Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!

#1081

free thoughtpolice wrote:AUSTRALIANS AND KIWIS ARE TOTAL CUNTS AND TRUMP WILL SORT IT ALL OUT!

About time someone had the balls to come out and say it. Plastic micks too.

#1082

Tones wouldn't take this shit if he were still PM.

#1083

:drool:

#1084

There was a rather nasty incident at the end of the Milo protest livestream, someone captured their MAGA-hat-wearing female friend being pepper sprayed right in the face after giving an interview to a news guy.

Ironically, she'd just said she respected the right of the peaceful protestors there.

Not a good look.

#1085

Fuck me, these little bitches need to learn that if you surround someone, screaming that they are a fascist and punching them, they may take steps to leave your vicinity as quickly as possible. Cunts. No other word for them.

#1086

Tigzy wrote:Notorious islamic-apologist-of-the-Walter-Mitty-type Mo Ansar's debut single:

[youtube][/youtube]

Astoundingly enough, he's pretty good.

I thought music was haram, though. :think: It does lend credence to my theory that Mo has never really been all that into islam, and simply uses it as a vehicle for his main interest: himself, and the self-promotion thereof. But if he's gonna do it via music, then good luck to him - at least with this, he has something solid to base it on.

Strictly speaking, all musical instruments are haram (forbidden). However in actual practice, there are many different approaches, e.g. tambourines & drums are allowed but not wind instruments such as the flute etc. etc.

Bottom line is the only the Salafis are strict about this. Like all scolds and puritans such as the Presbyterians, they believe in sucking all the enjoyment of life out for every moment of existence. Fuck em. Fuck em all. Fuck em all into the ground. With rusty porcupines. Sideways.

Pretty much all the Islamic music I have ever posted here and elsewhere is haram to the Salafis. Piss on them all. Because strictly speaking even this is forbidden.

[youtube][/youtube]

#1087

MarcusAu wrote:I wouldn't want to pull a 'No True Scotsman' - but is the Nation of Islam really islamic?

Erm ... if someone says to me they are a Muslim, then as far as I am concerned they are a Muslim. However, with NOI I do not believe for a second that any Muslim would accept them as such.

#1088

And here we fucking go again...

Is there any religion which does not seem to have been designed solely to keep sexual abuse within the charge of its officials? I wait in dread to hear exactly what this cunt has been hiding.

Give me five minutes, a locked door, and a baseball bat, as they say...

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

#1089

free thoughtpolice wrote:AUSTRALIANS AND KIWIS ARE TOTAL CUNTS AND TRUMP WILL SORT IT ALL OUT!

Gotta be honest. I'd swear and hang up if I found myself on the phone with Turnbull. And if he rang to tell me his welcome gift was 1200 unwanted reffos .....

I'm not too worried though. The yanks still need us to educate them on how to do small unit warfare properly. "No. A clearing patrol isn't 40 rounds sprayed vaguely to your front ....."

#1090

HelpingHand wrote:Plastic micks too.

Gerritupye!

[youtube][/youtube]

#1091

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:And here we fucking go again...

Is there any religion which does not seem to have been designed solely to keep sexual abuse within the charge of its officials? I wait in dread to hear exactly what this cunt has been hiding.

Give me five minutes, a locked door, and a baseball bat, as they say...

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/DCKnKdo.png[/img]

Rather odious of course. However, you might wish to consider that the hero of the alt-right, good ol' Milo, is, apparently, not without a blemish or two on the same score. From the somewhat splenetic (with some justification) Aki Muthali in the post Your hipster Twitter activism piles on bigotry for retweets. But what do I know, I’m a libtard feminazi:

Milo is praised as a modern day intellectual – even after he confessed to witnessing rape of children who were drunk and drugged out in plain sight at some party and did nothing about it. And you wonder why anti-feminists turn to him for reason – yikes! Fast forward to the 2:26 mark of the video and enlighten yourself, or watch the entire video if you want to see the Stockholm Syndrome expose itself to understand his defense of pedophilic abuse of children and the attacks on feminism.

#1092

Keating wrote:Tones wouldn't take this shit if he were still PM.

Shirtfronts at dawn?

Brive1987 wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:AUSTRALIANS AND KIWIS ARE TOTAL CUNTS AND TRUMP WILL SORT IT ALL OUT!

Gotta be honest. I'd swear and hang up if I found myself on the phone with Turnbull.

Depends. Perhaps if he offered to donate $1.75 million?

Pseudomonas

#1093

Getting fucked by Redford wasn't worth a million in 1993. Being fucked by Turnbull would require a considerable step up.

1.75? That's an indecent proposal.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... nvfsjtujb0

#1094

So, so far Trump has intimated military involvement in Mexico and now Iran. Not bad for less two weeks in office. So much for isolationism.

#1095

Pseudomonas wrote:
Keating wrote:Tones wouldn't take this shit if he were still PM.
Shirtfronts at dawn?

[youtube][/youtube]

#1096

Hunt wrote:So, so far Trump has intimated military involvement in Mexico and now Iran. Not bad for less two weeks in office. So much for isolationism.

Mexico, at least, seems to have been misquoting. #fakenews

#1097

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:And here we fucking go again...

Is there any religion which does not seem to have been designed solely to keep sexual abuse within the charge of its officials? I wait in dread to hear exactly what this cunt has been hiding.

