In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
-
- .
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Didn't PZ once namecheck Jenny McDerp in a positive way, even though everybody knows she fucking nuts? Might have been from the time she was having an argy-bargy with Thunderfoot.
-
- .
- Posts: 15449
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
- Contact:
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Oh that astronomy-is-racist-and-misogynist debate has heated up after all:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/tipp ... 3427224598
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/tipp ... 3427224598
-
- Brassy, uncouth, henpecked meathead
- Posts: 5059
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:08 am
- Location: Lurking in a dumpster
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Damn! That's rates a high nine on the dank-o-meter!MarcusAu wrote:[He should probably do something about that.
http://i40.tinypic.com/2potdmd.jpg
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Any Linkin Park fans here? I heard on the radio that Chester Bennington, the lead singer has killed himself. Only in his early forties.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
[youtube][/youtube]
-
- .
- Posts: 11165
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
I believe PZ has endorsed Mc Derp more than once. Difficult for him not to admire someone that hates Tf00t. So sad that the mysogynists are driving wonderful people like Jenny away from the atheist movement. :|CommanderTuvok wrote:Didn't PZ once namecheck Jenny McDerp in a positive way, even though everybody knows she fucking nuts? Might have been from the time she was having an argy-bargy with Thunderfoot.
http://archive.is/aiZ3c
One of the intelligent comments:
Rowan vet-tech
8 May 2015 at 8:59 pm
Garys, Thunderf00t thinks that he should not be required to ask permission before biting a woman on the leg.
I shit you not.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Yeah well, as a bear what is your position on leg-biting?
-
- .
- Posts: 11165
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
People find it charming.MarcusAu wrote:Yeah well, as a bear what is your position on leg-biting?
[youtube][/youtube]
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Nice summary - seems the guy has his head screwed on right, although he has a checkered past - not winning many friends among the regressive left:Kirbmarc wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFCP6XlXoAMmzb-.jpg:large
Nice to see some push-back, and that NYU not so quick as other institutions of "higher learning" to pander to SJWs and the "safe-spaces" crowd. Nice tweet of his that illustrates the rather viscious if not demented nature of far too many on the left and among their fellow-travelers (eg Linda Sarsour) - dogma will do that to a person:‘Deplorable’ NYU professor gets a promotion
By Melkorka Licea November 13, 2016 | 4:59am | Updated
The politically incorrect professor on leave since his NYU colleagues griped about his “incivility” has been promoted — and his fellow liberal-studies profs were lectured about their conduct.
Michael Rectenwald, 57, was bumped from assistant professor to full professor on Monday, just days after he was placed on paid leave. The promotion comes with an 18 percent raise to $80,000, a source said.
“I’m very relieved,” the liberal-studies professor told The Post. “I was worried the administration might use my views against me.” ....
My kick at the kitty, or at least a vote of confidence in his arguments and perspective:
-
- .
- Posts: 6555
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Link doesn't work, and not on Wayback.
-
- .
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:30 pm
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40676882ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Link doesn't work, and not on Wayback.
-
- .
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
I heard a rumour that, while in prison, OJ was known as "BJ Simpson"......
I'll get my coat.
;)
I'll get my coat.
;)
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Certainly a bit of muddy thinking in that assertion, or based on a premise or perspective that is not particularly clear. Not sure where it comes from - maybe, as you suggest, if a statement is true - i.e., "an exception proves a rule" - then the converse has to be false?screwtape wrote:Anyone who writes than "an exception to a rule does not disprove the rule" obviously does not understand the sense of the word 'prove' used in the original.Steersman wrote: http://i.imgur.com/VzIcRiN.jpg
In any case, I'm not sure either that the original holds much water to begin with - as I more or less tried to argue there in that comment; kind of get the impression that it is a bit of the proverbial "conventional wisdom" that doesn't hold much water when one takes a close look at it.
But it seems that that bit about rules and exceptions, and, indeed, the whole conversation on transgenderism, both there on TransParent and elsewhere, tends to go off the rails on some serious misapprehensions about the nature and use of definitions, particularly as a foundational element of science. [Too prescriptive for some, I expect ... ;-) ] In any case, as I've frequently argued, to little effect it seems, if one doesn't define one's terms adequately right out of the chute then one is simply going to wind up chasing one's tail - maybe entertaining, for some at least, but not terribly useful or effective. And, as a case in point, consider this recent exchange over there:
Think both Matt and Laci are wrong, or are going off the rails and into the weeds: sex, or at least the terms "man" and "woman" are simply defined by what type of gamete is produced, although some essential definitions elaborate a bit on that for "woman":Matt Cavanaugh [to] Pat LafordGreen • a day ago
"Some of her [Laci's] science is incorrect...."
