Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!

#13801

Crudely drawn cocks? Calling people cunts? When did BLMers start appropriating Pit culture? :think:

#13802

Bhurzum wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:Squatting Slav TV: Transgender Rally Fail
[youtube][youtube]
Fucking LOVE this guy!

:clap:

I know, eh? He's been covering a lot of the Vancouver kookiness. :)

#13803

Scented Nectar wrote:I used to have some friends who faked job searches to welfare back in the day when welfare actually required people to look for them. They would call random companies in the phone book, and to make sure they didn't get asked in for an interview by accident, they'd make themselves sound bad on the phone, swearing or making gross noises, and asking things like how long people get for lunch and breaks there. Then, they'd write down the company and date they called, and if welfare checked up on them, they'd find they really did call these places. Lazy fuckers but clever.

Reason why the municipal social service in NL required written applications and ditto rejections.

#13804

Keating wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Hot from Melbourne University:

Men should learn how to speak like women," the report found, "(and) not speak with absolute confidence when they are in fact not sure or expressing an opinion
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/we-should ... w89ps.html
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that we should quarantine and cleanse Victoria with fire.

Further evidence to justify that:

Victoria, nukes, orbit, etc ... ;-)

#13805

Found on B3ta

https://twitter.com/Tory__Jesus

#13806

feathers wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:I used to have some friends who faked job searches to welfare back in the day when welfare actually required people to look for them. They would call random companies in the phone book, and to make sure they didn't get asked in for an interview by accident, they'd make themselves sound bad on the phone, swearing or making gross noises, and asking things like how long people get for lunch and breaks there. Then, they'd write down the company and date they called, and if welfare checked up on them, they'd find they really did call these places. Lazy fuckers but clever.
Reason why the municipal social service in NL required written applications and ditto rejections.

Good idea. As far as I know, they don't even ask anymore here in Canada. If I ran the country, I'd set up some sort of workfare for able-bodied people who need welfare between jobs. With leave time given to go out on interviews. At the very least keep-busy courses (useful ones) to deter the lazy.

#13807

The Times Square attack looks more like intentional driving than a drunken swerve.

Times Square Attack Footage
[youtube][/youtube]

#13808

I may have been :nin: 'd, particularly as this is about 10 hours old, but Times Square "accident" doesn't really look like one:

#13809

Scented Nectar wrote:The Times Square attack looks more like intentional driving than a drunken swerve.

Times Square Attack Footage
[.youtube][/youtube]

If I wasn't :nin: before, I am now ... :-)

#13810

Steersman wrote:I may have been :nin: 'd, particularly as this is about 10 hours old, but Times Square "accident" doesn't really look like one:

Yeah, drunk driving accident my ass. The driver passes the drunk test. He drove a perfectly straight line down the sidewalk. No wobble. Didn't even get distracted by all the people blocking the way.

#13811

Steersman wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:The Times Square attack looks more like intentional driving than a drunken swerve.

Times Square Attack Footage
[.youtube][/youtube]
If I wasn't :nin: before, I am now ... :-)

Perfectly timed too. The very next post. :D

#13812

Scented Nectar wrote:The Times Square attack looks more like intentional driving than a drunken swerve.

Times Square Attack Footage
[youtube][/youtube]

All the hallmarks of Nice, Berlin, London and Stockholm but we're supposed to believe this was a drunk driver .. They must think we're all thick.

#13813

Scented Nectar wrote:The Times Square attack looks more like intentional driving than a drunken swerve.

Times Square Attack Footage
[youtube][/youtube]

I think it definitely was intentional. They arrested the driver and said he had a history of drunk driving, but also a history of mental health issues.

The mayor told WNYC Radio Friday that Rojas had "demonstrated mental health issues going back to childhood" that "went unaddressed even during the time he was in the US military."
"It appears to be intentional in the sense that he was troubled and lashing out," de Blasio said of the incident. "At the root of this is an untreated mental health issue going back probably decades."

Other accounts say he "heard voices", which might be a sign of mental issues as well. I haven't seen any news source claim that the event was due to an accidental drunken swerve, only that the driver had a history of drunken driving. Correct me if I'm wrong of course.

#13814

Here's an article from the Independent

Officials said Rojas told police he was “hearing voices” and investigators believe he may have been under the influence of drugs, with an alcohol test coming back negative.

“You were supposed to shoot me! I wanted to kill them,” he shouted after being detained, a source told Reuters.

So he wasn't drunk, but might have been high as a kite and crazy.

Ken Bradix, a security guard from the nearby Planet Hollywood restaurant who also helped tackle the driver, said: “He began screaming, no particular words but just utter screaming. He was swinging his arms at the same time.”

Again, some possible evidence of mental illness, maybe.

He has been arrested on charges of driving while intoxicated twice, losing his licence for 90 days in 2015, and was arrested for pointing a knife at a notary he accused of stealing his identity last week.

In previous arrests, Rojas told authorities he believed he was being harassed and followed, officials said.

Voice and paranoia might be symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. (Take this piece of armchair psychiatry with a teaspoon of salt).

Anyway it seems pretty clear that the event was due to an intentional choice, not due to an accidental drunken swerve. Again, though, I haven't found any news source that claims that what happened was just an accident due to drunk driving, only that the driver had precedents for drunk driving (among other crimes).

#13815

A NYT article on Richard Rojas, the perp.

During a string of arrests in recent years, Mr. Rojas once threatened to kill police officers, and last week he accused a notary of trying to steal his identity and grabbed his neck, the authorities said. But through it all, friends said, he never sought or received help, instead burrowing deeper into his paranoia and drinking or smoking marijuana.

Under questioning by investigators after his arrest, Mr. Rojas rambled and offered different explanations for the rampage; several law enforcement officials said investigators had not yet come to any conclusions about the differing accounts. He made some statements suggesting he might have wanted to provoke the police into killing him, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was not complete. One of the officials said Mr. Rojas had also reported hearing voices and having hallucinations.

About a month after Mr. Rojas returned to Jacksonville, in September 2012, he was arrested just outside Naval Station Mayport and charged with battery and resisting an officer. He had told a cabdriver to follow him into the barracks where he was going to get money to pay the driver, but instead Mr. Rojas attacked him, according to an arrest report. A police officer caught him, with a torn shirt and a cut on his hand, after he drove out of the base. Mr. Rojas had been drinking, the report said.

The report said that Mr. Rojas had also threatened “to kill all police and military police he might see after he is released from jail.”

“He was angry,” Mr. Guerrero said. “It was kind of hard to talk to him because it was like, if you go against him he’d see you as an enemy.”

on May 11, after a man came to his mother’s apartment to notarize documents for him, Mr. Rojas grabbed the man’s neck, threatened him with a knife and said, “You’re trying to steal my identity,” according to a criminal complaint. He was charged with menacing and criminal possession of a weapon. On May 12, he pleaded guilty to harassment and was given a conditional discharge.

#13816

Brive1987 wrote:
HunnyBunny wrote:
Did we have a Brive spreadsheet on the Shermer thing? I need to understand the definition of 'multiple' Dan is employing.
It would be a short one.

