There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:30 am
Re header:
I propose "There are 2018 genders"...
I propose "There are 2018 genders"...
..."and a bitch ain't one".
Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/
:-) Something along that line is definitely called for, maybe something like "There are 2018 genders, a googolplex of them, but only two - count 'em, two - sexes."
I haven't watched a ton of his stuff but I remember him going off on a fake moon landing tangent once when he had Sam Harris as a guest. Sam was polite & didn't bite into it too much, but I pegged him as a quasi-loon on the strength of it. He may have changed his opinions since then.Bhurzum wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:10 amI lack the motivation to trawl through hours of video to find the quote but it is out there. Something about a recent (mid 2K's) satellite taking pictures of the Earth and NASA releasing them before he finally changed his mind. I genuinely don't recall specifics, but I do remember rolling my eyes and thinking that the guy's a fucking oaf. Feel free to dismiss this (no citation - fair play) but I'd be hard pressed to care less.jugheadnaut wrote: ↑Don't know what you're talking about. Rogan never believed in the flat Earth theory.
Maybe he strikes you as a quick-witted and erudite kinda guy but I'm sceptical: I think if you removed him from the studio (no monitor, no earpiece, no behind-the-scenes lackeys scrambling around trying to marshal facts and figures for him), the Joe Rogan "experience" would be an entirely different affair. But hey, I could be wrong, maybe he'd run rings around Stephen Hawking?
Oh, and personal/subjective opinion of his stand-up: cut 'n' paste stuff, some of it funny, most of it dull as fuck. He follows the standard yank formula: yell a lot and make sure to say "bitch" and "mother fucker" as often as possible. All that's missing are spitoon sound effects, random audience members shouting "yeehaw, y'all" and perhaps the outbreak of a mass shooting or two.
I'd sooner listen to Watson do an eight hour routine about the evils of douche... :twatson:
Mostly :nin: 'd here.jugheadnaut wrote: ↑ You may be confusing it with his position on the moon landing conspiracy theory. He says he was taken in at one point by some of the evidence and an engineer he knew who was a conspiricist, but once he looked at things more carefully, he realized his ignorance about physics and photography had led him astray and changed his mind.
That's the one. P13N was an abbreviation for Personalization, which is the department I was working in at the time.Guest_7cbd4721 wrote: ↑ There's a pic of FT's gummy bear desk in a Mental Floss article about the many uses of gummy bears.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/16022/ma ... ummi-bears
Yes, I googled gummy bear desk.
CaughtUpLockedOut
Ape+lust wrote: ↑ I've never much liked musicals, so it was years after I saw All That Jazz that it occurred to me that it actually was one. I suppose it's because the music interludes were organic to the story of a director-choreographer's life and not just people suddenly belting out songs. In any case, it's a terrific movie, musical or otherwise.
And why do you think "the alt-right is wrong even if those differences exist"? Maybe because, as I've argued, many on the alt-right think that those differences apply to ALL members of the different races? That, for instance, all whites are more intelligent than all blacks?jet_lagg wrote: ↑They do talk about poor impulse control and aggression. If there's an emphasis on IQ it's only because that's where the science is solid and you don't have to rely on anecdote. Whatever the alt-right is they aren't stupid. Their strategy is better than ours (probably because ours consists of sticking our fucking heads in the sand), and we're going to get our asses kicked if we don't get ahead of the curve on this. Anyone who looks at the crime or IQ data can see there are group level differences. The debate needs to be refocused on why the alt-right is wrong *even if those differences exist*. Instead we get Adam Ruins Everything and other well-meaning (or are they? if they're deep cover right wing plants they're doing a brilliant fucking job) idiots trying to rip down entire fields of science because they don't like reality.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑ You really have to wonder about the Alt-Right and Race Realists because I am pretty certain that this behaviour isn't IQ related. If I point something even remotely gun shaped at my dog it has the intelligence to run and hide. I am really surprised that they are not talking about impulse control and aggression.
