Fuck off, Jamie!

[free thoughtpolice]

Brive : I was responding to your " She is filth and needs to be stopped" line. Were you being ironic? If so then I suppose my reaction to you sounding like an alt-righter was maybe an overreaction. I have been following the Daily Stormer lately and was alarmed to see something that sounded like it came right from there.

[AndrewV69]

[free thoughtpolice]

John McCain died.

[Brive1987]

John McCain died.

Condolences to his family.

Now ...

Is that sad because he was anti Trump, or good because he had successfully incited civilian-centric wars?

[free thoughtpolice]

That makes it bittersweet. But it is a little soon for the quipping. :naughty:

[Brive1987]

Brive : I was responding to your " She is filth and needs to be stopped" line. Were you being ironic? If so then I suppose my reaction to you sounding like an alt-righter was maybe an overreaction. I have been following the Daily Stormer lately and was alarmed to see something that sounded like it came right from there.

Ironic in the Pit sense that a woman needs to be co-opted to kick Becky in the cunt.

Twato is openly advocating open borders within the deconstructive liberal ideological context. “Un-documented migrants” pomo BS and rabbits ears to indicate that base citizenship criteria are somehow “unreal”. These are dangerous concepts to ear-worm. Worse even than than her older gig pushing the civil ‘war on men’.

In simpler days, her POV would quite rightly be spurned as nihilistic treason. So yes. She and her ilk need to be stopped.

My preference would be a tidal wave pushback of commonsense. But liberal political correctness has killed that. Plus GenZ mind-cancer.

Failing that, there is the Pit approach of trolling to highlight absurdity and encourage a SJ purity spiral similar to what offset PZ. Having a coyote kidnap her dog is an escalated option. Problem is she is floating scum on top of a bigger swell of sewerage.

And unfortunately this trolling and push through, done on a national level, gave the world Trump. Maybe commonsense and inculcated decency would have been a better approach after all .... shared collective objective values that define your society and from that, your nation.

If that’s too hard. At least excise the abnormal growths that are California and NYC.

[free thoughtpolice]

Maybe commonsense and inculcated decency would have been a better approach after all .... shared collective objective values that define your society and from that, your nation.

What? That sounds like some of the steaming Lliberal civic nationalist Wombat manure that Kirb would spread . :P

[Guest_b8931fdb]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... le/2698337

August 23, 2018

The Challenge of Reforming Nutritional Epidemiologic Research
John P. A. Ioannidis, MD, DSc1

Author Affiliations Article Information
JAMA. Published online August 23, 2018. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.11025

Some nutrition scientists and much of the public often consider epidemiologic associations of nutritional factors to represent causal effects that can inform public health policy and guidelines. However, the emerging picture of nutritional epidemiology is difficult to reconcile with good scientific principles. The field needs radical reform.

In recent updated meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies, almost all foods revealed statistically significant associations with mortality risk.1 Substantial deficiencies of key nutrients (eg, vitamins), extreme overconsumption of food, and obesity from excessive calories may indeed increase mortality risk. However, can small intake differences of specific nutrients, foods, or diet patterns with similar calories causally, markedly, and almost ubiquitously affect survival?

Assuming the meta-analyzed evidence from cohort studies represents life span–long causal associations, for a baseline life expectancy of 80 years, eating 12 hazelnuts daily (1 oz) would prolong life by 12 years (ie, 1 year per hazelnut),1 drinking 3 cups of coffee daily would achieve a similar gain of 12 extra years,2 and eating a single mandarin orange daily (80 g) would add 5 years of life.1 Conversely, consuming 1 egg daily would reduce life expectancy by 6 years, and eating 2 slices of bacon (30 g) daily would shorten life by a decade, an effect worse than smoking.1 Could these results possibly be true? Authors often use causal language when reporting the findings from these studies (eg, “optimal consumption of risk-decreasing foods results in a 56% reduction of all-cause mortality”).1 Burden-of-disease studies and guidelines endorse these estimates. Even when authors add caveats, results are still often presented by the media as causal.

These implausible estimates of benefits or risks associated with diet probably reflect almost exclusively the magnitude of the cumulative biases in this type of research, with extensive residual confounding and selective reporting.3 Almost all nutritional variables are correlated with one another; thus, if one variable is causally related to health outcomes, many other variables will also yield significant associations in large enough data sets. With more research involving big data, almost all nutritional variables will be associated with almost all outcomes. Moreover, given the complicated associations of eating behaviors and patterns with many time-varying social and behavioral factors that also affect health, no currently available cohort includes sufficient information to address confounding in nutritional associations.

[Guest_b8931fdb]

[free thoughtpolice]

[Brive1987]

Maybe commonsense and inculcated decency would have been a better approach after all .... shared collective objective values that define your society and from that, your nation.

What? That sounds like some of the steaming Lliberal civic nationalist Wombat manure that Kirb would spread . :P

Oh values are inescapable. Just like “personal brand”. They can be positive or negative or dysfunctional.

principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what is important in life.

Kirb and I differ because I believe they are best generated and evolved from within to reflect a distinct national family - albeit as a subset of the broader Western tradition.

Kirb points to worthy vanillaisms such as Locke, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and sundry tomes and says “go read that Abdul, but please feel free to keep your own special culture as well”.

