In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#14281

Guest_b74eb81c wrote:I read an interview or something with one of the producers of TNG/DS9/Voyager. When he was asked how the Heisenberg compensators worked, he answered "Very well thank you".

I should hope so too, you don't want to be beamed down halfway through a tree or 700 feet underground. That problem was explored in an episode the other 90s Gene Rodenberry thing "Earth Final Conflict", I think the fella ended up rematerialising in a table or the floor.

CaughtUpLockedOut.

#14282

VickyCaramel wrote:I broadly agree with you but I don't really recognise that last part in relation to the actual criminals. Our criminal culture isn't really a victim culture for the most part. it is hard to say that the justifications they use are post hoc rationalizations because they are part of a culture. Certainly where I come from, we have no shortage of criminals but they are not really blaming society or race. Instead they see themselves as "Robin Hood" types, where they are robbing the rich to give to the poor, where they are the poor. They tell themselves that their victims can afford it, they will claim on the insurance so what they do are victimless crimes because insurance is legalized extortion. They essentially see themselves as robbing the robbers. When it comes to drug dealing, again they see this as a victimless crime.

Maybe that's true in Sherwood Forrest but I don't recognise from the people I've dealt with, mainly because a lot of them aren't thieves. A lot of them are sex offenders, drug users and violent thugs.

It's been a few years since I worked with them face to face as I largely do admin and IT support now but I don't recall anyone trying the Robin Hood excuse. Most of them use a variation on Coyne's 'couldn't do otherwise'. It's not my fault, they were asking for it, I've tried quitting, he was in my face, what was I supposed to do?

The biggest predictors of whether someone will reoffend are whether they accept responsibility or not and how often they've been inside. If deterrence worked those who went to prison most often would be discouraged but if they've been to prison half a dozen times they're pretty certain to go back again. They don't even get smart enough to reoffend and get away with it, they'll do precisely the same shit that got them sent down to first time. Some of them are released on conditions that prevent unsupervised internet access and they'll sit in the waiting room playing on their smartphone.

Guest_b74eb81c · #14283

It would be a whole lot cheaper to just precribe Heroin and cocaine to junkies than locking them up. It would have the added benefit of all that aquisitive crime and associated trauma for the victim not occurring in the first place.
We should absolutely still lock up people when their intoxicated behaviour is harmful to others, and oviously you can't leave kids in the care of someone who spends half their day unconscious and drooling.

junkies don't generally want to be out shoplifting and burgling, they want to be home on the sofa getting high.

Immediately some will kneejerk "I don't want my taxes to pay for free drugs for druggies blah blah", but the current situation costs more and solves nothing anyway.

CaughtUpLockedOut

#14284

Kirbmarc wrote:It's pretty funny that PeeZee's efforts to be sympathetic to the SocJus haven't endeared many SocJus fans to him, or even many leftists for that matter. PeeZee remains in the middle, too much of a New Atheist for the NOMA left and too much of a SocJus fan for the New New Atheism. Plus his "happy" atheist shtick is not fooling anyone, and he's still seen as an asshole.

I could almost feel bad for him if he wasn't such a bitter little cunt. He just doesn't get it. He saw the horsemen being unapologetic assholes and never stopped to ask himself why people cheered for that. It was just an opportunity to let loose his vindictive nature. So then a guy dies trying to raise money for charity, Myers jumps in to say how he'd like to have made the death even more gruesome, having no idea whatsoever why that crosses a line.

#14285

jet_lagg wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:It's pretty funny that PeeZee's efforts to be sympathetic to the SocJus haven't endeared many SocJus fans to him, or even many leftists for that matter. PeeZee remains in the middle, too much of a New Atheist for the NOMA left and too much of a SocJus fan for the New New Atheism. Plus his "happy" atheist shtick is not fooling anyone, and he's still seen as an asshole.
I could almost feel bad for him if he wasn't such a bitter little cunt. He just doesn't get it. He saw the horsemen being unapologetic assholes and never stopped to ask himself why people cheered for that. It was just an opportunity to let loose his vindictive nature. So then a guy dies trying to raise money for charity, Myers jumps in to say how he'd like to have made the death even more gruesome, having no idea whatsoever why that crosses a line.

The difference is that the Horsemen weren't being assholes for the sake of being assholes, but to shake the complacency of the Non-Overlapping Magisteria which dominated secular thinkers before them. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens took on heavy targets, from the entirety of the Catholic Church to the Religious Right, and didn't spare even universally revered figures like Mother Theresa.

PeeZee was always petty and small-scale.

#14286

"Compassionate PZ Myers".