Religions and ideologies are actually all about power games and looking better than the plebs. If you're an abusing or rapey cunt being seeing as pure and righteous is the best mask you can get, and religions and ideologies are great at providing cheap righteousness. Just keep telling people how good and superior they and you are for not not being filthy and corrupt infidels/heathens/heretics and they'll never suspect you.

When you're a religious/ideological leader your "flock" trusts you and believes you and they are morally superior. An attack or criticism made about you becomes an attack or criticism of the sacred dogmas, and people react and protect their sacred dogmas (and you) without asking themselves questions, without having doubts. That's a "get out of jail free" card, and you don't even have to pay for it.

The only thing that it's happening these days is that thanks to the internet and social media it's becoming hard to keep things hidden, and people are starting to be independent enough to care less about the reputation of their religion and more about other things (including stopping and denouncing bad behavior).

However, as the the many creeps in social justice have shown nothing has really changed on a deeper psychological level, people still trust those who make them feel morally better than the plebs. Moral righteousness is a hell of a high. Judging others is very psychologically rewarding, it's just human nature.

#1098

Billie from Ockham wrote:New rule: whenever someone posts a Star Wars meme, I will kill a chicken duck woman thing, regardless of whom it was waiting for.

Please stop choking the chicken.

#1099

deLurch wrote:
Billie from Ockham wrote:New rule: whenever someone posts a Star Wars meme, I will kill a chicken duck woman thing, regardless of whom it was waiting for.
Please stop choking the chicken.

Don't tell him what to do - you're not his father.

#1100

Hunt wrote:
Spike13 wrote: A refreshing change for a public with a short attention span and weary of blow hards,who love the sound of their own voices( Hi Barry!) and never tire about of telling us how good they are.
Er, how is that not an exact description of Donald Trump?

He does it in five minutes as opposed to 60. I like the extra free time.

#1101

Karen Straughan/ Girl Writes What mentions 'feminism's incursion into the atheist community', at 13:30 in her latest video-- then (without saying his name) seems to contrast herself against Jordan Peterson's recent claims about religion & truth. The main thrust of this vid is to assert man-hating Patriarchy Theory isnt new to later-waves of i feminism/ but was always there from the start.
[youtube][/youtube]

#1102

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Fuck me, these little bitches need to learn that if you surround someone, screaming that they are a fascist and punching them, they may take steps to leave your vicinity as quickly as possible. Cunts. No other word for them.

Just say you're Muslim and they'll forgive you for plowing through them.

#1103

Bhurzum wrote:
HelpingHand wrote:Plastic micks too.
Gerritupye!

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

#1104

Service Dog wrote:Karen Straughan/ Girl Writes What mentions 'feminism's incursion into the atheist community', at 13:30 in her latest video-- then (without saying his name) seems to contrast herself against Jordan Peterson's recent claims about religion & truth. The main thrust of this vid is to assert man-hating Patriarchy Theory isnt new to later-waves of i feminism/ but was always there from the start.
[youtube.][/youtube]

Just watched it - and as per usual she presented her thoughts coherently and logically without an appeal to emotion (though at this point the material is more than somewhat familiar). It would be nice for someone to go through it with a hatchet and come up with some bon mots that could fit on a bumper sticker or a series of tweets, or at the very least a much shorter video.

It could be JP she is referring to - but I'm sure that the shoe could just as well fit Dean Esmay.

She says that she is not an Anti-Theist. At this point it looks like Anti-Theist is taking on more that one meaning.
- for some it's being verbally hostile to believers and making fun of their beliefs in a particularly ass-holish way.
- for others it is the idea that as well as not being true the belief in God (and associated mythology) is not necessary or useful, and is in fact generally harmful to people. And for that reason it should be countered.

#1105

She's not contrasting herself against Peterson. Her argument is reiterated verbatim from this video which is years old:

[youtube][/youtube]

I know Jordie Pete's the hot new thing 'round here, but not everything revolves around him or every little thing he says. Karen is not the sort of person to play coy and would call anyone out by name if she were taking apart their arguments.

#1106

MarcusAu wrote:She says that she is not an Anti-Theist. At this point it looks like Anti-Theist is taking on more that one meaning.
- for some it's being verbally hostile to believers and making fun of their beliefs in a particularly ass-holish way.
- for others it is the idea that as well as not being true the belief in God (and associated mythology) is not necessary or useful, and is in fact generally harmful to people. And for that reason it should be countered.

True. Also anti-theism is confused with the idea that religious belief is harmful when it's institutionalized and hierarchical while individual free associations that some people find meaningful can also be neutral or positive, which is anti-clericalism. I think that many anti-theist are actually anti-clerical. Sam Harris in particular seems to be more concerned by the negative effects of religious social institutions and messages than by negative effects of what he calls "spirituality".

There's even a different position, which can be called anti-belief skepticism, which is a position that doesn't take any effect of religiosity, spirituality or organized religion as positive by default and calls in question their necessity and usefulness without necessarily arguing that they're necessarily negative. It's my position. I judge religions, religiosity, "spirituality", etc. by their results on the lives and ideas of individuals, not by what people say about their result.

I don't really care about people who say that their religion makes them feel great, I care about what their religion leads them to in their lives, what positions they argue for, which person they defend only because they're part of their "tribe". I'm sure religion or "spirituality" has some positive effects, but it just doesn't seem productive for me to focus on them since there are already plenty of people who try to sell others their favorite set of beliefs.