Could you provide specific examples? ....Pat LafordGreen Mod [to] Matt Cavanaugh • a day ago
One of many instances.Matt Cavanaugh [to] Pat LafordGreen • a day ago
Laci is incorrect, as sex is defined by karyotype and/or phenotype. I'm unsure who here is doing the "conflation of phenotypes", or what that entails.
To start talking about karyotypes and phenotypes before defining the terms (man & woman) sure looks to be putting the cart before the horse. No doubt the ability to produce any particular type of gamete - or none - is manifestly a particular phenotype which has a particular karyotype or genome that undergirds it. But it's also clear that no few individuals happen to have non-standard, or non-typical, karyotypes or phenotypes yet are clearly capable of producing particular gametes or "bearing offspring".
Have I mentioned (recently) Francis Bacon's aphorism to the effect that "Therefore shoddy and inept application of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways"? ;-)
-
- .
- Posts: 5429
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Been seeing a lot of German RV'ers here, and I have to say that the German RV's are bad ass looking. Although they don't look like they get a lot of light inside.
-
- .
- Posts: 5898
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
That's his webpage URL.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:That computer course didn't go so well, as he just kept typing the same keys: slash, slash, backslash, escape.shoutinghorse wrote:I'm currently watching live coverage of OJ's parole hearing .. He's [...] done a computer course.
-
- .
- Posts: 1495
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
The only real 'master persuader' technique Adams talks about in the podcast is the use of hyperbole. Trump almost always starts with hyperbole which, rather than signalling a factual position, is only meant to signal how important he finds the issue. So, all the 'deport all illegal immigrants' promise meant was he felt very strongly on the issue, and the specific proposal should not be taken seriously. I suppose this could be persuasive to anyone who thought 'something should be done' about illegal immigration even if they thought this was going too far, as they were tired of the typical vacillation on the issue politicians in both parties employed.Kirbmarc wrote:Adams rationalizing the Trump wiretapping tweets is entertaining, if absurd. He seems to think Trump is a Machiavellian strategist. :lol:
I noticed this hyperbole technique during the campaign. Taken literally, Trump's promise would result in a new Gestapo-like force operating in America's cities charged with tracking down, detaining and deporting illegal immigrants, which was completely beyond the pale, so I told myself I'd have to put my big boy pants on and root for Hilary Clinton to defeat him despite my visceral hatred for her. Shortly thereafter, I realized Trump was just using a rhetorical technique and shouldn't be taken literally, so I could go back to considering Trump the lesser of two evils (although I spent the last month of the campaign trying to find plausible scenario's where neither would become president).
It would have been better if Harris said Siberia would be more fertile it it were more warm, as it clearly won't be a great growing area even with 5-10 deg C warmer temperatures. However, Siberia already is somewhat fertile (I have generations of family on my mother's side that made a subsistence living as Siberian farmers).Kirbmarc wrote:[Also Harris is peddling the "Siberia would be fertile is it were more warm", which is actually bullshit (it's a matter of the soil, not just of the temperature).]
http://siberiantimes.com/upload/informa ... ms_639.jpg
Siberian farmland in demand from South Korea which looks to follow Chinese lead
The sort of temperature increases Siberia would be expected to get under most climate change models almost certainly would make Siberia more fertile, it's far from 'bullshit'. Similarly, it's very likely Canada would receive a net benefit from global warming of 4-6 deg C, with large increases in habitable area, huge increases in arable area, and a longer growing season, even as the consequences would almost certainly be negative for most of the rest of the world. I've noticed many climate change activists have such quasi-religious zeal that any claim of local global warming benefit is regarded as heresy, even though many of the claims are almost certain to be true and little damage is done to the overall case.
Not that terrible. According to most models, it would take until the turn of century for earth's temperature to rise even 2 degrees, so there is some time to wait. And tech really does just 'pop up'. Just in the last 20 years we haveKirbmarc wrote:Adams, however, is terrible on this aspect. He's just proposing a waiting game for the available and affordable tech, without refusing to acknowledge that you can't just wait it out on this issue, you need to create the tech and build it up instead of just waiting for it to pop up naturally.
-fracking technology (which results in the release of about half of the CO2 as coal and has likely been the single biggest cause of coal plants shutting down)
-high efficiency super-bright LED light bulbs
-self-driving cars (not significant yet, obviously, but likely to dominate within 15 years and will reduce CO2 emissions more than 50 Paris accords)
All without government programs, directives, or even the direct objective to reduce CO2 emissions. So, rather than give zealots free reign to control global energy markets, I'm with Adams on waiting things out a bit to see if technology can make for much less intrusive, more effective solutions, although I'm at least theoretically in favor of moderate carbon taxes to help this process along.
-
- .
- Posts: 15449
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
- Contact:
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
We'll see how this Lead Zeppelin goes over at TransParentExpress. They are cooing all over Zinnia and I just slammed her:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/transparen ... 3427701632
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/transparen ... 3427701632
-
- .