[Kirbmarc]

What does it mean when Becky does rabbit ears when she uses the word “legally” in relation to immigration .....

because closed borders is racism, ask vox



I'd like to ask Ocasio-Cortez and the new junior DSA set about their feelings on open borders. You can see what Sanders says about it.

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/29/9048401/b ... en-borders

Bernie Sanders's fear of immigrant labor is ugly — and wrongheaded
By Dylan Matthews@dylanmattdylan@vox.com Jul 29, 2015, 8:30am EDT

If I could add one amendment to the Constitution, it would be the one Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Robert Bartley once proposed: "There shall be open borders." There is no single policy that the United States could adopt that would do more good for more people. An average Nigerian worker can increase his income almost 15-fold just by moving to the United States, and residents of significantly richer countries like Mexico can more than double their earnings. The humanitarian gains of letting everyone who wants to make that leap do so would be astounding.

So I was disappointed, if not surprised, at the visceral horror with which Bernie Sanders reacted to the idea when interviewed by my colleague Ezra Klein. "Open borders?" he interjected. "No, that's a Koch brothers proposal." The idea, he argued, is a right-wing scheme meant to flood the US with cheap labor and depress wages for native-born workers. "I think from a moral responsibility, we've got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty," he conceded, "but you don't do that by making people in this country even poorer."

There are two problems with Sanders's view on this, one empirical and one moral....

The Vox article you link to is based on a HUGE implicit assumption, namely that ALL that matters to the economy is raising GDP, and then everything else will magically fix itself. This is largely bullshit. It's not even directly a matter of immigration, but of the assumptions that more people mean more workers (which is NOT a given: it depends, for example, on age distribution, and with COMPLETELY open borders you'd get LOTS of non-workers coming in) and that more workers mean more wealth for everyone (not just a higher GDP).

Sanders is right: over a certain level COMPLETELY open borders DO depress wages of low-income, low-skilled citizens, because now you have workers will to do the same job for a lower wage. The Vox article faffs about this, substantially presenting the AVERAGE effects on wages as "neutral at worst". But the matter is not about AVERAGE wages, it's about the wages of some specific groups of people. Low-income, low-skilled workers don't give a shit if the wages of white-collar workers slightly increase, and why should they? They care about their OWN wages.

Another problem, which Vox mentions in passing only in positive terms, is the rise in property values. That's a positive for home owners, but is actually a negative for low-income workers. A HUGE, unregulated influx of immigrants means that you have A LOT more people in need of houses, which increases rents and the cost of buying a house. Landlords and home owners benefit from that, but renters and buyers are put at a disadvantage. The Vox article spins it this way:

Finally, the positive economic effects of immigration extend beyond just wages. Immigration increases property values, building wealth for many native-born workers (and, admittedly, raising rents for others).

This is VERY dishonest. Sanders was talking about low-income, low-skilled workers. Those workers are unlikely to have any property values worth a damn. It's home owners and landlords who benefit from this, not poor people. For poor people increased property values are a massive negative.

Indeed the Vox article seems to be written by someone with a middle-high class perspective:

Increased immigration reduces the price of services provided by immigrants, such as gardening and housekeeping. There's some evidence that immigration even gets more women into the workforce by making it cheaper to hire people to watch after children and elderly relatives, and perform other homemaking tasks.

"Gardening" :lol: How many low-skilled, low-income people even HAVE a garden? :lol:

A reduction of the price of hiring a housekeepers/elderly care worker is good ONLY for someone who can afford to hire a housekeeper/elderly care worker in the first place. For people who might be more likely to WORK as housekeepers/care workers than to HIRE people to do those jobs, a reduction in the market value of those jobs is a net NEGATIVE.

Another VERY dishonest point is this:

"This isn’t just trickle-down economics. It’s Niagara Falls economics," economist Bryan Caplan once told me. "If production in the world were to double, almost everyone is going to get enough of that doubling that they’re going to, in the end, be better off as a result."

Not necessarily. This assumes that a) more immigrants mean more workers b) more workers in a rich economy automatically means higher production c) that the positive effects of higher production will be shared by everyone.

Point a is already contentious. More immigrants mean more workers IF the majority of immigrants is of working age and IF there is a worker shortage and/or the wages that immigrants accept are so low that it's convenient to hire them. There is always a limit to the number of people living in a country that can be employed. With COMPLETELY open borders you may get such an influx of people that there simply aren't any sorts of jobs for a lot of them, ESPECIALLY if mechanization already reduces the need for low-skilled workers. Immigration MUST be managed to avoid this.

Point b is also more than a little dubious. Mechanization might make it cheaper to increase production with less workers. Over a certain point too might simply be unnecessary, even with a massive lowering of wages. More workers at a cheaper price might mean more businesses, but it depends not just on how cheap work is, but on the demand for goods/services in the market. If the increased population doesn't increase demand enough to support enough new supply to hire the new workers you don't necessarily get a higher production just by having workers.