As a skeptic I think it's a duty to focus on the negative aspects of religion and even of "spirituality" because they receive less publicity and are usually ignored or whitewashed by religious or "spiritual" propagandists. I also think that the checks and balances of secularism prevent society from collapsing into theocracy, so it's important that no religion or "spiritual" effort or ideology gets too powerful, especially (but not exclusively) in the public sphere.

#1107

Straughan is stil incapable of applying some basic scepticism to her own positions. The first question should be, by what method can gender warriors of any stripe demonstrate oppression of their gender. If you take society and history as a whole you can mix and match, cherrypick and confirmation bias each other until the end of times. You can always move into the Mexican Standoff phase and assert that your oppression is also upheld by someone from the opposite team, otherwise wasn't it overturned? Therefore this proves the point that what seems like betrayal of their own genderis actually in their own gender's best interest, QED. Women team up with the mens team, because they benefit from it. Or men team up with the women team, because they benefit from it. Alternatively, they do this because they have been bribed with sex, have internalized misogyny, patriarchy, protective instincts [insert gender folklore].

The next problem is that each gender warrior team selectively forgets tendencies, distributions whenever it suits them. The anti-feminist team will point at relative upper body strenght, or body heigth to show that tendencies in a population are possible without saying that each and every individual is taller or stronger than every individual of the opposite group. Somebody will drop a graph of bimodal distribution, gotcha! But when feminist bring up "privileges" that men have, the same faction has suddenly amnesia and their example is a homeless man. Maybe feminists need to tweet pictures of a tall woman or of midget man to make their point?

Take a step back, and consider the tenets of monotheistic religions as pervasive cultural forces. Who's tends to be in charge? Take a look at conservatisim and traditonalism. What kind of gender relations do they promote? Do they sound like egalitarian, or equal or whatever you want to name it?

"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity", women were seen as an appendix to a man across history, across cultures and across religions. No selective amnesia this time. You can still have queens naming centuries. Feminism can be understood as an addendum that reads "feminism is woman's emergence from immaturity". Attitudes changed only in the last 50 years or so. Couples had to be married to rent an apartment, and the idea was that of course the man is in charge. The whole ritual of marriage is infused with handing ownership from father to husband, and if you look at the conservatives, e.g. Purity Movement, or Islam, you also see that women are marked first as "owned" (as unavailable, by items such as rings or garments), not the men. Does that mean that men weren't blown to bits and pieces in wars? Does it mean that working in the mines was a dream job? Of course, but don't be ridiculous. Enlightenment is not about pointing out how it's actually nice if you happen to have a friendly tyrant presiding over you. The point is to be free from such authority. If you take enlightenment seriously it also entails that women are not bound to men, even if they happen to be nice, hardworking husbands who bring home the money. The selectiveness of the gender warriors goes on my nerves, because we're also not applauding Islam that they "take care" of their women. A gilded cage is still a cage, and it is entirely legitimate, and necessary to free people from such authoritarian rule.

Straughan is the kind of person who will describe the english Wife Selling as a hardship of men, because they had to organize it, and women had to consent. So he does all the work, she can still control things, right? :roll:

Homelessness also fits in. Women can submit to a man and get off the steets. Stuff isn't as simple. Courts are legitimately harsher on men if you also believe that men are different from women in some way relevant for justice. Again, silly doublestandards. Anti-feminists say differences in Physics departments are due to biology and that's fine, then whine about prison populations. None of that takes away that in tendency, in average, patriarchal attitudes were reality across the centuries and still exist today. It's just far more lumpy, depends on subculture, socio-economic milleu and a million of other factors, and that's where Teh Patriarchy(TM) crosses over into nonsense.

#1108

Trump breaks a promise.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 57726.html

#1109

free thoughtpolice wrote:Trump breaks a promise.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 57726.html

I'm hoping the people who still think Trump's a masterful strategist might be dissuaded by this.

This is exactly the sort of issue that is antithetical to the traditional Republican party but very popular among their base, especially the elderly voters. In other words, it's the sort of issue that was the foundation of Trump's populism.

Now he's sold it out to cater to the Republican business as usual ethos.

A few more decisions like this and it's not merely going to be the end of Trump's populism, but likely will sour their base toward future populists.

#1110

[youtube][/youtube]

/snigger

#1111

Bhurzum wrote:[youtube.][/youtube]

/snigger

Don't blame the Canadians.

#1112

MarcusAu wrote:
Bhurzum wrote:[outube.][outube]

/snigger
Don't blame the Canadians.

Surely you mean Kekistanis?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6qmjhPaaxDU/sddefault.jpg

#1113

Watson (no, not that Watson, the infowars/tinfoil hat wearing one) throws caution to the wind yet again...

Time will tell if he gambled and lost.

#1114

The RegressiveWiki has a entertaining flamewar going on about Laci Green. It started around here² and is now going into the next round, here³. It's a great example how that works in SJW Land.

