Oh, I'm quite happy to disparage both Germans and the Queen...
...but I repeat myself.
IMO, Peterson needs to take some time off from all this. I started thinking this after watching Haidt correct him several times in one interview. Now I'm more convinced that the flack he's been getting is pushing him around some bend.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:47 amShephard said she disagreed with Peterson that 'they' could not be used in the first person singular, and it seems she thought Peterson refused to use 'he' or 'she' when addressing transients.* When both were on Crowder, she seemed to recognize she'd mistaken Peterson's actual positions.
* I'm guessing this will be the next terminology change in the PC Red Queen nonsense, so I'm getting ahead of the curve.
That would require the planning of a devious intellectual anomaly!Spike13 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:36 amFrom what i can make out, the organizers were using the name recognition of prominanent tubers’ to raise money for their”con” while intending to back bench them in the end.MarcusAu wrote: ↑ And here is Part 3 of Mr Metokur's take of the Kilroy implosion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykDec1Tj2sw
Looks like it was due to incompetence and/or lack of experience in organising a conference on this scale.
More than a little irony in the fact that the organizer of a 'Free Speech' based event were not sure how to react to people (ie the Alt-Right / Lite) saying things that they disagree with.
No schadenfreude on my part, but as all the good Germans are either dead or have abandoned the 'pyt, there are no words to express my inner turmoil.
Yeah, that could be. Unfortunately, it looks like this one will remain a he said / she said without definitive resolution.dogen wrote: ↑From reading the linked article, it looks on the face of things (esp. given her text message) that she may well have been raped. I wonder if there's a better account from the defense's side.Ape+lust wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:46 pmExpelled for rape, a jury acquitted him in 28 minutes:
https://imgur.com/jOSNgd4.png
Much more...
https://www.postandcourier.com/news/qui ... 9ad0f.html
Give me an example?
I could have written that myself. I too got the impression Dave Cullen wasn't sleeping on the sofa when he was her 'House Guest' .. The only ex-Muslim I watch on YT is this fellow.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑
Personally, I think Based Momma has the IQ of a potato (and half the integrity). I suspect that what really happened was that Dave Cullen supplied the vision, and as he began to take more of a back seat, she began to bend to the will of her cronies until it ended up as a jolly for her click.
I have to say I have never even heard of Based Momma until VidCon where I got the impression that Cullen was giving her one. I am proud to say that I have never watched a video by Based Momma or Sister Danger or any ex-muslim, never seen them in a stream, never come close to one of their videos, they have never appeared in my suggestions. I have never even got a retweet of them. Who the fuck are these people?
Did it occur to you that having heard the best case the prosecution could muster, 12 of his peers found him not guilty in less time than it takes me to choose a pair of shoes?Ape+lust wrote: ↑Yeah, that could be. Unfortunately, it looks like this one will remain a he said / she said without definitive resolution.dogen wrote: ↑From reading the linked article, it looks on the face of things (esp. given her text message) that she may well have been raped. I wonder if there's a better account from the defense's side.Ape+lust wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:46 pmExpelled for rape, a jury acquitted him in 28 minutes:
https://imgur.com/jOSNgd4.png
Much more...
https://www.postandcourier.com/news/qui ... 9ad0f.html
But, depending on when the text message was sent (the article only says that it was "later"), it could fit the defense narrative that she was shamed into pressing charges. And from their criticisms of police inaction in reviewing the medical exam and interviewing key witnesses, it seems they expected doing those would support his innocence.
The main problem with Democrats and the use of military power is that they're complete weather vanes. When the public is in an angry mood and wants some projection of military force, they're all in favor of it, but when the public is war weary, they'll hold back. The big problem with this is the proper use of military force is frequently contrarian to public opinion. When the war drums are beating, that's frequently the time for a second look, and when the public just wants everyone home, that's frequently the time to double down and eviscerate the enemy. So the Democrats almost never show leadership here, and it shows. One of the worst things Obama did was set byzantine rules of engagement during the rise of ISIS and allowed them to proliferate and spoil the one unqualified good outcome of the Iraq War, which was removal of Saddam Hussein and his forthcoming dynasty from power in what is one of the most modern and educated countries in the Muslim world (which is not saying much, unfortunately). While I still think Trump is a complete buffoon, I'm happy to see my two hopeful outcomes for his presidency that I mentioned a year ago come true this year. Through some limited cooperation with the Russians and allowing far more flexibility on rules of engagement, ISIS has been dealt huge setbacks, and SJW's no longer have their hands on levers of power in the executive branch bureaucracy.Shatterface wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:41 pmI'm not convinced the Democrats wouldn't have also invaded Iraq. It was Labour who took the UK into war.
