In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

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

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19621

Post by gurugeorge » Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:56 am

AndrewV69 wrote: Most of the papers I have seen peg the false rape claims at 40%. I am of the view that the 2% and 90% false rape claims are edge cases at best.
Given that female domestic abuse figures are easier to track, if one takes them as a suggestive proxy for "women behaving badly" in general, then the rate of false claims could be in the 30%-40% range.

But as Bearing pointed out in a video recently, the rate of actually substantiated claims (claims that have resulted in conviction) is pretty low too. The grey area inbetween - claims that have been made that haven't led to an actual conviction and haven't been disproven either, is much bigger than either statistic.

So who do you believe? Feminists say believe the female - but that reasoning is circular, based on the low false claim rate, which is unsubstantiated. But it also seems wrong to believe the man, because it's obviously true that even if women aren't the innocent angels of Feminist mythology, men are a bit more brutish than women on the whole, and stronger too, so that does weight expectation somewhat.

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

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19622

Post by Kirbmarc » Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:06 am

paddybrown wrote:
feathers wrote:
Really? wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:10 pm
Bullshit, AndrewV69. I can find Jezebel, Root and Slate articles by feminists that copy pasted the 2-8% number all day long, so that must be the truth.
I'm not a statistician, but even the difference between 2% and 8% seems huge; a factor of four! Can't they be a bit more accurate than that?
The 2% was pulled out of her arse by Susan Brownmiller. The 8% is the FBI's figure for unfounded accusations. "2-8%" is essentially "somewhere in between a genuine figure and a completely made-up one".

In any case, the point should always be that how often it happens is not the issue, otherwise we shouldn't punish Josef Fritzl because hardly anyone has ever done what he did. False allegations of rape can happen, and can do a great deal of harm when they do, and so the justice system needs to take the possibility into account. Due process is there for a reason, never mind that tyrants and would-be tyrants find it inconvenient.


A coherent progressive would find the idea of trial by mob appalling, especially since it HAS been used by racists and homphobes and it still does (just look for false and questionable accusations of crimes allegedly committed by minorities and LGBT people).

Hell accusing a black guy of rape of a white woman was a good way to get mobs to lynch them in the South and in many cases those white women lied. That alone should make the "believe the victim" crowd uncomfortable.

But I guess that far too many find the idea of "sticking it to Teh Menz" too appealing to give it up.

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

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19623

Post by Kirbmarc » Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:27 am

paddybrown wrote:
feathers wrote:
Really? wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:10 pm
Bullshit, AndrewV69. I can find Jezebel, Root and Slate articles by feminists that copy pasted the 2-8% number all day long, so that must be the truth.
I'm not a statistician, but even the difference between 2% and 8% seems huge; a factor of four! Can't they be a bit more accurate than that?
The 2% was pulled out of her arse by Susan Brownmiller. The 8% is the FBI's figure for unfounded accusations. "2-8%" is essentially "somewhere in between a genuine figure and a completely made-up one".

In any case, the point should always be that how often it happens is not the issue, otherwise we shouldn't punish Josef Fritzl because hardly anyone has ever done what he did. False allegations of rape can happen, and can do a great deal of harm when they do, and so the justice system needs to take the possibility into account. Due process is there for a reason, never mind that tyrants and would-be tyrants find it inconvenient.


A coherent progressive would find the idea of trial by mob appalling, especially since it HAS been used by racists and homphobes and it still does (just look for false and questionable accusations of crimes allegedly committed by minorities and LGBT people).

Hell accusing a black guy of rape of a white woman was a good way to get mobs to lynch them in the South and in many cases those white women lied. That alone should make the "believe the victim" crowd uncomfortable.

But I guess that far too many find the idea of "sticking it to Teh Menz" too appealing to give it up.

Guest_d2e60302

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19624

Post by Guest_d2e60302 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:35 am

A coherent progressive would find the idea of trial by mob appalling, especially since it HAS been used by racists and homphobes and it still does (just look for false and questionable accusations of crimes allegedly committed by minorities and LGBT people).

Hell accusing a black guy of rape of a white woman was a good way to get mobs to lynch them in the South and in many cases those white women lied. That alone should make the "believe the victim" crowd uncomfortable.

But I guess that far too many find the idea of "sticking it to Teh Menz" too appealing to give it up.
Kimberle Crenshaw, who came up with Intersectionality, should be Time Magazine's shitposter of the era.

She's active on twitter, https://twitter.com/sandylocks, but I've never heard her interviewed, on anything.

But it would be great to ask her about the intersection of Intersectionality and Listen and Believe and Trial by Mob and African American Male Lynchings.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7163
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19625

Post by MarcusAu » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:00 am

paddybrown wrote: ...

2. The "Listen and Believe" campaign has been pushing the idea that accusation is guilt for some time, but doing it one accusation at a time hasn't worked because when that accusation falls apart it damages the campaign. But if you make lots of accusations all at once it becomes practically impossible to investigate them or distinguish between them. The Jimmy Savile gambit.
So tactically, you would advise them to gather the explosive material - and let it off all at once - in an effort to show that they are serious and their demands must be met.