Typcially, when they have an article on someone it will naturally accumulate criticism and commentary on their positions. Except, the page belongs to a saint of social justice. In that case, a PR team of social justice warriors is guarding the page and they'll ensure that nothing is even documented that a reasonable person could view unfavourably. They're not even trying to concoct sophisticated apologia, unless they absolutely must (because someone's position is too widely known). For example, they had to report on PZ Myers vs Atheist Ireland, but did so by repeating PZ Myers smear and agreeing with him. I did protest that (and was ultimately banned for it), but at least they eventually removed the smear. But they also removed the whole situation and dissociation as if it never happened. If they cannot praise Peezus the lord, they better not say anything. Another example, they first reported how Thunderf00t sent his armies on poor Laughing Witch, again misrepresenting the whole situation (more slandering, plus she tried to get him fired, and bring him into legal trouble) and when I explained that they got it all wrong, and they couldn't deny it anymore, again the whole thing vanished whole. So it's always the same procedure: slandering and tendentous reporting, and when the story "flips" (which is possible thanks to crass SJW distortions), instead of taking the opposite side, they drop the whole matter. It no longer serves the agenda. This is why the RationalWiki is obfuscating and harmful and falls entirely under propaganda.

The Laci Green situation this time follows the same pattern. Now that some of her views get scrutiny, a typical SJW minion is lawyering whether the views should be on the page at all. It's ridiculous how transparent the maneuvre is every time. One editor puts a tweet into the article...

Removed Section (one example) wrote:On, 13th October 2015, Laci tweeted her views on gun violence. She is critical of white men as leading cause of gun violence, for which she provides no evidence and completely ignores cases and areas where gun violence is more prevalent in black communities. [1]

(Mental health is such a bs scapegoat for gun violence. Stronger correlation between white men & gun violence than mental illness. #DemDebate)

And typical RW User claims, I'm not kidding...

H*pocrite wrote:Is false. Puts words in her mouth she did not say.

The thing is, even if the wording of the explanation above the tweet is "too much" interpretation, which is debatable, the RW is never concerned with sweeping allegations and broad attributions of views -- if they don't like someone. You can study the full authoritarian mindset of SJWs over there quite well. They are exactly like Bible-Thumpers. They suddenly discover scepticism and have great energy in fighting over every single word. They drag their feet, don't want to make mildest inferences and are most slothful to reach conclusions. But when someone they don't like is the subject, the article practically writes itself, needs no sources at all an because someone mentions something in a half-sentence, they must be reactionary MRA facist nazi supremacists Trump supporters.

The Laci Green critic provides a video with timestamp, where she says this:

http://i.imgur.com/kDV8O9F.jpg

Removed Section wrote:In a MTV Braless video titled, "Why Do People Hate Fangirls?", Laci green claims that "Crushes", "Sexual Feelings" and "Media Interest" of teen girls are disparaged while those of teen boys are completely validated[3], for which she provides no evidence and completely ignores that teen boys and even adult men get similarly ridiculed with labels such as Nerd and Geeks.

H*pocrite wrote:Is a local invention of [critic]. No one has ever said this about her but him.

:think:

___
As revisions² and ³

#1115

Buzzfeed tells it like it is.

http://i.imgur.com/Kwxbf3X.jpg

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/ ... .diqVzXpNN

#1116

Yes, we're living in some bizarre alternative reality. Thunderf00t is alt right, and Noam Chomsky is straight a Nazi supporter (that is, in current day and age somehow a Trump supporter, which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read this year).

#1117

I think you missed the sarcasm there, Aneris.

#1118

Tigzy wrote:I think you missed the sarcasm there, Aneris.

It falls under Poe's Law by now.

#1119

Bhurzum wrote:Watson (no, not that Watson, the infowars/tinfoil hat wearing one) throws caution to the wind yet again...

Time will tell if he gambled and lost.

Do you wonder if she gets tired of being asked why she is not more successful like her famous British skeptic cousin?

#1120

Aneris wrote:
Tigzy wrote:I think you missed the sarcasm there, Aneris.
It falls under Poe's Law by now.

Fair point. The number of folks I see taking Godfrey Elfwick seriously is surprisingly unsurprising.

#1121

Brive1987 wrote:Buzzfeed tells it like it is.

http://i.imgur.com/Kwxbf3X.jpg

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/ ... .diqVzXpNN

YouTube is a gateway drug that leads to nazism just like smoking pot leads to heroin addiction. Got it.

#1122

Thunderf00t has developed a new type of therapy:
[youtube][/youtube]

#1123

Brive1987 wrote:Buzzfeed tells it like it is.

http://i.imgur.com/Kwxbf3X.jpg

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/ ... .diqVzXpNN

Goodness, was I supposed to go straight-up Nazi? Was there a card I was supposed to fill out or something? #SoConfused

#1124

Aneris wrote:Yes, we're living in some bizarre alternative reality. Thunderf00t is alt right, and Noam Chomsky is straight a Nazi supporter (that is, in current day and age somehow a Trump supporter, which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read this year).

To be fair, would anybody be shocked if in 4-8 years the left had the most brutal people?

#1125

Chomsky is a fucking straight white male!

#1126

jimthepleb wrote:Chomsky is a fucking straight white male!

He's fucking a straight white male!

#1127

deLurch wrote:
MacGruberKnows wrote:Putting Mexico into an economic tailspin will be a great way to staunch the flow of illegal immigrants - otherwise known as economic refugees - into the US.
I agree. I have grave concerns that Trump has not thought all of the ramifications through.

On the flip side, if they actually start enforcing the laws that target businesses that hire illegal aliens, the bulk of the illegal immigration goes away.

