpoints which attack “identity politics” directly attack marginalized people. Viewpoints which do not take racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or transphobia into account are not “universal” or “pure” — they are biased in favor of white, male, straight, Christian or cisgender people...

...Oppression consists, not only of brute force and resource inequality, but of the hierarchy of speech: The ability of those in power to decide whose voices are heard, whose experiences matter, whose concerns or goals are “serious” and “political” and whose are merely “personal” and should be ignored. To overturn this hierarchy, it is essential that marginalized people speak to their own concerns, define the agenda, lead movements, and continually complicate the white, male picture of the world with their own perspectives. You cannot “purify” us out of the Left by re-imposing the old hierarchies of speech. You cannot get a “better” or “truer” left by eliminating the truths we bring you. You cannot simplify us out of the Left, because when you do so, you stop being the Left: You become the status quo, upholding and celebrating the exact hierarchy you say you exist to oppose.

Which is to say: Attacks on “identity politics” are not progressive. They are identity politics — an openly conservative identity politics, aimed at delegitimizing marginalized people’s concerns, and centering white, straight men in perpetuity. And, because they explicitly reinforce the oppression of those most harmed by capitalism, they effectively undermine any chance the left has of reaching its goals.

2) We call upon our fellow progressives to recognize that abuse is not dissent.

This statement is not being put together by people who unilaterally agree with each other. Some of us have criticized each other in the past — thoroughly...

...What we do not do, however, is send each other sexually explicit or violent images, inveigh against each other with slurs, make claims about each other that we know to be untrue and inflammatory, respond to any discussion of oppression with personal insults, follow each other around the Internet leaving nasty comments on each other’s pieces, set up fake social media accounts to harass each other, monitor each other’s communications, coordinate pile-ons, send explicit or implicit threats, dox, defame, discredit, or degrade each other.

None of this is “disagreement.” It is abuse. It is oppression. It is disproportionately aimed at and disproportionately harmful for those of us living with intersectional oppressions: Trans and non-binary people, disabled women, women of color, poor women, queer women, for whom the lack of safety and support in progressive spaces is potentially disastrous, given that they already live in a world where there is precious little support for their survival. It does not promote healthy and illuminating discussion or disagreement — it actively makes that disagreement impossible, by making the penalties for discussion so severe and frightening that people become unable or unwilling to speak.

God, yeah, all that sounds terrible. Imagine using doxes to silence dissent? It sounds like PZ and Becky will both be sent to the gulag.

3) We call upon each and every one of our fellow progressives to clean up their own house.

Abuse has been actively facilitated by the silence and cooperation of our communities. We have seen people go quiet around this issue, and in the space provided by that silence, abusers have been legitimized, condoned, and given free rein to escalate their abusive behavior indefinitely.

“Identity politics” is not free of these patterns, either. White women have been silent about the harassment of women of color, or have facilitated it, or enacted it. Cisgender women have doxxed, threatened, excluded, or otherwise targeted transgender women and non-binary people. In each case, the problem was the same: The abuse existed, either because no-one outside of the targeted groups knew it was happening, or because people who did know did not address it openly...

Do they address the question of abusive tactics used at people who aren't inside the tent? Of course not. And, in fact, through a neat sleight of hand, abuse against people not on board with the main theses of this letter could technically be justified:

You cannot “purify” us out of the Left by re-imposing the old hierarchies of speech. You cannot get a “better” or “truer” left by eliminating the truths we bring you. You cannot simplify us out of the Left, because when you do so, you stop being the Left: You become the status quo, upholding and celebrating the exact hierarchy you say you exist to oppose.

In short, it's open season if you're not "progressive". And "progressive" is defined the way we say here.

The signature list is particularly funny - Brianna Wu, Dave Futrelle, Melissa McEwan...

[Cnutella]

Oops, link:

[Shatterface]

What the fuck does 'unilaterally agree with each other' mean?

[Tigzy]

Behold the political astuteness of Cenk Uygur. From about a fortnight ago:

Heh.

[Karmakin]

What the fuck does 'unilaterally agree with each other' mean?

It means that they're all in complete lock-step with one another and no nuance or disagreement is allowed.

[Dave]

What the fuck does 'unilaterally agree with each other' mean?