HA AH HA!

#14287

To clarify my position on prison: it doesn't work as either a deterrent or a means of rehabilitation. As a punishment it is too harsh for most offences and completely counterproductive. You are far more likely to get people out of the cycle of offending if you can get them into work or training and off drugs or alcohol and away from other people involved in crime. Prison makes that harder as nobody will hire an ex-con. Prison also breaks up families and destroys any ties that might lead someone to live a productive life.

On the other hand there are some people who are total cunts and I have no problem if they go to jail. I don't see the point of pretending that we are sending them to jail for any other reason than that it is punishment. If you throw acid in someone's face you should be in jail for a long time. If you haven't committed an offence that is worthy of a long jail sentence then you probably shouldn't be in jail at all because there are better ways of dealing with petty crime.

#14288

I think Peezus should be in jail. I think he's an angry man with few social bonds that would restrain him from committing violent acts. He's cruel to fish and that's a precursor to more serious acts against humans. I don't think he can be reformed and he blames everyone else for his faults.

He needs a prison chaplain to open his heart to Jesus, then we can talk about releasing him.

#14289

jet_lagg wrote:Current Affairs response to Scott Alexander's response to the piece on new atheism from The Baffler

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/ ... ew-atheism

The author bleats on and on about what assholes the horsemen were and even the otherwise "compassionate" Peezus gets a mention.

Even biologist-blogger P.Z. Myers, far more compassionate than the rest, had a sick streak: when a Brazilian priest died in a ballooning accident while trying to raise money to build a rest stop for truckers...

Well there you have it: Peezy is far more compassionate than other New Atheists unless you count his multiple, graphic, violent fantasies of hurting people.

Funny how you never hear of Dawkins fantasizing out loud about murdering theists, yet he's apparently "FAR less compassionate." Neat trick, that.

#14290

Dawkins is smart. If he murdered someone he'd get away with it.

#14291

Kirbmarc wrote:The difference is that the Horsemen weren't being assholes for the sake of being assholes, but to shake the complacency of the Non-Overlapping Magisteria which dominated secular thinkers before them. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens took on heavy targets, from the entirety of the Catholic Church to the Religious Right, and didn't spare even universally revered figures like Mother Theresa.

PeeZee was always petty and small-scale.

Hitch was the only one who could wear the title of "asshole." He was unabashedly confrontational and rude.

Dawkins never even sounded natural the few times he was goaded into swearing ("science works, bitches"). Even playing to a crowd, he's not a fraction of the asshole Hitch could be. Harris and Dennett were even less so. They all won the title of "asshole" for the crime of saying things people didn't want to hear, even if they were well-mannered in doing so.

Peezy clearly took the most influence of how it is acceptable to present himself from Hitch, but he never had the intellect to back up his behavior.

#14292

I learned some time back to treat unironic use of the word compassion as a gigantic red flag. Since we're talking horsemen, here's Hitchens summarizing it perfectly.

Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish.

#14293

I dunno about prison sentencing, but I think somebody who writes about "the U.S. in the 1600's" ought to be forced to stand in the corner wearing a dunce cap.

#14294

Sunder wrote:
jet_lagg wrote:Current Affairs response to Scott Alexander's response to the piece on new atheism from The Baffler

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/ ... ew-atheism

The author bleats on and on about what assholes the horsemen were and even the otherwise "compassionate" Peezus gets a mention.

Even biologist-blogger P.Z. Myers, far more compassionate than the rest, had a sick streak: when a Brazilian priest died in a ballooning accident while trying to raise money to build a rest stop for truckers...
Well there you have it: Peezy is far more compassionate than other New Atheists unless you count his multiple, graphic, violent fantasies of hurting people.

Funny how you never hear of Dawkins fantasizing out loud about murdering theists, yet he's apparently "FAR less compassionate." Neat trick, that.

"Compassionate" means "devoted to the moral foundations of Care and Fairness, that characterize the Liberal Left". Dawkins is a centrist, PeeZee is a SocJus fan, so that's why he's more "compassionate".

#14295

Sunder wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:The difference is that the Horsemen weren't being assholes for the sake of being assholes, but to shake the complacency of the Non-Overlapping Magisteria which dominated secular thinkers before them. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens took on heavy targets, from the entirety of the Catholic Church to the Religious Right, and didn't spare even universally revered figures like Mother Theresa.

PeeZee was always petty and small-scale.
Hitch was the only one who could wear the title of "asshole." He was unabashedly confrontational and rude.