You could give the same advice to anyone making a living in the attention-based / ego-driven economy that is Youtube (or Patreon).Billie from Ockham wrote: ↑
IMO, Peterson needs to take some time off from all this. I started thinking this after watching Haidt correct him several times in one interview. Now I'm more convinced that the flack he's been getting is pushing him around some bend.
The problem with the Syrian Civil War is that the US, through their GCC allies, allied themselves with the Salafi militias against Assad, and more or less unwittingly provided cover for all the Salafi militias (including Al-Nusra) and so indirectly to ISIS, too. To wreck ISIS and other Salafi militias the US didn't even need to cooperate with other, just to step back and let others sort it out. The US could have avoided the entire trouble if they refused to provide cover for Salafi militias and to support GCC infiltration of Syria from the beginning, and opposed Assad openly, through the UN, pushing for clean and transparent action instead of financing Salafi rebels with shady, unclear, under the table deals.jugheadnaut wrote: ↑The main problem with Democrats and the use of military power is that they're complete weather vanes. When the public is in an angry mood and wants some projection of military force, they're all in favor of it, but when the public is war weary, they'll hold back. The big problem with this is the proper use of military force is frequently contrarian to public opinion. When the war drums are beating, that's frequently the time for a second look, and when the public just wants everyone home, that's frequently the time to double down and eviscerate the enemy. So the Democrats almost never show leadership here, and it shows. One of the worst things Obama did was set byzantine rules of engagement during the rise of ISIS and allowed them to proliferate and spoil the one unqualified good outcome of the Iraq War, which was removal of Saddam Hussein and his forthcoming dynasty from power in what is one of the most modern and educated countries in the Muslim world (which is not saying much, unfortunately). While I still think Trump is a complete buffoon, I'm happy to see my two hopeful outcomes for his presidency that I mentioned a year ago come true this year. Through some limited cooperation with the Russians and allowing far more flexibility on rules of engagement, ISIS has been dealt huge setbacks, and SJW's no longer have their hands on levers of power in the executive branch bureaucracy.Shatterface wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:41 pmI'm not convinced the Democrats wouldn't have also invaded Iraq. It was Labour who took the UK into war.
Did it occur to me? I made the original post.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Did it occur to you that having heard the best case the prosecution could muster, 12 of his peers found him not guilty in less time than it takes me to choose a pair of shoes?
...this is despite the law saying that if you get shit faced and climb behind the wheel of a car you are a criminal, but if you get shit faced and climb on a dick you a rape victim.
Then why would you say...Ape+lust wrote: ↑Did it occur to me? I made the original post.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Did it occur to you that having heard the best case the prosecution could muster, 12 of his peers found him not guilty in less time than it takes me to choose a pair of shoes?
...this is despite the law saying that if you get shit faced and climb behind the wheel of a car you are a criminal, but if you get shit faced and climb on a dick you a rape victim.
It has been resolved. Not Guilty.eah, that could be. Unfortunately, it looks like this one will remain a he said / she said without definitive resolution.
I allowed it was possible he raped her because we don't know. In some cases you can draw definitive conclusions from the evidence, but not so from this one. And yes, he was found not guilty, as he should've been.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Then why would you say...Ape+lust wrote: ↑Did it occur to me? I made the original post.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Did it occur to you that having heard the best case the prosecution could muster, 12 of his peers found him not guilty in less time than it takes me to choose a pair of shoes?
...this is despite the law saying that if you get shit faced and climb behind the wheel of a car you are a criminal, but if you get shit faced and climb on a dick you a rape victim.
It has been resolved. Not Guilty.eah, that could be. Unfortunately, it looks like this one will remain a he said / she said without definitive resolution.
Sorry Billy, i was adding my 2c to the conversation a few comments up. Bernie being the only one of the current dem leadership who voted against going to war. ( at least the only one i took notice of.)Billie from Ockham wrote: ↑I'm tempted to say that I take from this that you don't know enough about the votes regarding the Iraq War, but I'll first ask: what are you talking about?
Which raises the very interesting question of what will happen to internet culture should the Great Firewall be taken down (which might presumably become an advantage to China once they achieve economic dominance). There might be a huge influx of yellow people of slightly higher average IQ who have very different viewpoints on white/black/yellow issues. "White tears" would mean something new, and we might see "Black tears" for the first time. Such things ought to be considered. Possibly the social justice crowd will briefly attempt to throw "yellow tears" at the onslaught before they go under the oncoming wave of the majority. If science fiction hadn't been poisoned already I would have expected those authors to be exploring these things for us, but they have been neutralised.