Point c, however, is an incredibly unwarranted assumption. Depressed wages and higher rents could easily nullify or even exceed any positive effects of higher production due to cheaper labor. People who are already middle class or higher might get lots of benefits (cheap services, higher property values) that might not be shared AT ALL by low-income people. It's dishonest to assume that if you can have a cheap housekeeper, buy cheaper products and rent your second house to immigrants then someone who CANNOT hire a housekeeper, sees their wages lowered and struggles to pay the rent is actually richer just because they can buy cheaper stuff.

Also the whole argument about increases of income completely overlooks the matter of prices and standards of living. It's not fair to only compare income without comparing expenses. A Nigerian worker might get only 1/15 of an American worker, but standards of living in Nigeria are MUCH lower in the US. Earning more doesn't necessarily mean becoming richer. If you earn a little more but have to pay a lot more, you might even become poorer.

COMPLETELY open borders would benefit entrepreneurs, landlords and people who can afford to pay for housekeeping/care workers. It's not certain that everyone would benefit from them. A CERTAIN amount of immigration is necessary, and can be beneficial. But the idea that just opening the gates is the way forward to Utopia is unwarranted.

[Kirbmarc]

Maybe commonsense and inculcated decency would have been a better approach after all .... shared collective objective values that define your society and from that, your nation.

What? That sounds like some of the steaming Lliberal civic nationalist Wombat manure that Kirb would spread . :P

Oh values are inescapable. Just like “personal brand”. They can be positive or negative or dysfunctional.

principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what is important in life.

Kirb and I differ because I believe they are best generated and evolved from within to reflect a distinct national family - albeit as a subset of the broader Western tradition.

Kirb points to worthy vanillaisms such as Locke, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and sundry tomes and says “go read that Abdul, but please feel free to keep your own special culture as well”.

You and I differ because you seem to think that values are intrinsic to someone, hardwired in their brain, instead of being a product of upbringing, education, media exposure and peer pressure. Also you seem to forget that the functional values that we have today are DIFFERENT from the "traditional Western" ones. Liberal democracy is a recent development. A couple of centuries ago "western" societies were as dysfunctional and backwards as the current African or Middle Eastern ones.

Australia, for example, was at beginning a dumping ground for people who otherwise would have been executed for minor crimes such as petty theft. If stealing a handkerchief could get you executed or exiled, how was that different to current Sharia law? In the 18th century you could get hanged for pinching a loaf of bread, today the UK doesn't even have the death penalty. Which "western traditions" made this change possible?

Marital rape wasn't considered a crime until the 20th century. It still isn't in many countries, but which "traditions" made this change possible in the west?

Underage marriage was once seen as normal in large areas of the "west. So were "shotgun weddings", forced marriage in case of pre-marital pregnancies. Today they're seen as abhorrent, even if they're the norm in many "non-western" societies. Which "western traditions" made those changes possible?

Child labor was the norm in Victorian England, today it's seen as horribly exploitative. How is this change "traditional"?

[Guest_b8931fdb]

The vox piece was written by Dylan Matthews.

Here is what the stopped clock SJW blog Lawyers Guns and Money thinks of Dylan Matthews.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/201 ... -decade-is

WHAT DOES DYLAN MATTHEWS THINK THE WORST NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE LAST DECADE IS?

So naturally, I clicked. It was Paul Theroux writing about the hypocrisy of corporate campaigns for charity when their own outsourcing policies caused the economic decline of the American working class in the first place.

...

Matthews has the same kind of neoliberal centrist economic position staked out by his own Vox compadre Matt Yglesias when he talked about it being OK for Bangladeshis to have lower workplace standards and allow over 1100 workers to die at the Rana Plaza collapse in 2013. This is a wholly abstract notion of the world economy developed in an atmosphere of Washington boardrooms, raw data analyzed without historical or anthropological context that ignores the messiness of what happens on the ground, and the elite confidence in their own rightness developed at Ivy League schools and continued through the networks that keeps these people on top. What it is totally disconnected to is how actual workers live, what they want, the real sufferings they deal with, and their own demands in the system of global capitalism. These are questions that receive indifference from Matthews, Yglesias, and the like, who are far more comfortable taking on the mantle of Official Explainer of Data to the American upper-middle class in ways that justify their readers’ current position on the economic scale than they are in articulating just how they see American communities recovering from globalization or how we should support the desires of Bangladeshi textile workers to live a better life.

As far as I can tell, Dylan Matthews is completely indifferent to the suffering of the American working class so long as he can justify it by data that shows that some other people’s lives are improving because of it. And of course, I want the lives of Bangladeshi workers and American workers to both improve. That’s why I wrote a book connecting the two nations and trying to think through ways that we can tame a global economy that decimates communities in both nations. Matthews, Yglesias, and others of their ilk are happy to support better health care policy and the like, and that’s good. But they really struggle to understand how important it is for people to have work and how much of what they don’t like about where this nation is right now–the fear of immigrants, the post-Citizens United political landscape, stagnating incomes, long-term unemployment, etc.–stems in parts larger or smaller from the decline of unions and the undermining of the American working class turned middle class. Without the jobs that Matthews is more than happy to send overseas if the workers unionize, (and really, have either Matthews or Yglesias ever actively written in support of a single labor struggle, even if they support unions in theory? Not that I have ever seen), none of this gets fixed. It certainly doesn’t happen if we just let all the smart people in DC decide what to do, a long-standing mythology held on to with great aplomb by those who could potentially be part of that conversation.