You have Alison - who now wishes she had never used the "R" word.
You have Ashley who maintained eye contact for 5 mins as Shermer allegedly masturbated in public :lol:
There is Chicken-gate with Elyse
Some rando complained Shermer made a pass at his wife in front of him
There was the Pam boob grab incident
He filled some women's wine glass up without consent (or was it the waiter?)
There was a claim he tried to bed a young conference goer at each TAM (thought that was a Con-KPI?)
Finally some dude wrote in his (unsuccessful) suicide note that Shermer had bum stabbed him :bjarte:

Pretty much all in a days work for a super-skeptic thought-leader supreme leader type.

If current trends hold true, we can expect rape/sexual harassment accusations against lil' danny any time now.

#13817

Brive1987 wrote:Hot from Melbourne University:

Men should learn how to speak like women," the report found, "(and) not speak with absolute confidence when they are in fact not sure or expressing an opinion
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/we-should ... w89ps.html

But aren't women supposed to be "assertive"?

#13818

Re. the decline of Western cultural confidence, it mostly comes from the slaughterhouse of WWI. Intellectuals thought, well if Western values can lead to this (even after a period of the greatest peace and prosperity and technological advancement human beings had ever known for the 50 years leading up to that point, then Western values must be questionable. Western self-criticism then became a runaway intellectual tic.

#13819

Service Dog wrote:
MarcusAu wrote:Oh come on SD - surely you can think of something positive to say about him.
His red pill moment is more impressive than Laci Green's.

This is the commentary I expect when reading the Pyt'.

Been worried lately that we had lost our edge.

#13820

gurugeorge wrote:Re. the decline of Western cultural confidence, it mostly comes from the slaughterhouse of WWI. Intellectuals thought, well if Western values can lead to this (even after a period of the greatest peace and prosperity and technological advancement human beings had ever known for the 50 years leading up to that point, then Western values must be questionable. Western self-criticism then became a runaway intellectual tic.

I heard a similar thing about the rise of Dada after WWI.

#13821

I guess we'll have something to discuss in a couple hours.

From Jerry's blog post:

At about 2 p.m. Pacific Standard time, or 4 p.m. Chicago time, I’ll be putting up a pretty amazing post: I haven’t done anything amazing, but others have, and you’ll want to read about it. You will find it hilarious, infuriating, a mortal wound on some of those we oppose, or even an unethical act. Or all of the above.

Just watch this space in a few hours. You won’t be disappointed.

I thought at first it's probably about Trump but why would Coyne, an academic, have insider informations on politics? Anyway, we'll see.

#13822

Carrier is getting a lot of comments on this "Open Letter to Academic Philosophy." He asserts that all of their moral theories are the same.

In my work I have repeatedly pointed out two things about what philosophers think the options are in developing a theory of moral truth: (1) that their standard assumption of only three options (consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethics) curiously omits a fourth of equal importance, the only one developed by a woman, and (2) that these are actually all the same ethical theory and the fact that no one has ever noticed this is very annoying, and impeding progress in moral philosophy. Today I’m going to outline why both points are true, and matter a great deal. Philosophy will forever remain stuck and getting barely more than nowhere, until it acknowledges and integrates both facts in all future analysis of this question: What moral propositions are true?

I don't see any places in which he notes the irony that he's lecturing real academics on morality while fighting a defamation case because he wouldn't stop trying to fuck undergrad coeds while their husbands are passed out in the next room.

http://archive.is/RE7S2

#13823

Kirbmarc wrote:
Sunder wrote:An exchange regarding the atheist-feminist shooter guy over at FA:

some dumb cat (0 upvotes):
I have a $10 nug here that says the vic refused his advances at least once, and that he has a history of violence.
a reasonable person (23 upvotes):
Not taking that bet. Having defended too many cases like this, you have no clue until you see what the cops dig up. For all we know, she was abusive and he fired in self-defense. Or one caught the other embezzling funds. Or an argument broke out over the NBA playoffs and it got violent. Or the guy was having a bad reaction to prescription medication, was hallucinating, and shot the woman thinking she was a monster.

I defended all of those. The results were Guilty, Guilty of Manslaughter (plea deal), Not Guilty, Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter (plea deal with no prison time, The guy shot his own sister who was coming to check on him. He was already in end stage cancer, and prison was deemed to be cruel in this case.)

So right now, all we have is a dead body and a suspect under arrest.
dumb cat again (still at 0):
And yet there's a demonstrable pattern of DOCUMENTED violent histories for ALL men who go out and kill women.

The cops won't "dig up" anything -- in fact, they'll be burying the truth because this man is one of their own, and can therefore do no wrong.

Pull you head out of your ass, and get a good look at reality.

I guarandamntee that a history of violence and instability WILL come out.
If the cops always bury the truth because of the male conspiracy, how comes a pattern of documented violent history always comes out? :think:

Stop muddying the waters of truth with your inconvenient facts... shitlord.

#13824

Well cutting your dick off would bleed I suppose :shock:

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

#13825

pro-boxing-fan wrote:I guess we'll have something to discuss in a couple hours.

From Jerry's blog post:

At about 2 p.m. Pacific Standard time, or 4 p.m. Chicago time, I’ll be putting up a pretty amazing post: I haven’t done anything amazing, but others have, and you’ll want to read about it. You will find it hilarious, infuriating, a mortal wound on some of those we oppose, or even an unethical act. Or all of the above.

Just watch this space in a few hours. You won’t be disappointed.
I thought at first it's probably about Trump but why would Coyne, an academic, have insider informations on politics? Anyway, we'll see.

It's a breakthrough on the Malabar front which brings the war within measurable distance of its end.

#13826

shoutinghorse wrote:Well cutting your dick off would bleed I suppose :shock:

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

Menstruators? MENstruators??? Fucking patriarchy!

#13827

A comment from Pharyngula about the WOC math wiz now getting threats from actual Nazis:

dutchmama
19 May 2017 at 12:22 pm
Off Topic, but I’m looking for help: my friend Dr. Piper Harron wrote a blog post about inclusion and pointing out that white cis males occupy a lot of professional space. She’s now being targeted by Daily Caller and Breitbart. She’s getting threats and dealing with actual Nazi’s. This is the post: http://blogs.ams.org/inclusionexclusion ... t-the-way/

Can a Watson style wall o' hate and a fundraising drive to pay for Nazi repellent be far off?

#13828

shoutinghorse wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:The Times Square attack looks more like intentional driving than a drunken swerve.

Times Square Attack Footage
[youtube][/youtube]

All the hallmarks of Nice, Berlin, London and Stockholm but we're supposed to believe this was a drunk driver .. They must think we're all thick.

And for those of us who are not thick, there's an implied "or else you're an islamophobe subject to being ostracized, fired, and/or arrested by the state for hate crimes" to keep us in (the Party) line.

And since I'm reliving the music of my youth these days, I'll toss in an old punk tune because the title fits the 'thick' theme. Maybe the lyrics in general too actually...

Crass - I Ain't Thick, It's Just A Trick (1979)
[youtube][/youtube]

lyrics from http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/c/cras ... trick.html

Oh yeah? Well I've got it all up here, see?
Oh yeah? Oh yeah? When they think they've got it all out there, see?
They can fuck off, cos they ain't got me, they can't buy my dignity,
Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Let me tell you, I've got it all up here?

