In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

#9121

PZ got quite a bit of pushback on his latest pro-punching post. Some, correctly, predict that people are going to start dying if the trend continues. I welcome PZ to try a little experiment. (We're scientists here, right?)

Now, PZ, stand up.
Make sure there are random objects around you.
Close your eyes, ready?

Now, fling yourself into the air in a random direction, arms to your side.
Just let your body fall where it wants to.
Oh, did your head just barely miss the sharp edge of that desk? Lucky.

But I'm sure that will never happen again.

Now, get up. Try it again.

Repeat 100 times. Report back.

#9122

Guest_936d3dec wrote:

https://media.tenor.com/images/e6539b42 ... /tenor.gif

#9123

Kirbmarc wrote:It's like those parents who spoil their children rotten, furiously defend them no matter what they do, and treat them like kids even though they're adults. They don't hate them, but they surely don't treat them as equals.

Arguably many SJWs had such parents.

#9124

Archive link to Pz's follow-up punching post, in which he approves of Nazi punching but sadly shakes his head that peoe might take pleasure in it. The comments are full of r/thathappened awesomeness. Even The Horde seems to have had trouble swallowing the anecdote about being tortured by Nazis, judging by their lack of commiseration over this obvious BPD fantasy.

http://archive.is/mKIm1

#9125

KiwiInOz wrote:When my wife worked in disability services, I explained the SJW mindset to her thus:

They see that the presence of stairs is unfair to disabled people.
They fight to have the stairs removed, rather than fight to have a ramp/lift installed.

Or: they want you to cut off a leg because if the disabled can't, you shouldn't either.

(The source of Deaf Culture I think)

#9126

jahigginbotham
20 September 2017 at 2:09 am
The case for neo-Nazis and against the Jews here delineated for your enlightenment:
<<>>
https://www.thefire.org/jewish-author-m ... neo-nazis/
So the Jewish author advocates non-violent means; the neo-Nazi types violence. People here seem overwhelmingly in favor of initiating violence – which are they more like?

Mwahahaha

#9127

Star Trek fans are going to pull you up if you get a Star Date wrong or misspell 'bat'leth' so who's idea was it to get a non-autistic to write a feature on the new series?

#9128

KiwiInOz wrote:When my wife worked in disability services, I explained the SJW mindset to her thus:

They see that the presence of stairs is unfair to disabled people.
They fight to have the stairs removed, rather than fight to have a ramp/lift installed.

It resonated with her (and I think that I might have got that allegory from here).

:lol: Good one.

#9129

deLurch wrote:
fuzzy wrote:I basically agree, but I think the word "lunging" is a bit overstated as a description of the steps he took toward the as-yet-unidentified female cop.
I concur. Poor word choice on my part. Perhaps you would say he was more lurching.

Initially, the police are careful to maintain a safe distance from the guy, but I think perhaps the officer who killed him allowed him to get close enough that she couldn't at least try a non-lethal shot when he rushed her. Maybe it goes against the training, what do I know. The video doesn't show if there were any civilians behind the officer, which would obviously make stopping the guy a priority.

#9130

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
So having me as the first black lead of a Star Trek, just blasts that into a million pieces.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 54196.html

I'm confused.

Benjamin-Sisko.jpg

I hope their writing does not match their enthusiasm.

#9131

Hunt wrote:I have a radical proposition re: cops and people brandishing weapons. Given that there's always a chance a deranged person can go on a killing spree at short range with a knife, like in that awful video from Latin America, here's what I propose:

Police should start shooting early and often. Just hear me out.

Inside the ten to fifteen foot radius cops are trained to shoot lethally, since a non-lethal leg shot inside that distance can result in a charge that kills the officer. But if cops gave warning at fifty feet and started shooting non-lethally at forty feet, they would still have time to resort to lethal shots at close range. More than likely, the longer, non-lethal shots would put an armed assailant down.

Not an ideal solution by any means. For instance, a "non-lethal" leg shot can easily kill someone if it hits an artery. It would also require quite a bit of PR spin, since police shootings would go up, though I think police killings would go down.

There is a great danger to innocent bystanders. Shooting at distance and shooting to injure will result is missed shots or shots that pass through the target and hit others.

#9132

John D wrote:
Hunt wrote:I have a radical proposition re: cops and people brandishing weapons. Given that there's always a chance a deranged person can go on a killing spree at short range with a knife, like in that awful video from Latin America, here's what I propose:

Police should start shooting early and often. Just hear me out.

Inside the ten to fifteen foot radius cops are trained to shoot lethally, since a non-lethal leg shot inside that distance can result in a charge that kills the officer. But if cops gave warning at fifty feet and started shooting non-lethally at forty feet, they would still have time to resort to lethal shots at close range. More than likely, the longer, non-lethal shots would put an armed assailant down.