That was written in October 2015, or 1 BT as we now refer to it.

[Guest_b8931fdb]

At any rate, my best guess is that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is much closer to being a VOX DSA than a Sanders DSA, and that Ocasio-Cortez would also line up behind open borders.

Well, in fact,

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ms/563987/

Where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Parts Ways With Bernie Sanders
The two self-avowed democratic socialists share a lot in common—but disagree on immigration.

REIHAN SALAM
JUN 28, 2018

... Then there is a deeper problem, namely that Ocasio-Cortez’s agenda is riven with contradictions. The most obvious is that in calling for the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency that has become a bogeyman on the left for its role in implementing the Trump administration’s polarizing deportation strategy, she is sending a clear signal that she favors more permissive immigration policies. At the same time, she favors a suite of other policies, such as Medicare for all, a universal guarantee of jobs paying a living wage, and tuition-free higher education, that would have the cumulative effect of sharply increasing redistribution from the native-born nonpoor to low-income immigrant-headed households. For immigrants, working in the United States offers them a “place premium”—that is, doing the same exact job in the outer boroughs of New York City will yield a far higher hourly wage than in Port-au-Prince, and this arbitrage opportunity draws immigrants from all over the world. This is true even before we take into account, for example, the earned-income tax credit, food stamps, and other policies designed to raise the effective incomes of households that command low (by American standards) market wages. If a federal jobs program were to offer $15 an hour to anyone willing and able to claim it, including the many newcomers who’d journey to the U.S. under more permissive policies, the implications are head-spinning. And that’s not to mention medical care and higher education that are free at the point of use, very valuable benefits that many people would go to great lengths to secure.

It is telling that libertarian immigration advocates are deeply concerned about the rising popularity of the jobs guarantee and, relatedly, a universal basic income, on the left. They recognize that if welcoming low-skill immigrants becomes more expensive for incumbent citizens, the desire for low-skill immigration will likely decrease, which is why the Cato Institute has long campaigned for “building a wall around the welfare state.” Indeed, sophisticated immigration advocates often favor reforming fiscal entitlements. Just as one must first pay into the Social Security system for a period of time before becoming eligible for benefits, the idea is that all social programs ought to become more contributory. Of course, this logic is very much at odds with Ocasio-Cortez’s belief that, for example, housing is a human right. (As an aside, questions of redistribution are central to why some conservatives, myself included, favor limiting low-skill immigration: because we believe there is a trade-off between the number of poor newcomers and the generosity with which they are treated, and we favor an approach that is somewhat less open while being far more generous to those Americans choose to admit. Cosmopolitan libertarians, by and large, prefer moving in the opposite direction.)

By all accounts, Ocasio-Cortez sees things differently. While some on the center-left will allow for the possibility that “the Trump administration’s vision of allocating green cards based on likely labor market success rather than family connections has merit,” as Matthew Yglesias recently argued in Vox, Ocasio-Cortez is unlikely to champion a more selective approach to admissions, if for no other reason than that her congressional district is dominated by immigrant-headed households, most of them working class. To many on the left, the notion of a more “merit-based” immigration system, to use Trump’s favored locution, implies that the existing system with its heavy emphasis on family admissions rewards immigrants lacking in merit—an implication that many of the naturalized citizens residing in Ocasio-Cortez’s constituency would surely resent.

Notably, Bernie Sanders, who is by far the most influential democratic socialist on the national political scene, and whose presidential candidacy played a central role in Ocasio-Cortez’s rise, is more ambivalent about mass immigration. Back in 2007, Sanders denounced the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration legislation, partly on the grounds that it would have expanded low-wage guest-worker programs. Through strongly in favor of a large-scale amnesty, he has expressed deep skepticism about the wisdom of (in his words) open borders, describing the idea as “a Koch brothers proposal” in an interview with Vox. Needless to say, Sanders did not mean this as a compliment. And while many of his disciples have rallied around the cause of abolishing ice—something that could mean anything from renaming the agency and bringing it under the auspices of the Department of Justice, as its predecessor was, to dismantling all immigration enforcement outright, depending on who is doing the talking—he has, so far at least, conspicuously refused to do so, to the consternation of many on the left. If he does come around to the cause of abolishing ice, which may yet happen, my suspicion is that he will wind up supporting modest reforms and, crucially, a name change.

What accounts for the distance separating Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez on immigration? Lest we forget, Sanders is 76 years old, and he has lived through previous waves of left-wing enthusiasm that have come and gone. If public opinion really is thermostatic, as I believe it is, young leftists could be overestimating the extent to which the backlash to Trump heralds deeper shifts in the beliefs of rank-and-file voters. Or it could be that Sanders is a relic of the past and that open-borders socialism will soon be as American as apple pie. The Democratic Party seems determined to find out.

[rayshul]

Glinner seems to have gone TERF
Did anyone else notice this?

[Kirbmarc]

Open borders social democracy with benefits for all immigrants is not just potentially bad, it's actually completely unsustainable in the real world.