Hmmm, based past results, I'm not sure this is the best idea.

feathers
.
.
Posts: 6113
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:12 am
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19626

Post by feathers » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:13 am

paddybrown wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:30 am
2. The "Listen and Believe" campaign has been pushing the idea that accusation is guilt for some time, but doing it one accusation at a time hasn't worked because when that accusation falls apart it damages the campaign. But if you make lots of accusations all at once it becomes practically impossible to investigate them or distinguish between them. The Jimmy Savile gambit.
Or, for working people, if you throw enough shit against the wall some of it may stick.

feathers
.
.
Posts: 6113
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:12 am
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19627

Post by feathers » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:19 am

paddybrown wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:37 am
The 2% was pulled out of her arse by Susan Brownmiller. The 8% is the FBI's figure for unfounded accusations. "2-8%" is essentially "somewhere in between a genuine figure and a completely made-up one".

In any case, the point should always be that how often it happens is not the issue, otherwise we shouldn't punish Josef Fritzl because hardly anyone has ever done what he did. False allegations of rape can happen, and can do a great deal of harm when they do, and so the justice system needs to take the possibility into account. Due process is there for a reason, never mind that tyrants and would-be tyrants find it inconvenient.
Also, you can't quote existing statistics to exonerate yourself. "I didn't break into that house to steal cash because the stats say it very seldom happens that middle-class citizens commit burglary for small cash" is not a defence.

VickyCaramel
.
.
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 am
Location: Sitting with feet up
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19628

Post by VickyCaramel » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:42 am

feathers wrote:
paddybrown wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:37 am
The 2% was pulled out of her arse by Susan Brownmiller. The 8% is the FBI's figure for unfounded accusations. "2-8%" is essentially "somewhere in between a genuine figure and a completely made-up one".

In any case, the point should always be that how often it happens is not the issue, otherwise we shouldn't punish Josef Fritzl because hardly anyone has ever done what he did. False allegations of rape can happen, and can do a great deal of harm when they do, and so the justice system needs to take the possibility into account. Due process is there for a reason, never mind that tyrants and would-be tyrants find it inconvenient.
Also, you can't quote existing statistics to exonerate yourself. "I didn't break into that house to steal cash because the stats say it very seldom happens that middle-class citizens commit burglary for small cash" is not a defence.
Bearing did a video on this recently. He used the "somewhere in the middle" figure of 5% and a conviction rate of something like 2.5%. I have no idea where he got that number but assuming it is in any way relevant, that would mean there are twice as many false allegations as convictions.

The feminists seem to be working on the assumption that anything which isn't a false allegation, the 92% is a genuine accusation because muh listen and believe. However, if we work on balance of probability based on what we actually know, then false allegations are twice as likely as actual crimes. As this isn't how they see things, they are going to argue balance of probability.

SM1957
.
.
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:01 am
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19629

Post by SM1957 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:28 am

feathers wrote:
Also, you can't quote existing statistics to exonerate yourself. "I didn't break into that house to steal cash because the stats say it very seldom happens that middle-class citizens commit burglary for small cash" is not a defence.
Quite correct.


If I can go all Bayesian on you, prior probabilities of X happening do not affect the way we should evaluate the evidence of whether or nor X has happened.

That has to be judged on its own merits and the evidence of X happening or not, will affect the prior probabilities of X happening that should be used in the future.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7163
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19630

Post by MarcusAu » Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:51 am

re "Going all Bayesian..."

Please don't - I understand the results can be quite messy.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19631

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis » Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:52 am

Kirbmarc wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:06 am
But I guess that far too many find the idea of "sticking it to Teh Menz" too appealing to give it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNIph_T-y-o

jet_lagg
.
.
Posts: 2570
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:57 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19632

Post by jet_lagg » Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:05 am

VickyCaramel wrote: The feminists seem to be working on the assumption that anything which isn't a false allegation, the 92% is a genuine accusation because muh listen and believe. However, if we work on balance of probability based on what we actually know, then false allegations are twice as likely as actual crimes.
No, the false allegations would be twice as likely as actual convictions. Obviously we can't assume every crime results in a conviction.

John D
.
.
Posts: 4622
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19633

Post by John D » Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:15 am

Kirbmarc wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:06 am
paddybrown wrote:
feathers wrote:
Really? wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:10 pm
Bullshit, AndrewV69. I can find Jezebel, Root and Slate articles by feminists that copy pasted the 2-8% number all day long, so that must be the truth.
I'm not a statistician, but even the difference between 2% and 8% seems huge; a factor of four! Can't they be a bit more accurate than that?
The 2% was pulled out of her arse by Susan Brownmiller. The 8% is the FBI's figure for unfounded accusations. "2-8%" is essentially "somewhere in between a genuine figure and a completely made-up one".

In any case, the point should always be that how often it happens is not the issue, otherwise we shouldn't punish Josef Fritzl because hardly anyone has ever done what he did. False allegations of rape can happen, and can do a great deal of harm when they do, and so the justice system needs to take the possibility into account. Due process is there for a reason, never mind that tyrants and would-be tyrants find it inconvenient.


A coherent progressive would find the idea of trial by mob appalling, especially since it HAS been used by racists and homphobes and it still does (just look for false and questionable accusations of crimes allegedly committed by minorities and LGBT people).

Hell accusing a black guy of rape of a white woman was a good way to get mobs to lynch them in the South and in many cases those white women lied. That alone should make the "believe the victim" crowd uncomfortable.

But I guess that far too many find the idea of "sticking it to Teh Menz" too appealing to give it up.
I thought "To Kill a Mockingbird" was a sacred text to the SJW crowd. Did they forget the story?