- Posts: 15449
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
- Contact:
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Nope, Matt is correct. Skep Tickle done learnt me on that one.Steersman wrote:Think both Matt and Laci are wrongMatt Cavanaugh [to] Pat LafordGreen • a day ago
"Some of her [Laci's] science is incorrect...."
Could you provide specific examples? ....Pat LafordGreen Mod [to] Matt Cavanaugh • a day ago
One of many instances.Matt Cavanaugh [to] Pat LafordGreen • a day ago
Laci is incorrect, as sex is defined by karyotype and/or phenotype. I'm unsure who here is doing the "conflation of phenotypes", or what that entails.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
I'm inclined to mostly agree, because the way to understand why we have sex as a phenomenon is to realize that it evolved to facilitate sexual reproduction, which is advantageous to a population because it increases genetic diversity. The gametes are what actually does the sexual reproduction, so those are primary to what determines sex.Steersman wrote:Think both Matt and Laci are wrong, or are going off the rails and into the weeds: sex, or at least the terms "man" and "woman" are simply defined by what type of gamete is produced, although some essential definitions elaborate a bit on that for "woman":Matt Cavanaugh [to] Pat LafordGreen • a day ago
"Some of her [Laci's] science is incorrect...."
Could you provide specific examples? ....Pat LafordGreen Mod [to] Matt Cavanaugh • a day ago
One of many instances.Matt Cavanaugh [to] Pat LafordGreen • a day ago
Laci is incorrect, as sex is defined by karyotype and/or phenotype. I'm unsure who here is doing the "conflation of phenotypes", or what that entails.To start talking about karyotypes and phenotypes before defining the terms (man & woman) sure looks to be putting the cart before the horse. No doubt the ability to produce any particular type of gamete - or none - is manifestly a particular phenotype which has a particular karyotype or genome that undergirds it. But it's also clear that no few individuals happen to have non-standard, or non-typical, karyotypes or phenotypes yet are clearly capable of producing particular gametes or "bearing offspring".
Have I mentioned (recently) Francis Bacon's aphorism to the effect that "Therefore shoddy and inept application of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways"? ;-)
I do think that oversimplifies it a little though, because in our species a lot of physiology has evolved to facilitate the process of getting the complementary gametes together, and part of what determines the physiology that you develop is your karyotype. So what you end up with are two well defined gametes (sperm and ova) and a spectrum of physiological presentations that can lead to one of three functional outcomes: reproductively functioning female, reproductively functioning male, or reproductively dysfunctional. A person with a karyotype of XXY (Kleinefelter Syndrome) is in the third category by default, but can produce sperm and actually be reproductively functional thanks to certain medical techniques.
I think a big point of confusion in the way this is being talked about is the fact that certain people are insisting on being descriptivists to the point that they won't engage with the evolutionary reasons why sexual physiology and biological sex exist in the first place. The reason why you can't say that sex is a spectrum is because there is no spectrum of gametes. There are two gametes. There is a spectrum of phenotypes (and a few possible Karyotypes) in people who sucessfully produce one gamete or the other, but trying to define new sexes based on physiology alone is missing the forest for the trees (or being purposefully obscurantist in some cases). "Intersex" usually just means your private parts don't work right or don't look normal, and I think a big part of why this is being talked about is because SJWs think its mean to acknowledge that reality.
-
- .
- Posts: 15449
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
- Contact:
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
In certain circumstances, can also rule small totalitarian states.Old_ones wrote:A person with a karyotype of XXY (Kleinefelter Syndrome) is in the third category by default, but can produce sperm and actually be reproductively functional thanks to certain medical techniques.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Cassie Jaye on Laci Green & Media Backlash
[youtube][/youtube]
Cassie talks about how she was warned by MRAs that she would be demonised (actually slandered etc. etc.) if she went ahead with her film project (starts at around 6:12). She says she thought they were just "reacting to something".
The Laci Green segment starts at around 11:00 if that is the only part you are interested.
[youtube][/youtube]
Cassie talks about how she was warned by MRAs that she would be demonised (actually slandered etc. etc.) if she went ahead with her film project (starts at around 6:12). She says she thought they were just "reacting to something".
The Laci Green segment starts at around 11:00 if that is the only part you are interested.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Saw this yesterday. A very well done and touching video (though it looks like it was done in the unfinished and unlit basement of that Honey Badger Dude)Cassie talks about how she was warned by MRAs that she would be demonised (actually slandered etc. etc.) if she went ahead with her film project (starts at around 6:12). She says she thought they were just "reacting to something".
The Laci Green segment starts at around 11:00 if that is the only part you are interested.
I certainly hope it is not the career suicide for her that she fears.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Read the first two. Quite good - it's as if Len Deighton started writing fantasy.Lsuoma wrote:Anybody here read The Laundry novels by Charles Stross? The latest one is amazing!