Social democratic benefits are paid by tax payers during the course of their lifetimes. Higher-income people pay more, middle-income people pay a bit less, lower-income people receive more benefits than they pay for. Benefits (free healthcare, lack of tuition fees, higher minimum wage, etc.) are sustainable IF a) the ratio of payers/receivers is right and b) the benefits are an investment, allowing low-income people to take part in the economy, save more, spend more, educate their children, etc, so improving economic development in the long run. This is the Scandinavian model.

Basically it works because it's an investment: you get a healthier, better educated, more productive population with more access to the market by forcing high-income earners to spend on accessible healthcare, welfare, education, roadworks, etc., things that need HIGH levels of investment FOR low immediate returns. Nobody would invest in better public schools which are accessible to all people, there's no money in it, the benefits are in having a more skilled and productive workforce IN THE LONG RUN. Nobody would invest in public healthcare facilities, there's no money to be made, the benefits are having healthier, more productive people who need less medical care IN THE LONG RUN.

So basically the system works because it gradually elevates some sectors of the population to a higher level of quality of life, allowing them to produce more, and so to use the system itself less.

If anyone who shows up gets the same benefits while they stay, even if they never paid into the system, not only the social democratic benefit system is forced to raise taxes on those who pay them, but the investments don't pay up. In a completely open borders system immigrants come and go according to what is convenient, and a LARGE part of their income goes to the relatives which stay behind in the country of origin.

Unless ALL countries are regulated by a global political force which decides all policies in a social democratic way (a VERY unlikely scenario) it's very likely that a lot of the benefits of the social democratic system will go to people who don't live, or in the future will NOT live, in a social democratic country. Instead of an investment you get money being siphoned off god knows where, to be spent god knows how, and is unlikely to produce any positive returns.

Also IF the social democratic system rewards ALL who come the gradual elevation of the population to the point of not using the system anymore doesn't happen fast enough to counter the arrival of LOTS of low-income, low-skilled, poorly educated people in a poor shape who escape from highly dysfunctional social systems. After a while with less and less contributors the system grinds to a halt, social mobility stops, and the taxes become TOO high for productive, well-educated, connected, healthy people to create enough wealth to get the system going.

At which point lots of the immigrants leave, go back their country, and the money spent on them isn't reinvested in the system anyway.

So it's easy to see why the libertarian open border supporters want to do away with social democratic welfare: they want to be able to attract low-skilled, low-income people, because they think that the increased number of workers with lower wages will increase the number of businesses created, and wealth created, without going through the social democratic middleman of investing in education, low-income spending and savings (higher minimum wage), etc.

Libertarians believe that the market is better at dealing EVEN with long-run investments with no immediate rewards like welfare or education, so they have no problems slashing spending in those sectors to promote growth.

The divide is then not between "pro-immigration left" and "anti-immigration right", but between those who want sustainable immigration levels to support a system geared towards long-term investments assumed to be not rewarding enough for the market, and those who want higher immigration to support a system based on high immediate returns which they assume will allow people to invest in the long run too.

Ocasio-Cortez seems to peddle an impossible model, one that is based on bringing in anyone and giving them stuff hoping that it works.

[shoutinghorse]

:D

[Kirbmarc]

Basically the social democratic system assumes that:

a) people are trapped in poverty because they don't have enough access to the services (education, healthcare) and investments (savings, necessary spendings) that would allow them to improve their condition (the "wealth gap theory")

so

b) by giving them ways to improve their access to those services (free education, free healthcare) and increasing the amount they earn (minimum wage/basic income) to allow them to save and spend, their condition will improve, to a point that eventually they'll need less of those services, having saved and invested enough for their children to have escaped poverty altogether.

Conversely, libertarians assume that:

a) people are trapped in poverty because they don't have enough access to the job market and benefits make it easier to live outside of it, and with more access and less benefit they'd be helped and forced to improve their conditions on their own (the "bootstrap theory")

so

b) slashing benefits and allowing people to have more access to the job market (by lowering wages and lowering taxes/cutting regulations to promote the creation of jobs) people can get jobs, capitalize on those jobs and eventually improve their social standing, so that their children can capitalize on that to escape poverty.

For social democrats immigrants are useful only if they're a productive, permanent investment that allows the system to carry on. For libertarians immigrants are useful only if they do not make taxes and regulations increase.

[Kirbmarc]

By the way the difference between social democracy and Marxist socialism is that social democracy is perfectly compatible with a market system, it simply supplies services/incentives that are assumed to be not rewarding enough for the market to produce. Marxist socialism is about getting rid of the market system altogether and replacing it with an economy controlled by councils of workers and administered according to "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".

Americans who think that Scandinavian social democracy is "communism" or "Marxism" don't know what they're talking about.

[Brive1987]

You and I differ because you seem to think that values are intrinsic to someone, hardwired in their brain, instead of being a product of upbringing, education, media exposure and peer pressure. Also you seem to forget that the functional values that we have today are DIFFERENT from the "traditional Western" ones. Liberal democracy is a recent development. A couple of centuries ago "western" societies were as dysfunctional and backwards as the current African or Middle Eastern ones.

I don’t know where to even begin with this level of bullshit.

And the enlightenment (1715-1789) wants its key back. And an apology. On twitter.

[shoutinghorse]

Coincidence? :think:

https://i.imgur.com/P4mqCfz.png

[Kirbmarc]

I don’t know where to even begin with this level of bullshit.