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19634

Post by jugheadnaut » Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:25 am

paddybrown wrote:
The 2% was pulled out of her arse by Susan Brownmiller. The 8% is the FBI's figure for unfounded accusations. "2-8%" is essentially "somewhere in between a genuine figure and a completely made-up one".
The 8% end of the range is used to give the rangeempirical sheen. However, motivated speakers then frequently only use the made-up end of the range (for instance in RW's YouTube video on the topic and Lena Dunhum's recent statements). They act as though there is empirical support for the entire range, and since the number at the low end of the range is more useful to their argument, why not just go with that. And so a mostly made up number is magically elevated to empirically supported fact. Some other points:
  • The 8% figure is the rate of rape reports to police where they were able to conclude the accusation was unfounded. This does not mean the other 92% were 'true' accusations. The other side of the coin is that 25% of the time, the report results in arrest, where presumably police concluded the accusation was very well founded. That clearly wouldn't mean that 75% of accusations are false, and yet the same logical mistake is being made on the other end. The simple fact is that in the 67% of cases where police neither dismiss the claim nor make an arrest there simply isn't enough evidence one way or another and we don't know. 8% is actually the low end of false rape report estimates, not the high end.
  • The 8% figure is for accusations reported to police, and yet it's also reflexively applied by the usual suspects to informal accusations which do not result in a police report, where no doubt the false accusation rate is much higher.
  • By mentioning a range, the figure is meant to seem like a fair minded, empirically based omnibus figure. But there are studies estimating the false rape accusation rate much higher, around 40%. These are very shaky studies, but no worse than anything estimating the rate at 2%. The actual omnibus range would be more like 2%-40%.
I do wonder what activists supporting the 2% figure think about the fact that so many high profile rape accusations over the last decade or so have turned out to be false accusations. There's been the Duke rape case, the Hofstra University gang rape case, the Jackie Coakley U. of V. case, and the Emma Sulkowicz case, not to mention several other campus rape accusations that turned out to be almost certainly false. Either they're getting very unlucky or there have been at least 200 other cases of similar profile where these happen to be the false accusation instances. There clearly haven't been 200 cases of rape accusations of this profile, so they must go with they're getting very unlucky. Surely that over actually reconsidering such a useful statistic.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19635

Post by jugheadnaut » Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:55 am

Guest_d2e60302 wrote:
Kimberle Crenshaw, who came up with Intersectionality, should be Time Magazine's shitposter of the era.

She's active on twitter, https://twitter.com/sandylocks, but I've never heard her interviewed, on anything.

But it would be great to ask her about the intersection of Intersectionality and Listen and Believe and Trial by Mob and African American Male Lynchings.
Intersectionality is more a political tactic than a coherent sociological concept. Mass left wing movements frequently fail when their constituent groups realize that they're fighting over a relatively fixed pie and infighting ensues. Intersectionality is meant to ameliorate this by coaxing participants in indentity politics activism to not be wedded to their specific identity concerns.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12548
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19636

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:11 am

feathers wrote: I wonder, are they called Scots Guard because they're invisible, like Scots Tape?
scotchguard.jpg
(13.71 KiB) Downloaded 103 times

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12548
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19637

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:14 am

jugheadnaut wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:25 am
The 8% figure is the rate of rape reports to police where they were able to conclude the accusation was unfounded. This does not mean the other 92% were 'true' accusations. The other side of the coin is that 25% of the time, the report results in arrest, where presumably police concluded the accusation was very well founded. That clearly wouldn't mean that 75% of accusations are false, and yet the same logical mistake is being made on the other end.
Excellent point. I'll add that gun to my intellectual artillery.

VickyCaramel
.
.
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 am
Location: Sitting with feet up
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19638

Post by VickyCaramel » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:18 am

jet_lagg wrote:
VickyCaramel wrote: The feminists seem to be working on the assumption that anything which isn't a false allegation, the 92% is a genuine accusation because muh listen and believe. However, if we work on balance of probability based on what we actually know, then false allegations are twice as likely as actual crimes.
No, the false allegations would be twice as likely as actual convictions. Obviously we can't assume every crime results in a conviction.
That kinda what I am getting and and kinda what I said.

I am assuming the 8% of false accusations are *proven* false accusations, that they themselves are a crime... this is assuming Bearing's data is correct, which it may not be. I am just using it as an example for the math.

So what we have proven with a fair degree of accuracy, is 8% on one end and 2.5% on the other.
Obviously we can't assume every crime results in a conviction.
...and so the door swings both ways. We can't assume that everyone making a false accusation is caught in a lie by investigators or prosecutors.
We don't how many times that prosecutors decided not to go ahead with a case, not only because there was a lack of evidence against the accused but because they had the feeling that the accuser was lying for attention or out of spite.

So what we are seeing is that the law enforcement and criminal justice agencies are settling sex crimes cases in favor of the accused at over three times the rate they finding for the victim. If you extrapolate, then 75% of reported sex crimes would be false reports.


Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12548
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19640

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:26 am

Does anyone else find this completely fucked up?
“You sure have grown an awful lot this year. Not only are you taller, but I can see that your heart has grown, too. [Point out 2-3 examples of empathetic behavior, consideration of people’s feelings, good deeds etc, the kid has done in the past year]. In fact, your heart has grown so much that I think you are ready to become a Santa Claus.