Dawkins never even sounded natural the few times he was goaded into swearing ("science works, bitches"). Even playing to a crowd, he's not a fraction of the asshole Hitch could be. Harris and Dennett were even less so. They all won the title of "asshole" for the crime of saying things people didn't want to hear, even if they were well-mannered in doing so.

Peezy clearly took the most influence of how it is acceptable to present himself from Hitch, but he never had the intellect to back up his behavior.

Yes, Dawkins, Harris and especially Dennett were less brash and foul-mouthed than Hitchens. They still were "assholes" from the point of view of the NOMA atheists, who believed that they had settled a truce with Christianity. PZ was simply a "dictionary asshole" :bjarte:

#14296

Yesterday Wu held one of or possibly her first public fundraiser: A Twitch stream of her badly playing Wolfenstein, billed as "killing virtual Nazis."

#14297

Kirbmarc wrote:
"Compassionate" means "devoted to the moral foundations of Care and Fairness, that characterize the Liberal Left". Dawkins is a centrist, PeeZee is a SocJus fan, so that's why he's more "compassionate".

I'm a bit more cynical. I think it means imagining yourself to be morally superior to your ideological opponents because you feel bad, or at least claim to feel bad, about murdering them. Da, comrade. Your family must die a slow a painful death for the further glory of Lysenkoism, but let it comfort you to know I feel very upset about all this.

#14298

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:I dunno about prison sentencing, but I think somebody who writes about "the U.S. in the 1600's" ought to be forced to stand in the corner wearing a dunce cap.

'Zackly! That grocer's apostrophe!!!

#14299

jet_lagg wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
"Compassionate" means "devoted to the moral foundations of Care and Fairness, that characterize the Liberal Left". Dawkins is a centrist, PeeZee is a SocJus fan, so that's why he's more "compassionate".
I'm a bit more cynical. I think it means imagining yourself to be morally superior to your ideological opponents because you feel bad, or at least claim to feel bad, about murdering them. Da, comrade. Your family must die a slow a painful death for the further glory of Lysenkoism, but let it comfort you to know I feel very upset about all this.

This is closer to what I think as well. Although I'm not completely cynical about the idea of compassion itself, more upset by its politicization and the idea of people claiming themselves to be compassionate when they're borderline sociopaths.

#14300

Service Dog wrote:
John D wrote:Regarding "rape culture", and rapist movie stars, etc.... I finally figured out why this discussion always pisses me off. I am one of those nerdy and honest guys who refused to play beta-male. The up side of this for me is that my wife and I met in a way that secured a very strong honest life-long relationship. I never lied to impress girls, and so I had very few dates. With a few exceptions, most girls were taller than me and dumber than me... haha. I tried to date the smart nerdy girls, but they would have nothing to do with me (I was just too awkward I suppose.... I am sure I came across as creepy). I stuck to my guns. If I was going to have a decent relationship one day it would be based on honesty.

Life is funny. I had a date with a cute young girl that a friend set up. I was 17 and she was 16. We managed to buy some booze and we had a few drinks with friends. She got drunk and we made out a bit. She had told me earlier that she needed to be home by midnight so I took her home when the time came. But, when we got home she told me she didn't want to go home and we should stay out and make out some more. I had no doubt we could have parked somewhere and screwed... and this would have been my first time. But, the idea of this felt really wrong for me. I didn't want to have sex with a drunken girl I hardly knew. So I just told her she should go home. She was really fucking pissed at me and called me a jerk as she exited my car. I was really upset at the time. Part of me said we should have stayed out all night. In hindsight.... I think I knew it was a bad idea to stick my dick in crazy.

So, my whole life, many people around me have been having many sex partners, and sex for fun, and sex with people they hardly know. Sex for many people is just an entertainment. A way to pass the time. Okay... I guess. I have just always thought sex was more than that.

Well....well...well... now all the alphas... the pretty woman and the powerful handsome men... now they are all shocked... SHOCKED I TELL YOU. They are starting to figure out the sex has a bunch of meaning other than just entertainment. They are SHOCKED that having sex as a transaction is full of problems. They are SHOCKED that there are emotional repercussions to their wild sexual behavior.

And somehow they say the culture is to blame and all men are to blame. Well no you shits! I was taught by my parents to have honest relationships. Relationships based on caring... and even love. I was taught that sex is best with someone who cares about you. This IS the culture. All you fuckers have to do is live the culture. The Hollywood types.. and the powerful politicians... they mock so much of traditional culture. They never come out and say... "Hey... I am a movie star and I only have sex with the person I want to have a life long loving relationship with." Nope.... because they are not ethical in this manner. They need to look in the mirror. This is not on me. Remember me... I am the one who didn't want sex to be just for fun... or just a transaction.