It means they dont understand how English works.

Or perhaps the letter was written by Oswald Bates:
[youtube]uAguP-zY2AA[/youtube]

[Kirbmarc]

Oops, link:

Because when you target us, harass us, diminish us, oppress us, you lose us. You lose the coalition you need to organize. You lose the credibility you need to persuade. You lose the people who could have or would have helped you. And when you spend all your ammunition on taking us down, you will, eventually, realize the real problem: When it’s time for the revolution, you will have driven out so many of your fellow progressives that you find yourselves charging up that hill all alone.

Funny, considering how those people "spend ammunition" taking down many if not all of their possible allies for various sins against identity and find themselves alone.

What a bunch of hypocritical cunts.

[Kirbmarc]

It's interesting, though, that Futrelle is on the list of people who signed the letter, but PZ isn't.

[feathers]

Becky's Patreon is still mysteriously moving on up, and all she ever tweets about these days is Overwatch.

Maybe she's found her new calling?

Not just overwatch ....

http://i.imgur.com/L3GjCSV.jpg

Not Alzheimer Becky. Korsakoff.

[feathers]

Anybody post this yet?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nott ... e-36775398

"Misogyny" now a hate crime. This will turn out well.

I see England is enjoying its newfound freedom.

[feathers]

For some reason, some people here keep insisting that you're here to evangelise, even though I haven't seen you do it (with the possible exception of your first few posts perhaps, which we more meta-evangelising).

Maybe they're trying to tell you something? Like, "We'd like to join Bahai but are afraid to ask" or so.

To be honest I haven't either in anything I have read of his but I saw the photo, the tagline and thought there's a cheap shot so I took it.

That's ok, but have you ever thought about the salvage of your eternal soul and the tremendous sacrifice Jesus made for it?

[free thoughtpolice]

What the fuck does 'unilaterally agree with each other' mean?

It means they dont understand how English works.

Or perhaps the letter was written by Oswald Bates:
[youtube]uAguP-zY2AA[/youtube]

Multiple choice: who was Oswald Bates English teacher-
(a) Dr. Kristi Winters
(b) HJ Hornbeck
(c) Steersman

[feathers]

Oops, link:

We, the undersigned, are in the uncomfortable position of reporting on a problem that we are told does not exist. We ask you to consider a few incidents. In 1968, the leftist Shulamith Firestone gives a speech at a conference. She is giving voice to one side of a debate that has arisen within radical youth movements; on the one side, many radicals argue that capitalism is the only true enemy, and the only cause of oppression. On the other, equally radical women note that capitalism alone is not a sufficient explanation for why they are excluded from leadership positions in their own groups, or why they are treated in exploitative and abusive ways by male radicals. “We women often have to wonder if [men] mean what you say about revolution or whether you just want more power for yourselves,” Firestone says. “This time we aren’t going to wait for your revolutionary clarity… we’ve learned better.” The reaction to her speech, people recall, was “like a riot was breaking out.” Men begin chanting “take it off” and “take her off the stage and fuck her” to drown Firestone out. An organizer, panicked, tells Firestone’s co-presenter to “shut Shulie up,” and tries to get both women off the stage. “If radical men can so easily be provoked into acting like rednecks, what can we expect from others?” Ellen Willis asks. Willis’ sympathetic reporting on the incident receives angry letters to the editor, In 1973, the queer leftist Sylvia Rivera — one of the women who famously started the Stonewall riots and sparked one of the century’s great justice movements — takes the stage at the New York Liberation Day Rally. She represents STAR, Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries, and her talk is on transgender women in prison. Those women, Rivera says, are beaten, raped, and denied necessary medical treatments. They can’t write to gay male activists for help: Gay men ignore them. They can’t write to feminist organizations for help: Cis feminists revile them. Those women can only write to Sylvia, and to “Shut the fuck up,” a woman shrieks, over and over again, as Rivera takes the mic. Gay men bellow and boo at the stage. The noise is impossible. Before long, Rivera is shrieking too, screaming in an effort to be heard over the crowd. “I will not put up with this shit,” she yells. “I have been beaten, I have had my nose broken, I have lost my job, I have lost my apartment, for gay liberation, and you treat me this way? What the fuck is wrong with you all?” There she stands, one of the women who started the GLBT rights movement in America, pleading, screaming, just to be heard. Just to have her life, and the lives of women like her, acknowledged by cisgender gay men and lesbians. “Shut the fuck up,” the crowd continues to holler. And so it continues. In 2015, two young women of color, Marissa Johnson and Mara Willaford, occupy the stage at an event for Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. They speak for Black Lives Matter, a radical group aimed at exposing and resisting the murder of people of color by the police.
“Tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of the ruthless murder of Michael Brown,” Johnson says. “It is time that we honor that here and now.” “We’ve already done it,” a woman shouts from the crowd. “HOW DARE YOU,” a man bellows. The boos cascade over the stage. By the end of the speech, the young women appear visibly shaken, perhaps on the verge of tears. They are subsequently accused of working for Goldman Sachs, a powerful financial institution, or directly working for one of Mr. Sanders’ opponents, Hillary Clinton. Gawker publishes a response to the incident, by a white and male writer, Hamilton Nolan. The article, entitled “Don’t Piss On Your Best Friend,” sums up the women’s actions as follows: “It is stupid, don’t do it.” Nolan goes on, at length, to describe which political tactics are “appropriate” and inappropriate for Black Lives Matter protesters, and concludes: “If you truly care about such inequality, you should be planning to vote for Bernie Sanders… closing the racial wealth gap is probably the single most effective thing that any politician could do to help advance the cause of ending structural racism in America.” The enemy, in other words, is not whiteness but capitalism. And so it continues. And, in 2016, we find ourselves needing to speak, again and again, about the harassment we have received from our friends and colleagues. One woman criticized a male colleague’s book cover. She has been called a “clinical lunatic,” a “mentally ill house pet,” a “psycho,” and has seen any friend who supports her accused of “enabling her mental illness” — mental illness which that male colleague initially spread rumors about online, telling others she was “not well.” One woman worked for seven months on loan modifications; she has been accused, over and over, of “throwing poor black people out of their homes” (she is, herself, a black woman); complete strangers have dug up documents pertaining to her former employer, posted them publicly, and spent hours browbeating her via social media. One woman — again, in this instance, a woman of color — mentioned seeing a racist Tweet from a Bernie Sanders supporter; she has received photos of naked men asking her for “dates,” and threats to “twist her tits off” and “rip her guts out with a garden trowel.” One woman was confronted by a popular left-leaning blogger over what he saw as a statistical inaccuracy; she saw photos from the inside of her apartment unearthed from an anonymous AirBnB page and shared on social media by that man’s co-workers and friends.
These are not the only stories. There are many more like them. They do not impact and oppress cis women alone, but people all along the gender identity spectrum. The impact of misogyny on trans women is often substantially more intense and targeted than the impact many cisgender women experience. Trans men, genderqueer and non-binary people are also targeted for attacks which are both transphobic and, often, fueled by misogyny.* One non-binary writer did nothing more than file a correction for an article which misgendered them as a woman; for this, they received a loud round of stinging mockery and disparagement from both Gawker and Salon. Nor are these stories confined to bad experiences on social media: Women have been threatened in their workplaces and by their co-workers. Women have been invited to “meet up for activism,” or for jobs at progressive publications, only to be propositioned by the men who invited them. Women have reported sexual harassment and assault within progressive organizations, only to see those allegations blown off. In one instance, two female leftists came forward to accuse WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of rape — they had met him while organizing and attending events for WikiLeaks — and were accused of secretly working for the CIA to take him down, or (in Assange’s words) of belonging to a “hornet’s nest of radical feminism” aimed at destroying men’s lives. Prominent leftists organized to raise bail for Assange while those women had their photos and names published by major media outlets (a