You probably have noticed that most of the Santas you see are people dressed up like him. Some of your friends might have even told you that there is no Santa. A lot of children think that, because they aren’t ready to BE a Santa yet, but YOU ARE.
Tell me the best things about Santa. What does Santa get for all of his trouble? [lead the kid from “cookies” to the good feeling of having done something for someone else]. Well, now YOU are ready to do your first job as a Santa!“
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... to-them-2/

jet_lagg
.
.
Posts: 2570
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:57 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19641

Post by jet_lagg » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:59 am

This will sound absurdly melodramatic, but a huge break in trust occurred between my father and I when I figured out there was no Santa and he immediately switched to weasel wording about metaphors and different kinds of being. Just tell the kid it's a story people make up because it's nice to see people smile. It's not hard.

piginthecity
.
.
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:20 am
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19642

Post by piginthecity » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:00 am

Ape+lust wrote:
It still boggles me it's wankstick Carrier and not Shermer who is trying to visit million dollar vengeance on the Baboons. Crazy world.
You've got to give Dicky his due ... whether it's spooging on other people's blogs, batsignals to get his end away, driving 200 miles to sit in a pub with "whoever turns up" (i.e nobody) on his Grand Tours or foolish/heroic legal attempts to clear his name, he really does have the courage of his convictions and an ability to follow it up which sets him in a class apart from the typically indolent and timid SJW's.

There's also a strong streak of self-destructiveness which makes him an irresistible character (and it's probably this that Shermer lacks).

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12548
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19643

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:04 am

feathers wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:09 am
Guys, don't do that:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/accordingt ... -weakness/

(Kiss a woman, or shove your dick into her, before asking and receiving crystal clear verbal consent.)
Facciani thumbed-up the following comment, likely missing the sarcasm:
Billie from Ockham Matt Cavanaugh • 11 hours ago

Oh, dear. You [Cavanaugh] seem to be one of those people who believes that one either has or doesn't have consent. Well, I'm sorry, Matt, but dichotomies are sooo last year. Consent, like everything else, is on a continuum. And the cut-off for whether you had consensual sex is not only subject to change at any time (before or after said sex), but some of us reserve the right to use a higher threshold when judging the behavior of people that we don't like.
I think Facciani just really really really wants to please people and avoid confrontation. So much so that he's afraid to kiss girls in case that traumatizes them for life. I mean, I regularly take pachyderm sized dumps on his posts, and he's always, 'but surely we can agree on this or that?' He means well, but he's mos def an omega whose mind has been poisoned by SJWism and especially radical feminism.

I'm also thinking that the reason he can't tell whether women want him to kiss them is because most of them don't.
facciani_nope.jpg
(98.53 KiB) Downloaded 285 times

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12548
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19644

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:09 am

jet_lagg wrote: This will sound absurdly melodramatic, but a huge break in trust occurred between my father and I when I figured out there was no Santa and he immediately switched to weasel wording about metaphors and different kinds of being. Just tell the kid it's a story people make up because it's nice to see people smile. It's not hard.
But did your mom let you open up one of your dad's presents two weeks before xmas? No? See, that's FUCKING CHILD ABUSE RIGHT THERE!

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19645

Post by Tigzy » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:15 am

piginthecity wrote:
Ape+lust wrote:
It still boggles me it's wankstick Carrier and not Shermer who is trying to visit million dollar vengeance on the Baboons. Crazy world.
You've got to give Dicky his due ... whether it's spooging on other people's blogs, batsignals to get his end away, driving 200 miles to sit in a pub with "whoever turns up" (i.e nobody) on his Grand Tours or foolish/heroic legal attempts to clear his name, he really does have the courage of his convictions and an ability to follow it up which sets him in a class apart from the typically indolent and timid SJW's.

There's also a strong streak of self-destructiveness which makes him an irresistible character (and it's probably this that Shermer lacks).
The Frank Spencer of SJWism.

There really is a physical resemblance there, too:

https://i.imgur.com/0tHE0B3.png
https://i.imgur.com/F3dkLeo.png


https://i.imgur.com/K8R4COH.png
https://i.imgur.com/3hrtMv0.png

Spike13
.
.
Posts: 3014
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: Dirty Jersey, on the Chemical Coast
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19646

Post by Spike13 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:34 am

Brive1987 wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 4:25 am
PZ,has a sad sack video up on YouTube. It's so pathetic it has to be seen and heard to be believed.

He spends the first half explaining how he is not on the platform for money, not like those rascally evil-atheists.

He spends the second half begging for cash to fund his legal woes and to offset going on half pay next year while on sabbatical.

:hankey: :lol:

Why is he dressed as the “My Pillow” guy?
well ,without the peeping crucifix.
perhaps trying to mimic someone from Minn. who is actually successful?

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12548
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19647

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:53 am

Somebody must've whispered in Professor Ceiling Cat's ear :shhh:

Another plaint about sexism-ridden New Atheism

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... w-atheism/

katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5407
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19648

Post by katamari Damassi » Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:24 am

Guest_d2e60302 wrote:
Declaring “I am part of the problem,” the 47-year-old documentary filmmaker famous for eating a grotesque amount of McDonald’s admitted in a blog post that he was accused of rape in college, settled a sexual harassment lawsuit and has cheated on all of his romantic partners, including both of his wives.
but wait, there's more
Spurlock said that a woman who entered a one-night sexual relationship with him when they were both drunk indirectly accused of him rape. In his post, Spurlock shared what he recalled of the incident.

