In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

Old subthreads
Locked
CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3744
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1861

Post by CommanderTuvok »

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.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1862

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Oh that astronomy-is-racist-and-misogynist debate has heated up after all:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/tipp ... 3427224598

Bhurzum
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

#1863

Post by Bhurzum »

MarcusAu wrote:[He should probably do something about that.
Damn! That's rates a high nine on the dank-o-meter!

http://i40.tinypic.com/2potdmd.jpg

Malky
.
.
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1864

Post by Malky »


Oglebart
.
.
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:25 pm
Location: Ingerland

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1865

Post by Oglebart »

Any Linkin Park fans here? I heard on the radio that Chester Bennington, the lead singer has killed himself. Only in his early forties.

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1866

Post by windy »

[youtube][/youtube]

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1867

Post by free thoughtpolice »

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.
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. :|
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.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1868

Post by MarcusAu »

Yeah well, as a bear what is your position on leg-biting?

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1869

Post by free thoughtpolice »

MarcusAu wrote:Yeah well, as a bear what is your position on leg-biting?
People find it charming.
[youtube][/youtube]

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1870

Post by Steersman »

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:
‘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.” ....
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:

My kick at the kitty, or at least a vote of confidence in his arguments and perspective:

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1871

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

Malky wrote:Well it appears OJ won

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-406768
Link doesn't work, and not on Wayback.

InfraRedBucket
.
.
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:30 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1872

Post by InfraRedBucket »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Malky wrote:Well it appears OJ won

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-406768
Link doesn't work, and not on Wayback.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40676882

CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3744
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1873

Post by CommanderTuvok »

I heard a rumour that, while in prison, OJ was known as "BJ Simpson"......

I'll get my coat.

;)

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1874

Post by Steersman »

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.
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?

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:
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.
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":
woman : 1 An adult human female.

female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
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"? ;-)

katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5429
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1875

Post by katamari Damassi »

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.

Shatterface
.
.
Posts: 5898
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1876

Post by Shatterface »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
shoutinghorse wrote:I'm currently watching live coverage of OJ's parole hearing .. He's [...] done a computer course.
That computer course didn't go so well, as he just kept typing the same keys: slash, slash, backslash, escape.
That's his webpage URL.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1495
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1877

Post by jugheadnaut »

Kirbmarc wrote:Adams rationalizing the Trump wiretapping tweets is entertaining, if absurd. He seems to think Trump is a Machiavellian strategist. :lol:
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.

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).
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).]
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).
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.
Kirbmarc 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.
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 have

-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.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1878

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

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

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1879

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Steersman wrote:
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.
Think both Matt and Laci are wrong
Nope, Matt is correct. Skep Tickle done learnt me on that one.

Old_ones
.
.
Posts: 2168
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:46 pm
Location: An hour's drive from Hell.

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1880

Post by Old_ones »

Steersman wrote:
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.
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":
woman : 1 An adult human female.

female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
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'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.

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.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1881

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

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.
In certain circumstances, can also rule small totalitarian states.
Klein_Jong-Un.jpg
(89.31 KiB) Downloaded 190 times

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1882

Post by AndrewV69 »

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.

Guest_936d3dec

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1883

Post by Guest_936d3dec »

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.
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)

I certainly hope it is not the career suicide for her that she fears.

BoxNDox
.
.
Posts: 618
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:24 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1884

Post by BoxNDox »

Lsuoma wrote:Anybody here read The Laundry novels by Charles Stross? The latest one is amazing!
Read the first two. Quite good - it's as if Len Deighton started writing fantasy.

Which one is amazing?

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1885

Post by Really? »

Guest_936d3dec wrote:
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.
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)

I certainly hope it is not the career suicide for her that she fears.
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.

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.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1886

Post by Lsuoma »

BoxNDox wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:Anybody here read The Laundry novels by Charles Stross? The latest one is amazing!
Read the first two. Quite good - it's as if Len Deighton started writing fantasy.

Which one is amazing?
I like pretty much all of them, in this order of enjoyment.

#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

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1887

Post by MarcusAu »

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.

gurugeorge
.
.
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1888

Post by gurugeorge »

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.
The Laundry novels remind me of the MMORPG The Secret World (recently re-released as Secret World Legends), and vice-versa.

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.

gurugeorge
.
.
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1889

Post by gurugeorge »

Stross is unfortunately a giant SJW these days - I suspect it's a similar case of Stockholm Syndrome to Steve Shives.'