But then you have the farmers that rely on illegal aliens for cheap hard labor. Could they afford to pay US citizens minimum wage to do the same work? There are many unemployed people. Maybe it is time to take a wack out of long term welfare for those who are physically able.

Capitalism in one country, crazy idea so it might just work. Mexico has plenty of natural resources so there is no excuses for it being a failed state, they should sort out their own problems. This should be the kick up the ass that they need to elect non corrupt politicians.

#1128

free thoughtpolice wrote:
deLurch wrote:
MacGruberKnows wrote:Putting Mexico into an economic tailspin will be a great way to staunch the flow of illegal immigrants - otherwise known as economic refugees - into the US.
I agree. I have grave concerns that Trump has not thought all of the ramifications through.

On the flip side, if they actually start enforcing the laws that target businesses that hire illegal aliens, the bulk of the illegal immigration goes away.

But then you have the farmers that rely on illegal aliens for cheap hard labor. Could they afford to pay US citizens minimum wage to do the same work? There are many unemployed people. Maybe it is time to take a wack out of long term welfare for those who are physically able.
Are the unemployed willing and/or able to relocate to do those jobs? It makes sense but may be unlikely to just spontaneously happen.

They will so long as the wages aren't kept artificially low by cheap imported illegal labour.

#1129

Aneris wrote: <snip> None of that takes away that in tendency, in average, patriarchal attitudes were reality across the centuries and still exist today. It's just far more lumpy, depends on subculture, socio-economic milleu and a million of other factors, and that's where Teh Patriarchy(TM) crosses over into nonsense.

Great post.

I'd add that the gender warriors on both sides seem to forget that the reason for patriarchal attitudes wasn't "hatred of women by men" or "enslavement of men by women", it was that before the industrial revolution, and in many parts of the world even after it, the rate of miscarriages, infant, child and early adolescent mortality rates were incredibly high when compared to today's standards in "developed" communities. Even young adult mortality rates were terrible, especially the rates of death after childbirth. This is especially true for the lower working classes, which constituted the vast majority of every country or smaller community. However the minorities of privileged (warrior-aristocrats, wealthy landowners, wealthy priests, nobles in general) weren't exactly immune to early death either.

Women had on average around 6-8 pregnancies (including miscarriages) but on average only 2 to 3 of their children survived long enough to have children themselves. Population growth was limited. Wars, famines and especially epidemics routinely killed thousands, if not millions. The 1348 Black Death wiped away countless villages, for example. In general life was short and brutish. Having children was seen as an asset by both families (more manpower, assistance in advantaged age since there was little to no state assistance, the family properties passing from father to son, etc.) and by the elites (more warriors, more manpower, etc.).

"Be fruitful and multiply" was a winning strategy for both families and nation-cities-tribes. There was a keen interest in every sector of society in making women pregnant as many times as possible, in order to make it more likely that some of their children reached adulthood. This resulted in the development of cultural attitudes according to which a childless woman was seen as a burden, an old spinster to feed but who wasn't productive or a "wretched woman" who was basically excluded from society. Women had a keen interest in marrying and having children, too, because of both cultural, social and economic reasons. Getting married as early as possible and having children was seen as the absolute norm. "Choices" were very rarely available.

Women in general tend to have less upper body strength when compared to men, and pregnant women are weaker and unable to do heavy jobs like working in mines or risky jobs which might compromise their health. Protecting the "baby factories" was what allowed certain cultures to succeed. So most women in many societies were given the specific roles of mothers and housekeepers along with the daily jobs of all peasants.. The vast majority of men and women in pre-industrial societies worked in the food production system.

Housekeeping is closely tied in which child rearing, especially since by "children" ancient societies meant those who were unable to support themselves and who needed continuous shelter and surveillance. However this doesn't mean that women didn't work in the fields or by tending to animals or by making clothes: they did, but they also had to take care of children. Many men could leave their farms and fields (at temporarily) in order to fight in wars or to build streets, buildings and monuments. The vast majority of women couldn't leave their children behind.

Among city dwellers, most of whom weren't peasants, jobs were more varied but agricultural cultural attitudes still shaped society to a large degree (especially since most poor city dweller were only one or two generations removed from peasants): Nevertheless women, while still assumed to be mothers and housekeepers could at times had larger roles in other economics enterprises, like shopkeepers, artisans, waitresses, barmaidens (the "alewives" of the Middle Ages, especially in the British Isles).

And of course the "outcasts", like slaves, orphans, people thrown out of their homes, displaced people (etc.) were more often than not forced into "unconventional" roles, usually tied to sex work for women and to homelessness/criminal behavior for men.
Moreover male slaves or other "excess" men could be employed in dangerous, uncomfortable, all-time jobs like mining or manning a ship.

Second and third sons of noble families, in cultures where the first son inherited titles and lands (which was a widespread phenomenon to avoid or reduce familiar disputes) could be (and often were) employed as military officers or priests.

In general, though, very few men and women were really "privileged". The "patriarchal system" was, and in many parts of the world still is, mostly related to the agricultural-extend family system, where the role of women is more often than not that of mother and wife, unmarried women, especially if childless, are often social outcasts or social subsidiaries to other people ("spinsters-nannies") and were some men are those employed for jobs away from home but both men and women were employed in the food production system and women did the majority of some "indoor jobs" (clothes-making, basic household maintenance, etc.) which could be done while also taking care of children.

TL;DR: Patriarchal societies are better defined as agricultural/extended family societies.