“We began fooling around, she pushed me off, then we laid in the bed and talked and laughed some more, and then began fooling around again. We took off our clothes. She said she didn’t want to have sex, so we laid together, and talked, and kissed, and laughed, and then we started having sex.”

The woman then began to cry, and he said he stopped and attempted to comfort her.

“I believed she was feeling better,” he wrote. “She believed she was raped.
??
Another moment of sexual impropriety the filmmaker shared is of a sexual harassment suit that he settled approximately eight years ago. A female assistant brought the suit because he often called her “hot pants” or “sex pants” in the office.

After she quit, she threatened to “tell everyone” if he did not pay her.

“Being who I was, it was the last thing I wanted, so of course, I paid,” the filmmaker wrote. “I paid for peace of mind. I paid for her silence and cooperation. Most of all, I paid so I could remain who I was.”
??

his full blog post http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqc244
Shakesville's McEwen is pissed about this.
Morgan Spurlock: I Am Part of the Problem. At the link, Spurlock confesses (sort of) to rape, sexual harassment, and infidelity — then offers a list of reasons why he might have sexually abused women. I have so many fucking problems with this, I hardly know where to begin, but, chief among my objections is this: Now, if any woman accuses him of any other abuse, lots of people won't believe her, because he didn't "confess" to it and, gee, he's so honest. This is a clear attempt to get out ahead of serious allegations and frame it himself before his victims can even tell their stories. I'm filthy angry about this, especially because, as Spurlock certainly anticipated, he's being widely congratulated for his bravery. Seethe.
I think her real reason for being angry goes something like this: "By killing himself, he spoiled the hanging we were going to give him!"

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

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19649

Post by Kirbmarc » Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:33 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Somebody must've whispered in Professor Ceiling Cat's ear :shhh:

Another plaint about sexism-ridden New Atheism

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... w-atheism/
Women seem more religious than men in general. I'm not sure why, but evidence shows that women tend to be more "spiritual" even when they leave organized religion. Of course it's not all women, and many women aren't very "spiritual", but a sex difference seems to explain the gender imbalance much better than any explanation based on how those pesky New Atheists are horribly misogynistic.

Spike13
.
.
Posts: 3014
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: Dirty Jersey, on the Chemical Coast
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19650

Post by Spike13 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:43 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Somebody must've whispered in Professor Ceiling Cat's ear :shhh:

Another plaint about sexism-ridden New Atheism

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... w-atheism/
Sexism? no, i would go with a more obvious theorum, Take a good hard look at what represents a/s movement women to the general public.

The money grifting, fashion damaged, nightmarishly coifed, click baiters drown out the respecable and reasoned. Who would like to join that lot?

If the current crop of po-mo’s want to know why there aren’t more women in the movement they first need to take a long hard look in the mirror to discover why.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6341
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19651

Post by Really? » Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:59 am

Spike13 wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Somebody must've whispered in Professor Ceiling Cat's ear :shhh:

Another plaint about sexism-ridden New Atheism

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... w-atheism/
Sexism? no, i would go with a more obvious theorum, Take a good hard look at what represents a/s movement women to the general public.

The money grifting, fashion damaged, nightmarishly coifed, click baiters drown out the respecable and reasoned. Who would like to join that lot?

If the current crop of po-mo’s want to know why there aren’t more women in the movement they first need to take a long hard look in the mirror to discover why.
How was anyone to be able to guess the consequences of filling the media with the idea that any woman who attends an atheist or skeptic convention would be gangraped within moments of arrival?

Guest_d2e60302

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19652

Post by Guest_d2e60302 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:23 am

I thought "To Kill a Mockingbird" was a sacred text to the SJW crowd. Did they forget the story?
No, no, no. Atticus Finch was a racist. Even the classic version of Atticus Finch has him as a racist.

https://jezebel.com/atticus-was-always- ... 1718996096

Catherine Nichols https://i.imgur.com/Oab7H0e.png

The final tableau of To Kill A Mockingbird has always given me a sour feeling toward the book—it ends with the black man dead, the poor white man also dead, the law uninterested in prosecuting their murders. The white gentleman and his children are sadder and wiser, but the wisdom imparted is essentially about the hopelessness of defending black people and poor white people from one another. I used to think Mockingbird was a shameful book to hand out in a high school classroom, all things considered, given that it’s a race story that scarcely passes the black-person version of the Bechdel test. It’s about white people within white culture making Tom Robinson’s life and death about themselves.
Who could get *these* messages from the book? That it's hopeless, and best not to do anything? Or that the book is terrible because it's about how Atticus, Scout, Jem and Calpurnia are impacted and grow and learn during those days.

also

http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/ ... -kill.html
warmly embrace a racist novel (to kill a mockingbird)

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009 ... house-ring
The Courthouse Ring
Atticus Finch and the limits of Southern liberalism.
By Malcolm Gladwell

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12548
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19653

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:26 am

Kirbmarc wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Somebody must've whispered in Professor Ceiling Cat's ear :shhh:

Another plaint about sexism-ridden New Atheism

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... w-atheism/
Women seem more religious than men in general. I'm not sure why, but evidence shows that women tend to be more "spiritual" even when they leave organized religion. Of course it's not all women, and many women aren't very "spiritual", but a sex difference seems to explain the gender imbalance much better than any explanation based on how those pesky New Atheists are horribly misogynistic.
Feminism is a solution in search of a problem.