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1890

Post by MarcusAu »

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.

Malky
.
.
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1891

Post by Malky »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Malky wrote:Well it appears OJ won

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-406768
Link doesn't work, and not on Wayback.
Works from UK try using a vpn

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1892

Post by Kirbmarc »

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.

Guest_936d3dec

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1893

Post by Guest_936d3dec »

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.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1894

Post by MarcusAu »

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.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1895

Post by Kirbmarc »

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.
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.

Also pretty much nobody cares about him one way or the other.

shoutinghorse
.
.
Posts: 2649
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:01 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1896

Post by shoutinghorse »

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?

InfraRedBucket
.
.
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:30 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1897

Post by InfraRedBucket »

Malky wrote:
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Malky wrote:Well it appears OJ won

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-406768
Link doesn't work, and not on Wayback.
Works from UK try using a vpn
Doesnt work in the UK (or anywhere) because the link was missing the last two characters, so it was broken.

I posted the correct link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40676882

Malky
.
.
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1898

Post by Malky »

Malky wrote:
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Malky wrote:Well it appears OJ won

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-406768
Link doesn't work, and not on Wayback.
Works from UK try using a vpn
:nin: :nin:

By the very next post but link works for me

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1899

Post by Hunt »

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.
"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.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1900

Post by Hunt »

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.
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.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1901

Post by Kirbmarc »

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.
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".

Sunder
.
.
Posts: 3858
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:12 pm

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1902

Post by Sunder »

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 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."

I'm curious about the dynamics at play with "affirmative consent" where trans are involved.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1903

Post by MarcusAu »

Well I think some of the alt-right would be willing to counter the 'white-genocide'

[youtube][/youtube]

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1904

Post by Kirbmarc »

Sunder wrote:
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 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."

I'm curious about the dynamics at play with "affirmative consent" where trans are involved.
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.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1905

Post by Steersman »

Hunt wrote:
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.
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.
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.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
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

#1906

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

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.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
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

#1907

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Words are fun.
Except when left in the Hands of Steers...

DrokkIt
.
.
Posts: 1327
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 4:01 pm
Location: Brit-Cit

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1908

Post by DrokkIt »

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.
Yes, but 2+2=5 if we say so.

DrokkIt
.
.
Posts: 1327
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 4:01 pm
Location: Brit-Cit

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1909

Post by DrokkIt »

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.
We need to undergo straight deconversion therapy.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1910

Post by Steersman »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Steersman wrote: <snip>
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.
Think both Matt and Laci are wrong
Nope, Matt is correct. Skep Tickle done learnt me on that one.
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.

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?

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1911

Post by Hunt »

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.
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".

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.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1912

Post by Steersman »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Words are fun.
Except when left in the Hands of Steers...
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.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1913

Post by Steersman »

Hunt wrote:
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.
Argument ad dictionarium? You, you?
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:The same site defines "transwoman" as "a male to female transexual", which I would consider more wrong than expanding the definition of "woman".
Well, we agree on that point at least.
Hunt wrote:Who cares what a dictionary says? Words change meaning, and even more often their meanings are expanded or contracted.
Fuck. You're as bad as the postmodernists that Rectenwald raked over the coals - with no shortage of justification:

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.
Hunt wrote:There are other benefits. Most importantly, it gives something to both sides, as compromises do.
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?

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1914

Post by Brive1987 »

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

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1915

Post by Steersman »

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
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.

Though the article does raise a few interesting ethical questions, some of which may be analogous to video games.

Bhurzum
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

#1916

Post by Bhurzum »

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
Do they make a "rabid feminazi" model? A "real" doll that encourages you to fuck it then retracts consent a few days later?

Asking for a friend...

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1917

Post by Kirbmarc »

Steersman wrote:
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
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.

Though the article does raise a few interesting ethical questions, some of which may be analogous to video games.
Rare photo of Steersman promoting inter-species marriage.

http://letteradonna.it/wp-content/blogs ... 648531.jpg

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1918

Post by MarcusAu »

Watch out! - that thing could rip your nominals off.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1919

Post by Hunt »

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.
Thanks for taking the time to explain what "exhaustive" means. :roll:

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.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7903
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#1920

Post by MarcusAu »

Don't ask the question unless you want to know the answer.

Explain "exhaustive"? Wait until you see it demonstrated.

Locked