#1130

SZvan mentions "nazi" 16 times in her recent article which seems to argue that free speech is a privilege to be granted only for deserving ideas.

What the hell happened to Godwin?

Oh fuck.

In December 2015, Godwin commented on the Nazi and fascist comparisons being made by several articles on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying that "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician."

#1131

Brive1987 wrote:Buzzfeed tells it like it is.

http://i.imgur.com/Kwxbf3X.jpg

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/ ... .diqVzXpNN

Wait, Sargon (temp-banned from Twitter for tweeting interracial gay porn at alt-right accounts) and Thunderf00t (rages at Sargon for not being anti-Brexit) are gateway drugs to neo-Nazi-ism?

#1132

Brive1987 wrote:SZvan mentions "nazi" 16 times in her recent article which seems to argue that free speech is a privilege to be granted only for deserving ideas.

What the hell happened to Godwin?

Oh fuck.

In December 2015, Godwin commented on the Nazi and fascist comparisons being made by several articles on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying that "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician."

When you brand Richard Dawkins as a white supremacist it is much of a stretch to calling other people nazis.

#1133

Wild Zontargs wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Buzzfeed tells it like it is.

http://i.imgur.com/Kwxbf3X.jpg

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/ ... .diqVzXpNN
Wait, Sargon (temp-banned from Twitter for tweeting interracial gay porn at alt-right accounts) and Thunderf00t (rages at Sargon for not being anti-Brexit) are gateway drugs to neo-Nazi-ism?

Indeed. Start getting fitted for your uniform. Is it gay to sorta like the boots?

#1134

Aneris wrote:Yes, we're living in some bizarre alternative reality. Thunderf00t is alt right.

"Sargon is alt-right" is also laughably insane. I've criticized the guy on more than a couple of points (PizzaGate vs. GoldenShowersGate, for example) but he's firmly in the left side of the political spectrum. He's in favor of anti-discrimination laws. He's spoken very favorably of Kyle Kulinski and the Justice Democrats, who are supported the Young Turks among others. He's anti-corporations, anti-globalist and anti-EU and for a reformation of the left-wing in a more civic nationalistic movement, but he's not on the "right", let alone the "alt-right". He's very pro-Brexit, but plenty of people in the UK Labour party are also pro-Brexit. He seems to be convinced that nationalism is where the world is headed, that international organizations with a lot of power are only a corporate tool, and that the left needs to accept this.

Hillary Clinton, treated by many SJWs as a martyr, is more traditionally on the right on many issues than Sargon. Plenty of American leftists were anti-TPP, for example, while Hillary was very pro-TPP.

I think that for many SJWs all anti-SJWs are "alt-right". A Hillary campaigner called Bernie Sanders "close to white supremacists ideas" (LOL) for saying that identity politics were an issue for the left so it's not unreasonable to say that if Sanders insisted on decrying ID politics some would have called him "alt-right" too.

The real "alt-right" is people like Richard Spencer. Steve Bannon or Milo can also be considered part of the less extreme "alt-right". And actually true nazis and white supremacists despise the alt-right, extremists and moderates, and gather around websites like Stormfront or Chimpout.

What's actually happening is that a) the SJWs are losing more and more power, even in the left so b) they're doubling down, doing the only thing they can do, i.e. accusing all their critics of being fascists/bigots and c) international movements and organizations are being discredited by failures and lack of accountability and various forms of nationalism are becoming popular again.

If things carry on as they are now the SJWs will gradually lose their influence in society, possibly even in the media and in universities, but they'll double down, fracture the left and lead to the electoral victories of right-wing or center-right, vaguely nationalistic movements.

#1135

Pseudomonas wrote: <snip>

Brive1987 wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:AUSTRALIANS AND KIWIS ARE TOTAL CUNTS AND TRUMP WILL SORT IT ALL OUT!
Gotta be honest. I'd swear and hang up if I found myself on the phone with Turnbull.
Depends. Perhaps if he offered to donate $1.75 million?

Pseudomonas

Seems Turnbull is not particularly well-regarded by many 'Stralians, at least according to Rita Panahi (periodic guest of Dave Rubin):

Rita Panahi wrote:Why you have to admire Donald Trump’s powers of perception on our dud PM

POOR Malcolm. Everything he touches turns pear-shaped. The prime minister can’t even make a massive donation to the party he leads without upsetting people including many conservatives.

But Turnbull’s ham-fisted handling of his $1.75 million donation to the Liberal Party has been surpassed by news that US president Donald Trump berated and belittled the PM during a phone conversation last Sunday.

You have to admire Trump’s powers of perception; it took six months for most of the Australian media, and much of the public, to figure out the PM is a dud — Trump did it in just 25 minutes. ....

What is clear is that the refugee resettlement deal is in jeopardy despite Turnbull’s assurances to the Australian public that Trump would honour the agreement that would see asylum seekers currently on Manus Island and Nauru sent to the US. ....

The furore embarrasses Turnbull and strengthens Trump who would have a hard time explaining to Republican voters why he honoured a deal that goes against the overriding message of his campaign: to do what is in the best in the interests of America.

#1136

Aneris wrote:Straughan is stil incapable of applying some basic scepticism to her own positions.

Ok... so you've chosen 'basic scepticism' to measure Karen Straughan. That includes eschewing strawman arguments & assertions without evidence, right? Well, your own post doesn't meet your own standard, friend.