Guest_d2e60302

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19654

Post by Guest_d2e60302 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:27 am

Shakesville's McEwen is pissed about this.
Morgan Spurlock: I Am Part of the Problem. At the link, Spurlock confesses (sort of) to rape, sexual harassment, and infidelity — then offers a list of reasons why he might have sexually abused women. I have so many fucking problems with this, I hardly know where to begin, but, chief among my objections is this: Now, if any woman accuses him of any other abuse, lots of people won't believe her, because he didn't "confess" to it and, gee, he's so honest. This is a clear attempt to get out ahead of serious allegations and frame it himself before his victims can even tell their stories. I'm filthy angry about this, especially because, as Spurlock certainly anticipated, he's being widely congratulated for his bravery. Seethe.
I think her real reason for being angry goes something like this: "By killing himself, he spoiled the hanging we were going to give him!"
Well, what bothers me is that my own rape apologia that I struggle with reads Spurlock's account of the rape and doesn't find it. And the sexual harassment fine seems fairly lacking too, and I don't understand the issue with paying it, but it makes it sounds like the payment was extortion, and not from a legal settlement.

If Spurlock wants to confess to being a sexual harasser and rapist and a cheat that's fine with me.

My problem is I was trying to decide if his piece was satire.

Guest_d2e60302

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19655

Post by Guest_d2e60302 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:29 am

looks like I broke the bold tag[/b].

Not sure if an anti bold tag is needed, but I've inserted a few here.[/b] Or even if that will work.[/b]

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6341
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19656

Post by Really? » Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:32 am

Guest_d2e60302 wrote:
I thought "To Kill a Mockingbird" was a sacred text to the SJW crowd. Did they forget the story?
No, no, no. Atticus Finch was a racist. Even the classic version of Atticus Finch has him as a racist.

https://jezebel.com/atticus-was-always- ... 1718996096

Catherine Nichols https://i.imgur.com/Oab7H0e.png

The final tableau of To Kill A Mockingbird has always given me a sour feeling toward the book—it ends with the black man dead, the poor white man also dead, the law uninterested in prosecuting their murders. The white gentleman and his children are sadder and wiser, but the wisdom imparted is essentially about the hopelessness of defending black people and poor white people from one another. I used to think Mockingbird was a shameful book to hand out in a high school classroom, all things considered, given that it’s a race story that scarcely passes the black-person version of the Bechdel test. It’s about white people within white culture making Tom Robinson’s life and death about themselves.
Who could get *these* messages from the book? That it's hopeless, and best not to do anything? Or that the book is terrible because it's about how Atticus, Scout, Jem and Calpurnia are impacted and grow and learn during those days.

also

http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/ ... -kill.html
warmly embrace a racist novel (to kill a mockingbird)

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009 ... house-ring
The Courthouse Ring
Atticus Finch and the limits of Southern liberalism.
By Malcolm Gladwell
The name sounded familiar. This is the same woman who totally had no response to her totally great novel from agents (all but a few of whom are women) until she submitted it under a male name. They were hitting her back instantly!

Funny how the book never came out, seeing as how so many woman agents were falling over themselves to publish a man.
I sent the six queries I had planned to send that day. Within 24 hours George had five responses—three manuscript requests and two warm rejections praising his exciting project. For contrast, under my own name, the same letter and pages sent 50 times had netted me a total of two manuscript requests. The responses gave me a little frisson of delight at being called “Mr.” and then I got mad. Three manuscript requests on a Saturday, not even during business hours! The judgments about my work that had seemed as solid as the walls of my house had turned out to be meaningless. My novel wasn’t the problem, it was me—Catherine.

I wanted to know more of how the Georges of the world live, so I sent more. Total data: George sent out 50 queries, and had his manuscript requested 17 times. He is eight and a half times better than me at writing the same book. Fully a third of the agents who saw his query wanted to see more, where my numbers never did shift from one in 25.
Part of her scientific methodology for this experiment that totally happened and happened the way she said.
This new book was different. I knew it was better than my older work—more ambitious, more interesting, more playful, more exciting. My writer friends loved it and sent it to their agents on my behalf, before I began sending query letters under any name at all. The responses trickled back with a number of similar rejections, mostly: “beautiful writing, but your main character isn’t very plucky, is she?” and of course, a lot of silence. Still hopeful, I started sending blind queries, hoping for at least a few enthusiastic readers. Meaningless silence turned into meaningful silence day by day. The few written rejections didn’t cite a coherent problem. My writer friends still promised it was a good book, that I should have faith in my work, that good news would be around the corner. It wasn’t.
https://jezebel.com/homme-de-plume-what ... 1720637627

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

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19657

Post by Kirbmarc » Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:52 am

Guest_d2e60302 wrote:
I thought "To Kill a Mockingbird" was a sacred text to the SJW crowd. Did they forget the story?
No, no, no. Atticus Finch was a racist. Even the classic version of Atticus Finch has him as a racist.

