In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

[Shatterface]

This was a thing.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChCQNbbWwAAlcQT.jpg

[Steersman]

When Steerz is the one making the most sense about gametes, you know you're deep down the transrabbit hole:

Your knowledge of reproductive science (not to mention the philosophy of science) is rather primitive if you think sperm are so easily categorized as "male," given that roughly half of them produce only female offspring.

LoL. Hadn't noticed that last bit which certainly is rather clueless about biology; something that someone should rake him over the coals for. Inadequate, ambiguous, and inconsistent definitions, and all that. Which is, of course, why I insist on going back to first principles.

[TheMudbrooker]

PZ wishes for the death of the member of law enforcement or whatever who wrote a warrant in relation to the investigation of that Australian woman who was shot by that cop:

Whoever wrote this should become deceased

From the warrant the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension filed to investigate the murder of Justine Damond:
Upon police arrival, a female ‘slaps’ the back of the patrol squad. After that, it is unknown to BCA agents what exactly happened, but the female became deceased in the alley.

female became deceased is the kind of bureaucratese that warrants further investigation, and at the very least, criminal charges ought to be filed against the police culture that permits such offenses against humanity.

P.Z's "Fuck Da Police" chest thumping and bean flicking aside, I gotta agree that any police spokesman using the phrase "the suspect became deceased" should be pepper sprayed and assfucked with a nightstick. By all means, investigate the shooting but don't call it anything but "shot by police" when that's what happened.
[youtube][/youtube]

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I see you've found a new sparring partner, Steersman.

First, you want to impose a radically narrow private definition of male and female based solely on operative gametes. This definition is so narrow that you would actually hold that post-menopausal women are not female.

Go away before you make an even bigger fool of yourself,

Please don't. I'm enjoying things.

:D Hot off the press:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/transparen ... 3437133035

But kind of have to commend Patrick Green - the "TransParent" - for allowing the conversation to continue, and which has kind of shutup the usual suspects, timberwraith in particular. Ah, the battle for the hearts and minds is not a happy or a glorious one, although it seems a necessity, and it has its amusing moments. :-)

And, somewhat apropos of which, a somewhat similar conversation on a topic and a site that rayshul linked to recently:
Two white women launch ‘White Nonsense Roundup’ to unburden people of color (VIDEO)

Yeah but Steers, get to your damn point already over there (assuming you have one.)

Here's what I see as pertinent -- what kirbmarc calls the "Transubstantiation of the Penis" fallacy (phallacy?):

1) a trans, even after hormone treatment or SRS, still has decided attributes of their birth sex. And if a transwoman is still sporting a cock, it's still a male sex organ. I don't want to have sex with someone who has male-ish or male body parts. Declaring Zinnia Jones a "woman" does not magically endow zir body with feminine attributes. But pointing this out is verboten;

2) A teenager, who hasn't even had hormone treatment, can only 'transition' superficially through accoutrements. Once naked in the locker room, their body is the sex its always been. Pat Green's son has boobs and a twat. Declaring zir a 'Boy' or a 'Man' does not alter that. Telling people they're bigots and haters and literally murdering for not wanting their teenaged kids to get naked with bodies of the opposite sex, is a guaranteed losing proposition.

So yeah, male bodies are XY and have male sex organs designed to produce male gametes, and the same with female bodies. Establish that, then make them define "man' and 'woman", and in relation to "male" and "female".

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Greta suggests a number of FFI inspired guerrilla tactics:

Wear buttons and T-shirts, put bumper stickers on our cars, signaling our resistance.

I dunno, sounds risky. After all, it was the bumper stickers that got the Weiße Rose group caught.

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

ht to PZ- Guess who's running for Senator in Texas?
[youtube][/youtube]
I expect a good fight. His wife Lilandra says he once coldcocked a friend of his with a piece of frozen meat. And that was his friend. Imagine what he would do to a Republican. :shock:

I'm pretty sure he'd become the first Klingon-American elected to office.

Have you ever seen his family? I stood within spitting distance of them two and a half years ago He has a son who looks WAY more Klingon than he does.

[MacGruberKnows]

Greta suggests a number of FFI inspired guerrilla tactics:

Wear buttons and T-shirts, put bumper stickers on our cars, signaling our resistance.

I dunno, sounds risky. After all, it was the bumper stickers that got the Weiße Rose group caught.

Buttons have pins. They are known to be sharp. Bumper stickers go on bumpers. That are usually attached to cars. And cars can kill you.

Stay safe Greta.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Buttons have pins. They are known to be sharp. Bumper stickers go on bumpers. That are usually attached to cars. And cars can kill you.

Stay safe Greta.

Fighting a fascist regime is hard work. When's a guerrilla got time to shop for Fluevogs?

[HelpingHand]

Fighting a fascist regime is hard work. When's a guerrilla got time to shop for Fluevogs?