Not an ideal solution by any means. For instance, a "non-lethal" leg shot can easily kill someone if it hits an artery. It would also require quite a bit of PR spin, since police shootings would go up, though I think police killings would go down.
There is a great danger to innocent bystanders. Shooting at distance and shooting to injure will result is missed shots or shots that pass through the target and hit others.

True. The predilection for police to shoot any dog that barks at them is also very dangerous. A boy was killed in LA not long ago that way.

#9133

Hunt wrote:I have a radical proposition re: cops and people brandishing weapons. Given that there's always a chance a deranged person can go on a killing spree at short range with a knife, like in that awful video from Latin America, here's what I propose:

Police should start shooting early and often. Just hear me out.

Inside the ten to fifteen foot radius cops are trained to shoot lethally, since a non-lethal leg shot inside that distance can result in a charge that kills the officer. But if cops gave warning at fifty feet and started shooting non-lethally at forty feet, they would still have time to resort to lethal shots at close range. More than likely, the longer, non-lethal shots would put an armed assailant down.

Not an ideal solution by any means. For instance, a "non-lethal" leg shot can easily kill someone if it hits an artery. It would also require quite a bit of PR spin, since police shootings would go up, though I think police killings would go down.

My experience with cops at the firing range makes me doubtful that is going to work at all.

The last thing you want is a cop with a handgun spraying lead around at 40 feet. Bad enough at the range. When the Range Master starts screaming at someone for waving a handgun around it is usually a cop (true story man).

It is a wonder that they do not kill/wound more people than they already do strictly by accident. Your proposal would increase the odds that a 3rd. party is going to get shot by "mischance".

#9134

You mean like this guy?

#9135

dogen wrote:
jet_lagg wrote:
Do you have all three upgrades for the warp drive, and if so how long did that take? I used black hole roulette to get within what I thought was a reasonable distance of the hub, but was putting the wrong numbers into the pilgrim star path calculator. Once I noticed I wasn't getting any closer after updating my coordinates I realized the mistake. Plugging in the new numbers I found out I was over 500 jumps away. No way in hell am I grinding that out, and I'm not playing roulette any more either.
I initially had only two upgrades, but I found a Gek system which sold me the final (theta) upgrade. That took my jump range to 1,000 (would have been larger, if my ship was an explorer rather than a hauler), and reduced the number of remaining jumps to around 150. You can also get the theta upgrade as a reward from Polo in the Anomaly.

But for 500 jumps out, I'd use a portal to get there. Just dial in an address, and go through. I can give you coordinates for a star in the hub, and you can use pilgrim star path to convert to portal glyphs (assuming you have unlocked the glyphs).

Also, are you doing black hole roulette correctly? Going through and realoading a previous save if you don't get close enough?

Yes, that's how I used the roulette. After messing with it for about 30 minutes I was able to get within ~40 jumps, again, assuming I had maxed out my warp drive. That just about seemed tolerable, but then I saw one of the warp upgrade missions from Polo involved cataloguing every fucking life form on a planet, going to another planet *and doing that again*, then AGAIN at another planet.

I consider the exploration the weakest part of the game by far, with almost no reward (the variation on the basic templates, while technically uncountable, is about as interesting as the fact that no two rocks you pick up are going to be precisely the same at the atomic level), and mechanics that actively punish you for engaging in it. With inclement weather and a constantly fading life support system you're supposed to grind out materials, just so you don't die of exposure while grinding out other materials to get the gear you need to start playing the parts of the game that are actually fun. It feels like work, and it means any time I go outside I'm on a mission with no room for leisurely sight seeing.

The portal isn't really an option either. I've got nearly 30 hours in the game and have never encountered a traveler's grave. Once I found a station where I was able to trade nanites at a space station for a glyph location, but I'm not wandering aimlessly until that happens 15 more times.

#9136

Kirbmarc wrote:
Since people want to remove statues of Gandhi for a few racist things he said in his youth I think the removal of the statue of a "white feminist" is perfectly possible.

But why stop there? Why not just remove all the statues of all white people, and also statues of Asians since they're Honorary Aryans anyway? Why not blow up Mount Rushmore, the Lincoln Monument, the Jefferson Memorial and all monuments to white people? Why not simply abolish the United States since they're based on white supremacy anyway?

Well the idea to remove all statues may be on it's way to becoming an accepted undercurrent in the mainstream. (Much as I do not agree - ie I enjoy having the reminders of history or even art-for-art's sake)

#9137

Hunt wrote:You mean like this guy?

The guy & his class survived in tact by making sure he wasn't pointing the gun at anyone.

#9138

While it's obvious that's where the argument will eventually head SJWs know that's not a fight they can win just yet. So they're not willing to come out and say it.

I get the sense Penn isn't doing it for SJW points so much as his usual libertarian "I hate gubmint, I hate polatishuns" shtik.