https://jezebel.com/atticus-was-always- ... 1718996096

Catherine Nichols https://i.imgur.com/Oab7H0e.png

The final tableau of To Kill A Mockingbird has always given me a sour feeling toward the book—it ends with the black man dead, the poor white man also dead, the law uninterested in prosecuting their murders. The white gentleman and his children are sadder and wiser, but the wisdom imparted is essentially about the hopelessness of defending black people and poor white people from one another. I used to think Mockingbird was a shameful book to hand out in a high school classroom, all things considered, given that it’s a race story that scarcely passes the black-person version of the Bechdel test. It’s about white people within white culture making Tom Robinson’s life and death about themselves.
Who could get *these* messages from the book? That it's hopeless, and best not to do anything? Or that the book is terrible because it's about how Atticus, Scout, Jem and Calpurnia are impacted and grow and learn during those days.

also

http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/ ... -kill.html
warmly embrace a racist novel (to kill a mockingbird)

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009 ... house-ring
The Courthouse Ring
Atticus Finch and the limits of Southern liberalism.
By Malcolm Gladwell
Everything is racist, even anti-racism is racist. Hell ending slavery was probably racist too, to say nothing of granting black people voting rights.

Fucking Martin Luther King was an Uncle Tom, Malcom X started fine but then betrayed the rightful Nation of Islam (The True Religion of black people) and so he was executed like the race traitor he was.

Kill all white people and end racism :bjarte:

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

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19658

Post by Kirbmarc » Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:56 am

Guest_d2e60302 wrote:
Shakesville's McEwen is pissed about this.
Morgan Spurlock: I Am Part of the Problem. At the link, Spurlock confesses (sort of) to rape, sexual harassment, and infidelity — then offers a list of reasons why he might have sexually abused women. I have so many fucking problems with this, I hardly know where to begin, but, chief among my objections is this: Now, if any woman accuses him of any other abuse, lots of people won't believe her, because he didn't "confess" to it and, gee, he's so honest. This is a clear attempt to get out ahead of serious allegations and frame it himself before his victims can even tell their stories. I'm filthy angry about this, especially because, as Spurlock certainly anticipated, he's being widely congratulated for his bravery. Seethe.
I think her real reason for being angry goes something like this: "By killing himself, he spoiled the hanging we were going to give him!"
Well, what bothers me is that my own rape apologia that I struggle with reads Spurlock's account of the rape and doesn't find it. And the sexual harassment fine seems fairly lacking too, and I don't understand the issue with paying it, but it makes it sounds like the payment was extortion, and not from a legal settlement.

If Spurlock wants to confess to being a sexual harasser and rapist and a cheat that's fine with me.

My problem is I was trying to decide if his piece was satire.


Nope. Not satire. He really loves Big Sister.

DW Adams
.
.
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:21 pm
Location: Planet of pudding brains
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19659

Post by DW Adams » Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:05 pm

Easy J wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:38 am
Shots fired:

"BREAKING=> Rep. Dan Johnson Commits Suicide Amid Sexual Assault Allegations, Leaves Suicide Note on Facebook"

"Kentucky State Representative Dan Johnson, who was under investigation for alleged sexual molestation, committed suicide on Wednesday evening."

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12 ... -facebook/
Holy shit, this guy was a fucking con man. Praise Jesus and pass the beer! And guns!

http://longcon.kycir.org/#chapter-one

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

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19660

Post by Sunder » Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:05 pm

SJW atheists are working hard to ensure they end up with no friends. Regardless of how they try to virtue signal the fight against "Islamophobia" at the end of the day they offend the Islamists by existing so they'll always be at the bottom rungs of SJWism. They dutifully carry water for conservatives and theists who hate atheism by both echoing their complaints about how awful atheists are and by reflecting how awful some atheists can be with their own behavior.

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

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19661

Post by Kirbmarc » Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:13 pm

Sunder wrote: SJW atheists are working hard to ensure they end up with no friends. Regardless of how they try to virtue signal the fight against "Islamophobia" at the end of the day they offend the Islamists by existing so they'll always be at the bottom rungs of SJWism. They dutifully carry water for conservatives and theists who hate atheism by both echoing their complaints about how awful atheists are and by reflecting how awful some atheists can be with their own behavior.
They're useful idiots, working for their enemies for free just to feel self-righteously smug.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19662

Post by Tigzy » Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:17 pm

After failing basic maths, Diane Abbott, the UK's shadow home secretary, tries her hand at basic physics.

https://i.imgur.com/FJFKzQr.png

Guest_d2e60302

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19663

Post by Guest_d2e60302 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:51 pm

Of some interest in the current purge:



Shervin Pishevar is not a complete fool
Encouraged by his parents to pursue a career in medicine, Pishevar attended Montgomery Blair High School, a math and science magnet school. As a science project, he began researching Magainin peptides, and later, while majoring in molecular cellular biology at UC Berkeley, he received a Presidential Fellowship to continue the study. In 1996, he co-authored an article in Journal of the American Medicine Society which helped lead to the Istanbul Protocol, the first set of international guidelines for documentation of torture.[9][10]

As a senior at Berkeley, Pishevar founded and served as Editor-in-Chief of Berkeley Scientific, the first peer reviewed undergraduate research journal in the United States. He completed more than a year of graduate courses in health economics at the Berkeley School of Public Health.
he's also cofounder of Hyperloop One, so not best buddies with Thunderf00t.

(As a VC, I think he's made some very questionable investments, meaning for me, investments that aren't about some new tech, but more about fucking over society, laborers, neighborhoods, but hell, we'll call it disruption.)