The first question should be, by what method can gender warriors of any stripe demonstrate oppression of their gender.

One fair method is to generously allow your opponent to choose whatever measuring device they prefer, then abide by the results. Feminism excels at calling attention to all sorts of things which they say hurt women... which demonstrably hurt men to an equal or greater degree. "Women have always been the primary victims of war." -- Hillary Clinton " But mass incarceration's impact on women and their families has been particularly acute....we need to be deliberate about understanding the different paths that can land women in prison, be more attentive to women's unique needs while they are incarcerated, and do more to support women and their families once they are released. I will institute gender-responsive policies in the federal prison system and encourage states to do the same.... every part of the justice system, from sentencing to the conditions of confinement to re-entry services, should reflect women's unique needs." --Hillary Clinton

If you take society and history as a whole you can mix and match, cherrypick and confirmation bias each other until the end of times.

As I have done so far here, Karen Straughan generally lets the feminists cherrypick the battles-- largely confining herself to reacting to feminists' propositions.

The next problem is that each gender warrior team selectively forgets tendencies, distributions whenever it suits them. The anti-feminist team will point at relative upper body strenght, or body heigth to show that tendencies in a population are possible without saying that each and every individual is taller or stronger than every individual of the opposite group.

This assertion looks like a strawman, unless you provide evidence that Karen Straughan has made any-such claim. In the video you critique, she specifically acknowledges distributions in male & female brain traits as NOT applying to "every individual" of each group.

But when feminist bring up "privileges" that men have, the same faction has suddenly amnesia and their example is a homeless man.

Is it 'the same faction' you set-out to critique here, or Karen Straughan? I thought you named -her- as 'incapable' of basic scepticism? But she doesn't claim all-men-are homeless/ none privileged. Rather, she applies the 'apex fallacy' critique-- that the lavish privilege enjoyed by one warlord-- doesn't necessarily trickle-down to benefit the other men he enslaves. That's the tack she took when she debated Cenk Ugyer on The Young Turks. In this very video, she uses the example of male judges whose apex privilege does not benefit the males those judges sentence.

Take a step back, and consider the tenets of monotheistic religions as pervasive cultural forces. Who's tends to be in charge? Take a look at conservatisim and traditonalism.

In religion & traditionalism, I see an apex strongman figure in charge, proclaimed to be the protector of women & children, with men drafted to die for the cause. In conservatism, it depends what's being conserved... maybe it's religion & traditionalism being conserved-- in which case there's no reason to specify conservatism as a separate category. But in the US we have conservatives who are deeply devoted to conserving the principles of our constitution, which limits the power of any strongman, religion, or tradition. And treats men as having individual value, not just women and children. So your broad brush doesn't apply to them. Karen Straughan is affiliated with Libertarianism... the kind of conservatism I'm talking-about.

What kind of gender relations do they promote? Do they sound like egalitarian, or equal or whatever you want to name it?

Let me know if I didn't cover that sufficiently, above.

"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity"

That's Immanuel Kant, not Karen Straughan. Did she mention it in the video, or ever? Because if you're the only one citing it-- then you're only debating yourself when you find fault with it, here:

Feminism can be understood as an addendum that reads "feminism is woman's emergence from immaturity".

In you invoked this same Kant quote in expression your opposition to feminists MacKinnon/Dworkin & Anita Sarkeesian. http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 72#p306472 In that instance, your critique made more sense, because feminists mistake the common man's gilded-cage of servitude to his rulers-- for a wonderful shitlord paradise. But here, when you attempt to paint Karen Straughan with the same brush, it doesn't work. Because Straughan isn't a proponent of Expanding the socialist gilded cage so women can benefit from its supposed riches. Straughan is a libertarian who values freedom -from- the cage.

Attitudes changed only in the last 50 years or so. Couples had to be married to rent an apartment, and the idea was that of course the man is in charge. The whole ritual of marriage is infused with handing ownership from father to husband, and if you look at the conservatives, e.g. Purity Movement, or Islam, you also see that women are marked first as "owned" (as unavailable, by items such as rings or garments), not the men. Does that mean that men weren't blown to bits and pieces in wars? Does it mean that working in the mines was a dream job? Of course, but don't be ridiculous. Enlightenment is not about pointing out how it's actually nice if you happen to have a friendly tyrant presiding over you. The point is to be free from such authority. If you take enlightenment seriously it also entails that women are not bound to men, even if they happen to be nice, hardworking husbands who bring home the money.

Karen Straughan has talked about men working mines & drafted to war, and coverture of women owning property. She does not assert such systems were unequivocally good for women. You did accuse her of "indirectly" saying-that in Oct 2015: "she also indirectly promotes anti-enlightenment views, by claiming living in a golden cage was superior to being free to make decisions and being responsible for your own life." http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... an#p313198 But you were not-- then or now-- correctly characterizing her position:

The selectiveness of the gender warriors goes on my nerves, because we're also not applauding Islam that they "take care" of their women. A gilded cage is still a cage, and it is entirely legitimate, and necessary to free people from such authoritarian rule.

I think Karen Straughan-- and her honeybadgers partner Allison Tieman-- are skeptics against the propaganda claim "Islam mistreats their women/ so we must invade them", by powers who stand to profit from the spoils of war such adventures yield. Their skepticism is not turning a blind-eye to the perils of Islam's gilded cage, for men AND women. They aren't in contradiction to Kant. You just wish they were, so it could be you&Kant ,b.f.f.s.,vs. all the puny dum-dums.