The Fluevogs come with victory. As a great warrior once said:

Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women as you take their Fluevogs.

I bet Ivanka has a closet in a tertiary guesthouse filled with the things.

[deLurch]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Steersman]

I see you've found a new sparring partner, Steersman. ...

:D Hot off the press:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/transparen ... 3437133035

Yeah but Steers, get to your damn point already over there (assuming you have one.)

You might be surprised but, as a matter of fact, I do. :-) Even if it's turgidly or obscurely phrased. But, as your recent quote of Pieret, and your comment about "transrabbit holes" illustrates, he in particular is rather remarkably clueless about basic biology - and, more importantly, about the process of naming things. An earlier comment of mine over there on that point:

.... "Male" and "female" are simply names given to the classes of individuals who happen to be able to produce one of two types of gametes. That's it - anything else is simply bafflegab and propaganda.

Because many are so clueless it seems necessary to get them to first acknowledge basic facts, more specifically that there are two and only two types of gametes. And, as you may have noticed, Pieret seems congenitally incapable of admitting even that fact.

But getting him to admit that is only the first step in my campaign (Poland first then Russia ...), the second of which, as I've argued there, is to get him to admit that the science of taxonomy has essentially assigned the names "male" and "female" to those individuals who happen to produce sperm and ova. Now, one might argue that that is a somewhat arbitrary classification - why not males are those over 5 ft 6, and those 5 ft 6 and under are female? However, heights obviously have significantly less bearing on the rather important phenomenon of reproduction so we might reasonably look around for a more essential element that carries greater weight on which to base definitions and terminology and science. And gametes seem just the ticket as the article on which clearly suggests.

But, somewhat analogously, the name that we create ("socially construct") to describe those between the ages of 13 to 19 inclusive - i.e., "teenager" - mandates that to qualify for membership in that class a person must, in fact, be between those ages. Which allows no waffling, no "do you believe a trans teenager is a teenager, yes or no?" And likewise with the classes "male" and "female": there's an objective criterion for membership in those classes, i.e., the production of the gamete called sperm, or the production of the gamete called ova.

Here's what I see as pertinent -- what kirbmarc calls the "Transubstantiation of the Penis" fallacy (phallacy?):

1) a trans, even after hormone treatment or SRS, still has decided attributes of their birth sex. And if a transwoman is still sporting a cock, it's still a male sex organ. I don't want to have sex with someone who has male-ish or male body parts. Declaring Zinnia Jones a "woman" does not magically endow zir body with feminine attributes. But pointing this out is verboten;

2) A teenager, who hasn't even had hormone treatment, can only 'transition' superficially through accoutrements. Once naked in the locker room, their body is the sex its always been. Pat Green's son has boobs and a twat. Declaring zir a 'Boy' or a 'Man' does not alter that. Telling people they're bigots and haters and literally murdering for not wanting their teenaged kids to get naked with bodies of the opposite sex, is a guaranteed losing proposition.

So yeah, male bodies are XY and have male sex organs designed to produce male gametes, and the same with female bodies. Establish that, then make them define "man' and 'woman", and in relation to "male" and "female".

While I sympathize with that argument, and even agree whole-heartedly with many aspects of it, I kind of think that parts of it - generally the underlined portions - are putting the proverbial cart before the horse. As I've argued, I think the definition of "male" and "female" based simply on the gametes is the necessary starting point, and that everything else falls nicely into place behind it. For instance, a vagina isn't a "female sex organ", and XY isn't a "male karyotype": they only happen to correlate strongly with the particular primary or essential or defining attributes (gametes) of "ova" or "sperm". That is, large percentages of the population possess both the primary attribute [ova or sperm or none (?)] and some or all of the secondary ones typically associated with it - {vagina, fallopian tubes, breasts, uterus, etc}, or {testes, penis, facial hair, ear hair, etc}, {both previous sets}, respectively. But that doesn't preclude some percentage of the population possessing some secondary attributes that are more typical of those possessing a primary attribute that is different from the one actually possessed.

More specifically, I've frequently discussed the case of a person who happened to have an "anatomically correct" vagina and womb, although she had no ovaries, yet happened to have an XY karyotype, but still managed to carry and give birth to twins. Now, one can paper that over as an exception, but I don't think it really helps much, in large part because there are so many of them. And when that is the case, as frequently happens in the evolution of any science, then the typical and appropriate response is to reconsider one's framework and definitions - as with the Standard Model of physics, or the Copernican model of cosmology.

This all gets kind of complicated rather quickly, but, absent a coherent set of definitions and framework, the result tends to be everyone riding madly off in all directions. Hardly the recipe for progress.

[deLurch]

So has anyone broken the news to Muscato that he cannot join the armed forces any longer?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

So has anyone broken the news to Muscato that he cannot join the armed forces any longer?