Tried to get me with a T. V. Show,
But I wouldn't have none of it, no, no, no.
Standards and values on a black and white screen,
Sarah Farah Fawcett acting mean.
She's got the lot, that's what they want you to think,
Read between the lines, you'll see the missing link.
She's just a fucking puppet in their indoctrination plan,
"Be like me girls and become a real man,"
Live to the full, always act flash,
Don't use your brains when your body makes the splash.

Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well I've got it all up here, see?
Oh yeah? Oh yeah? When they think they've got it all out there, see?
They can fuck off, cos they ain't got me, they can't buy my dignity,
Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Let me tell you, I've got it all up here?

Tried to get me in the supermarket store,
Bought what I wanted, they they said "buy more."
Mountains of crap that nobody really needs,
Gaily coloured wrappers to suit assorted greeds.
They've got the lot, that's what they want you to think,
Read between the lines, you'll see the missing link.
Buy this product, pay for the crap,
Quarter for the product, three quarters for the wrap.
Be a happy family, like the people on the pack,
Pay up to the profit, and you'll never look back.

Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well I've got it all up here, see?
Oh yeah? Oh yeah? When they think they've got it all out there, see?
They can fuck off, cos they ain't got me, they can't buy my dignity,
Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Let me tell you, I've got it all up here?

Tried to get me with their learning and their books,
Deep understanding and intelligent looks,
All of the time, they never saw me,
They were just looking for what they wanted to see.
They've got the lot, that's what they want you to think,
Read between the lines, you'll see the missing link.
Books are easy backs for what they want to do to you,
Bind you up in slavery for the privileged few,
They'll prove their lies with history, say "that's the way it always was,
Accept the shit and slavery, be one of us. "

Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well I've got it all up here, see?
Oh yeah? Oh yeah? When they think they've got it all out there, see?
They can fuck off, cos they ain't got me, they can't buy my dignity,
Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Let me tell you, I've got it all up here?

Tried to get me with religion and with christ,
Said I'd get to heaven if I acted real nice,
But they were just preparing a crucifix for me,
A life of guilt, of sin, of pain, of holy misery.
They've got the lot, that's what they want you to think,
Read between the lines, you'll see the missing link.
The bible's just a blue print for their morality scene,
Just another load of shit on how it's never been.
They stand there in the pulpit, doling out their lies,
Offering forgiveness, then they talk of eyes for eyes.

Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well I've got it all up here, see?
Oh yeah? Oh yeah? When they think they've got it all out there, see?
They can fuck off, cos they ain't got me, they can't buy my dignity,
Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Let me tell you, I've got it all up here?

Tried to get me, but I won't be got,
Say I'm a misfit but I say I'm not,
I never set out to profit from another,
Those smarmy bastards would steal from their mother.
They've got the lot, that's what they want you to think,
Read between the lines, you'll see the missing link.
They plundered and slaughtered in the name of truth,
Acceptance of normality is what they want from you as proof,
They think they've got the answers, but there's something that they miss,
Their cup which overfloweth, is just full up of piss.

Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well I've got it all up here, see?
Oh yeah? Oh yeah? When they think they've got it all out there, see?
They can fuck off, cos they ain't got me, they can't buy my dignity,
Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Let me tell you, I've got it all up here, see?

#13829

pro-boxing-fan wrote:I guess we'll have something to discuss in a couple hours.

From Jerry's blog post:

At about 2 p.m. Pacific Standard time, or 4 p.m. Chicago time, I’ll be putting up a pretty amazing post: I haven’t done anything amazing, but others have, and you’ll want to read about it. You will find it hilarious, infuriating, a mortal wound on some of those we oppose, or even an unethical act. Or all of the above.

Just watch this space in a few hours. You won’t be disappointed.
I thought at first it's probably about Trump but why would Coyne, an academic, have insider informations on politics? Anyway, we'll see.

Maybe he's got hold of footage of Peezus letching at Watson in that elevator.

#13830

Scented Nectar wrote:
feathers wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:I used to have some friends who faked job searches to welfare back in the day when welfare actually required people to look for them. They would call random companies in the phone book, and to make sure they didn't get asked in for an interview by accident, they'd make themselves sound bad on the phone, swearing or making gross noises, and asking things like how long people get for lunch and breaks there. Then, they'd write down the company and date they called, and if welfare checked up on them, they'd find they really did call these places. Lazy fuckers but clever.
Reason why the municipal social service in NL required written applications and ditto rejections.
Good idea. As far as I know, they don't even ask anymore here in Canada. If I ran the country, I'd set up some sort of workfare for able-bodied people who need welfare between jobs. With leave time given to go out on interviews. At the very least keep-busy courses (useful ones) to deter the lazy.

You know the big reason a lot of these means-testing and similar ideas don't take off is the people advocating for them don't run the numbers to see if they'll cost more than they save.

A state next door to mine attempted instituting mandatory drug tests for food stamp recipients. Before it was challenged and struck down by the courts, this initiative caught a whopping two people and saved the state literally hundreds of dollars. And it only cost a few hundred thousand to implement.

Of course to some conservatives this isn't a problem. It's a bonus even. They may dislike govt. bureaucracy under some circumstances, but in this case more bureaucracy means less of every dollar spent on X actually goes toward addressing X. Win/win.

#13831

Speaking of music - here's something for you Scented:

[youtube][/youtube]

Also if you are looking for more songs - you can type in 'punk cover songs' (or some similar search term) to youtube - which is how I found this playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDdh9WS ... il8d7Bk3CX

#13832

Scented Nectar wrote:
feathers wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:I used to have some friends who faked job searches to welfare back in the day when welfare actually required people to look for them. They would call random companies in the phone book, and to make sure they didn't get asked in for an interview by accident, they'd make themselves sound bad on the phone, swearing or making gross noises, and asking things like how long people get for lunch and breaks there. Then, they'd write down the company and date they called, and if welfare checked up on them, they'd find they really did call these places. Lazy fuckers but clever.
Reason why the municipal social service in NL required written applications and ditto rejections.
Good idea. As far as I know, they don't even ask anymore here in Canada. If I ran the country, I'd set up some sort of workfare for able-bodied people who need welfare between jobs. With leave time given to go out on interviews. At the very least keep-busy courses (useful ones) to deter the lazy.

I'm not sure how this would work in the US. I was collecting unemployment some years ago and they require a certain number of job applications per week. They supposedly do random calls to the companies you listed to verify. US companies don't often give you a written or even a verbal rejection, they just don't contact you if you didn't get the job.

#13833

I had a job as a garbage man once...

...there was no training - you just had to pick it up as you went along.

#13834

Was over at Shakesville wherein McEwen is pitching a fit(I know it's her default state) because Joe Biden said that Hillary ran a weak campaign.

Hillary Clinton was a pretty great fucking candidate! I'm not sure why so many Democrats are behaving as though she was a disaster, when she ended up winning the popular vote by 3 million votes.

The popular vote and $5 will get you a venti soy latte at Starbucks.
So why did Hillary lose? Certainly not because she ran a bad campaign.