Which one is amazing?
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
I saw this and thought about it. I think she will be okay if she "repents" by doing the same exact documentaries she was doing before.Guest_936d3dec wrote:Saw this yesterday. A very well done and touching video (though it looks like it was done in the unfinished and unlit basement of that Honey Badger Dude)Cassie talks about how she was warned by MRAs that she would be demonised (actually slandered etc. etc.) if she went ahead with her film project (starts at around 6:12). She says she thought they were just "reacting to something".
The Laci Green segment starts at around 11:00 if that is the only part you are interested.
I certainly hope it is not the career suicide for her that she fears.
How many on the Pit are in favor of gay marriage? 99%. So is Cassie Jaye.
How many on the Pit are creeped out by father/daughter purity balls, or at least want to know about them? 99%. So did Cassie Jaye?
She should make her next documentary about the Saudi habit of dropping gay people to the ground like pumpkins on Halloween or not allowing them to drive. She'll be fine. And the Pit and her other Red Pill fans will be on her side.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
I like pretty much all of them, in this order of enjoyment.BoxNDox wrote:Read the first two. Quite good - it's as if Len Deighton started writing fantasy.Lsuoma wrote:Anybody here read The Laundry novels by Charles Stross? The latest one is amazing!
Which one is amazing?
#8 - The Delirium Brief
#1 - The Atrocity Archive
#7 - The Nightmare Stacks
#3 - The Fuller Memorandum
#4 - The Apocalypse Codex
#5 - The Rhesus Chart
#2 - The Jennifer Morgue
#6 - The Annihilation Score
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
He is writing at approximately one book a year.
And they probably should be read in order - each is a separate story - but building on the previous ones.
I remember Stross saying that his goal is to reach the 'Lovecraftian Singularity'. Which sounds interesting if nothing else.
And they probably should be read in order - each is a separate story - but building on the previous ones.
I remember Stross saying that his goal is to reach the 'Lovecraftian Singularity'. Which sounds interesting if nothing else.
-
- .
- Posts: 820
- Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
The Laundry novels remind me of the MMORPG The Secret World (recently re-released as Secret World Legends), and vice-versa.MarcusAu wrote:He is writing at approximately one book a year.
And they probably should be read in order - each is a separate story - but building on the previous ones.
I remember Stross saying that his goal is to reach the 'Lovecraftian Singularity'. Which sounds interesting if nothing else.
If you want to feel like you're in something like a Laundry story, play the Illuminati faction in that game. So long as the illusion that you're in the faction exists, the similarity in feel between the two scenarios is amazing and funly immersive. (Although the Illuminati are more into traditional magic stuff, whereas ofc Stross has the techno-magic thing going; but the hilarious/terrifying bureaucracy is very similar, and there's even a nod to the Laundry techno-magic in that one of the magic weapons is an iPhone charger cable twisted into eldritch angles :) )
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people at Funcom had been inspired by the first few Laundry novels, which more or less came out during the early development of the game.
-
- .
- Posts: 820
- Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Stross is unfortunately a giant SJW these days - I suspect it's a similar case of Stockholm Syndrome to Steve Shives.'
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Yeah - I stopped reading his blog for that reason.
in the latest book he did drop in the term 'mansplaining' as a throwaway description of a guys behaviour at a party.
Then at the same time he has characters that are military (or ex-military) behaving in typically masculine ways - and he does not feel the need to belittle them.
Perhaps he is just following the action tropes - but it feels like he may have a bit of a contradiction there.
Maybe there is something to nerdy guys - living in a bubble where they have few or no male friends.
in the latest book he did drop in the term 'mansplaining' as a throwaway description of a guys behaviour at a party.
Then at the same time he has characters that are military (or ex-military) behaving in typically masculine ways - and he does not feel the need to belittle them.
Perhaps he is just following the action tropes - but it feels like he may have a bit of a contradiction there.
Maybe there is something to nerdy guys - living in a bubble where they have few or no male friends.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Works from UK try using a vpnConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Link doesn't work, and not on Wayback.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Apparently the idea that if you don't want to have sex with a trans person you're transphobic is gaining traction among the SocJus. It seems to be based on the ideas that a) there's no such as "biological sex", only "self-identified genders" b) genitals aren't part of "gender" c) sexual attraction isn't based on genitals so d) if you're attracted to women but not trans women you're just being a bigot since they're exactly the same.
People on the left sometimes are angry that a distinction is made between women and trans women (or men and trans men) but if this is the result of the "lack of distinction" then we really need to keep it up. Trans women are biologically men, trans men are biologically women. For their mental health it might be good, if doctors think it's wise, to intervene hormonally or surgically to alter their biological characteristics.