I was looking forward to him sharing alluring barracks selfies like those hawt israeli soldier chicks.

[deLurch]

As usual.

I would take far more sympathy for Muscato if he actually had some sort of game plan for supporting himself beyond ebegging.

[Brive1987]

https://i.imgflip.com/1t52l9.jpg

[Brive1987]

Anybody know how much money Patreon cock-blocked from Lauren Southern?

[Brive1987]

Looks like Indy sabotaged the wrong Fair.

Next time boy.

[deLurch]

Anybody know how much money Patreon cock-blocked from Lauren Southern?

About $5,200 per month.
https://graphtreon.com/creator/user?u=5602154

[MacGruberKnows]

Anybody know how much money Patreon cock-blocked from Lauren Southern?

Danielle can e-beg all she wants, because female. Lauren gets booted off Patreon, because male.

Glad somebody checked Lauren's privilege.

[Suet Cardigan]

Anybody know how much money Patreon cock-blocked from Lauren Southern?

Four grand a month:

https://i2.wp.com/laurensouthernmedia.f ... treon2.png

https://laurensouthernmedia.com/2017/05 ... upporters/

[deLurch]

Her income was steadily moving up. Decently attractive. Blonde. Identitarian movement. Active in scuffle protest recording. Her identified cross section appeared to be fairly lucrative.

Not that I knowingly disagreed with her all that much (but not all that hip to the identitarian movement), she did not seem like the brightest bulb in the bunch. It was rare that anyone would point out to me some great video that she made. And I didn't seek them out either.

Memorable videos would be where some protesters threw piss at her, and when she registered as a man with the Canadians. And her comments about identifying as an Apache Attack helicopter was rather funny.

[deLurch]

We should tell Rebecca about Lauren Southern's lucrative niche. It would be hilarious to see her running about chasing down migrant ships and setting off fireworks to try and stop them in Europe.

[Suet Cardigan]

To make up for the lost income, Lauren is branching out into merchandise.

She's brought out a Lauren Southern Real Doll:

front.jpg

(52.29 KiB) Downloaded 234 times

[Brive1987]

Her income was steadily moving up. Decently attractive. Blonde. Identitarian movement. Active in scuffle protest recording. Her identified cross section appeared to be fairly lucrative.

Not that I knowingly disagreed with her all that much (but not all that hip to the identitarian movement), she did not seem like the brightest bulb in the bunch. It was rare that anyone would point out to me some great video that she made. And I didn't seek them out either.

Memorable videos would be where some protesters threw piss at her, and when she registered as a man with the Canadians. And her comments about identifying as an Apache Attack helicopter was rather funny.

I have my own favourite. That and the reffo camp one.

http://i.imgur.com/5pRDWCH.jpg

But shit.

4 or 5 grand a month is her salary. That could be a deal breaker, I hope she didn't burn her Rebel bridges.

You would expect there to be a process to be be followed before unilateral jazz hands. Remember the dialogue that took place after Watson literally broke the terms and conditions by calling for doxing?

No foul was ultimately incurred there.

[Brive1987]

http://i.imgur.com/2RNvCI6.jpg

I never got my bj from Radford, this time I feel lucky.

[Kirbmarc]

Muslim apologists say that the Evil West stole muslim technology (like the Arab numerals....)

'Arab' numerals came from India.

Oh, I know. I just exposed the apologist narrative.

[Brive1987]

There really should be a rule that you have to caption trans as pre or post transition. Context matters.

:cdc:

[Kirbmarc]

Seriously, how can anyone believe that islam is a feminist religion is beyond me. They must be very ignorant, lying or very gullible and had drank the kool-aid of muslim apologists and their blathering about how much Mo was the greatest man who ever lived.

Feminism is such a bag of self-contradictory bullshit that I don't see any problem with that viewpoint. To the extent that women are "oppressed" by being "objectified" in Victoria's secret commercials, hijab might look like a more progressive option. To the extent that women are "oppressed" by being in constantly in fear of being raped and molested by harassers like elevator guy, maybe requiring them to have a male relative around for protection is progressive. If ending the "oppression of women" is mostly about ensuring their safety, then maybe we shouldn't be allowing them to drive. Driving is dangerous, it gets thousands of people killed every year.

If you mean you can't understand how anyone can believe that Islam would be in favor of equal rights for men and women, then I agree. Islam is not remotely in favor of that. But neither is feminism at this point.

Feminism is self-contradictory bullshit, but even most feminists would hardly approve of being told that men are in charge of them (and the Qu'ran explicitly says that) or that they can be beaten up (however "lightly") when they're being "arrogant". They would hardly approve of being segregated in their houses at best or stoned at worst for committing adultery. They would hardly approve of sexual slavery ("slave girls") or of child marriage.