She's a politician powered by empathy rather than charisma, who makes people feel like they're standing in the sun rather than staring at it.

Maybe that just makes her a natural politician of a different sort. Of the sort who can challenge our expectations of what natural politicians look like altogether.

And here's one from her hallelujah chorus:

No, you buffoons (I hope this isn't an inappropriate slur, I googled). She was a WOMAN candidate. This is what a WOMAN running a campaign looks like. It isn't WEAK. It just isn't male, and since men have never had to learn how to see other people's perspectives, they shrug it off as "not good enough."

See? Hillary didn't need to change her style for the electorate. The electorate needed to change the way if perceives candidates! There are no lessons to be learned from 2016.

I just lost any anxiety I have of ever living under intersectional feminist rule. They might however continue to fuck things up for the rest of us by keeping Trump in power. Hillary just announced her pre-campaign campaign with her Onward Together organization.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/p ... ether.html

#13835

MarcusAu wrote:Speaking of music - here's something for you Scented:

[youtube][/youtube]

Also if you are looking for more songs - you can type in 'punk cover songs' (or some similar search term) to youtube - which is how I found this playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDdh9WS ... il8d7Bk3CX

Blasphemy!!! Motorhead's heavy metal, not punk! OMG, I just can't even. Inter-genre mixing in the same playlist! It's almost unheard of (except for Eddie and Sheena). :shock: :D

The Electric Chairs - Eddie & Sheena (single 1978)
[youtube][/youtube]
(It doesn't turn punk until 2:36)

lyrics from http://lyrics.wikia.com/wiki/Wayne_Coun ... And_Sheena
Eddie is a teddy boy
Sheena is a punk
They met one night
At a late night Rock'n'roll show
Eddie asked Sheena to do the bop
And then they did the stroll
And later on they pogoed all night long

Eddie's friends told Eddie that their love could never be
'Cause teds and punks ain't supposed to love
But when Eddie looked into Sheena's eyes and held her tenderly
They knew that their love came from up above

Eddie is a teddy boy
Sheena is a punk
They met one night at a late night rock 'n' roll show
Eddie asked Sheena to do the bop
And then they did the stroll
And later on they pogoed all night long

Sheena's friends told Sheena to turn in her safety pins
As she stripped the black nail polish from her toes
Eddie gave Sheena a wedding ring to keep their love alive
And Sheena put the ring right through her nose
Now Eddie and Sheena are married now and their friends can't understand
All the love and happiness they've gotten
Eddie is a daddy now
Sheena is a mum
And they've named the little brat Elvis Rotten
1,2,3,4

Eddie is a teddy boy
Sheena is a punk
They met one night at a late night rock 'n' roll show
Eddie asked Sheena to do the bop
And then they did the stroll
And later on they pogoed all night long

Eddie is a teddy boy
Sheena is a punk
They met one night at a late night rock 'n' roll show
Eddie asked Sheena to do the bop
And then they did the stroll
And later on they pogoed all night long
And later on they pogoed all night long
And later on they pogoed all night long

#13836

katamari Damassi wrote:Was over at Shakesville wherein McEwen is pitching a fit(I know it's her default state) because Joe Biden said that Hillary ran a weak campaign.
Hillary Clinton was a pretty great fucking candidate! I'm not sure why so many Democrats are behaving as though she was a disaster, when she ended up winning the popular vote by 3 million votes.
The popular vote and $5 will get you a venti soy latte at Starbucks.
So why did Hillary lose? Certainly not because she ran a bad campaign.
She's a politician powered by empathy rather than charisma, who makes people feel like they're standing in the sun rather than staring at it.

Maybe that just makes her a natural politician of a different sort. Of the sort who can challenge our expectations of what natural politicians look like altogether.
And here's one from her hallelujah chorus:
No, you buffoons (I hope this isn't an inappropriate slur, I googled). She was a WOMAN candidate. This is what a WOMAN running a campaign looks like. It isn't WEAK. It just isn't male, and since men have never had to learn how to see other people's perspectives, they shrug it off as "not good enough."
See? Hillary didn't need to change her style for the electorate. The electorate needed to change the way if perceives candidates! There are no lessons to be learned from 2016.

I just lost any anxiety I have of ever living under intersectional feminist rule. They might however continue to fuck things up for the rest of us by keeping Trump in power. Hillary just announced her pre-campaign campaign with her Onward Together organization.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/p ... ether.html

If she attempts to run, she'll get the same sort of torpedo Sanders got. Irony. She still has some support, but most eyes have turned to Warren. Aside from the plastic tomahawk, it could be worse. Like Clinton again.

#13837

Lemmy (RIP) always described Motorhead as hard rock rather than metal

And he described himself as more punk than metal (though he pre-dated both) - even playing in The Damned at times. Of course he also did a PSA of sorts - when metallers and punks were fighting - telling them that it was all the same music.

Anyway see if you spot him in this line up:

[youtube][/youtube]

#13838

Scented Nectar wrote:Inter-genre mixing in the same playlist! It's almost unheard of (except for Eddie and Sheena). :shock: :D

The greatest "crossover" track ever recorded imho:

[youtube][/youtube]

Random lyric:

"The black disaster, I swear to fucking God, I'll raise hell and make the white man call me master" :lol:

Pure anger set to music!

#13839

katamari Damassi wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
feathers wrote:Reason why the municipal social service in NL required written applications and ditto rejections.
Good idea. As far as I know, they don't even ask anymore here in Canada. If I ran the country, I'd set up some sort of workfare for able-bodied people who need welfare between jobs. With leave time given to go out on interviews. At the very least keep-busy courses (useful ones) to deter the lazy.
I'm not sure how this would work in the US. I was collecting unemployment some years ago and they require a certain number of job applications per week. They supposedly do random calls to the companies you listed to verify. US companies don't often give you a written or even a verbal rejection, they just don't contact you if you didn't get the job.

I probably doesn't work very well. If the company tells them "I'm sorry we don't give out info on people who've applied here", they can't verify whether the person applied there or not. Maybe they only check the small sounding companies that don't have HR or personnel depts/policies.

It's not like there even ARE enough jobs out there for those who want to work anyways. Maybe after more jobs keep opening up (no one can deny Trump's doing that, lol), there will be less people needing welfare anyways. Plus, at some point, if there are more jobs, the welfare dept themselves could contact people and let them know of openings, maybe. They did that here back in the 70s and if the welfare recipient made excuses about why they couldn't apply or work there, they were scrutinized and kicked off welfare in some cases if they couldn't back up their reasons for not accepting the job offer.

The welfare dept was connected to the gov't Manpower dept (name probably changed by now!), and anyone looking for work could go there daily and check the boards for openings as well as it being the welfare office. I went and found jobs there a couple times. Back in the late 70s / early 80s, as long as you WANTED to work, you could usually find a job within a day or two.

#13840

katamari Damassi wrote:And here's one from her hallelujah chorus:
No, you buffoons (I hope this isn't an inappropriate slur, I googled). She was a WOMAN candidate. This is what a WOMAN running a campaign looks like. It isn't WEAK. It just isn't male, and since men have never had to learn how to see other people's perspectives, they shrug it off as "not good enough."
See? Hillary didn't need to change her style for the electorate. The electorate needed to change the way if perceives candidates! There are no lessons to be learned from 2016.