#9139

MarcusAu wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
Since people want to remove statues of Gandhi for a few racist things he said in his youth I think the removal of the statue of a "white feminist" is perfectly possible.

But why stop there? Why not just remove all the statues of all white people, and also statues of Asians since they're Honorary Aryans anyway? Why not blow up Mount Rushmore, the Lincoln Monument, the Jefferson Memorial and all monuments to white people? Why not simply abolish the United States since they're based on white supremacy anyway?
Well the idea to remove all statues may be on it's way to becoming an accepted undercurrent in the mainstream. (Much as I do not agree - ie I enjoy having the reminders of history or even art-for-art's sake)

[.youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFNvZerGyrg[/youtube]

It's not going to stop with statues. Statues are just symbols after all. Just like books, no human being is harmed by destroying statues. We could tear down the Parthenon, blow up the Sphinx, tear the Coliseum apart and demolish the Louvre and, supposing all tourists are evacuated in time, nobody would be harmed.

But every political act has a meaning, and the idea of tearing down statues for political reasons is no exception. When the Taliban blew up the Buddha statues in Bamiyan it had a precise meaning: these things offend our beliefs so they need to go, even though they do no harm anyone. They need to go, fast, and everyone who's against this is Evil.

Tearing down statues in the US follows the same pattern: there are beliefs that must not be offended, so if something offends them, even though it does no harm on its own, it needs to go, and fast, and everyone who's against this is Evil.

If municipalities decide to get rid of statues built with the political purpose to intimidate parts of the population that's a different kind of political act, like removing statues of Communist leaders after a Communist regime ends. I'm not sure if the exact same concept applies to the Confederate statues (since the regime was never a fully-fledged dictatorship like under Communism), but I can at least see the parallels.

But that's not what the debate about tearing down statues is about, at least not all of it. It's not about removing the symbols of a regime, it's about removing all symbols of people who ever said anything that offends people now. It's a new religion that demands submission, and offers no redemption for things that offends it and stay in its way. It doesn't matter what a person did for the country, or for science, or for politics or of culture, if they even once said anything which today is deemed offensive their image needs to go. They need to be reduced to those words they said, that position they supported, and nothing else matters.

So why stop with statues? Lovecraft was a known racist and white supremacist: why not ban his horror books from public libraries (even though he didn't preach about racism/white supremacy in his books). Jefferson was a slave owner: why does his monument get an exception? Lincoln was also a white supremacist, at least by modern standards: why keep him on the money of the nation? And so, and so: Jack London also said some pretty racist things, as did Che Guevara, as did many others. Their ideas, or some of them, offend our new beliefs: their symbols need to go.

Also why stop at symbols? Why not rename all the streets or institutions which carry their name? And while you're at it, why not revise those institutions themselves, after all it they were the product of a bigoted person they're tainted by bigotry, aren't they? Also nothing good that they did can ever outweigh the bad, so why not tear down everything they've contributed to and start a new, 100% racism-free, completely different model of society?

That was the dream of the Talibans, to ban anything un-islamic and so 100% evil from their perfect society. And the Talibans were university students, of muslim theology.

The idea that scares me about the statue debate is the Manicheism, the "either wholly good or wholly bad" assumption about people in the past ("Jefferson built the US, but he was also a slave owner/Gandhi did a lot of good things, and said some racist stuff: we cannot remember the good stuff, the bad stuff taints everything about him, we can't stand the sight of his image/name/etc."). This is very easy to translate into an assumption about people in the present: you're either wholly good or wholly bad, with us or against us, and if you commit even the slightest "sin" you're completely bad and we can do whatever we want to you.

Hell, innocent until proven guilty is the product of a bigoted society, we don't even need it: we "know" when something is offensive and bad, and we "believe" those who claim someone is guilty according to our "secret knowledge".

This isn't a good recipe for dealing with social issues.

#9140

The teachers union is illegally billing ex union members in Michigan. My wife was in the teachers union and they were collecting dues from her... even though she is part time and only makes $15 per hour as an administrative assistant. When Michigan became a right to work state she quit. Here is the letter I will send to the collections lawyer...

(our names are changed)

Attn: Mark R. Schwesinger
Leikin, Ingber & Winters, P.C.
3000 Town Center, Suite 2390
Southfield, MI 48075-1387

From:
(my wife)
(our address)

September 25, 2017

Dear Mark;

This letter is in response to your collection letter dated September 14, 2017. A copy of this letter is attached.

The $915.97 invoice from Michigan Education Association is an illegal charge. I will not pay this bill.

I informed the MEA of my desire to leave the union and stop paying dues. This is my right as established by Michigan’s Right to Work law that became effective on March 28, 2013. Despite my repeatedly informing the MEA of my desire to quit the organization they continued to bill me. I have retained records of these communications.