There's absolutely no way to rationalize those things away, even with a Po-Mo epistemology, with saying that you're a "feminist". The only way to do it is saying that those things aren't "real islam" (even though they're in the Qu'ran and in the ahadith) and they're only a product of "culture" and of "patriarchy", while the idealized, imaginary "real islam" is actually great for women.

There's a lot of people, especially (but not only) among Western converts to Islam, who have this "real islam" delusion. They think that the ugly consequences of islam are simply a product of "culture", of "the evil of mankind" and that the imaginary "real islam" is all about dreaming of a Heaven of green grassy fields and murmuring rivers while you feast with your supportive family and treat everyone kindly.

This is a rationalization created by those who are fond of Arabic or Persian or Berber or Pakistani culture or have muslim relatives. They feel welcomed by the Mediterranean hospitality (still widespread in muslim Mediterranean countries) or are fascinated by the "authentic" and anti-modern lifestyle of those areas, or are trying desperately to fit in with their new family, and so they sweep all the issues with islam under the carpet. The muslim love bombing of converts, especially in the "west", makes them feel so loved and welcome that they become the most obnoxious White Knights for islam.

[Snapfingers]

To return to Islam and feminism, here in Denmark we are having a debate about banning burka and niqab. It's been going on for years but seems like there is growing support.

In France it is already forbidden to carry burka and niqab in public. The ban was introduced in 2011 under former President Nicolas Sarkozy, and about that he said in a speech to the National Assembly:

"We can not accept in our country having women trapped behind a net, who are cut off from social life and deprived of their identity. It is not the idea the French Republic has about the dignity of women. "

Same for Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Latvia and the Italian-speaking Ticino State in Switzerland (Kirb?) who share the french view on the dignity of women. Here, too, there has been a ban on clothing that covers the faces of women and makes it difficult or impossible to see what the wearer looks like. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has also spoken of a ban, and in Norway the government has announced that it will be forbidden to wear face-covering clothes in all educational institutions.

So what to think? As a libertarian my go-to opinion is that "people should be able to wear the clothes they like" and it seems like a rather harsh infringement on freedom of religion and freedom of expression and will serve as fuel for racists.

This, however, requires two conditions that I am not at all convinced of:
1)the burca is "clothes"
2) they like wearing it

It is quite clear that orthodox Islam throughout Europe tries to establish itself as a real counterpart to the secular powers and institutions.

They are to some degree entrenched in parallel communities where they are protected by the authorities and against the public scrutiny with lies about what happens in private schools, in the mosques, in the families and in the street. All places where social control prevails.

At the same time, violence, lawlessness and religious orthodoxy grow in these parallel societies.

So is a ban on burka and niqab a necessary evil? If European countries want to survive as secular liberal democracies, they must do much more: break the counter power and insist that there is only one legal monopoly on violence. Only one lawful law enforcement. Only one source of law and order.

Liberals and libertarians are used to believing that the greatest risk of liberal democracy being on its way to it's own destruction is taking upon itself too much power. How do we balance this trade-off?

[deLurch]

There really should be a rule that you have to caption trans as pre or post transition. Context matters.
:cdc:

Very unfortunate censorship.

A Marine military police officer who is a transgender man (he asked that his name not be used), pointed out that he’s served honorably through two deployments. He’s never endangered his comrades, he said, or made anyone else “conform to my world view.” All he asked for, he said, was the same respect he gave others.

“I have never described myself as trans; I’m a mother----ing Marine,” the corporal said. “That‘s all that matters. Don’t tarnish my title with your bigotry and fear of the unknown.”

[Steersman]

There really should be a rule that you have to caption trans as pre or post transition. Context matters.

:cdc:

[.tweet][/tweet]

Another PoV:

No doubt some transpeople are more or less rational and on an even keel. Nature of the beast - and cases like Danielle and Zinnia - suggests that a large percentage if not a majority are crazier than shit-house rats. Hardly those one should trust with the opportunity or skills to bring down massive amounts of death and destruction.

[Snapfingers]

There really should be a rule that you have to caption trans as pre or post transition. Context matters.

:cdc:

Go fuck yourself mr. "Context matters"
You used the :cdc: emoji without stating if it were male or female genitalia depicted. See? context matters!

[Steersman]

Muslim apologists say that the Evil West stole muslim technology (like the Arab numerals....)

'Arab' numerals came from India.

Oh, I know. I just exposed the apologist narrative.

Somewhat apropos of which and your earlier comment about Sarsour:

It's not because he defrauded a credit union, it's Islamaphobia!
With link
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congres ... ry-n786651

If we lived under Sharia there'd be no loans and this whole unfortunate accident wouldn't have happened /Sarsour.