Holy hell do I despise this.

The strength/weakness of a campaign is not a gender issue you dumb, dumb fucks. When we say Hillary ran a weak campaign, we mean she didn't invest in outreach in the areas that turned out to have mattered, nor even have any kind of unifying message other than "it's my turn" ("I'm with her" may be the worst campaign slogan in my lifetime).

Forget about Obama's policies, the guy ran a fucking masterful campaign. Boots on the ground in all the right places, knocking on doors, and a message that wasn't all that dissimilar from MAGA.

Hillary hired a team of retards to manage a shit campaign to collect what she thought was owed her. Their weakness was borne of overconfidence and plain laziness. If you can't figure that out you're going to lose again. And again. And again. Fucking losers for life, that's you.

#13841

katamari Damassi wrote:And here's one from her hallelujah chorus:
No, you buffoons (I hope this isn't an inappropriate slur, I googled). She was a WOMAN candidate. This is what a WOMAN running a campaign looks like. It isn't WEAK. It just isn't male, and since men have never had to learn how to see other people's perspectives, they shrug it off as "not good enough."

The US Left is as insular as the Right. They know fuck all about the world beyond their borders.

If they did they'd learn from countries that have had women leaders that they are exactly the fucking same as the men.

There's no such thing as male and female ways of running a country. You run a country, or you don't.

#13842

I won't deny the claim that Trump is "[causing] more jobs [to open] up," I'll just ask you to support it since it's a positive claim.

#13843

Really? wrote:Carrier is getting a lot of comments on this "Open Letter to Academic Philosophy." He asserts that all of their moral theories are the same.

In my work I have repeatedly pointed out two things about what philosophers think the options are in developing a theory of moral truth: (1) that their standard assumption of only three options (consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethics) curiously omits a fourth of equal importance, the only one developed by a woman, and (2) that these are actually all the same ethical theory and the fact that no one has ever noticed this is very annoying, and impeding progress in moral philosophy. Today I’m going to outline why both points are true, and matter a great deal. Philosophy will forever remain stuck and getting barely more than nowhere, until it acknowledges and integrates both facts in all future analysis of this question: What moral propositions are true?
I don't see any places in which he notes the irony that he's lecturing real academics on morality while fighting a defamation case because he wouldn't stop trying to fuck undergrad coeds while their husbands are passed out in the next room.

http://archive.is/RE7S2

The article is a whole load of rubbish anyway.

The smartest man in the universe wrote:Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative remains the most familiar: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” His other two formulations are just attempts to build on the first formulation in different ways.[4] In short, the morally right act is that act you would gladly wish everyone perform. But on what basis do you decide what behaviors you would wish to be universal? Well, guess what. Consequences. You are thus, when following a categorical imperative, actually covertly engaging in consequentialism.

This is, quite frankly, a borderline retarded interpretation of consequentialism, especially for a guy who wants to revolutionize philosophy. The key element of consequentialism isn't that it deals with consequences of actions. Of course all moral theories deal with the consequences of actions, that's why they deal with morals, which is about human actions and their consequences.

The key element of consequentialism is that it privileges an analysis of the consequences in a specific context of a moral law according to a goal, rather than with the laws themselves. Kant's moral system is strictly deontological (and NOT "covertly engaging in consequentialism") because it deals only with analysis of the moral laws themselves and of their universal consequences according to a principle.

Indeed Kant is so much of a deontologist that he explictly prohibits lying to a murderer to protect innocent lives, because according to his moral system if we want lies to be immoral there must be a universal prohibition against lying. How could someone come to believe that Kant covertly engages in consequentialism is beyond me.

This is more obvious if Kant was wrong: if we didn’t care about any of the consequences he appeals to, we would have no basis for willing his ban on suicide to be a universal law. And guess what? Kant was wrong. His claim that suicide never treats a person as an end in themselves is manifestly false, since alleviating someone’s intolerable misery is precisely that which Kant regards as laudably treating a person as an end in themselves.

Jesus Christ, has Carrier even read Kant? Kant's argument against suicide is that it treats a person (yourself) as a mean (reduce your suffering). Kant argues that you don't have the moral right to kill yourself to reduce your suffering, because by killing yourself you're violating your universal right to exist, which is a property that in Kant's system is intrinsic to all subjects, but not all objects, only according to an end. Kant claims that by killing yourself you are treating your right to exist as a possession, as an object, which is something you shouldn't be allowed to do as an universal law (you can't kill others to reduce your suffering, so you shouldn't kill yourself to reduce your suffering).

Carrier's argument here is a consequentalist one. You may agree with Carrier and disagree with Kant's purely deontological argument (I do) but if you want to criticize Kant's argument you have to understand Kant's argument. Carrier doesn't, since he mixes in a consequentialist assumption (that reducing suffering is a goal in itself, regardless of the universal moral maxims that it might violate) within Kant's deontological framework, only to then gloat that "Kant was wrong" because he allegedly found a contradiction.

This is the kind of reasoning that would get you a failing degree in Philosophy 101.

One can only apply Kant’s argument to those suicides contemplated in the absence of any such end (e.g. when the misery is not actually intolerable or inescapable, or doesn’t even exist, being only a product of the imagination, or a false apprehension of future events), and it becomes apparent why: the consequences then are not what we would will to be universally sought. But those of us who see clearly, do indeed see the option of suicide as sometimes what we would indeed will to be a universal law (e.g. the liberty of the individual to choose medical euthanasia or heroic death: Sense and Goodness without God, pp. 341-42 = V.2.3.1). And we do so precisely because it accepts persons as ends in themselves: their wishes and dignity, reflected in their own exercise of autonomy, with full and rational cognizance of the truth of their situation and the differential consequences of their choosing to act or not to act.

The fuck? What had Carrier smoked when he wrote this? 1) He cites himself ( "those of us who see clearly" :lol: ) 2) that's not Kant's argument you dillhole! Kant's argument is one against personal ownership of individual rights to existence, and Carrier slaps in a references to "wishes and dignity", which is completely extraneous to Kant's argument! Look, if you want to defend the right to die, I'm with you Dickie, but if you want to prove that "Kant is wrong" you need to either reject the categorical imperative or to accept Kant's argument based on the categorical imperative and criticize it, NOT give your own personal interpretation of what's a categorical imperative!

What's especially stupid is how Carrier slaps in a reference to "an absence of any such end" (a consequentialist framework) within an analysis of Kant (a deontologist) while trying to argue that Kant was "covertly engaging in consequentialism".

Pick a side, Dr. Semen Fetishist: EITHER you're claiming that Kant's purely deontological approach is flawed because it leads to contradictions within a deontological system and according to Kant's assumptions and arguments OR you're claiming that he's actually engaging in consequentialism since you can construct consequentalist arguments based on his assumptions show us where Kant is wrong. You can't have simply construct consequentialist arguments, attach them to your own personal interpretaton of Kant, and write QED.

You can't claim that X is wrong because it contradicts its own assumptions and arguments AND claim that X is actually Y, regardless of its assumptions and arguments, because of your personal interpretation of X. That's, again, Philosophy 101.