So fuck you famous bastards! Whores and pimps and hypocrites. Fuck you! Look in the god-damned mirror and say to yourself... "Have some fucking self respect!"

There. I feel better now. Really... I do.
Everything you describe matches my life & values, including the awkwardness of being the young virgin guy who says 'no' to an eager girl in a situation which seems not-quite-ok. And pairing up with a single partner at a young age. I think the only difference is-- in our early 40's-- my ex had a sudden urge to ditch me & chase after the last fumes of her youth via casual dating & silly, expensive nights on the town with her aging-gay-guy admirers. Which utterly crushed me... and left me no choice except to play-ball in a world where that type of disloyalty is the norm. I can't =make= any woman keep her long-term promises. So my only choices are to keep getting exploited&stiffed... or stoop to the common level & protect only-myself/ leave my partners to look-out for their own well-being, when it clashes with mine. In other words-- I empathize with the hollywood fancy people, too. "Don't hate the player, hate the game." They're playing the hand they're dealt.

Thanks for the comment. It makes me think a bit... now that I am less angry. Peterson has this future authoring program that I am doing. Part of it is to visualize and write about what would be some of the worst things that could happen to you. Right away I think that a giant part of my whole life plan is the relationship with my wife. I just don't want to screw that up. She has lots of health problems and she is only 53. It is a struggle to always be happy with some of the shit she has to go through. But... the idea that I might be alone is just a horrible one. I really think I was super lucky to find a woman who I could grow old with.

She was really sick recently and said "Hey... why don't you just find some other younger girl than me?" and I said "Why would I want to share my money with some bitch!" haha. We both laughed.

I would suck at being single.

and... I guess I should feel sympathy for the Hollywood types... and I will do that at some point. My kids we into music and theater for a while... and I am glad they decided to pursue other things as careers. Music and theater as a career is brutal!

#14301

Sunder wrote:Yesterday Wu held one of or possibly her first public fundraiser: A Twitch stream of her badly playing Wolfenstein, billed as "killing virtual Nazis."

Speaking of Wu, she's been compared to Donald Trump in a leftist magazine. I think that the articles makes some very good points about Wu's classism and stupidity, even if it's not fair on GamerGate.

#14302

Hitch was the only one of the Horsemen who could reasonably be called an asshole. I think he'd agree with that and he probably cultivated that image. He was the only one who really mastered anger as a rhetorical tool. The others might be provoked to anger but they couldn't harness it.

That's why the Left have come after the Horsemen now. They're angry and anti intellectual while the remaining three are quiet and, if anything, over-analytical, and that's no defence against people who simply lie about your position. Hitch was a journalist and not a scientist or philosopher, words were his business not simpkyva means to an end.

#14303

jet_lagg wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
"Compassionate" means "devoted to the moral foundations of Care and Fairness, that characterize the Liberal Left". Dawkins is a centrist, PeeZee is a SocJus fan, so that's why he's more "compassionate".
I'm a bit more cynical. I think it means imagining yourself to be morally superior to your ideological opponents because you feel bad, or at least claim to feel bad, about murdering them. Da, comrade. Your family must die a slow a painful death for the further glory of Lysenkoism, but let it comfort you to know I feel very upset about all this.

We're not necessarily disagreeing. I'm stating how the liberal left sees itself, you how others might see it. The truth has elements of both sides: there's genuine idealism in the left but also smug morality superiority.

PeeZee fails at appealing at either. He's too smug and self-righteous to appeal to the idealistic types, and he's too much of a buffoonish klutz to really become a thought leader for the smug tribe. Even his Hordelets do not respect him.

#14304

Kirbmarc wrote: The difference is that the Horsemen weren't being assholes for the sake of being assholes, but to shake the complacency of the Non-Overlapping Magisteria which dominated secular thinkers before them. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens took on heavy targets, from the entirety of the Catholic Church to the Religious Right, and didn't spare even universally revered figures like Mother Theresa.

PeeZee was always petty and small-scale.

I think that another difference is that the four horsemen (and others as well) had another string to their bow. Hitchen's had journalism, Dawkins his work in science, and Harris & Dennet also had their day jobs to fall back on, and all four can be charming in their own way.

PZ certainly had & has the arsehole (or provocative, if you prefer) personality required to gain attention. But there really is not that much more to him. (It's probably kinder to draw a veil on his contributions to science at this point).