As I am sure you know, the Court of Appeals has made a judgment against the MEA on this very topic. The court has determined that any union must stop charging dues if requested by a worker. It is illegal for the union to claim some kind of enrollment period for the purpose of denying the right to quit the union. It is illegal to retain dues or try to collect dues from workers who do not wish to join the union.

For your convenience, following is a web link to the ruling: http://www.mackinac.org/archives/2017/2 ... Ruling.PDF

In my case, and probably thousands of other cases, the union is using illegal tactics to scare workers into paying dues. To me this only proves that corruption has infiltrated the unions, which were once an honorable and respected American institution.

And, I can’t help but wonder about you, Mr. Schwesinger. You clearly have no qualms about prostituting your legal ethics to help the unions illegally collect money from honest workers. Perhaps you claim it is “just business” and this excuse allows you to sleep at night. I would rather burn my $915.97 in a fire than give any of my money to you. See you in hell Mark.

Warmest Regards,

(my wife)

#9141

Ultimately there will be no statues because (a) they are oppressive to POC who oppose representational art (e.g. Muslims) and (b) because they celebrate people who actually achieved something and therefore placed themselves above the common herd. Today it's Whitey McWhiteface, tomorrow it's Nelson Mandela.

#9142

Shatterface wrote:Ultimately there will be no statues because (a) they are oppressive to POC who oppose representational art (e.g. Muslims) and (b) because they celebrate people who actually achieved something and therefore placed themselves above the common herd. Today it's Whitey McWhiteface, tomorrow it's Nelson Mandela.

Martin Luther King was a misogynist :twatson: Let's take down his statues and rename the streets named after him, too!

#9143

Jake LaMotta has died.

#9144

Hell, if freaking Gandhi can be removed because of some racist things he wrote in his youth, why not remove MLK for being a chauvinistic dudebro who cheated on his wife repeatedly and with many mistresses? He also thought that a woman's place was in the house.

In the new SocJus utopia only the statues of the perfect modern latte-sipping genderqueer neuroatypical womyn of color will be allowed to stand.

#9145

Even Ben Shapiro was somewhat sympathetic to Black Americans who did not want to have their tax dollars going towards maintaining a statue of Robert Lee, as he was someone closely linked to the Confederacy and it's principles of white supremacy.

If a case can be made then it should be made and statues can be removed in an orderly fashion, or left alone if that is what the local community decides.

#9146

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

#9147

MarcusAu wrote:Even Ben Shapiro was somewhat sympathetic to Black Americans who did not want to have their tax dollars going towards maintaining a statue of Robert Lee, as he was someone closely linked to the Confederacy and it's principles of white supremacy.

If a case can be made then it should be made and statues can be removed in an orderly fashion, or left alone if that is what the local community decides.

Perhaps the solution is to sell the statues to private citizens & organizations to display on their own private property. I think you may have just convinced me to the other side (whereas I was ambivalent before).

On the flip side, how much money does it take to maintain these statues? Aren't they designed to just sit there unless vandalized?

#9148

In Blighty, there is a story of another (even though they are "vanishingly rare") of another woman jailed for a false rape claim.

The fascinating thing about this one, is that she was a student studying criminology, and wanted to to become a police officer!!! You'd think she'd at least fucking know that her story needed to at least match the location of the taxi's GPS. Anyway, a 16-month stretch in prison appears to have wrecked her future job prospects.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... river.html

PS - I wonder what the SocJus crowd make of this case, because the man she accused was a Muslim taxi driver.

#9149

MarcusAu wrote:Even Ben Shapiro was somewhat sympathetic to Black Americans who did not want to have their tax dollars going towards maintaining a statue of Robert Lee, as he was someone closely linked to the Confederacy and it's principles of white supremacy.

I'm not arguing about that. I'm arguing about the idea that ALL statues of people who ever had ideas that we don't like need to come down. It's one thing to discuss confederate leaders, another to extend the same thoughts about removing the statues of scientists, Union generals like Grant, US founding fathers, or even people who actively struggled for civil rights (like Gandhi) because of some ideas they might have had or some part of their lives. There's a difference between a statue of Stalin and the Buddhas of Baiyman, and in between those two extremes there's room for a rational discussion. But the idea that ALL statues of people who held ideas we find horrible today must go, even though they weren't part of a political system that enforced them, crosses the line from expressing freedom from an oppressive political system to enforcing a Manichean view of history.

#9150

Hey, Pit Crew.

Have any of you heard about Cordelia Fine's "Testosterone Rex" winning the Book of the Year from the esteemed Royal Society? I don't know too much about the book, other than regressives and SJWs seem to adore it, and proper skeptics have criticised it. Is this another example of post-modernist BS creeping into not just academia, but centuries old scientific institutions?

Has anybody here read it?