The IQ bragging reminds me of pharyngulite behavior. Brownian assuring everyone that "[he] knows his IQ and you have a VERY LOW probability of having a higher one". IQ bragging is a red flag to me because your IQ is a test result, not an accomplishment. If any of these people had actually used their brain to do something impressive, they would be bragging about that instead of a number that tells people they are smart.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑That would require the planning of a devious intellectual anomaly!Spike13 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:36 amMarcusAu wrote: ↑ And here is Part 3 of Mr Metokur's take of the Kilroy implosion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykDec1Tj2sw
Looks like it was due to incompetence and/or lack of experience in organising a conference on this scale.
More than a little irony in the fact that the organizer of a 'Free Speech' based event were not sure how to react to people (ie the Alt-Right / Lite) saying things that they disagree with.
No schadenfreude on my part, but as all the good Germans are either dead or have abandoned the 'pyt, there are no words to express my inner turmoil.
From what i can make out, the organizers were using the name recognition of prominanent tubers’ to raise money for their”con” while intending to back bench them in the end.
Personally, I think Based Momma has the IQ of a potato (and half the integrity). I suspect that what really happened was that Dave Cullen supplied the vision, and as he began to take more of a back seat, she began to bend to the will of her cronies until it ended up as a jolly for her click.
I have to say I have never even heard of Based Momma until VidCon where I got the impression that Cullen was giving her one. I am proud to say that I have never watched a video by Based Momma or Sister Danger or any ex-muslim, never seen them in a stream, never come close to one of their videos, they have never appeared in my suggestions. I have never even got a retweet of them. Who the fuck are these people?
How about if you were an anon alt-right twitter account demanding an alt-right panel because "free speech"? Cos twitter has been full of that these past 2 weeks.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Give me an example?
I think that if I were alt-right, got invited to a "Free Speech" event, they used my face to advertize it and raise money from my subscribers, then the disinvited me and turned it into an event for reclaiming social justice, where the most prominent speakers are a feminist and an ex-muslim feminist... I'd have a right to complain.
At the very least I would think subscribers would be entitled to get their money back.
If you limit the list to those most people who (still) recognize, then I guess that might only leave Sanders. But a lot of people, including at least one Republican, did vote No.Spike13 wrote: ↑Sorry Billy, i was adding my 2c to the conversation a few comments up. Bernie being the only one of the current dem leadership who voted against going to war. ( at least the only one i took notice of.)Billie from Ockham wrote: ↑I'm tempted to say that I take from this that you don't know enough about the votes regarding the Iraq War, but I'll first ask: what are you talking about?
i didn’t quote it as there were already a bunch amd i didn’t want to have a wall of text.
The truly important question is what πQ (PiQ ((Pit Quotient))) do these people have?Old_ones wrote: ↑
The IQ bragging reminds me of pharyngulite behavior. Brownian assuring everyone that "[he] knows his IQ and you have a VERY LOW probability of having a higher one". IQ bragging is a red flag to me because your IQ is a test result, not an accomplishment. If any of these people had actually used their brain to do something impressive, they would be bragging about that instead of a number that tells people they are smart.
Willie bombed Khartoum and Afghanistan to distract from an investigation into a blowjob.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:46 amWillie would have invaded Iraq in a heartbeat on the promise of a blowjob.Old_ones wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:47 pmIt's less about giving them points for not doing it, and more about acknowledging who actually did it, and who might be more prone to such epic mistakes going forward. I don't think a person deserves "points" for not drop kicking cats into a wood chipper, but if I am looking to hire a cat sitter I'm not going to hire the guy who did that, even if the competition has some problems.Really? wrote: ↑ I am not exactly going to give Democrats brownie points for not invading Iraq pre 9-11. That is like saying Trump deserves a cookie for not invading Japan.
Besides. Enough Democrats were more than happy to facilitate the invasion of Iraq. They were either incompetent or believed in the mission.
The Democrats who voted for the misadventure are not exempt from blame, and have payed a price. This is part of the reason that Hillary lost. We have not elected a Democratic president yet who voted for that shitshow, and I doubt we we ever will.
How is it any different to us complaining about Rebecca Watson being invited to speak at skeptic conferences after Dawkins being disinvited?DrokkIt wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:14 pmHow about if you were an anon alt-right twitter account demanding an alt-right panel because "free speech"? Cos twitter has been full of that these past 2 weeks.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Give me an example?
I think that if I were alt-right, got invited to a "Free Speech" event, they used my face to advertize it and raise money from my subscribers, then the disinvited me and turned it into an event for reclaiming social justice, where the most prominent speakers are a feminist and an ex-muslim feminist... I'd have a right to complain.
At the very least I would think subscribers would be entitled to get their money back.
These people aren't entitled to speak at this event any more than you or I am. Baked Alaska getting disivinted after being used as promotion was clearly wrong and a stupid move from an idiot now in charge of something she isn't able to cope with, so I have no argument with you there, but I was referring to the general online shit storm of crying about Kilroy from people totally un-involved. The whole thing is a fucking shit show of idiocy.