#14305

Kirbmarc wrote:
jet_lagg wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:It's pretty funny that PeeZee's efforts to be sympathetic to the SocJus haven't endeared many SocJus fans to him, or even many leftists for that matter. PeeZee remains in the middle, too much of a New Atheist for the NOMA left and too much of a SocJus fan for the New New Atheism. Plus his "happy" atheist shtick is not fooling anyone, and he's still seen as an asshole.
I could almost feel bad for him if he wasn't such a bitter little cunt. He just doesn't get it. He saw the horsemen being unapologetic assholes and never stopped to ask himself why people cheered for that. It was just an opportunity to let loose his vindictive nature. So then a guy dies trying to raise money for charity, Myers jumps in to say how he'd like to have made the death even more gruesome, having no idea whatsoever why that crosses a line.
The difference is that the Horsemen weren't being assholes for the sake of being assholes, but to shake the complacency of the Non-Overlapping Magisteria which dominated secular thinkers before them. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens took on heavy targets, from the entirety of the Catholic Church to the Religious Right, and didn't spare even universally revered figures like Mother Theresa.

PeeZee was always petty and small-scale.

NOMA is complete bullshit in my opinion... but... I am starting to think people can't handle life without a strong philosophy of duality. I have been what you would call a strong atheist since I was a young adult. I have usually felt that many problems where the result of people who believed in the various types of duality.... a soul for the religious and NOMA for the non-religious.

But.. the recent 5 years of SJW commies coming from the atheist movement have shocked the shit out of me. These people have been real monsters! The worst of the worst... and they lack a moral underpinning. Is this what happens to most people when philosophical duality is erased? Shit... that's scary.

And so... I suspect Dennett was right when he proposed that the loss of religion may be replaced by something worse.

#14306

I've now had six shitty weeks of transport problems and if I could switch my emotions off entirely I would.

They're like pain. Pain's useful when you need to snatch your hand away from a fire quickly but once you've done that it's worse than useless. Okay, I've burnt my hand. I get the message. Let's move on.

Anger would be great if it just lasted long enough to tell people to fuck off but hours of it, with nowhere to direct it, serves no useful function.

SJW's spend their entire day looking for shit to be angry about rather than trying to avoid it. They are emotional Cenobites.

#14307

Shatterface wrote:Dawkins is smart. If he murdered someone he'd get away with it.

I've seen more than one clever murderer thinking they were smarter than the average police peasant, smart enough to get away with it. Cases in question Hans Reiser and Peter Madsen.

#14308

jet_lagg wrote:I learned some time back to treat unironic use of the word compassion as a gigantic red flag. Since we're talking horsemen, here's Hitchens summarizing it perfectly.

Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish.

Yes indeedy, let's anathematize the "irrational" and the "transcendent" ...

Rational_Irrational.jpg: RationalVsIrrational; (46.53 KiB) Downloaded 166 times

#14309

Sunder wrote:Hitch was the only one who could wear the title of "asshole." He was unabashedly confrontational and rude.

I was about to contest the presumed asshole-ness of the New Atheists so thanks for saving me time.

Do the NA try to convert you in streets and parks or at your front door? Do the NA picket funerals and abortion hospitals? Did the NA murder abortion doctors, or anyone else for that matter, with their atheism being the motive? Did they encourage others in sermons to do so? Did the NA send delegations to third-world countries to advise their government how to imprison or kill gay people? Or use smacks of money on lawyers, or try to infiltrate school boards, to undermine science education?

Who, again, are the assholes?

#14310

feathers wrote: ...
Who, again, are the assholes?

Well the atheists in question made a point of talking publicly about their lack of belief - which caused many religious people discomfort.

So that is why some might consider them 'assholes'.

#14311

"There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion."

#14312

feathers wrote:
Shatterface wrote:Dawkins is smart. If he murdered someone he'd get away with it.
I've seen more than one clever murderer thinking they were smarter than the average police peasant, smart enough to get away with it. Cases in question Hans Reiser and Peter Madsen.

The really smart ones are the ones we never hear about.

#14313

I've had those Kilstein videos on in the background today.

Dude is still annoying, but at least he's contrite and seems to understand how his previous behaviour destroyed everything he actually enjoys: jokes, comedy, pussy

Well done to him for sorting himself out.

#14314

Apparently the Han Solo movie recently wrapped up filming. For those not aware, the original directors spent about four months filming a comedy which, when the execs saw it, resulting in them being thrown out and a replacement director brought in to reshoot everything, which has taken another full four months. They've essentially shot two movies and nearly doubled their budget.

While I'm probably kinder to Disney Star Wars than many (I will almost definitely see The Last Jedi and am mildly hyped), I have no reservations about declaring this movie a trashfire.