Some have attempted to claim Kant’s categorical imperative admits of no exceptions, and this is what distinguishes it from consequentialism, but that is not logically true. For example, I can will to be a universal law that no one kill except in self-defense. This satisfies the categorical imperative as stated. Kant denied this, but on no logical ground. Because exceptions are themselves universal laws: they can be willed into existence by the same categorical reasoning. In fact exceptions are built in to every rule derived by his categorical imperative. Though Kant was absolutely against killing, many have claimed they’d will to be a universal law that one not kill innocents. But that is simply a disguised exception: “one shall not kill anyone except the non-innocent.”

The arrogance of this guy. "Kant denied this, but on no logical ground". You fucking illiterate moron. You haven't even skimmed any of Kant's works, have you?

Let's quote Kant's second formulation of the moral imperative, shall we?

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”

In the case of self-defense, according to Kantian ethics, someone who is trying to kill you is treating you as means to an end. You should defend your right to exist according to the universal moral imperative to treat humanity in your own person as an end. Kant isn't arguing against self-defense, he's limiting the right to self-defense to the defense of your humanity (in Kant's system, for example, you're not allowed to kill in defense of your property).

Indeed Kant explicitly supported the death penalty for murderers, since they've established that they've renounced to the right to existence by denying existence to others (i.e. they can't claim that what is happening to them is unfair because it's what they've done onto others).

Kant's complicated argument on self-defense is that killing is only allowed as the unintended consequence of treating yourself as a human being with a right to exist, i.e. you can kill someone only if there's no better alternative to preserve your life. Now you can disagree with Kant, again I do (but then again I'm not a pure deontologist) but you can't say that "Kant denied this, but on no logical ground", not if you've actually read Kant's Critique of Practical Reason. Which I'm pretty sure you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't have come up with this garbage.

Kant argued that the only reason to obey his categorical imperatives is that doing so will bring us a greater sense of self-worth, that in fact we should “hold ourselves bound by certain laws in order to find solely in our own person a worth” that compensates us for every loss incurred by obeying, for “there is no one, not even the most hardened scoundrel who does not wish that he too might be a man of like spirit,” yet only through the moral life can he gain that “greater inner worth of his own person.” Thus Kant claimed a strong sense of self-worth is not possible for the immoral person, but a matter of course for the moral one, and yet everyone wants such a thing (more even than anything else), therefore everyone has sufficient reason to be moral. He never noticed that he had thereby reduced his entire system of categorical imperatives to a single hypothetical imperative.

The entire paragraph is Carrier quoting himself once again. :lol: Again, I don't think he's actually read Kant's works, since he's taking bits and pieces out of context and not understanding them. Kant didn't argue that the reason to obey his categorical imperative was so that it will bring us a greater sense of self-worth. That's an amateurish mistake on Carrier's part, again we're talking Philosophy 101.

Kant argued that through the act of obeying the moral law one acquires moral worth, which he thought to be an innate desire of human beings because of their moral nature. Carrier is once again not understanding Kant: it's not about "being moral is a way to acquire self-worth so if you want to acquire self-worth, be moral". This would be a hypothetical imperative, but it would also deeply disgust a pure deontologist like Kant.

Kant, instead, argues that: a)it's human nature to want to be moral ("of moral worth", "a man of like spirit"), because we all naturally desire moral worth (for example by trying to justify our actions when we know they are wrong) so b) the only way to be truly and coherently moral is to obey to the categorical imperative. "Self-worth" has nothing to do with it, and it's not a hypothetical imperative because there is no "if". Kant's categorical imperative is about saying "we all want to be moral, so let's be coherently moral" NOT "if you want to feel morally righteous, have self-worth then you should behave morally".

Indeed Kant, as I wrote, would be horrified by such a self-righteous interpretation of philosophy. Kant considered "the moral law" to be an intrinsic part of human nature which is present in everyone ("Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me") and considered his philosophy not "the means to be moral" but a coherent and universal application of one's inner moral law.

Kant believed that once people rejected contradictions and got rid of cognitive imperfections and mistakes through rationality then the natural tendency towards morality would have led people to apply the categorical imperative, which is a way to figure out what's coherent and what's not and to live coherently according to one's inner and universal moral principles, not a path towards "acquiring more self-worth".

You may call Kant naive for believing that all immoral actions were merely due to ignorance of their contradictory and illogical nature (I do, I think Kant's morality is hopelessly and naively optimistic), but you need to understand Kant in order to criticize Kant. Carrier doesn't.

I give up on the rest of article, since Carrier has already shown he's an arrogant gonk.

#13844

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote:Was over at Shakesville wherein McEwen is pitching a fit(I know it's her default state) because Joe Biden said that Hillary ran a weak campaign.
Hillary Clinton was a pretty great fucking candidate! I'm not sure why so many Democrats are behaving as though she was a disaster, when she ended up winning the popular vote by 3 million votes.
The popular vote and $5 will get you a venti soy latte at Starbucks.
So why did Hillary lose? Certainly not because she ran a bad campaign.
She's a politician powered by empathy rather than charisma, who makes people feel like they're standing in the sun rather than staring at it.

Maybe that just makes her a natural politician of a different sort. Of the sort who can challenge our expectations of what natural politicians look like altogether.
And here's one from her hallelujah chorus:
No, you buffoons (I hope this isn't an inappropriate slur, I googled). She was a WOMAN candidate. This is what a WOMAN running a campaign looks like. It isn't WEAK. It just isn't male, and since men have never had to learn how to see other people's perspectives, they shrug it off as "not good enough."
See? Hillary didn't need to change her style for the electorate. The electorate needed to change the way if perceives candidates! There are no lessons to be learned from 2016.

I just lost any anxiety I have of ever living under intersectional feminist rule. They might however continue to fuck things up for the rest of us by keeping Trump in power. Hillary just announced her pre-campaign campaign with her Onward Together organization.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/p ... ether.html
If she attempts to run, she'll get the same sort of torpedo Sanders got. Irony. She still has some support, but most eyes have turned to Warren. Aside from the plastic tomahawk, it could be worse. Like Clinton again.

I hope Warren runs. Something tells me she'll just be a candidate and not a woman candidate. If the Indian thing is the worst scandal anyone can come up with, she should be golden. She once checked a box on a form. BFD. Had she scammed some scholarship money or gotten a diversity hire because of it, even that's minor league for a scandal these days.

I do think you underestimate Hillz support though. The DNC is still stacked with her minions, and Wall Street still loves her. And they hate Warren.

#13845

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote:Was over at Shakesville wherein McEwen is pitching a fit(I know it's her default state) because Joe Biden said that Hillary ran a weak campaign.
Hillary Clinton was a pretty great fucking candidate! I'm not sure why so many Democrats are behaving as though she was a disaster, when she ended up winning the popular vote by 3 million votes.
The popular vote and $5 will get you a venti soy latte at Starbucks.
So why did Hillary lose? Certainly not because she ran a bad campaign.
She's a politician powered by empathy rather than charisma, who makes people feel like they're standing in the sun rather than staring at it.