Linky: [Warning, links to The Guardian]
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/ ... delia-fine

#9151

John D wrote:The teachers union is illegally billing ex union members in Michigan. My wife was in the teachers union and they were collecting dues from her... even though she is part time and only makes $15 per hour as an administrative assistant. When Michigan became a right to work state she quit. Here is the letter I will send to the collections lawyer...

In my case, and probably thousands of other cases, the union is using illegal tactics to scare workers into paying dues. To me this only proves that corruption has infiltrated the unions, which were once an honorable and respected American institution.

I thought the American unions have long been in the pockets of the Mafia and/or, while it had power, the KGB.

#9152

Shatterface wrote:Ultimately there will be no statues because (a) they are oppressive to POC who oppose representational art (e.g. Muslims) and (b) because they celebrate people who actually achieved something and therefore placed themselves above the common herd. Today it's Whitey McWhiteface, tomorrow it's Nelson Mandela.

I'd say that Mandela is not exactly above criticism. (That is a somewhat coloured article but I got my doubts about his ANC when I heard about their tactics against dissidents. It also seems his imprisonment wasn't as illegal or unjustified as anti-Apartheids demonstrators wanted me to believe).

#9153

CommanderTuvok wrote:Hey, Pit Crew.

Have any of you heard about Cordelia Fine's "Testosterone Rex" winning the Book of the Year from the esteemed Royal Society? I don't know too much about the book, other than regressives and SJWs seem to adore it, and proper skeptics have criticised it. Is this another example of post-modernist BS creeping into not just academia, but centuries old scientific institutions?

Has anybody here read it?

Linky: [Warning, links to The Guardian]
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/ ... delia-fine

The book is a bunch of woo from a writer who's not a scientist (she's a historian of science) and who is fundamentally dishonest about the evidence against her claims:

This fits into a pattern: evidence contrary to Fine’s position is often cited, but it’s not mentioned in the text, instead being relegated to endnotes where it can’t cause too much trouble. Witness, for instance, Fine’s mention of “stereotype threat”, where a single supporting study is discussed in the text but a contrary meta-analysis is only mentioned in the endnote. Or her discussion of a 2015 paper on how males’ and females’ brains aren’t essentially different, but are a mosaic of features: you wouldn’t know that four strong scientific critiques of the study had been published (with a response) unless you flick to the back of the book. This allows Fine to use the main text to critique only the most overblown claims about sex differences, and avoid having to deal at length with more reasonable arguments.

In the end, Testosterone Rex is a curate’s egg (or perhaps, given the topic, a curate’s egg-and-sperm). It’s a semi-straw man, successfully debunking the most extreme and simple-minded claims about sex differences, but giving a terribly one-sided view of the science. If you’re a dinosaur who thinks men and women are completely different species, or that testosterone is the only reason sex differences exist, the book might be a useful corrective. Anyone with an even slightly more nuanced view should look elsewhere.

#9154

Kirbmarc wrote:Martin Luther ~~King~~ was a misogynist :twatson: Let's take down his statues and rename the streets named after him, too!

Fixed it by expanding the scope.

#9155

CommanderTuvok wrote:Hey, Pit Crew.

Have any of you heard about Cordelia Fine's "Testosterone Rex" winning the Book of the Year from the esteemed Royal Society? I don't know too much about the book, other than regressives and SJWs seem to adore it, and proper skeptics have criticised it. Is this another example of post-modernist BS creeping into not just academia, but centuries old scientific institutions?

Has anybody here read it?

Linky: [Warning, links to The Guardian]
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/ ... delia-fine

So it's a fine companion to two works of fiction? :think:

If you haven't heard of The Power:

The Power is a 2016 dystopian science fiction novel by the British writer Naomi Alderman.[1] Its central premise is women developing the ability to release electrical jolts from their fingers,[2] thus leading them to become the dominant gender.[3]

By amazing coincidence, Naomi Alderman was one of the judges.

#9156

Kirbmarc wrote:
Shatterface wrote:Ultimately there will be no statues because (a) they are oppressive to POC who oppose representational art (e.g. Muslims) and (b) because they celebrate people who actually achieved something and therefore placed themselves above the common herd. Today it's Whitey McWhiteface, tomorrow it's Nelson Mandela.
Martin Luther King was a misogynist :twatson: Let's take down his statues and rename the streets named after him, too!

Malcolm X was an open racist with streets in most major U.S. cities named for him. I keep waiting for someone on the right to mention a goose/gander renaming those streets.

#9157

Suet Cardigan wrote:So it's a fine companion to two works of fiction? :think:

It's just about as fact-based as a work of science fiction.

#9158

So who do you think is best suited to become the new Ernest Hemingway in Spanish Civil War 2 ?

http://catalannews.com/politics/item/re ... n-brussels

#9159

shoutinghorse wrote:So who do you think is best suited to become the new Ernest Hemingway in Spanish Civil War 2 ?

http://catalannews.com/politics/item/re ... n-brussels

Papa PZ.