flagrant violation of standard procedure for reporting on rape cases) and anonymous commenters spread their home addresses and phone numbers online. In another, a progressive PR firm operated for years, representing NARAL, MoveOn and Amnesty International; its reputation in the wider community was spotless until over half a dozen female employees — and female clients — reported being groped or sexually harassed by its founder, Trevor FitzGibbon. Yet, once the story broke, women came forth to say that FitzGibbon’s behavior was an “open secret.” They had been warning each other against working with him, or being alone with him, for years. We all live with “open secrets.” Most of us have already sent or been sent the messages — watch out for that guy, he… — about more than one man, in more than one context, in more than one year. And “open secrets” alone are never enough to protect us: As in the case of NARAL, MoveOn and Amnesty, or the heroic women who worked with WikiLeaks, the best of us can still be drawn in by an abuser if we do not receive those warnings in time. And the breakdown of trust those abusers create within their communities is often some of the most lingering damage they cause. Yet, on the occasion that we choose to forgo “open secrets” and speak publicly about the problem, we have have been told we are “vicious liars,” that we are “informants” or “McCarthyites” or “authoritarians,” that we are interested in quashing “disagreement,” or “debate.” None of us are lying. And all of us are able to identify our attackers, because they are familiar to us. They are people who have done this and similar things, as part of a steady, identifiable, and escalating pattern, for years. All of us know why it is being done. Because we have been told why it is being done, many times. It is being done because we have been identified as representatives of “identity politics.” Representatives of feminism, of anti-racism, of trans rights, of disability rights, of queer rights, of movements which explicitly aim for an intersectional approach to both economic and social justice. For these crimes, we have been serially, violently, sexually and continually harassed, with the aim of purging us from our positions or from our own movements, in order to establish a “pure,” exclusively class-based, left. We are the Left. We are long-standing and devoted activists and advocates, whose work concerns reproductive health care access, ending rape culture, queer and youth advocacy, the protest of the criminal justice system’s systemic racism, the sustained critique of media bias relating to marginalized people, ending economic injustice and income inequality, and more. We have unionized our workplaces; we have protested; we have marched. We have Occupied. We speak to the Left because, for many of us, it is where we live, work, fall in love, find our friends, make community and find the support for our continued survival and well-being. Our investment is not, and cannot reasonably be, in doubt. Moreover, we are the people the Left explicitly stands in solidarity with, as the entire reason for its being: 70% of the nation’s poor are women or those women’s children. Transphobia, homophobia, disability and domestic violence are all directly connected to homelessness. Much of this nation’s working class is comprised of people of color; the victims of America’s prison-industrial complex are, disproportionately, people of color, or mentally ill, or both; immigration status is not only connected to class and race, but also one of the major issues the Right is currently exploiting to push a campaign built on white, male hatred. We stand in solidarity with these groups, not out of any abstract ideal, but because we, ourselves, are in the same danger; we belong to the classes being oppressed, have experienced the violence of discrimination, and have an innate and self-motivated interest in ending the varieties of capitalist oppression described. We are the Left. We have always been with you. When you act for the Left, you act in our names. And it is in the spirit of collective action that we speak now, to make the following demands. 1) We call upon progressives to acknowledge that all politics are identity politics. That sexism and racism exist cannot seriously be in doubt for any progressive person in the year 2016. Everyone has an identity; every identity is political, whether because it is marginalized or because it benefits from the marginalization of others. It is not “enlightening” or fresh or radical to ignore identity-based oppressions, or minimize them, or demand marginalized people stop talking about them. Oppression is not a “debate” or a “discussion.” It’s a fact. You can “debate” gravity all day, but that won’t change what happens when you drop a bowling ball on your foot. You can “debate” sexism all day, too. The outcome of sexist behaviors remains the same.
Viewpoints which attack “identity politics” directly attack marginalized people. Viewpoints which do not take racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or transphobia into account are not “universal” or “pure” — they are biased in favor of white, male, straight, Christian or cisgender people.
The incidents of direct violence and harassment we have reported are facilitated by an environment in which our political concerns are marginalized, trivialized and mocked. One reproductive rights advocate found herself on a panel with a man who boasted about registering pro-life voters, so that he could push a “true progressive agenda.” When she confronted him about the implication — that a “true” progressive agenda included denying women and trans people life-saving healthcare and forcing them to carry unwanted pregnancies — he responded with anger, dismissiveness, and gaslighting. In another, a woman simply told a man, in the middle of a conversation about drone warfare, that she specialized in reproductive rights and hadn’t done much work on drones. She was told that “abortions are drone strikes for babies.” Subsequently, men joked that “if it doesn’t have to do with her vagina, she doesn’t care about it.” None of this is disconnected from the fact that, in a year of Democratic presidential debates, many of which hinged on the definition of “progressive,” neither candidate was asked a single question about abortion. When our concerns are minimized, and written out of the political narrative, our lives and safety are written out as well. Nor is this phenomenon confined to any one issue. There are cases where outright exclusion occurs. People with disabilities are constantly erased from identity politics — events are hosted in venues with no accessibility or appropriate resources, which literally exclude them from participating. Their experiences are erased when ableism is presented solely as a mental health issue (ignoring many who face different issues). But mostly, they are not considered in the realm of identity politics at all despite the overwhelming rate of physical, sexual, emotional and financial abuse, discrimination, incarceration and social marginalization.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/ ... 64x361.jpg