And the enlightenment (1715-1789) wants its key back. And an apology. On twitter.

The practical effects of the Enlightenment happened AFTER the French revolution, and they were a matter of a slow progress, not an instant change. Just like the practical effects of the Scientific Revolution happened after Newton, and they were a slow progress. People don't change their minds in an instance after they hear a new idea, and political and SOCIAL systems (since we're talking about SOCIETIES) take a lot of time to change their institutions.

The intellectual elites of SOME countries adopted Enlightenment principles, but you had to wait until the American revolution to see the FIRST revolutionary political effects of Enlightenment principles, until the French revolution to see the first practical effects in continental Europe, until Napoleon to see the spread of those principles to the rest of Europe, until 1848 to see the first wave of liberal democratic initiatives in Europe, until the end of the 19th century to see the first truly representative democracies, until the early-middle 20th century to see universal vote for adults in the "west", until the Sexual Revolution to see widespread changes in SOCIAL mores (since we're talking about SOCIAL values, not just laws) which allow "the west" to be TRULY antithetical to, say, muslim social mores.

Cesare Beccaria, one of the most important figures in the Enlightenment, who inspired Voltaire and Bentham, wrote about presumption of innocence and about proportionate punishment to crimes,two key Enlightenment values, and about abolishing torture and the death penalty in 1764. The UK, the origin of the Enlightenment, abolished the death penalty in 1965 in Great Britain and 1973 in Northern Ireland. The last execution had happened in 1964. The death penalty was abolished in France (another nation which was a bastion of the Enlightenment) in 1981, with the last execution having happened in

---

.

It took TWO centuries for Enlightenment principles to change "western" societies.

[Kirbmarc]

The death penalty was abolished in France (another nation which was a bastion of the Enlightenment) in 1981, with the last execution having happened in 1977

Correction to the above.

Anyway the point is that liberal democracies emerged after a slow, painful process in the west, which STARTED with the Enlightenment and its principles and ended not too far ago. In some respects some Enlightenment values aren't fully realized in some "western" societies.

And yes, when Enlightenment thinkers wrote their books and articles societies were terrible, as terrible as today's theocracies/corrupted dictatorships of today, that's WHY they wanted to change them.

[InfraRedBucket]

Glinner seems to have gone TERF
Did anyone else notice this?

No surprise,He's been that way for quite a while, I think.
Seems something had blown again lately but I have haven't been following it.

[Kirbmarc]

Also it's important to keep in mind that in the '60s and '70s the cognitive/educational ELITE of Muslim-majority countries was in the same position of the cognitive/educational ELITE of Europe at the times of the Enlightenment. Society at large in the age of the Enlightenment was FAR more "traditional" than the Enlightenment thinkers.

European peasants in 1715-1789 were as deeply religious, highly socially conservative, and hostile to change as the average muslim is today. The influence of the Enlightenment spread gradually, first only the highest intellectual aristocratic elites (educated nobles), then to "high bourgeois" (rich merchants/entrepreneurs) then to the "low bourgeois", then to the "public opinion". In the aftermath of the French revolution peasants in France often sided with the ultra-conservative clergy, even to the point of counter-revolutionary rebellions (Vendée).

What we see today in the muslim world is the destruction of secular cognitive/educate elites by extremely rich theocratic regimes. A PARTIAL European analogous to the current situation in the islamic world is what happened after the Congress of Vienna, when reactionary, anti-Enlightenment, religiously inspired forces united to quash any possible revolutionary/modern movement.

Post-congress of Vienna you had Russian troops intervening in Austria-Hungary to crush Enlightenment-inspired dissent. Today you have Saudi Arabian money and universities crushing any modern dissent in the Sunni "muslim world" and spreading reactionary, anti-Enlightenment principles.

[shoutinghorse]

Cesare Beccaria, one of the most important figures in the Enlightenment, who inspired Voltaire and Bentham, wrote about presumption of innocence and about proportionate punishment to crimes,two key Enlightenment values, and about abolishing torture and the death penalty in 1764. The UK, the origin of the Enlightenment, abolished the death penalty in 1965 in Great Britain and 1973 in Northern Ireland. The last execution had happened in 1964. The death penalty was abolished in France (another nation which was a bastion of the Enlightenment) in 1981

Yet the USA, "The mother of the free world" still has the death penalty in several states so using the abolition of death penalties as proof of 'Enlightenment' is rather mute is it not?

[Brive1987]

Kirb.

Before we drown in words let’s just lock down what you said.

In 1818, ie “a couple of centuries ago” Europe and America were as backwards and dysfunctional as Congo, Mali, South Sudan and Yemen are today.

1818

January 2 - The British Institution of Civil Engineers is founded.

January 11 – Percy Bysshe Shelley's Ozymandias is published pseudonymously in London.

April 18 – John Ross sets sail on his ship, the Isabella, in search of the Northwest Passage. [1]

July 3 – Lord Byron begins work on his epic poem, Don Juan. He dies in 1824 before he can finish the poem, after finishing 16 cantos and working on the 17th

July 29: French physicist Augustin-Jean Fresnel submits his prizewinning "Memoir on the Diffraction of Light" to the French Academy of Sciences, precisely accounting for the limited extent to which light spreads into shadows, and thereby demolishing the oldest objection to the wave theory of light.