#9160

Lsuoma .. :lol: :clap:

#9161

MarcusAu wrote:Even Ben Shapiro was somewhat sympathetic to Black Americans who did not want to have their tax dollars going towards maintaining a statue of Robert Lee, as he was someone closely linked to the Confederacy and it's principles of white supremacy.

If a case can be made then it should be made and statues can be removed in an orderly fashion, or left alone if that is what the local community decides.

I think that's what's often lost in the discussions - statues are mostly a local thing, put up by local people for local reasons, the cost of their maintenance borne locally, and it's really up to them to decide what they want to keep or lose.

It's not a matter for the imposition of an abstract rule by some higher authority. There really are arguments on both sides, but it's for the people most closely concerned to make the decisions.

#9162

Kirbmarc wrote:The Oppression Olympics never slows down or stops:

As a more-or-less White guy, I agree with this headline & re-affirm my solidarity with my Black brothers.

The forces which lynch us both have been a thousand times as lethal as white guy vs. black guy lynchings.

#9163

What the hell does California spend its money on? It sure isn't roads. Yukon territory had better roads.

#9164

I think it is time to start a punch a literal SJW movement. They are threatening violent, illegal actions against people they don't like and I think it is time for a little proactive self defense. For example a certain "Tethys" that was in the comments of the latest PZ post where ze agreed with the mob for violent behavior.
It just so happens that Tethys made a threat to cut me with a broken bottle a while ago which would be assault with a deadly weapon, definitely worse than throwing a banana, made by a literal SJW. I don't know zir address and I don't advocate violence, but I wonder how xe would feel if a 6'2, 240 pound bearded biker type showed up and proactively in self defense sucker punched zir?

#9165

free thoughtpolice wrote:I think it is time to start a punch a literal SJW movement. They are threatening violent, illegal actions against people they don't like and I think it is time for a little proactive self defense. For example a certain "Tethys" that was in the comments of the latest PZ post where ze agreed with the mob for violent behavior.
It just so happens that Tethys made a threat to cut me with a broken bottle a while ago which would be assault with a deadly weapon, definitely worse than throwing a banana, made by a literal SJW. I don't know zir address and I don't advocate violence, but I wonder how xe would feel if a 6'2, 240 pound bearded biker type showed up and proactively in self defense sucker punched zir?

While it might be hilarious, SJWs never, not ever, understand their own hypocrisy. It would not be good optics, as they say. Better to keep the high ground.

Growing up, my parents always told me "never punch first, but always punch last." Eventually one of the SJW will take a swing at a Nazi, or even better a centrist or other "fascist" and they will be stomped but good. My hope is that Arel learns the hard way that violence has consequences, and life isn't like the movies.

Even now public sentiment seems to be swinging away from Antifa and the violent, regressive left. If they keep up and escalate the violence, they'll be pariahs. They really put themselves in a no-win with that kind of rhetoric. Either they become violent and rapidly lose support, or they keep up the bluster and show themselves to be all talk and no trousers.

Somebody with spoons and followers should start a "Dan Arel Nazi-punching countdown" on Twitter and call attention to his bluster.

#9166

While it might be hilarious, SJWs never, not ever, understand their own hypocrisy. It would not be good optics, as they say. Better to keep the high ground.

Of course if they had their own rhetoric applied to them they would swing into full victim mode, start a Becky style page o' hate and call the police that moments before they were calling white supremacist murderers. Of course they didn't really call the nice policeman that comes to help them a "literal" white supremacist murderer so the cops wouldn't be offended.

#9167

Well I've spent 3 days on the Rhine at Assmannshausen. Hotel room (almost literally) overlooking the river and a well executed plan of attack on the sights between Assmannshausen and Marksburg.

Exhibit A:

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

Fucked up today and it took 13 hours to get to Switzerland destination.

I am now sitting on the toilet in Zermatt in a two bedroom apartment which has views and interiors that feature in a Boutique Hotels of the World book.

I am feeling more flush than the FT himself. So whatever is happening in SJW land can, for a while, get fucked.

BTW Kirb, Switzerland is the most ridiculous country I have ever visited. Beautiful, but so ridiculous.

#9168

Well I've spent 3 days on the Rhine at Assmannshausen. Hotel room (almost literally) overlooking the river and a well executed plan of attack on the sights between Assmannshausen and Marksburg.

Exhibit A:

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

Fucked up today and it took 13 hours to get to Switzerland destination.

I am now sitting on the toilet in Zermatt in a two bedroom apartment which has views and interiors that feature in a Boutique Hotels of the World book.

I am feeling more flush than the FT himself. So whatever is happening in SJW land can, for a while, get fucked.