But they can't change their biological nature, and can't demand that others completely ignore it. If they still have the genitals they were born with they have to accept that people who aren't into those genitals will refuse to have sex with them, and there's nothing "bigoted" about that, just a matter of sexual attraction.
It's one thing to intervene to reduce the pain of someone who has a condition that makes their biological sex feel alien to them. It's another to pretend that biological sex doesn't exist.
People on the left sometimes are angry that a distinction is made between women and trans women (or men and trans men) but if this is the result of the "lack of distinction" then we really need to keep it up. Trans women are biologically men, trans men are biologically women. For their mental health it might be good, if doctors think it's wise, to intervene hormonally or surgically to alter their biological characteristics.
But they can't change their biological nature, and can't demand that others completely ignore it. If they still have the genitals they were born with they have to accept that people who aren't into those genitals will refuse to have sex with them, and there's nothing "bigoted" about that, just a matter of sexual attraction.
It's one thing to intervene to reduce the pain of someone who has a condition that makes their biological sex feel alien to them. It's another to pretend that biological sex doesn't exist.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Is this the logical extreme of demanding respect for pronouns?
For the lulz, I encourage Team SocJus to demand the University steps in to make sure cis dudes are in all ways accepting of the girlcock.
For the lulz, I encourage Team SocJus to demand the University steps in to make sure cis dudes are in all ways accepting of the girlcock.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
So how long do you think it will take to throw PZ out of the SocJus collective.
He is a cis-gendered straight white male - that has never had sex with a trans-person or with someone of the same gender, and it's not likely that he has dated someone of another race. In addition to this, he has not given up his position of privilege to a WOC, despite calls to do so, and lives in a particularly non-diverse state (over 90% white, from memory).
Obviously, his behaviour marks him as a bigot - anything he has to say just rings hollow.
He is a cis-gendered straight white male - that has never had sex with a trans-person or with someone of the same gender, and it's not likely that he has dated someone of another race. In addition to this, he has not given up his position of privilege to a WOC, despite calls to do so, and lives in a particularly non-diverse state (over 90% white, from memory).
Obviously, his behaviour marks him as a bigot - anything he has to say just rings hollow.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
A lot of SocJus fans are cis white heterosexual males who don't date trans women but simply virtue-signal enough to be on the good side. Myers knows how and when to grovel. If he ever got into a fight with prominent female feminist and refused to back down he'd be toast, but he carefully avoids all of that.MarcusAu wrote:So how long do you think it will take to throw PZ out of the SocJus collective.
He is a cis-gendered straight white male - that has never had sex with a trans-person or with someone of the same gender, and it's not likely that he has dated someone of another race. In addition to this, he has not given up his position of privilege to a WOC, despite calls to do so, and lives in a particularly non-diverse state (over 90% white, from memory).
Obviously, his behaviour marks him as a bigot - anything he has to say just rings hollow.
Also pretty much nobody cares about him one way or the other.
-
- .
- Posts: 2649
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:01 am
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Kirbmarc wrote:Apparently the idea that if you don't want to have sex with a trans person you're transphobic is gaining traction among the SocJus. It seems to be based on the ideas that a) there's no such as "biological sex", only "self-identified genders" b) genitals aren't part of "gender" c) sexual attraction isn't based on genitals so d) if you're attracted to women but not trans women you're just being a bigot since they're exactly the same.
People on the left sometimes are angry that a distinction is made between women and trans women (or men and trans men) but if this is the result of the "lack of distinction" then we really need to keep it up. Trans women are biologically men, trans men are biologically women. For their mental health it might be good, if doctors think it's wise, to intervene hormonally or surgically to alter their biological characteristics.
But they can't change their biological nature, and can't demand that others completely ignore it. If they still have the genitals they were born with they have to accept that people who aren't into those genitals will refuse to have sex with them, and there's nothing "bigoted" about that, just a matter of sexual attraction.
It's one thing to intervene to reduce the pain of someone who has a condition that makes their biological sex feel alien to them. It's another to pretend that biological sex doesn't exist.
Have any of these tranny's been challenged on their straightphobia?
-
- .
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:30 pm
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Doesnt work in the UK (or anywhere) because the link was missing the last two characters, so it was broken.Malky wrote:Works from UK try using a vpnConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Link doesn't work, and not on Wayback.
I posted the correct link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40676882
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
:nin: :nin:Malky wrote:Works from UK try using a vpnConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Link doesn't work, and not on Wayback.
By the very next post but link works for me
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
"Heterosexual" in reality nearly always means "attracted to the opposite biological sex". Another way to say it is that "cis het" is almost always redundant. It should be obvious from the fact that staring a family and having children is a prime motivating factor in who many people find attractive.Kirbmarc wrote:Apparently the idea that if you don't want to have sex with a trans person you're transphobic is gaining traction among the SocJus. It seems to be based on the ideas that a) there's no such as "biological sex", only "self-identified genders" b) genitals aren't part of "gender" c) sexual attraction isn't based on genitals so d) if you're attracted to women but not trans women you're just being a bigot since they're exactly the same.