Quite a good - lengthy and detailed - article and analysis at Breitbart; looks like Sarsour may be ignominiously booted out of the ranks of the #RegressiveLeft, or at least her reputation has been seriously tarnished; the bloom is seriously off that rose. Rather a large number of people, according to the various stories Breitbart linked to, even nominal Leftists, are ready to part company with her. All good.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Osprey can't carry a fish much larger than 3 0r 4 lb. compared to an eagle that can fly off with more than twice that weight and also fight with each other to drop their food. I've had them drop food on my roof, my driveway, and the road in front of my house.
Certainly in my neck of the woods an eagle would be a more likely culprit for windshield breaking.

The attachment Moose accidents.jpg is no longer available

A moose can carry a really big salmon.

Doesn't look that big.

smoked-salmon-mousse-16826-1.jpeg

(805.52 KiB) Downloaded 160 times

[Kirbmarc]

To return to Islam and feminism, here in Denmark we are having a debate about banning burka and niqab. It's been going on for years but seems like there is growing support.

In France it is already forbidden to carry burka and niqab in public. The ban was introduced in 2011 under former President Nicolas Sarkozy, and about that he said in a speech to the National Assembly:

"We can not accept in our country having women trapped behind a net, who are cut off from social life and deprived of their identity. It is not the idea the French Republic has about the dignity of women. "

Same for Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Latvia and the Italian-speaking Ticino State in Switzerland (Kirb?) who share the french view on the dignity of women. Here, too, there has been a ban on clothing that covers the faces of women and makes it difficult or impossible to see what the wearer looks like. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has also spoken of a ban, and in Norway the government has announced that it will be forbidden to wear face-covering clothes in all educational institutions.

So what to think? As a libertarian my go-to opinion is that "people should be able to wear the clothes they like" and it seems like a rather harsh infringement on freedom of religion and freedom of expression and will serve as fuel for racists.

This, however, requires two conditions that I am not at all convinced of:
1)the burca is "clothes"
2) they like wearing it

It is quite clear that orthodox Islam throughout Europe tries to establish itself as a real counterpart to the secular powers and institutions.

They are to some degree entrenched in parallel communities where they are protected by the authorities and against the public scrutiny with lies about what happens in private schools, in the mosques, in the families and in the street. All places where social control prevails.

At the same time, violence, lawlessness and religious orthodoxy grow in these parallel societies.

So is a ban on burka and niqab a necessary evil? If European countries want to survive as secular liberal democracies, they must do much more: break the counter power and insist that there is only one legal monopoly on violence. Only one lawful law enforcement. Only one source of law and order.

Liberals and libertarians are used to believing that the greatest risk of liberal democracy being on its way to it's own destruction is taking upon itself too much power. How do we balance this trade-off?

I understand that this isn't a step libertarians would take lightly, and I agree that giving too much power to the state over what people wear isn't a good idea in general.

However you're also right that muslim "community leaders" are gradually building their own small Islamic States in their "community", through parallel institutions like schools, mosques, muslim tribunals, etc, and that you need to re-establish the authority of your country over those areas or you'll end up having a lot of troubles.

In Ticino banning the burqa and the niqab is in line with many laws about face coverings of all sorts. You can't walk around a bank with a motorcycle helmet that covers up your face, you can't protest with your face covered. I don't know about countries with other forms of legislation, but at least here banning the complete or partial covering of one's face wasn't a big issue. There are no "special exceptions" for religion in Switzerland.

But overall I think that banning the burqa or niqab isn't the step that's going to end the establishment of states within your state. It can be done to ensure security, and to make a political statement against the political and social influence of islam, but I'm afraid it could become a way to signal that something is done without doing anything of value.

It's far better to focus on curbing the growth of parallel institutions. Religious tribunals are a gross violation of separation of church and state and shouldn't be allowed to produce legally valid sentences. Religious schools should allow surprise inspections of their school books, syillabi and homework assignment, and if you find promotion of intolerance and violence, shut them down. Mosques should produce the CVs of their imams, and you should monitor them for red flags. Charities should also open up their books for inspection, and be extremely clear about who they give their money to, and what for. If they lie, shut them down. The rule of law must be upheld, and police shouldn't be afraid of cracking down on crime anywhere.

Most of all, though, this is a cultural war. This is where libertarians can come into play, by ensuring that no laws against "islamophobia" are passed, that criticism of islam is legally protected and promoted by secular organizations, that critics of islam aren't thrown under the bus in the name of "tolerance", that mockery and satire of islam isn't outlawed because of "hurt feelings", that the police stops focusing on thoughtcrimes on the internet and more on real crime in the street, that separation of church and state is protected and upheld, that "modesty laws" aren't passed under the guise of protecting women from "exploitation" and "objectification".

The first objective in the cultural wars to save liberal democracy is to politically and socially defeat the Regressive Left to the point when they no longer have any decent political or social power. This can be done by creating a new left which is highly critical of islam without fear of being called bigoted.