BTW Kirb, Switzerland is the most ridiculous country I have ever visited. Beautiful, but so ridiculous.

#9169

#9170

Assmanhausen. tee hee

#9171

Brive1987 wrote:BTW Kirb, Switzerland is the most ridiculous country I have ever visited. Beautiful, but so ridiculous.

I agree. Zermatt is especially ridiculous :bjarte:

#9172

CommanderTuvok wrote:Hey, Pit Crew.

Have any of you heard about Cordelia Fine's "Testosterone Rex" winning the Book of the Year from the esteemed Royal Society? I don't know too much about the book, other than regressives and SJWs seem to adore it, and proper skeptics have criticised it. Is this another example of post-modernist BS creeping into not just academia, but centuries old scientific institutions?

Has anybody here read it?

Linky: [Warning, links to The Guardian]
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/ ... delia-fine

Link to the Guardian? You must be joking. I gave up on getting anything sensible from them a long time ago. I am not clicking on the link. Same with the NY Times who seem to be under the impression that the nonsense they spout is authoritative (partially correct because they still have influence ... just no longer with me).

But you can still find a review. I have read a few and my conclusion is that she is another IBI (Intelligent But Idiot) so I have not bothered. I really have other things I would rather read than the musings of yet another verbose and mendacious virtue signalling wannabe catching the wave of the latest trendy bullshyte.

There are lots of reviews on her book. Here is one : Cordelia Fine’s “Testosterone Rex” — A Review

“Scientism”. “Orientalism”. “Historicism”. The trouble with inventing a belief system and ascribing it to your opponents is that you might inadvertently have built a straw man. After all, nobody actively signs up to these supposed philosophies: they’re terms of criticism or abuse. One such nebulous belief system is the topic of psychologist Cordelia Fine’s new book, Testosterone Rex. Unconcerned by the straw-manning risk, Fine introduces the eponymous “Testosterone Rex” as the “story of sex and society” that holds that there are male brains and there are female brains, programmed by evolution to be irreconcilably different, with testosterone explaining males’ greater risk-taking, promiscuity, competitiveness, and dominance. Fine argues that modern science is the asteroid that wiped out this T-Rex, revealing subtler cultural—not biological—explanations for the sex differences we see in society.

Inadvertent straw man? Based on her educational achievements she has no excuse. She has an agenda.

#9173

Shatterface wrote:Ultimately there will be no statues because (a) they are oppressive to POC who oppose representational art (e.g. Muslims) and (b) because they celebrate people who actually achieved something and therefore placed themselves above the common herd. Today it's Whitey McWhiteface, tomorrow it's Nelson Mandela.

Statues promote Rape Culture™, because: Pygmalion.

#9174

katamari Damassi wrote:What the hell does California spend its money on? It sure isn't roads. Yukon territory had better roads.

47 different ESL programs, for starters.

#9175

Assmannshausen is very pretty, and has a very nice (and rare for Germany) red wine.

The Marksburg is awesome.

#9176

Kirbmarc wrote:
CommanderTuvok wrote:Hey, Pit Crew.

Have any of you heard about Cordelia Fine's "Testosterone Rex" winning the Book of the Year from the esteemed Royal Society? I don't know too much about the book, other than regressives and SJWs seem to adore it, and proper skeptics have criticised it. Is this another example of post-modernist BS creeping into not just academia, but centuries old scientific institutions?

Has anybody here read it?

Linky: [Warning, links to The Guardian]
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/ ... delia-fine
The book is a bunch of woo from a writer who's not a scientist (she's a historian of science) and who is fundamentally dishonest about the evidence against her claims:

This fits into a pattern: evidence contrary to Fine’s position is often cited, but it’s not mentioned in the text, instead being relegated to endnotes where it can’t cause too much trouble. Witness, for instance, Fine’s mention of “stereotype threat”, where a single supporting study is discussed in the text but a contrary meta-analysis is only mentioned in the endnote. Or her discussion of a 2015 paper on how males’ and females’ brains aren’t essentially different, but are a mosaic of features: you wouldn’t know that four strong scientific critiques of the study had been published (with a response) unless you flick to the back of the book. This allows Fine to use the main text to critique only the most overblown claims about sex differences, and avoid having to deal at length with more reasonable arguments.

In the end, Testosterone Rex is a curate’s egg (or perhaps, given the topic, a curate’s egg-and-sperm). It’s a semi-straw man, successfully debunking the most extreme and simple-minded claims about sex differences, but giving a terribly one-sided view of the science. If you’re a dinosaur who thinks men and women are completely different species, or that testosterone is the only reason sex differences exist, the book might be a useful corrective. Anyone with an even slightly more nuanced view should look elsewhere.

I see I was :nin: . I actually do not mind. My own fault.

But there is something about her being a Historian of Science that reminds me of another one ... this guy claims to be a Historian of Medicine.