People on the left sometimes are angry that a distinction is made between women and trans women (or men and trans men) but if this is the result of the "lack of distinction" then we really need to keep it up. Trans women are biologically men, trans men are biologically women. For their mental health it might be good, if doctors think it's wise, to intervene hormonally or surgically to alter their biological characteristics.
But they can't change their biological nature, and can't demand that others completely ignore it. If they still have the genitals they were born with they have to accept that people who aren't into those genitals will refuse to have sex with them, and there's nothing "bigoted" about that, just a matter of sexual attraction.
It's one thing to intervene to reduce the pain of someone who has a condition that makes their biological sex feel alien to them. It's another to pretend that biological sex doesn't exist.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
During the entire Ophelia exodus affair, nobody thought to ask PZ if he thought trans women were biologically female. This really would have been the question, rather than "are trans women real women." That is a gender question open to po mo definitions of gender, but "are transwomen biologically female" would have really pinned him to the wall. He would either have to say no, and risk the socjus scorn, or say yes and tank his credibility as a scientist.MarcusAu wrote:So how long do you think it will take to throw PZ out of the SocJus collective.
He is a cis-gendered straight white male - that has never had sex with a trans-person or with someone of the same gender, and it's not likely that he has dated someone of another race. In addition to this, he has not given up his position of privilege to a WOC, despite calls to do so, and lives in a particularly non-diverse state (over 90% white, from memory).
Obviously, his behaviour marks him as a bigot - anything he has to say just rings hollow.
I have personally resolved it, for myself, to this language:
Transwomen are women.
Transwomen are not biologically female.
I think this is a useful compromise, sensitive to both side, and it's an elegant solution.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
It's not a bad solution, but the political trans will never accept it, because it doesn't allow them to shame straight men or gay women for not liking a "girlcock".Hunt wrote:
During the entire Ophelia exodus affair, nobody thought to ask PZ if he thought trans women were biologically female. This really would have been the question, rather than "are trans women real women." That is a gender question open to po mo definitions of gender, but "are transwomen biologically female" would have really pinned him to the wall. He would either have to say no, and risk the socjus scorn, or say yes and tank his credibility as a scientist.
I have personally resolved it, for myself, to this language:
Transwomen are women.
Transwomen are not biologically female.
I think this is a useful compromise, sensitive to both side, and it's an elegant solution.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
I can't picture even the ballsiest of PUAs leading with "you have a moral obligation to have sex with me and if you won't you're a bigot."Kirbmarc wrote:Apparently the idea that if you don't want to have sex with a trans person you're transphobic is gaining traction among the SocJus.
I'm curious about the dynamics at play with "affirmative consent" where trans are involved.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Well I think some of the alt-right would be willing to counter the 'white-genocide'
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
I asked this exact question on Ashley Miller's blog back when the point of contention was lesbian porn actresses refusing to shoot porn with a trans porn star. There was a lot of handwaving around the concept that social shame isn't violating affirmative consent.Sunder wrote:I can't picture even the ballsiest of PUAs leading with "you have a moral obligation to have sex with me and if you won't you're a bigot."Kirbmarc wrote:Apparently the idea that if you don't want to have sex with a trans person you're transphobic is gaining traction among the SocJus.
I'm curious about the dynamics at play with "affirmative consent" where trans are involved.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Not really a particularly credible argument as women are defined as human female. You're welcome to try to get all of the dictionaries and encyclopaedias to conform to your idea but really don't think you're going to have much success.Hunt wrote:During the entire Ophelia exodus affair, nobody thought to ask PZ if he thought trans women were biologically female. This really would have been the question, rather than "are trans women real women." That is a gender question open to po mo definitions of gender, but "are transwomen biologically female" would have really pinned him to the wall. He would either have to say no, and risk the socjus scorn, or say yes and tank his credibility as a scientist.MarcusAu wrote:So how long do you think it will take to throw PZ out of the SocJus collective.
He is a cis-gendered straight white male - that has never had sex with a trans-person or with someone of the same gender, and it's not likely that he has dated someone of another race. In addition to this, he has not given up his position of privilege to a WOC, despite calls to do so, and lives in a particularly non-diverse state (over 90% white, from memory).
Obviously, his behaviour marks him as a bigot - anything he has to say just rings hollow.
I have personally resolved it, for myself, to this language:
Transwomen are women.
Transwomen are not biologically female.
I think this is a useful compromise, sensitive to both side, and it's an elegant solution.
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Such bigots!