https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3oUqKUx2o0
Most of our immigrants are Chicanos who are mostly Catholic and relatively conservative on a lot of issues. Latinos generally break for Democrats (with the exception of Cubans) but there is no reason that the Democrats should count on that continuing. Particularly if conservatives nominate pro-immigration conservatives like Bush, or if conservatives find more religiously/culturally derived wedge issues to drive them away from the Democratic party. Plus, Latinos vote at lower rates than a lot of other demographics. A groundswell of angry Latino voters were supposed to be the bulwark against Trump and his inflammatory rhetoric against Mexico and boarder wall proposal. Some firewall that was.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Not a problem if they can bring in loads of POCs. I read an allegation somewhere that the Dems rushed through the processing of 1 million immigrants before a presidential election in the 90's. Clinton again.Old_ones wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:14 pmOne of the many shortcomings of the SocJus ethos/approach is that all substantial disagreements lead the SJW to "you are a terrible person" which is a thought terminating cliche. Hopefully the Democratic party doesn't take the PZ Myers approach to this issue - they'd be nailing themselves in a coffin to keep all the "deplorables" away. They need a platform that can be inclusive for not only minorities, but also the majority because the won't make it without white voters.
For my two penneth worth, I'd say they are wrong because they are (deliberately in many cases) conflating a scientific is with a moralistic ought.
A conservative party which would be able to successfully promote conservative values to conservative-leaning members of minorities would keep the Dems out of his office or force them to move further to the right, at least on some issues (like LGBT rights, for example:Old_ones wrote: ↑Most of our immigrants are Chicanos who are mostly Catholic and relatively conservative on a lot of issues. Latinos generally break for Democrats (with the exception of Cubans) but there is no reason that the Democrats should count on that continuing. Particularly if conservatives nominate pro-immigration conservatives like Bush, or if conservatives find more religiously/culturally derived wedge issues to drive them away from the Democratic party. Plus, Latinos vote at lower rates than a lot of other demographics. A groundswell of angry Latino voters were supposed to be the bulwark against Trump and his inflammatory rhetoric against Mexico and boarder wall proposal. Some firewall that was.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Not a problem if they can bring in loads of POCs. I read an allegation somewhere that the Dems rushed through the processing of 1 million immigrants before a presidential election in the 90's. Clinton again.Old_ones wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:14 pmOne of the many shortcomings of the SocJus ethos/approach is that all substantial disagreements lead the SJW to "you are a terrible person" which is a thought terminating cliche. Hopefully the Democratic party doesn't take the PZ Myers approach to this issue - they'd be nailing themselves in a coffin to keep all the "deplorables" away. They need a platform that can be inclusive for not only minorities, but also the majority because the won't make it without white voters.
I think that the "rainbow coalition" of identity politics model can still work to make the Dems win for a while, but sooner or later either the Democratic Party comes up with a way to promote general progressive/leftist values which work outside of identity or they'll have to throw some of the identities under the bus to appease others.Many Latinos experienced negative messages about their sexual orientation from their own communities: many have been told that male homosexuality was "dirty, shameful and abnormal".[52] They reported that they had faced ostracism from their friends and peers, and felt "that they were not truly 'men'", according to the standards of some in their community.[52]
Latina lesbians are also generally stereotyped as traitors who have forsaken their roots.[53] An example of this sentiment is seen in Mexican culture, where, Cherríe Moraga explains, Chicana lesbians are seen as Malinche figures – they are seen as being corrupted by foreign influences and traitors of the race because they contribute to the "genocide" of their people, regardless of whether or not they have children.[54] These stereotypes and stigmas regarding lesbians have been so historically ingrained into Latino cultures that most Latina lesbian women who have spoken openly to their families about their sexuality still feel silenced.[49]
This. The biggest epistemological problem with the alt-right is the naturalistic fallacy ("since something is natural or a product of evolution then it's a moral good"). Tribalism, aggression, even the propensity for sexually aggressive behavior are "natural", in that they're tendencies which likely have an evolutionary origin. This doesn't make it morally acceptable to "crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women".DrokkIt wrote: ↑For my two penneth worth, I'd say they are wrong because they are (deliberately in many cases) conflating a scientific is with a moralistic ought.