Straughan is the kind of person who will describe the english Wife Selling as a hardship of men, because they had to organize it, and women had to consent. So he does all the work, she can still control things, right? :roll:

Is Straughan really the 'kind of person' who would describe that? Or are you projecting? Because I see YOU making that assertion here. And then you inserting an eyeroll smiley in response to the words you put in Straughan's mouth. But I don't see her saying that.

Anti-feminists say differences in Physics departments are due to biology and that's fine, then whine about prison populations.

Again, you fail to see the actual value in the anti-feminists' position. It is sufficient for an anti-feminist to let the feminist frame the debate however they desire/ then anti-feminists must merely highlight the internal contradiction between feminists claiming to want equal treatment for everyone-- while also espousing that men uniquely require harsher prison sentences. Anti-feminists playing Defense against feminist bullshit is not the same as Anti-feminists making equal-and-opposite false assertions... no matter how many times you try to assert this false equivalency.

None of that takes away that in tendency, in average, patriarchal attitudes were reality across the centuries and still exist today. It's just far more lumpy, depends on subculture, socio-economic milleu and a million of other factors, and that's where Teh Patriarchy(TM) crosses over into nonsense.

Holy fuck. In your last sentence-- you finally don't attribute your claim to Karen Straughan. You present it as your own counter-position.
And It's The One Thing You've Said Which DOES accurately reflect her position in the video!

Congratulations, Aneris. You've mansplained the shortcomings in patriarchy theory to Karen Straughan.

#1137

Apropos of my last comment:

#1138

Bhurzum wrote:[youtube].[/youtube]

/snigger

Lol. Paul Joseph Watson has a delivery that reminds me of Jeremy Clarkson.

#1139

Service Dog wrote:In religion & traditionalism, I see an apex strongman figure in charge, proclaimed to be the protector of women & children, with men drafted to die for the cause. In conservatism, it depends what's being conserved... maybe it's religion & traditionalism being conserved-- in which case there's no reason to specify conservatism as a separate category. But in the US we have conservatives who are deeply devoted to conserving the principles of our constitution, which limits the power of any strongman, religion, or tradition. And treats men as having individual value, not just women and children. So your broad brush doesn't apply to them. Karen Straughan is affiliated with Libertarianism... the kind of conservatism I'm talking-about.

That's not what all of US conservatism is about, though. Libertarianism is only a part of US conservatism, and not even the most prominent part. Social conservatism is a major force in the US and it expands the power of religion by threatening separation of church and state (establishing religious teaching like creationism in public schools, for example), by limiting individual rights (like in the case of abortion or same-sex marriage). Today most republicans are either social conservative or pay lip service to social conservativism. I don't see many of them being concerned with limiting the power of religion as long as it's christianity. On the other hand, it has to be said, they're doing a better job at challenging islam.

I think Karen Straughan-- and her honeybadgers partner Allison Tieman-- are skeptics against the propaganda claim "Islam mistreats their women/ so we must invade them", by powers who stand to profit from the spoils of war such adventures yield. Their skepticism is not turning a blind-eye to the perils of Islam's gilded cage, for men AND women. They aren't in contradiction to Kant. You just wish they were, so it could be you&Kant ,b.f.f.s.,vs. all the puny dum-dums.

Regardless of any propaganda about foreign invasions, Islam forces women to stay home and have more children to turn into good little soldiers for Allah and Mohammed. As Desmond Morris said in the Naked Ape by promoting the idea of having more children in an overly overpopulated world religious leaders are inciting wars.

I think that many muslim supremacist leaders are doing this on purpose, to use the "demographic bomb" to subvert and colonize certain areas. The Islamic State is already doing this, they use women as baby factories to potentially outbreed their enemies. Hyper-breeding in overpopulated areas is an indirect act of war, it means that you're competing for limited resources and want your side to steamroll any opposition through superior numbers. They won't likely last long enough to raise a new generation of warriors for their cause, but other could.

#1140

Sunder wrote:
Spike13 wrote:They went against him once already and were forced to come crawling back. I don't think they want to make that mistake again.
The primaries?

Had they not split their base so hard with multiple nominees, we might not even be having this conversation. Republicans are clearly enjoying the liberals losing their minds and don't mind playing ball with Trump, but when he starts endangering the interests of their big donors like the Kochs, he'll have the entire party in unison against him.

Again, the Republicans are the ones with the power in this relationship. Trump's an easy scapegoat if anything goes wrong because he's the outsider. If he gets on the bad side of Republican big money, the ones taking Trump's side against the "fuddy-duddys" are going to be campaigned out of existence.

Sorry this is bollocks, they also turned against him during "grab them by the pussy" yet not only did he still win he dragged the pathetic carcass of the eGOP with him. Trump won despite the establishment, elites, MSM, globalist and the eGOP because ordinary people were hurting and fed up with being ignored. The republicans didn't win shit, the GOP are just as bad and retarded as the dems. Trump won because he listened to the people (mainly the working class) who had been dismissed by all the other political parties. Any old school eGOP who opposes Trump will be destroyed and fuck them. Civic nationalism is back with a bang and anyone who opposes it will end up with ethno nationalism and you really really don't want to go there, trust me.