I wonder what the SocJus reactions would be if they learned that some victims of "gay conversion therapy" are being forced to kiss/have sex with people of the opposite sex (it's a hypothetical, although I think I saw something along those lines before). Well, of course they would be outraged. But when it concerns trans*, all bets are off. You MUST love the girlcock, or you're a transphobic bigot. :roll:
As for "heterosexual", doesn't it actually mean "different sex/gender" instead of "opposite sex/gender"? Homo=same, hetero=different. Opposite would be anti. In this light, why would SocJus hate heterosexuals so much, since any cis person dating a trans* person would by definition be heterosexual?
Words are fun.
I wonder what the SocJus reactions would be if they learned that some victims of "gay conversion therapy" are being forced to kiss/have sex with people of the opposite sex (it's a hypothetical, although I think I saw something along those lines before). Well, of course they would be outraged. But when it concerns trans*, all bets are off. You MUST love the girlcock, or you're a transphobic bigot. :roll:
As for "heterosexual", doesn't it actually mean "different sex/gender" instead of "opposite sex/gender"? Homo=same, hetero=different. Opposite would be anti. In this light, why would SocJus hate heterosexuals so much, since any cis person dating a trans* person would by definition be heterosexual?
Words are fun.
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Except when left in the Hands of Steers...Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Words are fun.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Yes, but 2+2=5 if we say so.Kirbmarc wrote: It's one thing to intervene to reduce the pain of someone who has a condition that makes their biological sex feel alien to them. It's another to pretend that biological sex doesn't exist.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
We need to undergo straight deconversion therapy.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Such bigots!
I wonder what the SocJus reactions would be if they learned that some victims of "gay conversion therapy" are being forced to kiss/have sex with people of the opposite sex (it's a hypothetical, although I think I saw something along those lines before). Well, of course they would be outraged. But when it concerns trans*, all bets are off. You MUST love the girlcock, or you're a transphobic bigot. :roll:
As for "heterosexual", doesn't it actually mean "different sex/gender" instead of "opposite sex/gender"? Homo=same, hetero=different. Opposite would be anti. In this light, why would SocJus hate heterosexuals so much, since any cis person dating a trans* person would by definition be heterosexual?
Words are fun.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Skep Tickle is no doubt a clever woman - nominally speaking at least. ;-) But that doesn't mean she's infallible or necessarily right on any given point - think you kind of have to go back to first principles. Which in this case happens to be taxonomy and that, based thereon, "woman" is simply defined as "human female [produces ova]". You're welcome to try to define it on the basis of phenotype and genotype but the facts of the matter are that those are secondary to the functional criteria - i.e., which gametes are produced. Even if, as I've argued, those criteria might be construed as a particular subset of the entire set of genotypes and phenotypes that characterize the human population.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Nope, Matt is correct. Skep Tickle done learnt me on that one.Steersman wrote: <snip>Think both Matt and Laci are wrongMatt Cavanaugh [to] Pat LafordGreen • a day ago
Laci is incorrect, as sex is defined by karyotype and/or phenotype. I'm unsure who here is doing the "conflation of phenotypes", or what that entails.
I wonder, have you actually given any thought at all to the science of taxonomy? That the process of classification is an essential element that undergirds and is the start of virtually all science?
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Argument ad dictionarium? You, you? The same site defines "transwoman" as "a male to female transexual", which I would consider more wrong than expanding the definition of "woman".Steersman wrote:You're welcome to try to get all of the dictionaries and encyclopaedias to conform to your idea but really don't think you're going to have much success.
Who cares what a dictionary says? Words change meaning, and even more often their meanings are expanded or contracted. Expanding "woman" and "man" to include transgender people makes sense, while preserving the more scientific "male" and "female" to designate biological sex. Is a transwoman a woman? Yes. Is a transwoman a female? No. It's also a springboard to other compromise solutions:
People can be said to base their sexual preference on biological sex, male or female. The entire discussion about whether you're a bigot if you don't find a transwoman attractive becomes moot.
There are other benefits. Most importantly, it gives something to both sides, as compromises do.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
LoL. If you ask the question (as you've done) of "why would SocJus hate heterosexuals so much, since any cis person dating a trans* person would by definition be heterosexual?" then it seems you're accepting that, for instance, a transwoman is in fact a woman. But that seems to be literally begging the question, to be accepting a claim or argument for which there is diddly-squat in the way of evidence or logic to support it: there are really only two sexes - male and female, i.e., those who actually produce ova or sperm - and transmen and transwomen are technically neither, even if superficially they may appear as one or the other. "Heterosexual" is simply defined as the "attraction to the opposite sex' but transwoman and transman are technically of no or neither sex.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Except when left in the Hands of Steers...Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Words are fun.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
LoL. Oh, my gawd! Oh, my gawd! The horror! You might consider that definitions are like the axioms of a system of logic - if they lead to contradictions or do not comport with "reality" then they can be turfed or modified. Otherwise they're useful frames of reference until other facts are put on the table.Hunt wrote:Argument ad dictionarium? You, you?Steersman wrote:You're welcome to try to get all of the dictionaries and encyclopaedias to conform to your idea but really don't think you're going to have much success.