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19664

Post by Ape+lust » Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:55 pm

Tigzy wrote: After failing basic maths, Diane Abbott, the UK's shadow home secretary, tries her hand at basic physics.

https://i.imgur.com/FJFKzQr.png
What if London is caught without flamethrowers during the next outbreak of water? Don't skimp on the city's budget, do what she says.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12548
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19665

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:55 pm

Fire puts out water. Now there's someone that even Jeremy Corbyn could beat at Rochambault.

Rock weights Paper, luv. I win. Now take off those your knickers.


free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10408
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19667

Post by free thoughtpolice » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:24 pm



Non binary hair is the creepiest hair.

Billie from Ockham
.
.
Posts: 5470
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:40 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19668

Post by Billie from Ockham » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:55 pm

feathers wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:21 am
Really? wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:10 pm
Bullshit, AndrewV69. I can find Jezebel, Root and Slate articles by feminists that copy pasted the 2-8% number all day long, so that must be the truth.
I'm not a statistician, but even the difference between 2% and 8% seems huge; a factor of four! Can't they be a bit more accurate than that?
Maybe you're not looking for a nerd response, but you point to a major problem in most of the behavioral (and social) sciences: the continued use of standard ANOVA on proportions (and percents) when a odds-ratio approach is clearly called for. Last summer I rejected a paper that based its conclusions on the interaction between two factors, which produced cells means of about 5%, 10%, 10%, and 20% for A1, A2, B1, and B2, respectively. Yes, a simple main effect of 10% is larger than a SME of 5%, but, in both cases, it was a doubling, implying two main effects and no interaction.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7163
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19669

Post by MarcusAu » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:06 pm

Have you factored in the Commonwealth?

nb I'm prepared to grant that Puerto Rico - can be included in the US total.

Billie from Ockham
.
.
Posts: 5470
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:40 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19670

Post by Billie from Ockham » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:07 pm

Really? wrote:
{snip}

Catherine Nichols https://i.imgur.com/Oab7H0e.png

The name sounded familiar. This is the same woman who totally had no response to her totally great novel from agents (all but a few of whom are women) until she submitted it under a male name. They were hitting her back instantly!

{snip}
Forgive me in advance, but how sure are you about this person's sex?

jet_lagg
.
.
Posts: 2570
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:57 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19671

Post by jet_lagg » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:26 pm

MarcusAu wrote:
Have you factored in the Commonwealth?

nb I'm prepared to grant that Puerto Rico - can be included in the US total.
It feels like cheating, but I'll take it.

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 7966
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19672

Post by AndrewV69 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:39 pm

katamari Damassi wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:24 am

I think her real reason for being angry goes something like this: "By killing himself, he spoiled the hanging we were going to give him!"
Well, this guy does not appear to agree


Cathy Young has this take on it :

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

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19673

Post by Sunder » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:44 pm

Their response to being told they've hit a new low is "hold my beer and hand me a shovel."

John D
.
.
Posts: 4622
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19674

Post by John D » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:52 pm

The panic caused by the end of Net Neutrality is fucking hilarious. There was no Net Neutrality a few short years ago... when the internet exploded in availability and speed. Now... somehow.... the world will end because Uncle Sam isn't fingering everything. Fucking idiots. 50,000 people die of drug overdose.... 40,000 die from car wrecks... both numbers that are increasing (in the US) but - eliminate a bunch of regulations which a bunch of media companies love and the world is ending. :doh:

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3069
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19675

Post by Hunt » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:57 pm

katamari Damassi wrote: Shakesville's McEwen is pissed about this.

I think her real reason for being angry goes something like this: "By killing himself, he spoiled the hanging we were going to give him!"
No no, her real reason for being angry is he got to eat supersize junk food for half a year and got paid for it.

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

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19676

Post by shoutinghorse » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:57 pm

Shhhnowman .. :lol:


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

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19677

Post by Sunder » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:58 pm

John D wrote: There was no Net Neutrality a few short years ago...
Kind of hilarious how people who openly dislike Obama are also willing to claim or imply his administration inventing Net Neutrality wholesale. I mean crap even I wouldn't give the guy that much credit but apparently his opponents will.

No, Net Neutrality did not spring into existence under Obama. Its underpinnings go back to fucking 1998. All Obama's guys did was update preexisting laws to deal with new complications.

John D
.
.
Posts: 4622
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19678

Post by John D » Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:01 pm

Sunder wrote:
John D wrote: There was no Net Neutrality a few short years ago...
Kind of hilarious how people who openly dislike Obama are also willing to claim or imply his administration inventing Net Neutrality wholesale. I mean crap even I wouldn't give the guy that much credit but apparently his opponents will.

No, Net Neutrality did not spring into existence under Obama. Its underpinnings go back to fucking 1998. All Obama's guys did was update preexisting laws to deal with new complications.
So... educate me... how will the world come to an end now that the Obama rules on Net Neutrality have ended?

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

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19679

Post by Sunder » Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:03 pm

I'll answer your retarded question when you tell me when exactly you stopped beating your wife.

John D
.
.
Posts: 4622
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA
Contact:

Re: In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#19680

Post by John D » Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:19 pm

Sunder wrote: I'll answer your retarded question when you tell me when exactly you stopped beating your wife.
Well.... whatever. I probably don't really care what you think regarding this topic anyway... so.... yeah.

Locked