[feathers]

Must be a true gift to have had a university education in communication.

[John D]

In general, the US percentage of people in poverty has declined since the 1980s and the percentage of people in the upper and upper-middle class has doubled. Things couldn't be working out much better.

I don't think so.

How many people were poor in 2010?

In 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty. The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest poverty rate since 1993. Between 1993 and 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, reaching 11.3 percent in 2000.

How has poverty changed over time?

In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004.

So it goes up and down a bit, but the 2010 15+ procent is a tragic top to reach.

We are talking about the period when "broken window" policing started... which lines up with the early 1980s. Since the early 1980s there are fewer people in poverty and lower middle class and far more in the upper middle class. Shits been working.

http://www.urban.org/sites/default/file ... -Class.pdf

7-13-2016 3-19-11 PM.jpg

(51.91 KiB) Downloaded 184 times

[Bhurzum]

Uh-oh, looks like #FullMacintosh is at it again...

[youtube]mOV7_U3bBVw[/youtube]

[Dave]

What the fuck does 'unilaterally agree with each other' mean?

It means they dont understand how English works.

Or perhaps the letter was written by Oswald Bates:
[youtube]uAguP-zY2AA[/youtube]

Multiple choice: who was Oswald Bates English teacher-
(a) Dr. Kristi Winters
(b) HJ Hornbeck
(c) Steersman

(d) Barbara Bush
[youtube]HebReKH82kE[/youtube]

[Guestus Aurelius]

PZ is on a roll. Now he is prepared to sacrifice his mer-student fantasy just to sucker punch Carrier's AoC predilections.

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

[youtube]KEij2iolyWw[/youtube]

[blitzem]

Uh-oh, looks like #FullMacintosh is at it again...

[youtube]mOV7_U3bBVw[/youtube]

No surprise the comments are disabled.

And did you know that he is a Pop Culture Hacker?

[youtube]NOxLBGz9WF8[/youtube]

Is that like a comp sci student that failed object-oriented programming but got full marks for his Moby karaoke?

:ugeek:

[Service Dog]

Luckily she has rocketed into his mature porn category of choice.

That sick fuck. All those drinks were -grooming- her.

What would Peezus do?

(Hag porn.)

[blitzem]

We are talking about the period when "broken window" policing started... which lines up with the early 1980s. Since the early 1980s there are fewer people in poverty and lower middle class and far more in the upper middle class. Shits been working.

http://www.urban.org/sites/default/file ... -Class.pdf

7-13-2016 3-19-11 PM.jpg

Thing is, in that paper, the author describes using a different method of determining poverty level than the US Census, and a 3-point increase over the same time period in the Census data becomes a 4-point drop in the paper. I am wondering if the author of the paper is using a more reliable method than the Census, or is this just having fun with statistics?

(Genuinely curious, not flame-baiting.)

[mordacious1]

I guess white people don't really want blacks to go back to Africa. This guy has only raised $25 so far:

[blitzem]

And for those that were wondering how Canadian police spend their time dealing with black and white issues:

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/video ... 93038001_1

[John D]

We are talking about the period when "broken window" policing started... which lines up with the early 1980s. Since the early 1980s there are fewer people in poverty and lower middle class and far more in the upper middle class. Shits been working.

http://www.urban.org/sites/default/file ... -Class.pdf

7-13-2016 3-19-11 PM.jpg

Thing is, in that paper, the author describes using a different method of determining poverty level than the US Census, and a 3-point increase over the same time period in the Census data becomes a 4-point drop in the paper. I am wondering if the author of the paper is using a more reliable method than the Census, or is this just having fun with statistics?