August 4 – United Kingdom general election, 1818 for the House of Commons. The Tory Party, led by Prime Minister Robert Jenkinson, retains its control of the government but loses some seats

September – Sir Stamford Raffles sets out to visit Lord Hastings, Governor-General of India, to gain his approval to establish a trading station at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula (modern-day Singapore).

October 20 – A treaty between the U.S. and the United Kingdom establishes the boundary between the U.S. and British North America as the 49th parallel, from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains, also creating the Northwest Angle.

November 16 – The Saint Louis Academy, which later becomes Saint Louis University, is founded by Reverend Louis William Valentine Dubourg.

December 24 – The Christmas carol "Silent Night" (Stille Nacht), with words by the priest Josef Mohr, set to music by organist Franz Xaver Gruber, is first performed at St. Nikolaus Parish Church, in Oberndorf bei Salzburg, Austria


:lol: :lol: :lol:


https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/imag ... dmtrb3LQEg

[Brive1987]

Also Kirb note what I actually said.

Kirb and I differ because I believe they are best generated and evolved from within to reflect a distinct national family - albeit as a subset of the broader Western tradition.

Threads of the “western [cultural] tradition” extend back to classical times. I wasn’t endorsing “traditionalism”. At least not here.

I will charitably put this mind fart of yours into “English as a x language”. I’d make just as little sense in your traditional Swiss German/French.

[Brive1987]

Kirb.

Your argument would have been far stronger if you compared today’s liberal West with Mali.

[Brive1987]

That makes it bittersweet. But it is a little soon for the quipping. :naughty:

[DW Adams]

Ditto BeckyBooze.

I gave up trying to listen to her videos, all I can do it watch for her to cut her eyes to the right (her right). Why does she do it? It's very distracting and I can't follow her script because of it. Every. Fucking. Video. For. Years.

Did someone once tell her it made her look good/better/interesting or something?

[Hunt]

I gave up trying to listen to her videos, all I can do it watch for her to cut her eyes to the right (her right). Why does she do it? It's very distracting and I can't follow her script because of it. Every. Fucking. Video. For. Years.

Did someone once tell her it made her look good/better/interesting or something?

It's the left side of her brain trying to tell the right side to shut up.

[shoutinghorse]

I gave up trying to listen to her videos, all I can do it watch for her to cut her eyes to the right (her right). Why does she do it? It's very distracting and I can't follow her script because of it. Every. Fucking. Video. For. Years.

Did someone once tell her it made her look good/better/interesting or something?

It's the left side of her brain trying to tell the right side to shut up.

[MarcusAu]

:D

This is very weird I just went to Thetford (where much of the show was filmed). There is a Dad's Army museum - and J . Jones Butchers shop (selling Walmington bangers) in the high street. Captain Mannering now has a permanent seat by the Thet.

CM.jpg

(154.89 KiB) Downloaded 148 times

Thomas Paine was born there - but his revolutionary ideas found more fertile ground elsewhere.

[Kirbmarc]

Kirb.

Before we drown in words let’s just lock down what you said.

In 1818, ie “a couple of centuries ago” Europe and America were as backwards and dysfunctional as Congo, Mali, South Sudan and Yemen are today.

1818

January 2 - The British Institution of Civil Engineers is founded.

January 11 – Percy Bysshe Shelley's Ozymandias is published pseudonymously in London.

April 18 – John Ross sets sail on his ship, the Isabella, in search of the Northwest Passage. [1]

July 3 – Lord Byron begins work on his epic poem, Don Juan. He dies in 1824 before he can finish the poem, after finishing 16 cantos and working on the 17th

July 29: French physicist Augustin-Jean Fresnel submits his prizewinning "Memoir on the Diffraction of Light" to the French Academy of Sciences, precisely accounting for the limited extent to which light spreads into shadows, and thereby demolishing the oldest objection to the wave theory of light.

August 4 – United Kingdom general election, 1818 for the House of Commons. The Tory Party, led by Prime Minister Robert Jenkinson, retains its control of the government but loses some seats

September – Sir Stamford Raffles sets out to visit Lord Hastings, Governor-General of India, to gain his approval to establish a trading station at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula (modern-day Singapore).

October 20 – A treaty between the U.S. and the United Kingdom establishes the boundary between the U.S. and British North America as the 49th parallel, from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains, also creating the Northwest Angle.

November 16 – The Saint Louis Academy, which later becomes Saint Louis University, is founded by Reverend Louis William Valentine Dubourg.

December 24 – The Christmas carol "Silent Night" (Stille Nacht), with words by the priest Josef Mohr, set to music by organist Franz Xaver Gruber, is first performed at St. Nikolaus Parish Church, in Oberndorf bei Salzburg, Austria


:lol: :lol: :lol:


https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/imag ... dmtrb3LQEg

You're focusing on the successes of the scientific and cultural elites of Europe/the US in 1818 while comparing them to the average perception of the third world today. Also no "numbers and stats". That's cheating. :snooty:

If we want to talk about cultural/income elites, Africa today has plenty of poets, musicians, there are African engineer associations, there are universities in the countries you've mentioned.