You can demonstrate to me that group X are more intelligent than group Y. You cannot demonstrate to me that therefore X should have dominion over Y or avoid them altogether, especially if this dictate supersedes my own individual choice (i.e. "you are doing whiteness wrong by associating with black people).
In my view this is to do with the ideas and principles they espouse, and not with the pragmatic situation of immigration and cultural tension.
I think they also have an issue around what white *is and isn't*. It's very easy to look at a black dude and mate a categorical judgement about his race, but for a huge amount of people this isn't true.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑ This. The biggest epistemological problem with the alt-right is the naturalistic fallacy ("since something is natural or a product of evolution then it's a moral good"). Tribalism, aggression, even the propensity for sexually aggressive behavior are "natural", in that they're tendencies which likely have an evolutionary origin. This doesn't make it morally acceptable to "crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women".
You catch a lot of shit re: racism, and I think you bring most of it on yourself. That said I know your position here and agree with it. There also needs to be an emphasis on what Drokkt and Kirbmarc are talking about. The time to be driving that kind of moral reasoning home is now, not after inconvenient data becomes common knowledge and it looks like we're desperately scrambling to move the goal posts.Steersman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:27 pmAnd why do you think "the alt-right is wrong even if those differences exist"? Maybe because, as I've argued, many on the alt-right think that those differences apply to ALL members of the different races? That, for instance, all whites are more intelligent than all blacks?
I swear the naturalistic fallacy was dreamt up by a soy sipping goatee bearded Uni student on a break from zir cultural studies course.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑This. The biggest epistemological problem with the alt-right is the naturalistic fallacy ("since something is natural or a product of evolution then it's a moral good"). Tribalism, aggression, even the propensity for sexually aggressive behavior are "natural", in that they're tendencies which likely have an evolutionary origin. This doesn't make it morally acceptable to "crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women".DrokkIt wrote: ↑For my two penneth worth, I'd say they are wrong because they are (deliberately in many cases) conflating a scientific is with a moralistic ought.
You can demonstrate to me that group X are more intelligent than group Y. You cannot demonstrate to me that therefore X should have dominion over Y or avoid them altogether, especially if this dictate supersedes my own individual choice (i.e. "you are doing whiteness wrong by associating with black people).
In my view this is to do with the ideas and principles they espouse, and not with the pragmatic situation of immigration and cultural tension.
They'll need a lot of pushers.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Oprah gave a #metoo speech and now there is a push for her to run for president.
It's about time, in fact overdue that the US has a black cetacean for president.Lsuoma wrote: ↑They'll need a lot of pushers.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Oprah gave a #metoo speech and now there is a push for her to run for president.
Yup.
This case will be settled out of court.CommanderTuvok wrote: ↑ The SJWs are completely convinced there is "nothing to see here", except seeing Damore get laughed out of town.
But others say Damore has an "above average" chance of winning.
Will be interesting. Damore (David) vs Google (Goliath).
I was trying to answer this when the site crashed.Steersman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:27 pmAnd why do you think "the alt-right is wrong even if those differences exist"? Maybe because, as I've argued, many on the alt-right think that those differences apply to ALL members of the different races? That, for instance, all whites are more intelligent than all blacks?jet_lagg wrote: ↑They do talk about poor impulse control and aggression. If there's an emphasis on IQ it's only because that's where the science is solid and you don't have to rely on anecdote. Whatever the alt-right is they aren't stupid. Their strategy is better than ours (probably because ours consists of sticking our fucking heads in the sand), and we're going to get our asses kicked if we don't get ahead of the curve on this. Anyone who looks at the crime or IQ data can see there are group level differences. The debate needs to be refocused on why the alt-right is wrong *even if those differences exist*. Instead we get Adam Ruins Everything and other well-meaning (or are they? if they're deep cover right wing plants they're doing a brilliant fucking job) idiots trying to rip down entire fields of science because they don't like reality.VickyCaramel wrote: ↑ You really have to wonder about the Alt-Right and Race Realists because I am pretty certain that this behaviour isn't IQ related. If I point something even remotely gun shaped at my dog it has the intelligence to run and hide. I am really surprised that they are not talking about impulse control and aggression.
https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3oUqKUx2o0
Who is this "we" white man? (racial pun intended).Their strategy is better than ours (probably because ours consists of sticking our fucking heads in the sand), and we're going to get our asses kicked if we don't get ahead of the curve on this.