Maybe that just makes her a natural politician of a different sort. Of the sort who can challenge our expectations of what natural politicians look like altogether.
And here's one from her hallelujah chorus:
No, you buffoons (I hope this isn't an inappropriate slur, I googled). She was a WOMAN candidate. This is what a WOMAN running a campaign looks like. It isn't WEAK. It just isn't male, and since men have never had to learn how to see other people's perspectives, they shrug it off as "not good enough."
See? Hillary didn't need to change her style for the electorate. The electorate needed to change the way if perceives candidates! There are no lessons to be learned from 2016.

I just lost any anxiety I have of ever living under intersectional feminist rule. They might however continue to fuck things up for the rest of us by keeping Trump in power. Hillary just announced her pre-campaign campaign with her Onward Together organization.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/p ... ether.html
If she attempts to run, she'll get the same sort of torpedo Sanders got. Irony. She still has some support, but most eyes have turned to Warren. Aside from the plastic tomahawk, it could be worse. Like Clinton again.

I hope Warren runs. Something tells me she'll just be a candidate and not a woman candidate. If the Indian thing is the worst scandal anyone can come up with, she should be golden. She once checked a box on a form. BFD. Had she scammed some scholarship money or gotten a diversity hire because of it, even that's minor league for a scandal these days.

I do think you underestimate Hillz support though. The DNC is still stacked with her minions, and Wall Street still loves her. And they hate Warren.

#13846

Don't know how the double post happened. :?

#13847

Sunder wrote:I won't deny the claim that Trump is "[causing] more jobs [to open] up," I'll just ask you to support it since it's a positive claim.

I'm pretty sure he's scared off all those dirty Mexicans that were stealing all those sweet lettuce picking jobs...

#13848

shoutinghorse wrote:Hey Brive .. you been giving our Becky pet care tips? ;)

http://i.imgur.com/5NhUfyq.png

I find there to be a sinister simpatico. :bjarte:

I trust she has the $650 for the procedure, the 12 month heart worm and the blood test to check for underlying infections ...

"Who ya gonna call?"

#13849

katamari Damassi wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote:Was over at Shakesville wherein McEwen is pitching a fit(I know it's her default state) because Joe Biden said that Hillary ran a weak campaign. The popular vote and $5 will get you a venti soy latte at Starbucks.
So why did Hillary lose? Certainly not because she ran a bad campaign. And here's one from her hallelujah chorus: See? Hillary didn't need to change her style for the electorate. The electorate needed to change the way if perceives candidates! There are no lessons to be learned from 2016.

I just lost any anxiety I have of ever living under intersectional feminist rule. They might however continue to fuck things up for the rest of us by keeping Trump in power. Hillary just announced her pre-campaign campaign with her Onward Together organization.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/p ... ether.html
If she attempts to run, she'll get the same sort of torpedo Sanders got. Irony. She still has some support, but most eyes have turned to Warren. Aside from the plastic tomahawk, it could be worse. Like Clinton again.
I hope Warren runs. Something tells me she'll just be a candidate and not a woman candidate. If the Indian thing is the worst scandal anyone can come up with, she should be golden. She once checked a box on a form. BFD.

She is from Oklahoma. Most everyone here claims some Native American ancestry. Everyone I know who did the 23andme test turned out to be right.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

#13850

Brive1987 wrote:
shoutinghorse wrote:Hey Brive .. you been giving our Becky pet care tips? ;)

http://i.imgur.com/5NhUfyq.png

I find there to be a sinister simpatico. :bjarte:

I trust she has the $650 for the procedure, the 12 month heart worm and the blood test to check for underlying infections ...

"Who ya gonna call?"

That seems expensive? My vet here charges around £130 for the neutering, I do pay a monthly fee for vaccinations, flea and worming treatment and check ups, just for the first year. I haven't put my pup in for the snip yet, I'm a bit hesitant for some reason, still trying to work out why?

Any other dog owners with advice on that?? :animals-dogrun:

Guest_440911e7 · #13851

I do think you underestimate Hillz support though. The DNC is still stacked with her minions, and Wall Street still loves her. And they hate Warren.

So far the worst part of Trump has been that his bullshit has strengthened Clinton supporters and allowed both Democratistas and Mediafowl to pretend their shit is clean, and they have no responsibility over the bullshit that is our politics and culture today.

It becomes increasingly likely we will see a Clinton ticket in the future. If not a Michelle/Chelsea Nostalgia Ticket in the immediate future, then certainly mainstream, status quo, fuck the middle class, wall street cock sucking, identitarian, DNC podesta tanden approved wiener mobile.

#13852

Jerry's article

Guest_440911e7 · #13853

Former first ladies Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton have joined together to press forward on the idea of having a National Women's History Museum in Washington, D.C.

Bush added her name to the cause during a Women Making History Awards event on Tuesday night at the Carnegie Institution for Science, where she was honored for her advocacy work. Bush said at the event it was important to “redouble our efforts to make sure there’s a women’s museum right here in our country” The Washington Post reported.

Maybe we'll finally get the Chelsea / Jenna matriarchal ticket that will bring peace to the two dynasties and a golden age to the world.

#13854

screwtape wrote:Jerry's article

That's a pretty brutal Sokalling there. But surely this part:

At best, climate change is genuinely an example of hyper-patriarchal society metaphorically manspreading into the global ecosystem.

- must have got the reviewers' BS alarm ringing? That it apparently didn't is proof positive that the intersectional-feminism-bollocks brigade really does need to get a sense of humour.

#13855

katamari Damassi wrote:And here's one from her hallelujah chorus:
No, you buffoons (I hope this isn't an inappropriate slur, I googled). She was a WOMAN candidate. This is what a WOMAN running a campaign looks like. It isn't WEAK. It just isn't male, and since men have never had to learn how to see other people's perspectives, they shrug it off as "not good enough."
See? Hillary didn't need to change her style for the electorate. The electorate needed to change the way if perceives candidates! There are no lessons to be learned from 2016.

Jesus fucking Christ that's the stupidest argument I've ever read. Politics is about appealing to your electorate, you stupid cows. Just accept that she had a weak, bad strategy, which didn't allow her to win even when put against CheetoFace McBugnuts. But nooo, Ze Womyn CANNOT be wrong, NOT EVER, it's the world which is wrong, if we shame the electorate for not liking her style it means that they will like her unique feminine style. Her campaign to be liked by people wasn't weak, it's the evil people who didn't like her enough!

By the way I wonder how they explain to themselves how Theresa May might be about to win the UK election by a landslide even though she's an oppressed vagina-haver. Probably internalized misogyny. :lol:

Anyway, back in reality-land, Hillary objectively did ran a weak campaign, popular vote be damned. She lost states which the Dems has carried since 1992 (Michigan and Pennsylvania) and 1988 (Wisconsin). She lost Iowa by a considerable margin, and Iowa had voted for a Democratic president since 1988 with the only exception of 2004, where George W. Bush won it by a much smaller margin. She was utterly owned in Ohio, which Obama had won both in 2008 and 2012 by a decent margin (she did worse than Kerry and Gore, who both lost Ohio but by smaller margins). She lost Florida even though she got more votes there than Obama did in 2012. She was the first Democrat to lose electoral votes in Maine since 1988. In terms of electoral votes she had the worst result for a Democrat since 1988.