#14315

MarcusAu wrote:
feathers wrote: ...
Who, again, are the assholes?
Well the atheists in question made a point of talking publicly about their lack of belief - which caused many religious people discomfort.

So that is why some might consider them 'assholes'.

Sure an awful lot of assholes about - at least one for every person ...

But yea, lot of "religious people [who have been made to feel] discomfort". Remember watching a bit of Bill Maher's "Religulous" some time ago which showed some religious fellow who was devastated by being told, in effect, that his god was a delusion - never seen anyone look quite so dejected and deflated, worse than a kid being told his dog had died.

I geddit that religion "poisons everything" and is the source of no end of problems. But there is also William Blake's "a truth told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent". And there sure seems to be some malice in the arguments of people like Maher. Good to challenge the more problematic aspects of religion, but frequently those challenges are predicated on questionable philosophical and scientific assumptions, or on equally questionable and more personal motivations.

#14316

Kirbmarc wrote:
feathers wrote:
Shatterface wrote:Dawkins is smart. If he murdered someone he'd get away with it.
I've seen more than one clever murderer thinking they were smarter than the average police peasant, smart enough to get away with it. Cases in question Hans Reiser and Peter Madsen.
The really smart ones are the ones we never hear about.

I think the most essential part of the perfect murder is that the body never be found. And certainly not chopped in pieces floating around in the same waters where you gave her a ride in your submarine.

With her underpants still aboard the sub which you deliberately sank.

#14317

MarcusAu wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote: The difference is that the Horsemen weren't being assholes for the sake of being assholes, but to shake the complacency of the Non-Overlapping Magisteria which dominated secular thinkers before them. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens took on heavy targets, from the entirety of the Catholic Church to the Religious Right, and didn't spare even universally revered figures like Mother Theresa.

PeeZee was always petty and small-scale.
I think that another difference is that the four horsemen (and others as well) had another string to their bow. Hitchen's had journalism, Dawkins his work in science, and Harris & Dennet also had their day jobs to fall back on, and all four can be charming in their own way.

PZ certainly had & has the arsehole (or provocative, if you prefer) personality required to gain attention. But there really is not that much more to him. (It's probably kinder to draw a veil on his contributions to science at this point).

With the Four Horsemen, you had four atheists, highly accomplished in their fields, who decided to lend the weight of their fame and goodwill to atheist activism. This allowed them to 'spread the word' to millions who'd otherwise not have been reached.

All that's followed them is a bunch of talentless, lazy-assed hacks who decided to make atheist activism their career by declaring themselves atheist activist leaders. Even if not one of them wasn't slow-witted, slothful, boring, ignorant, obnoxious, and/or naive, they brought nothing to the table to start. They began as nobodies and, to large extent, remain nobodies outside of a very small circle.

#14318

feathers wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
The really smart ones are the ones we never hear about.
I think the most essential part of the perfect murder is that the body never be found. And certainly not chopped in pieces floating around in the same waters where you gave her a ride in your submarine.

With her underpants still aboard the sub which you deliberately sank.

Yep, that's why if you're going to murder someone it's best to choose an eater.

#14319

John D wrote: NOMA is complete bullshit in my opinion... but... I am starting to think people can't handle life without a strong philosophy of duality. I have been what you would call a strong atheist since I was a young adult. I have usually felt that many problems where the result of people who believed in the various types of duality.... a soul for the religious and NOMA for the non-religious.

But.. the recent 5 years of SJW commies coming from the atheist movement have shocked the shit out of me. These people have been real monsters! The worst of the worst... and they lack a moral underpinning. Is this what happens to most people when philosophical duality is erased? Shit... that's scary.

And so... I suspect Dennett was right when he proposed that the loss of religion may be replaced by something worse.

Peterson says similar things. People who lose religion become either nihilistic or totalitarian.

I don't think NOMA really holds water as a description of the relationship of religion and science that we see in practice, but I do kind of view it as a prescription for how the ideal religion would work with science. In reality religions always make testable claims that are outright false and inconsistent with science, but I don't see why this has to be the case. I think the ideal religion would state flat-out that they deal in comforting metaphors and symbolically meaningful fictions with no actual truth. The point would be not to believe the religion to be true, but to find ways to use that fiction to find meaning in one's own life. This is basically the way that I approach fiction and mythology, and I can still find it meaningful without believing in frost giants.

To quote Vonnegut: "Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either.
So be it."

#14320

jet_lagg wrote:"There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion."

Must be nice to be that certain that none of one's beliefs are predicated on any type of an "illusion", rather like many religious fundamentalists ...