You are still barking up the wrong tree. Their argument isn't that they should have dominion over another tribe, it is that they should be separate.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:45 pmThis. The biggest epistemological problem with the alt-right is the naturalistic fallacy ("since something is natural or a product of evolution then it's a moral good"). Tribalism, aggression, even the propensity for sexually aggressive behavior are "natural", in that they're tendencies which likely have an evolutionary origin. This doesn't make it morally acceptable to "crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women".DrokkIt wrote: ↑For my two penneth worth, I'd say they are wrong because they are (deliberately in many cases) conflating a scientific is with a moralistic ought.
You can demonstrate to me that group X are more intelligent than group Y. You cannot demonstrate to me that therefore X should have dominion over Y or avoid them altogether, especially if this dictate supersedes my own individual choice (i.e. "you are doing whiteness wrong by associating with black people).
In my view this is to do with the ideas and principles they espouse, and not with the pragmatic situation of immigration and cultural tension.
This isn't an issue for them at all. They are quite prepared to say that they will give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who is in question.DrokkIt wrote: ↑ I think they also have an issue around what white *is and isn't*. It's very easy to look at a black dude and mate a categorical judgement about his race, but for a huge amount of people this isn't true.
Also yes re: naturalistic fallacy, loads of arguments from there. Reminds me of the "Black ways of knowing" bullshit about firing lightning form fingers.
It will be settled out of court if the people who are rational and care about the company's image and bottom line make the decision. If the diversity squad gets in on the decision they might decide to fight in court on ideological grounds. I personally hope we get the second outcome. Its frustrating seeing these organizations do shit that they won't publicly stand by. If they think blatant anti-white anti-male bias represents "justice" then they should fucking own that position.deLurch wrote: ↑This case will be settled out of court.CommanderTuvok wrote: ↑ The SJWs are completely convinced there is "nothing to see here", except seeing Damore get laughed out of town.
But others say Damore has an "above average" chance of winning.
Will be interesting. Damore (David) vs Google (Goliath).
Aslan is a guy who ate human brains to stay relevant and famous, so he's probably going to say something lulz-worthy. I'd say go check him out, and bring some popcorn.
No.
It's important to add duties to right. You'll find no objection from me on this point. The difference is all about which duties and which rights.To rest the equilibrium- words from an under appreciated wise man.
http://i.imgur.com/0ufhKV3.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/SXbfvta.jpg
You sure? Moore sounds like he was high on the 1903 Cambridge version of double soy decaf when this made sense:
The basic theme of this paper is the extension to sense-experience of the strong distinction between the mind and its objects which we have encountered in connection with meaning. Moore concentrates here on the case of a ‘sensation of blue’ and maintains that this experience is a kind of ‘diaphanous’ consciousness or awareness of blue, which is not a ‘content’ of experience at all, but something real whose existence is not dependent on experience.
Google Employees Were Awarded Bonuses for Arguing against Damore’s Views
74.
Not only did Google terminate Damore for his political views relating to workplace issues, but they then rewarded individuals who disagreed with and disparaged Damore. 75.
The Google Recognition Team allowed employees to give fellow employees “Peer Bonuses” for arguing against Damore’s political viewpoints. Peer Bonuses were typically reserved for outstanding work performance or for going above and beyond an employee’s job duties. Defending the liberal agenda, or defending violations of California employment law, is not in any Google employee’s job description. 76.
In one example of this, an employee gave a Peer Bonus to another employee, and stated that the bonus was for “speaking up for googley values and promoting [diversity and inclusion] in the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is [Damore’s Memo].” The Google Recognition Team reviewed this justification, considered it appropriate, and allowed the bonus to proceed.