(Genuinely curious, not flame-baiting.)

No study is perfect. No doubt. What I like about this study is that it measured income change compared to inflation since 1979. It shows that all assigned "categories" of income are improving compared to inflation. I think this is a reasonable good method. Compared to inflation there are fewer poor and lower middle class. The middle class is about the same. and... the upper middle and high income group have doubled in size.

[John D]

We are talking about the period when "broken window" policing started... which lines up with the early 1980s. Since the early 1980s there are fewer people in poverty and lower middle class and far more in the upper middle class. Shits been working.

http://www.urban.org/sites/default/file ... -Class.pdf

7-13-2016 3-19-11 PM.jpg

Thing is, in that paper, the author describes using a different method of determining poverty level than the US Census, and a 3-point increase over the same time period in the Census data becomes a 4-point drop in the paper. I am wondering if the author of the paper is using a more reliable method than the Census, or is this just having fun with statistics?

(Genuinely curious, not flame-baiting.)

No study is perfect. No doubt. What I like about this study is that it measured income change compared to inflation since 1979. It shows that all assigned "categories" of income are improving compared to inflation. I think this is a reasonable good method. Compared to inflation there are fewer poor and lower middle class. The middle class is about the same. and... the upper middle and high income group have doubled in size.

[Lsuoma]

So Theresa May has appointed BoJo as her Foreign Sec. People are reading the entrails to see what it means. Confidence in her ability to tame a nutter in the cabinet? Or crapping her panties in case he goes all Radio on her?

[BoxNDox]

There is nothing wrong with the poor, but if a landlord can fix up their property and rent at a higher profit to richer clients, why should he or she not do that? This also increases the tax base of the city allowing them to provide more services at a lower tax rate.

Now the issue may come about that a city may price out all of the people who would work there and provide services. And well, businesses will have to pay their employees more to deal with the cost of living, or change how they do business.

Seems topical:

[youtube]uNw7blko-ms[/youtube]

It's also one of the best stories I've ever heard.

[Cnutella]

It's interesting, though, that Futrelle is on the list of people who signed the letter, but PZ isn't.

Yeah, I wonder how many precious fee fees will be hurt across the SJW spectrum by other people who see themselves as relevant and weren't asked to sign? It also seems a bad idea to write a letter that is basically a longform version of "listen and believe, you caveman fucks" and then have proven liar Brianna Wu as a signatory.

[Darth Cynic]

Uh-oh, looks like #FullMacintosh is at it again...

The Pop Culture... what the fuck! What is this, some mewling invertebrate riff on Scooby Doo?

The Pop Culture Detective Agency is a brand new video series that looks at media through a critical lens with an emphasis on depictions of men and masculinity in popular culture.

Anita Sarkeesian is a media critic and the creator of Feminist Frequency, a video webseries that explores the representations of women in pop culture narratives.

Yeah, real original Mac, why you even copy the silo modus operandi by closing them comments, wouldn't want to see anything mean or have pesky contradictory facts appearing where people can see em easily.

[Brive1987]

Here's one for all the SJWs:

[youtube]x1Zuo2JtTdY[/youtube]

For all of you having an absolute cunt of a day:

[youtube]Ao5Kq0hJwzY[/youtube]

"Stick that fucking phone up your fucking arse"

[youtube]Ka0_KukpPqw
[/youtube]

[Tigzy]

So Theresa May has appointed BoJo as her Foreign Sec. People are reading the entrails to see what it means. Confidence in her ability to tame a nutter in the cabinet? Or crapping her panties in case he goes all Radio on her?

There was an affair in the past, I reckon. Can't see any reason why the otherwise sober Theresa would offer the albino carbuncle such a plum cabinet position, unless it was to keep him quiet. If the bizarre and unlikely pairing of John Major and Edwina Currie* is anything to go by, anything's possible.

*Sudden mental image of a knitting needle stabbing repeatedly at a grey, unwashed towel. Hm.

[Brive1987]

[youtube]Ka0_KukpPqw[/youtube]