Pretty much the only reason why she won the popular vote was because of California, where she got far more votes than Obama did in 2012. Trump won the majority of the independents, especially the majority of independent men. Trump did very well with white men and white women, but actually slightly worse than Romney in 2012. He actually did slightly better than Romney with Hispanic people ( :o ) and Black people and Asian people (so much for Trump being the candidate of white supremacists).

It's interesting to see that while Romney lost the Catholic vote, Trump won it . He did worse than Romney with Mormons (understandably due to McMullin's good run in Utah) and with Jews (probably because of the Breitbart connection and the perception of Trump being in league with Bannon?) but did better than Romney with the less religious and the non-religious, and worse than Romney with the ultra-religious. Probably because he didn't focus his campaign on Jebus but on other issues.

Also interestingly while Trump did more or less as well as Romney when you take into account age, Clinton did sensibly worse than Obama with young and middle-aged people and slightly better with the elderly, even elderly white people.

Breaking down things by issues people who perceived the most important issues to be immigration and terrorism voted overwhelmingly for Trump, while people who perceived foreign policy to be more important voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. People who valued economic issues voted more for Clinton, but not by such a large margin.

To sum it up Clinton lost the votes of white, working class people in the "Rust Belt" and didn't motivate enough people to vote for her as Obama did among minorities. She got more votes than Obama did from Californians, though, she even won Orange County by a large margin even though Obama had lost it by a considerable margin in 2012. Orange County had been a Republican stronghold since 1940. No doubt some of this is due to local Latino vote, but Californian whites seem to also have sided with Clinton and against Trump. The majority of "Never Trump" conservatives were from traditionally Republican areas in California, Utah, Nevada, and some of them either voted for McMullin or even for Clinton.

Ultimately the very good numbers that Clinton got in Calfornia (one million more votes than Barack Obama in 2012) and the general surge of votes in Florida (where both Trump and Clinton got record numbers of voters) masked the utter electoral failures of Clinton in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa.

The total popular vote by itself doesn't tell us much, but these numbers reveal us an interesting story: Clinton did well with traditionally Democratic and liberal voters and decent enough with anti-Trump independents, but abysmally bad with working class people, especially white working class people. She threw away what could have been an easy win by underestimating Trump and his appeal with the working class due to his populist and anti-establishment message.

#13856

screwtape wrote:Jerry's article

Ok, I need a new keyboard.

The National Coalition for Men “compile[d] a list of synonyms for the word penis [sic],” these include the terms “beaver basher,” “cranny axe,” “custard launcher,” “dagger,” “heat-seeking moisture missile,” “mayo shooting hotdog gun,” “pork sword,” and “yogurt shotgun”

#13857

screwtape wrote:Jerry's article

I've not paid enough attention to Boghhossian, although I did enjoy his book on Street Epistemology and thought it should be a valuable resource for the A/S community if and only if they were actually interested in growing their numbers rather than virtue signalling.

This definitely puts him and Lindsay up a notch in my eyes.

#13858

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Penises are problematic, and we don't just mean
medical issues like erectile dysfunction and crimes
like sexual assault. As a result of our research
into the essential concept of the penis and its
exchanges with the social and material world, we
conclude that penises are not best understood as
the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive
organ, but instead as an enacted social construct
that is both damaging and problematic for society
and future generations. The conceptual penis
presents significant problems for gender identity
and reproductive identity within social and family
dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised
communities based upon gender or reproductive
identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women
and other gender-marginalized groups and
individuals, is the universal performative source of
rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of
climate change.

Finally the semenal work on toxic masculinity. :ugeek:

#13859

MarcusAu wrote:Lemmy (RIP) always described Motorhead as hard rock rather than metal

And he described himself as more punk than metal (though he pre-dated both) - even playing in The Damned at times. Of course he also did a PSA of sorts - when metallers and punks were fighting - telling them that it was all the same music.

Anyway see if you spot him in this line up:

[youtube][/youtube]

Not bad. It's hard to punk-up a song, especially if it's a Who melody, but they did it here. The chorus is still just rock, but the inbetween times are punked up. I'll see your Who cover and give you some other punk/new-wave/2-tone-ska covers (since those 3 genres were all part of an umbrella genre back then). :)

Looking through my music download folder, I see there are way too many. So, for the youtube versions below, there's no youtube tags. I don't want to be banished to my own Wonder-thread.

John Paul Young And Cardboard Brains - Stepping Stone

Cockney Rejects - "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles" (Live) (the album version has been taken down due to copyright)

Klaus Nomi - You don't own me [1981]

Lene Lovich - I Think We're Alone Now

Madness - Swan Lake

Skrewdriver - 19th (Nervous) Breakdown (The Rolling Stones Punk Cover)

Suicide - Ghost Rider (1977)

The B-52' s " Downtown " ( Album Version )

The Boys Next Door - These Boots Are Made For Walking (1978) (song is slow and drags along until 1 minute in)

The Fulham Furies - These Boots Are Made For Walkin' (Nancy Sinatra Punk Cover) (this one's way better than the above)

The Cramps - The Way I Walk

The Dickies - Paranoid

The Dickies Sounds of Silence

The Flying Lizards / Summertime Blues

Last Train To Clarksville- Plastics

The Sex Pistols-I'm Not Your Stepping Stone

Sid Vicious My Way (fiimed in france 1978) [HD] 5.1 Dolby Surround Uncut Version (song is slow and drags along until 1:15)

"My Way" Nina Hagen (1980)

The Slits- I Heard It Through The Grapevine

The Suicide Commandos " She "

The Undertones - Under The Boardwalk (The Drifters Cover)

Udo Lindenberg Sonderzug nach Pankow ( HQ ) (Chatanooga Choochoo)

#13860

katamari Damassi wrote:I hope Warren runs. Something tells me she'll just be a candidate and not a woman candidate. If the Indian thing is the worst scandal anyone can come up with, she should be golden. She once checked a box on a form. BFD. Had she scammed some scholarship money or gotten a diversity hire because of it, even that's minor league for a scandal these days.

I do think you underestimate Hillz support though. The DNC is still stacked with her minions, and Wall Street still loves her. And they hate Warren.

Warren would be much better than Clinton. She doesn't seem to be as deep-trenched into identity politics as Clinton was. Indeed she's actually closer to Sanders on the subject matter, she even defended Ann Coulter's freedom of speech. She's not exactly anti-SJW, but she's not a fervent SJ enthusiast, either, she seems more keen on the old meaning of social justice than sympathetic to the cultural authoritarians. She wouldn't piss on the white working class like Clinton did, and she's not as corporate-friendly as Clinton is. The fake-Indian thing is no big deal in the grand scheme of things.

However as you say she's hated by the Clinton-friendly DNC and donors. I expect all kinds of skulduggery against her in the primaries if she runs. I don't think Hillary will run again, she'd be too old and she knows she's very unpopular with the electorate now, plus it's bad form in general to run after a big defeat, neither Gore nor Kerry tried again. She's more likely to support someone else on her side though, maybe Michelle Obama who would only be 56, so young enough.