The weird thing about this story is I remember hearing it from several people twenty years ago and it had always happened to a friend of their's.screwtape wrote: ↑ To cheer everyone up:
Woman wan troway poo-poo, come trap for window
Bristol may have changed a bit since the FT was there.
Because skeptic conferences are inherently about skepticism whereas "free speech" is not the same as any given topic that the broad category may pertain to. In my view this would be more like us saying the free speech conference ought to be about skepticism -which it inherently isn't- and demanding more time be given over to discuss this.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑ How is it any different to us complaining about Rebecca Watson being invited to speak at skeptic conferences after Dawkins being disinvited?
I simply said I don't think they have solid logical grounds to make the kind of demands I've seen, and suggested they put on their own event. I do not think this to be bigoted position whatsoever.Your bigotry against the alt-right and alt-light is showing.
It takes a truly special person to be:VickyCaramel wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:55 amThat would require the planning of a devious intellectual anomaly!
Personally, I think Based Momma has the IQ of a potato (and half the integrity). I suspect that what really happened was that Dave Cullen supplied the vision, and as he began to take more of a back seat, she began to bend to the will of her cronies until it ended up as a jolly for her click.
I have to say I have never even heard of Based Momma until VidCon where I got the impression that Cullen was giving her one. I am proud to say that I have never watched a video by Based Momma or Sister Danger or any ex-muslim, never seen them in a stream, never come close to one of their videos, they have never appeared in my suggestions. I have never even got a retweet of them. Who the fuck are these people?
Shatterface wrote: ↑The weird thing about this story is I remember hearing it from several people twenty years ago and it had always happened to a friend of their's.screwtape wrote: ↑ To cheer everyone up:
Woman wan troway poo-poo, come trap for window
Bristol may have changed a bit since the FT was there.
It's an urban legend that appears to have come true.
She may be nuttier than a squirrel turd but she does have some truly impressive top-bollocks! I'd suck those bad boys until blood came out...
Someone lives in fantasy land...
This is just how London was before police were invented.
http://www.mpd150.com/We don’t have the resources we need to begin living in a police-free city tomorrow, but we do have what we need to get started. Below, knowing that we don’t have all the answers, we’ll share some ideas about how to use existing programs to begin building out a community safety network that can replace the police.
That's a thing of hideous beauty! No doubt some heads will roll at Buzzfeed...
What does a REAL police-free city look like: West Baltimore’s Police Presence Drops, and Murders Soar
A month and a half after six officers were charged in Mr. Gray’s death, policing has dwindled in some of Baltimore’s most dangerous neighborhoods, and murders have risen to levels not seen in four decades. The totals include a 29-year-old man fatally shot on this drug corner last month. Police union officials say that officers are still coming to work, but that some feel a newfound reluctance and are stepping back, questioning whether they will be prosecuted for actions they take on the job.
Around the nation, communities and police departments are struggling to adapt to an era of heightened scrutiny, when every stop can be recorded on a cellphone. But residents, clergy members and neighborhood leaders say the past six weeks have made another reality clear: that as much as some officers regularly humiliated and infuriated many who live here, angering gang members and solid citizens alike, the solution has to be better policing, not a diminished police presence.
“Without law enforcement, there is no order,” Pastor Weah said. “In truth, residents want a strong police force, but they also want accountability.” She said that she sympathized with many officers who did their jobs well but were now just as hated as the abusive officers, and that she prayed the spate of killings would be the shock that finally caused change.
Maybe it's better to reform police instead of getting rid of it. Just a thought.At least 55 people, the highest pace since the early 1970s, have been killed in Baltimore since May 1, when the state’s attorney for the city, Marilyn J. Mosby, announced the criminal charges against the officers. Victims of shootings have included people involved in criminal activity and young children who were simply in the wrong place.
A 9-year-old boy was shot in the leg over the Memorial Day weekend. Another boy, Kester Browne, 7, a Chinese-language student at an international school, was fatally shot along with his mother, Jennifer Jeffrey-Browne, 31. They were two of the city’s 42 homicide victims in May.
At the time of her announcement, Ms. Mosby’s charges were seen as calming the city. But they enraged the police rank and file, who pulled back. The number of arrests plunged, and the murder rate doubled in a month. The reduced police presence gave criminals space to operate, according to community leaders and some law enforcement officials.
This is what a police-free world looks like:
Anybody archive that bad boy?Pagancat wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:23 amOh my lawd
https://www.buzzfeed.com/outefiainuvai/ ... .cbRV1Rled
I see what you did there!
Laws are useless. Criminals ignore them, and the law abiding don't need them.