#14321

An amusing historical note; plus ça change:

https://twitter.com/EddyElfenbein/statu ... 6077736961

Guest_d2e60302 · #14322

So, my whole life, many people around me have been having many sex partners, and sex for fun, and sex with people they hardly know. Sex for many people is just an entertainment. A way to pass the time. Okay... I guess. I have just always thought sex was more than that.

Well....well...well... now all the alphas... the pretty woman and the powerful handsome men... now they are all shocked... SHOCKED I TELL YOU. They are starting to figure out the sex has a bunch of meaning other than just entertainment. They are SHOCKED that having sex as a transaction is full of problems. They are SHOCKED that there are emotional repercussions to their wild sexual behavior.

It may be that transactional sex, ubers, and better meds lead us to a brave new world.

In the guardian I read some UK guardian famous sex columnist making sure everyone knows it's not okay to wake your partner up with oral sex because of consent issues. You need to have had the discussion before hand and a thorough discussion at that!

And she's not talking about waking a woman up, she's talking about blow jobs

metro.co uk/2017/10/30/is-it-okay-to-wake-your-partner-up-with-a-blow-job-7039031/

We can fuck the night before, we can spend the night in bed, but no, you can't wake me up in the morning with oral until we sign a new agreement and have it notarized.

Perhaps it's my growing up pre-2000s (pre-80s), but an invitation to spend the night in bed is no guarantee to sex in the morning, but it is consent to nighttime, morning one side initiated foreplay, expectations you may be woken up with a cuddle complete with morning woody pressed against you and yes, even oral sex, both ways.

Seems like an actual real loss to intimacy, friendship, and sex when morning blowjobs mandate a complex legal framework built around them.

Guest_d2e60302 · #14323

I've had those Kilstein videos on in the background today.

Dude is still annoying, but at least he's contrite and seems to understand how his previous behaviour destroyed everything he actually enjoys: jokes, comedy, pussy

Well done to him for sorting himself out

I listened to half an hour of the Stanhope podcast starting at 0:45 (thanks deLurch) and I found him mostly unbelievable.

"I was a dumbshit trying to get laid, got laid, got tossed out, now I've recovered, boy I was dumb back then, can you let me back in the clubhouse?"

#14324

VickyCaramel wrote: I broadly agree with you but I don't really recognise that last part in relation to the actual criminals. Our criminal culture isn't really a victim culture for the most part. it is hard to say that the justifications they use are post hoc rationalizations because they are part of a culture. Certainly where I come from, we have no shortage of criminals but they are not really blaming society or race. Instead they see themselves as "Robin Hood" types, where they are robbing the rich to give to the poor, where they are the poor. They tell themselves that their victims can afford it, they will claim on the insurance so what they do are victimless crimes because insurance is legalized extortion. They essentially see themselves as robbing the robbers. When it comes to drug dealing, again they see this as a victimless crime.

Not only do people justify low level crime, a criminal past can be regarded as a badge of authenticity as a working class lad. Although a bit murky on the details,I recall Jamiroquai citing some criminality in his past as evidence that he'd "paid his dues". This was in response to his credibility being questioned and I remember understanding from the context that he didn't mean that he'd paid his debt to society.

#14325

Manhatten

#14326

Kirbmarc wrote:
feathers wrote:
Shatterface wrote:Dawkins is smart. If he murdered someone he'd get away with it.
I've seen more than one clever murderer thinking they were smarter than the average police peasant, smart enough to get away with it. Cases in question Hans Reiser and Peter Madsen.
The really smart ones are the ones we never hear about.

First rule of murder: Don't be lazy about it. No newspaper headline has ever read "Bodies found in a deep grave".

#14327

shoutinghorse wrote:Manhatten

Allahu Ackbarring intensifies?

Taking bets...

#14328

jet_lagg wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:It's pretty funny that PeeZee's efforts to be sympathetic to the SocJus haven't endeared many SocJus fans to him, or even many leftists for that matter. PeeZee remains in the middle, too much of a New Atheist for the NOMA left and too much of a SocJus fan for the New New Atheism. Plus his "happy" atheist shtick is not fooling anyone, and he's still seen as an asshole.
I could almost feel bad for him if he wasn't such a bitter little cunt. He just doesn't get it. He saw the horsemen being unapologetic assholes and never stopped to ask himself why people cheered for that. It was just an opportunity to let loose his vindictive nature. So then a guy dies trying to raise money for charity, Myers jumps in to say how he'd like to have made the death even more gruesome, having no idea whatsoever why that crosses a line.