Then there's the matter of modernizing muslims, of defending their rights to get drunk, to dress like Westerners, to act like Westerners, by curbing the control of "community leaders" over their "communities".

And furthermore you have to teach civic values, support for the rule of law and for secular liberal democracy, equal human rights, and the possibility to act in "un-islamic" ways without being ostracized and left alone. Ex-muslims, liberal muslims, cafeteria muslims, etc. should be the ones getting public speeches, invitations to events, protection, exposure. Muslim "community leaders" who preach ideas antithetical to secular liberal democracy should never get a platform in publicly supported events, and they should instead be roundly and publicly condemned as the regressive bigots they are.

Associations which claim to fight for human rights should never allow a hijabi who's fond of Sharia or a rapper who preaches muslim superiority to the modern world to become one of their spokespersons. Give their space to ex-muslims and liberal muslims critical of tradition instead.

It's going to be tough. The Regressive Left will make it tougher, and for no good reason other than to feel good about themselves. But the alternative is to eventually have a religious war in your hands, with muslim communities acting like small-scale Islamic States, and your country likely turning into an authoritarian fascist state as a reaction.

[Kirbmarc]

looks like Sarsour may be ignominiously booted out of the ranks of the #RegressiveLeft, or at least her reputation has been seriously tarnished; the bloom is seriously off that rose. Rather a large number of people, according to the various stories Breitbart linked to, even nominal Leftists, are ready to part company with her. All good.

Good, indeed. Sarsour isn't someone that the Democrats should be glad to have in their ranks, since she's a conservative muslim who praises religious law, theocracy, ostracism towards critics of islam, separatism, and muslim supremacy. I'm baffled as to how leftists could be so gullible to be swayed by her sweet nonsense about an "alliance between marginalized groups" and elevate her as one of their representatives.

Then again I'm also baffled that the ignorant and simplistic "analysis" of video games and pop culture done by Anita Sarkeesian received so much exposure and praise in many leftist/humanist circles, when her message is as regressive as it gets ("fictional sexism creates or at least supports real sexism, and fictional violence is depraved!")

Identity politics is a powerful tool for entryists and scammers of all sorts. Just use the right weasel words and be of the right gender or ethnic group or have the right sexual preference and you can get away with promoting views completely incompatible with progressivism.

[MarcusAu]

Anybody know how much money Patreon cock-blocked from Lauren Southern?

About $5,200 per month.
https://graphtreon.com/creator/user?u=5602154

Despite getting entertainment value from some of her antics - I have not contributed anything.

Has anyone here?

[MarcusAu]

Is it sexist to reset my Siri to a male voice when I want to ask it something important?

That depends on what you mean by 'male'.

[Brive1987]

There really should be a rule that you have to caption trans as pre or post transition. Context matters.

:cdc:

Go fuck yourself mr. "Context matters"
You used the :cdc: emoji without stating if it were male or female genitalia depicted. See? context matters!

Female semen will still get you pregnant.

[Brive1987]

To return to Islam and feminism, here in Denmark we are having a debate about banning burka and niqab. It's been going on for years but seems like there is growing support.

In France it is already forbidden to carry burka and niqab in public. The ban was introduced in 2011 under former President Nicolas Sarkozy, and about that he said in a speech to the National Assembly:

"We can not accept in our country having women trapped behind a net, who are cut off from social life and deprived of their identity. It is not the idea the French Republic has about the dignity of women. "

Same for Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Latvia and the Italian-speaking Ticino State in Switzerland (Kirb?) who share the french view on the dignity of women. Here, too, there has been a ban on clothing that covers the faces of women and makes it difficult or impossible to see what the wearer looks like. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has also spoken of a ban, and in Norway the government has announced that it will be forbidden to wear face-covering clothes in all educational institutions.

So what to think? As a libertarian my go-to opinion is that "people should be able to wear the clothes they like" and it seems like a rather harsh infringement on freedom of religion and freedom of expression and will serve as fuel for racists.

This, however, requires two conditions that I am not at all convinced of:
1)the burca is "clothes"
2) they like wearing it

It is quite clear that orthodox Islam throughout Europe tries to establish itself as a real counterpart to the secular powers and institutions.

They are to some degree entrenched in parallel communities where they are protected by the authorities and against the public scrutiny with lies about what happens in private schools, in the mosques, in the families and in the street. All places where social control prevails.

At the same time, violence, lawlessness and religious orthodoxy grow in these parallel societies.

So is a ban on burka and niqab a necessary evil? If European countries want to survive as secular liberal democracies, they must do much more: break the counter power and insist that there is only one legal monopoly on violence. Only one lawful law enforcement. Only one source of law and order.

Liberals and libertarians are used to believing that the greatest risk of liberal democracy being on its way to it's own destruction is taking upon itself too much power. How do we balance this trade-off?