Well, we agree on that point at least.Hunt wrote:The same site defines "transwoman" as "a male to female transexual", which I would consider more wrong than expanding the definition of "woman".
Fuck. You're as bad as the postmodernists that Rectenwald raked over the coals - with no shortage of justification:Hunt wrote:Who cares what a dictionary says? Words change meaning, and even more often their meanings are expanded or contracted.
Do you or do you not accept the manifest fact that, from the point of view of reproduction, people can be grouped into 3 more or less mutually exclusive but exhaustive classes (ain't no others), i.e., those who actually produce the gametes named sperm, those who actually produce the gametes named ova, and those who actually produce neither? If the former [accepting that fact], then pray tell, exactly how would you name those classes? I'd suggest going with the names already on the books (encylopaedicas, dictionaries), and in common use, i.e., male (man), female (woman), and {girl, eunuch, transman, transwoman, etc}. But you're welcome to try to get the entire literary, scientific, and lexocological establishment to conform to your idiosyncratic selections - let me know how that works out.
A red herring. What type of compromise would you suggest is appropriate "to give something to both sides" of those who insist that the elements of physical reality are earth, wind, fire, and water, and those who argue, with far more evidence, that the elements of physical reality are hydrogen and carbon and silicon and gold, along with some 100 other ones?Hunt wrote:There are other benefits. Most importantly, it gives something to both sides, as compromises do.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
New sex robot comes programmed for rape mode.
Steers, never again does "I'm sorry Dave" have to mean "no".
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relati ... cee13c1ceb
Steers, never again does "I'm sorry Dave" have to mean "no".
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relati ... cee13c1ceb
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
LoL. Pass - for one thing, at 10 grand, I'll stick with the neighborhood professional. And for another, there's still something to be said for the human touch.Brive1987 wrote:New sex robot comes programmed for rape mode.
Steers, never again does "I'm sorry Dave" have to mean "no".
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relati ... cee13c1ceb
Though the article does raise a few interesting ethical questions, some of which may be analogous to video games.
-
- Brassy, uncouth, henpecked meathead
- Posts: 5059
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:08 am
- Location: Lurking in a dumpster
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Do they make a "rabid feminazi" model? A "real" doll that encourages you to fuck it then retracts consent a few days later?Brive1987 wrote:New sex robot comes programmed for rape mode.
Steers, never again does "I'm sorry Dave" have to mean "no".
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relati ... cee13c1ceb
Asking for a friend...
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Rare photo of Steersman promoting inter-species marriage.Steersman wrote:LoL. Pass - for one thing, at 10 grand, I'll stick with the neighborhood professional. And for another, there's still something to be said for the human touch.Brive1987 wrote:New sex robot comes programmed for rape mode.
Steers, never again does "I'm sorry Dave" have to mean "no".
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relati ... cee13c1ceb
Though the article does raise a few interesting ethical questions, some of which may be analogous to video games.
http://letteradonna.it/wp-content/blogs ... 648531.jpg
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Watch out! - that thing could rip your nominals off.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Thanks for taking the time to explain what "exhaustive" means. :roll:Steersman wrote: Do you or do you not accept the manifest fact that, from the point of view of reproduction, people can be grouped into 3 more or less mutually exclusive but exhaustive classes (ain't no others), i.e., those who actually produce the gametes named sperm, those who actually produce the gametes named ova, and those who actually produce neither? If the former [accepting that fact], then pray tell, exactly how would you name those classes? I'd suggest going with the names already on the books (encylopaedicas, dictionaries), and in common use, i.e., male (man), female (woman), and {girl, eunuch, transman, transwoman, etc}. But you're welcome to try to get the entire literary, scientific, and lexocological establishment to conform to your idiosyncratic selections - let me know how that works out.
All those distinctions can be fit into the classification of "male" and "female". A male produces sperm; a female produces ova. A sterile person produces neither; however they're (usually) still either genetically male or female. Let's not get bogged down by every single biological contingency. Is a sterile person male or female? What about anomalies of karyotype? These truly are red herrings. It amounts to a category error. You can't base a taxonomy on what amount to (usually) abnormal conditions. Where do you draw the line, where is the end? Taxonomies are based on what nature "intended" (minus the teleological implications of that word). I think everyone knows exactly what is meant.
Why not expand the definition of "man" and "woman" to transpeople? What's the cost? I don't see the downside.
Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary
Don't ask the question unless you want to know the answer.
Explain "exhaustive"? Wait until you see it demonstrated.
Explain "exhaustive"? Wait until you see it demonstrated.