Been my observation that socially backward nerdy characters don't understand normal rowdy male culture at all ,have no idea where the boundaries are and assume it totally lacks compassion or good-naturedness. As a consequence, they tend to overstep the boundaries by quite a way when reacting to it or trying to emulate it. That's Peeze in my opinion. He imagines he's playing the enemy at their own game while the enemy looks on with amused incredulity.

#14329

Possible truck of peace not too far from me this time.

https://twitter.com/NY1/status/925449184739815424

#14330

World, explain yourself.

#14331

DrokkIt wrote:I've had those Kilstein videos on in the background today.

Dude is still annoying, but at least he's contrite and seems to understand how his previous behaviour destroyed everything he actually enjoys: jokes, comedy, pussy

Well done to him for sorting himself out.

I'm watching the Joe Rogan one right now. He does seem sincere, I agree.

#14332

Kirbmarc wrote:
feathers wrote:
Shatterface wrote:Dawkins is smart. If he murdered someone he'd get away with it.
I've seen more than one clever murderer thinking they were smarter than the average police peasant, smart enough to get away with it. Cases in question Hans Reiser and Peter Madsen.
The really smart ones are the ones we never hear about.

The really smart ones framed Reiser and Madsen.

#14333

Bhurzum wrote:
shoutinghorse wrote:Manhatten

Allahu Ackbarring intensifies?

Taking bets...

What type of odds are you giving? :-)

But even if it turns out to have been a wayward truck of peace, I expect the driver will get off with a reprimand on the excuse that he had just had a "psychotic episode" - nothing to see here, folks, move along. Or at least that's what would likely happen if that incident were in Canada:

Canada: Muslim who slit woman’s throat and said Allah commanded him to kill her found “not criminally responsible”

“Thamer Hameed Almestadi was likely suffering from a brief psychotic episode…”

In reality, when asked why he did it, Almestadi said, “I started listening to the Koran and understanding the meanings differently.”

But of course Canadian authorities aren’t going to admit the possibility that the Qur’an might incite violence. Once that is ruled out, they have decide that Almestadi is insane. He is just another example of the global outbreak of mental illness.

“UBC student not criminally responsible for attack on classmate,” by Kendra Mangione, CTV Vancouver, October 26, 2017: ....

Curious though why such "global outbreaks of mental illness" seem to preferentially target Muslims. Must be something in the water - or camel urine - they tend to drink ...

Short of nuking Mecca (orbit, etc), looks like it's time, well past time, to close the effen borders to Muslims, to #BanIslam, to deport the fucken lot of them. Somewhat apropos of which, a rather heartbreaking and depressing Rebel Media video I had been linked to recently. About two years old but still the topic de jour - and that of the last 1400 years if the truth were known:

#14334

Bhurzum wrote:
shoutinghorse wrote:Manhatten

Allahu Ackbarring intensifies?

Taking bets...

Nope. Drunk/high, mentally disturbed, dishonorably discharged from the Navy, several arrests.

We need to ban bump stocks ASAP.

#14335

Lsuoma wrote:
feathers wrote: I think the most essential part of the perfect murder is that the body never be found.
Yep, that's why if you're going to murder someone it's best to choose an eater.

Hogs.

#14336

Shatterface wrote:World, explain yourself.

Two-legged cat is from a rotating google camera. Moving at exactly the right pace.

#14337

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Bhurzum wrote:
shoutinghorse wrote:Manhatten

Allahu Ackbarring intensifies?

Taking bets...
Nope. Drunk/high, mentally disturbed, dishonorably discharged from the Navy, several arrests.

We need to ban bump stocks ASAP.

BBC says US media are calling it Allahuish.

#14338

Sunder wrote:
jet_lagg wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
"Compassionate" means "devoted to the moral foundations of Care and Fairness, that characterize the Liberal Left". Dawkins is a centrist, PeeZee is a SocJus fan, so that's why he's more "compassionate".
I'm a bit more cynical. I think it means imagining yourself to be morally superior to your ideological opponents because you feel bad, or at least claim to feel bad, about murdering them. Da, comrade. Your family must die a slow a painful death for the further glory of Lysenkoism, but let it comfort you to know I feel very upset about all this.
This is closer to what I think as well. Although I'm not completely cynical about the idea of compassion itself, more upset by its politicization and the idea of people claiming themselves to be compassionate when they're borderline sociopaths.

Being motivated by compassion is a grandfathered in entitlement of the Left, like the way the Religious Right stands for morality.

#14339

Allahu Akbar proves nothing. Could be Vikings.

#14340

A world where vacation means "doing nothing" ........ somewhere else.