We need to set a line and not be afraid to stand by it. I like the French approach "this is not consistent with Team France" better than Kirbs "it's a security thing".

In a perfect world libertarian bullshit could dance and flit like a fairy. In the real world we actually wear cultural/community (implicit) Team Colours. Sometimes these have to be made explicit. Like when you have incompatible cultural entryism, (lying mosques, ISIS hardons and raw meat seeking gangs of slasher style Rebecca Watsons).

That's also why I'm happy to fuck over religious infused rape and murder criminals above and beyond those of the blog garden-variety.

This is probably racist.

[Kirbmarc]

We need to set a line and not be afraid to stand by it. I like the French approach "this is not consistent with Team France" better than Kirbs "it's a security thing".

In a perfect world libertarian bullshit could dance and flit like a fairy. In the real world we actually wear cultural/community (implicit) Team Colours. Sometimes these have to be made explicit. Like when you have incompatible cultural entryism, (lying mosques, ISIS hardons and raw meat seeking gangs of slasher style Rebecca Watsons).

That's also why I'm happy to fuck over religious infused rape and murder criminals above and beyond those of the blog garden-variety.

This is probably racist.

I'm not slamming the idea of sending the message that "this is not consistent with Team Europe" or "Team West". However if you want to send that message you have to be consistent. You can't ban the burqa but then allow religious teaching that the West is doomed and the world will become islamic, or ban the burqa and not show cartoons making fun of old Mo for fear of "provoking" people.

[feathers]

Just when you think he can't get any dumber.

>Abolish the military
>Abolish the police
>Try to imprison all dissenters and take away their guns

Or:
>Abolish the military
>Complain about UN standing aside while African people slaughter each other

>Abolish the police
>Complain about police not handling rape complaints

[Brive1987]

A Priceonomics analysis said a 2014 UCLA report found there around 15,500 transgender men and women serving in the military, with an addition 134,300 veterans.

With a population of 700,000 “this suggests that over 1-in-5 (or 21.4 per cent) of all openly transgender Americans are in the military or have served at one point.”

:think:

:doh:

:fpig:

[feathers]

Moose accidents.jpg

A moose can carry a really big salmon.

From that sign I'd conclude they have eagles carrying moose :shock:

[feathers]

[PZ] also pondered a question that Steers might like to reply to with one of his odd socks:

But then, what do you do with sterile males and females? Do they no longer have a “biological” sex? In insect groups with caste specializations, nominally female members of the species are effectively neutered, and they acquire specific roles as workers or soldiers. Do we just ignore the complexities of their genetics and morphologies?

Is he actually trying to conflate human sexuality with insects' for the sake of arguing human sexuality is "complex"?

[Brive1987]

We need to set a line and not be afraid to stand by it. I like the French approach "this is not consistent with Team France" better than Kirbs "it's a security thing".

In a perfect world libertarian bullshit could dance and flit like a fairy. In the real world we actually wear cultural/community (implicit) Team Colours. Sometimes these have to be made explicit. Like when you have incompatible cultural entryism, (lying mosques, ISIS hardons and raw meat seeking gangs of slasher style Rebecca Watsons).

That's also why I'm happy to fuck over religious infused rape and murder criminals above and beyond those of the blog garden-variety.

This is probably racist.

I'm not slamming the idea of sending the message that "this is not consistent with Team Europe" or "Team West". However if you want to send that message you have to be consistent. You can't ban the burqa but then allow religious teaching that the West is doomed and the world will become islamic, or ban the burqa and not show cartoons making fun of old Mo for fear of "provoking" people.

It's not a science with internally consistent rules and we have to accept imprecision.I'd be happy to define behaviours specific to Muslims that are unacceptable.

If an Aussie chick wandered about with a face mask she is a loony tune. If an Asian does it they are Othering themselves with their cultural germ phobias. If a Muslim does it they are carving a cultural ghetto and that's over the line. So are Muslims preaching the downfall of the west. Altogether different to a pimply trot at uni.

It's a hard thing defining when Team Muslim has ceased showing enough Team Aussie colours. But it's a thing nonetheless.

Maybe they could piss on a Koran?

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/imag ... CExZ6aejhh

[Brive1987]

[PZ] also pondered a question that Steers might like to reply to with one of his odd socks:

But then, what do you do with sterile males and females? Do they no longer have a “biological” sex? In insect groups with caste specializations, nominally female members of the species are effectively neutered, and they acquire specific roles as workers or soldiers. Do we just ignore the complexities of their genetics and morphologies?

Is he actually trying to conflate human sexuality with insects' for the sake of arguing human sexuality is "complex"?

Yes. Insects matter.

[Brive1987]

Btw my son is torturing his mother by WhatsApp-ing her movies of the call to prayer in old town (north of river) Dubai.