And he says it as though he believes it. So if you can not do the actual science just claim to be a Historian of [whatever it is you do not understand and never will barring a modern miracle not seen since the virgin birth] and advance your agenda.

I am seeing a pattern though. See Postmodernism disrobed by Dawkins for some other examples.

The feminist 'philosopher' Luce Irigaray is another who gets whole-chapter treatment from Sokal and Bricmont. In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton's Principia (a "rape manual"), Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a "sexed equation". Why? Because "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an 'in' word). Just as typical of this school of thought is Irigaray's thesis on fluid mechanics. Fluids, you see, have been unfairly neglected. "Masculine physics" privileges rigid, solid things. Her American expositor Katherine Hayles made the mistake of re-expressing Irigaray's thoughts in (comparatively) clear language. For once, we get a reasonably unobstructed look at the emperor and, yes, he has no clothes:
The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.

#9177

Trumps UN speech in which he gave both barrels to N.Korea, Iran and Venezuela whilst IMO telling them a few home truths has come in for some criticism with the BBC themselves referring to it as "rethoric"

Some interesting responses from various foreign ministers not least this from the feminitsta Swedes. :lol:

Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom, who was observed crossing her arms, told the BBC: "It was the wrong speech, at the wrong time, to the wrong audience."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-us-canada-41327130

#9178

*Rhetoric .. fucking predictive text :oops:

#9179

I recently reread Cyteen for the 4th, or is it the 5th. time? No matter Cherryh is one of my favourite authors and by this time I have probably read most of what she has published.

Formatting, bolding and underline is mine.

“It was a power move of some kind, because whoever did it wanted power without process.

It cost the lives of brave people who tried despite fire and the dangers of more explosions, to rescue me and others; more, it was a clear attempt to destroy the political process, no matter who instigated it, no matter who perpetrated it.

I don’t think that the Paxers had anything to do with this. That they’re anxious to claim they had is typical of the breed: and they hope to benefit from it—benefit from it, because that’s exactly what’s going on: that a handful of individuals too few to make a party and incapable of winning votes in debate thinks it can wear down the majority by terror—creates an atmosphere in which every fool with a half-conceived program can try the same thing and add to the confusion they hope to use.

Let me tell you: whether this was the Paxers or one individual with a personal opinion he thinks outweighs the law, it’s the peace under assault, it’s our freedoms under assault, and every one of these attacks, no matter how motivated, makes the lawful rest of us that much more certain we don’t want killers in charge of our lives and we damned well don’t want their advice on how to conduct our affairs.

“Let me tell you also that within an hour of the disaster, Chairman Harad and members of the Council, Simon Jacques and Mikhail Corain, called me to express their profound outrage. Everyone, no matter what political party, understands what’s threatened by actions like this.

I don’t need to say that to the people of Novgorod, who’ve held out against the tactics of the extremists and who’ve equally well held out against offers of help from the central government. I take my example from Novgorod. People can persuade me with ideas but there’s no way in hell they’re going to move me with violence or the possibility of violence.

“This isn’t the first time in history someone’s tried this; and by everything I’ve ever learned, the answer that works with them is exactly the land of contempt Novgorod turns on them and their ideas—contempt, but no patience, no patience.

Every time the Council sits to debate honest differences, everybody wins, precisely because civilization is working and the majority and the minority are trying to work out a fair compromise that protects the people they represent.

That’s why these types who want their own way above all have to destroy that; and that’s precisely why the best answer is a consensus of all the elected bodies that ideas are valuable, peaceful voices deserve serious consideration, human needs have to be dealt with in a wise distribution of resources, and the principle of life itself has to be high on our list of values, just under our regard for the quality of life and the freedom to speak our opinions.

Whoever did this, from whatever misguided notion of right above the law, he hasn’t scared me into retreat, he’s made me know how important law is; and I will run for office, someday; I’ll run, and I’ll respect the vote in my electorate, whatever the outcome, because an honest contest is one thing, but creating chaos to undermine the people’s chosen representative isn’t dissent, it’s sabotage of the process, the same as the bombers are trying, and I’ll have no part of that either.”

Guest_936d3dec · #9180

And he says it as though he believes it. So if you can not do the actual science just claim to be a Historian of [whatever it is you do not understand and never will barring a modern miracle not seen since the virgin birth] and advance your agenda.

I've definitely seen that, and another tact to take is to become a Science Journalist whose background is purely journalism (and gender studies). But not someone hires you to write a science blog and poof, you're a science explainer and suddenly your take on sexism in science and sexism in tech and how evo psych is bullshit and science proves there is no binary sex is authoritative and those evil gamergaters, those evil gamergaters.

Related, I see Jesse Singal, has now climbed up to the New York Times skipping across many periodicals and twitter all peddling his never taken a science class in college science journalism explainers...