[Kirbmarc]

[PZ] also pondered a question that Steers might like to reply to with one of his odd socks:

But then, what do you do with sterile males and females? Do they no longer have a “biological” sex? In insect groups with caste specializations, nominally female members of the species are effectively neutered, and they acquire specific roles as workers or soldiers. Do we just ignore the complexities of their genetics and morphologies?

Is he actually trying to conflate human sexuality with insects' for the sake of arguing human sexuality is "complex"?

Of course. The aim of the exercise isn't to deny the biological sexual binary per se, it's to deny any form of biological influence over behavior or other characteristics. Note the focus on "neutering" and "roles".

Deep down post-modern feminism is about denying any psychological or physiological difference between men and women as groups in order to claim that all differences in representation are ONLY due to "oppression". If there are less female firefighters than men it's not because of average differences in upper body strength, it's ONLY because of oppression. If there are less women than men in STEM and more women than men in many branches of the humanities it's not because women tend (keyword being "tend", of course it's a statistical trend, not an absolutely binding rule) to be interested in people than in things, it's ONLY because of some form of sexism.

Ultimately the real aim of the entire SocJus is to "deconstruct" reality, namely to ostensibly promote forced equality of every outcome and in practice to promote quotas for people who are part of lists approved by SocJus members. It's all about getting things because of your ideological purity, and dominating society through guilt and shame for your "sins".

It's a religion, and religions don't care about reality unless it can be used to justify their dogmas. PeeZie is a SocJus apologist, although not a very good one.

[rayshul]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/19026/stu ... t-hamilton#

The European Journal of Social Psychology published a paper that argues that competition of collective victimhood, also known as intersectionality, results in a lack of empathy for others. The researchers ran three studies in Belgium to measure whether identification with collective victimhood resulted in less favorability to other groups.

[Kirbmarc]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/19026/stu ... t-hamilton#

The European Journal of Social Psychology published a paper that argues that competition of collective victimhood, also known as intersectionality, results in a lack of empathy for others. The researchers ran three studies in Belgium to measure whether identification with collective victimhood resulted in less favorability to other groups.

I've seen this on Twitter. I have to say I'm not surprised. Victims feel entitled to justice. Fostering victimhood creates more and more entitlement and demands. When you're focused on what you're owed from others you care less about what you can do for others.

It's the same mechanism that motivated Elliot Rodgers, actually, when you think about it. The psychopathic pipsqueak felt victimized because of his lack of sexual and romantic success, so he grew less and less empathetic to others.

Creating a feeling of victimhood when there is no real victimization ("White people cooking food of non-white cultures is CULTURAL APPROPRIATION!" "Video Games are Sexist!") or amplifying real issues to focus on victimization ("ALL women are oppressed ALL the time!" "Police brutality is genocide!") doesn't solve anything. It certainly doesn't help dealing with real issues, and might reduce concern for them and empathy between groups of people.

It's good for clicks, for venting your emotional outrage and for power plays, though. The feeling of moral superiority is one of the things that religion gives to people, and of the reasons why many non-religious people still believe in ideologies. Feeling morally superior is addictive and a great excuse for your personal failures. Accepting that morality is a gradual optimization process, not a game that gives rewards, and that issues are complex, often with shades of grey, is more realistic but far less emotionally rewarding.

In the end we all want to be on the side of Good, to be consoled and pampered when we feel like victims, and to feel good while we're fighting evil, which eventually will be defeated. However this isn't how the world works. The world is complicated, it doesn't care about your feelings, and it's not a story where your side will surely triumph no matter the odds.

[rayshul]

I read about learned helplessness the other day and I suppose that feeds into it too.

[screwtape]

Mick Nugent on KPFA and Richard Dawkins:
Why KPFA Radio should reconsider breaking its agreement with Richard Dawkins

[Brive1987]

My new word for the day is "Tradthot"

[MarcusAu]

My new word for the day is "Tradthot"

Is that a word?

It seems half a 'nym.

[Snapfingers]

My new word for the day is "Tradthot"

Been reading thermidor? Truly a Völkish passtime.

[Brive1987]

My new word for the day is "Tradthot"

Is that a word?

It seems half a 'nym.

I was thrilled to discover thot was "that ho over there" and tradthot was the subset formed by traditionalists like young Southern and Faith Goldy.

Who knew?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I read about learned helplessness the other day and I suppose that feeds into it too.

I was going to read about it too, but didn't have the spoons.

[MarcusAu]

I was thrilled to discover thot was "that ho over there" and tradthot was the subset formed by traditionalists like young Southern and Faith Goldy.

Who knew?

Obviously the concept had been around for sometime.

It jut needed the right person to come along and create the word for the hot tradthot totty.

[Lsuoma]

Is he actually trying to conflate human sexuality with insects' for the sake of arguing human sexuality is "complex"?

Yes. Insects matter.

#AllArthropodsMatter