Let's focus on GENERAL SOCIAL indicators, shall we?

Childhood mortality in Europe a couple of centuries ago:

In early-modern times, child mortality was very high; in 18th century Sweden every third child died, and in 19th century Germany every second child died

Childhood mortality in Congo today:

The child mortality rate is a good indicator of development. High levels of infectious diseases and high child mortality make the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) one of the most challenging environments for health development in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Recent conflicts in the eastern part of the country and bad governance have compounded the problem. This study aimed to examine province-level geographic variation in under-five mortality (U5M), accounting for individual- and household-level risk factors including environmental factors such as conflict.

METHODS:
Our analysis used the nationally representative cross-sectional household sample of 8,992 children under five in the 2007 DRC Demographic and Health Survey. In the survey year, 1,005 deaths among this group were observed. Information on U5M was aggregated to the 11 provinces, and a Bayesian geo-additive discrete-time survival mixed model was used to map the geographic distribution of under-five mortality rates (U5MRs) at the province level, accounting for observable and unobservable risk factors.

RESULTS:
The overall U5MR was 159 per 1,000 live births. Significant associations with risk of U5M were found for <24 month birth interval [posterior odds ratio and 95% credible region: 1.14 (1.04, 1.26)], home birth [1.13 (1.01, 1.27)] and living with a single mother [1.16 (1.03, 1.33)]. Striking variation was also noted in the risk of U5M by province of residence, with the highest risk in Kasaï-Oriental, a non-conflict area of the DRC, and the lowest in the conflict area of North Kivu.

Life expectancy in the UK in the early 19th century:

A newborn boy was expected to live to 40.2 in 1841, compared to 79.0 in 2011, whereas a baby girl was expected to live to 42.2 in 1841 and 82.8 in 2011.

Life expectancy in Mali today:

According to the latest WHO data published in 2018 life expectancy in Mali is: Male 57.5, female 58.4 and total life expectancy is 58.0

Literacy rates:

In the UK around 53% of the population was literate in 1820.

Literacy rates in Yemen:

Literacy: definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 70.1%
male: 85.1%

Congo

Literacy: definition: age 15 and over can read and write French, Lingala, Kingwana, or Tshiluba
total population: 77%
male: 88.5%
female: 66.5% (2016 est.)

Mali

Literacy: definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 33.1%
male: 45.1%
female: 22.2% (2015 est.)

South Sudan:

Literacy: definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 27%
male: 40%
female: 16% (2009 est.)

Standards of living in the UK, 1770-1820:

According to economic historians (see page 7-8), the Human Development Index in the UK, based on life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy and civil rights was roughly 0.272 in 1760 and 0.337 in 1820.

The estimates of the HDI today are: 0.482 in Yemen, 0.442 in Mali, 0.592 in the DRC, 0.418 in South Sudan.

Moreover poor men and women couldn't vote, women couldn't own property separated from their husbands, capital punishment was routinely used for robbery, forgery, breaking and entering, and even cattle r horse or sheep theft. This wasn't much better than the situation under Sharia, where thieves are punished with bodily injury, women can't vote and their ownership rights are strictly limited.

For the rich, cultured elites 1818 in the UK (or Europe in general) might have been a decent year. I'm betting that for the rich, cultured elites 2018 in Congo, Mali, Yemen or even South Sudan isn't too bad. For the average person, though, the standards of living and civil rights in 1818 Europe were likely not much better, or even slightly lower, than those in the Third World of today. And the status of individual rights wasn't much better.

[MarcusAu]

https://viaobscuramedia.com/2018/08/25/ ... bin-laden/

Good article. Kirb should read it.

In was the hipster, the diversity consultant, and the progressive fanboy. This was not a time for righteous rebels, this was the age of nihilists with no chests, urbanites who defined themselves through consumption, and technocrats congratulating themselves on far-off plans to solve humanity’s problems with “science!”. This was the age of the eternally offended social justice warrior and the pathetically sycophantic pop culture consumer. A society whose visionaries, from Steve Jobs to Barack Obama, seemed to have little interested in planning for anything other than a post-national, post-hardship, and post-scarcity future. A civilization where one might define themselves as consumers of organic food, video games, or queer paraphernalia, but never believers in tradition, posterity, nationhood, or faith.

:clap:

He could have clipped the bit off the end to make his point more presentable.

[Kirbmarc]

Kirb.

Your argument would have been far stronger if you compared today’s liberal West with Mali.

If this is your attempt at a joke....

GDP at Purchasing Power Parity: (IMF data) the US 59,495$, Germany 50,206$, Australia 49,8882$, the UK 43,620 vs. Mali 2,169$

Press Freedom Index: Germany 15th highest, United Kingdom 40th highest, United States 45th highest, Australia 19th highest, vs. Mali 115th highest

Democracy Index: Germany 8.61 (full democracy), UK 8.53 (full democracy), US 7.98 (flawed democracy), Australia 9.09 (full democracy) vs. Mali 5.64 (hybrid regime)

HDI index: Germany 0.926, UK 0.909, US 0.920, Australia 0.939 vs. Mali 0.442.

Remember that the estimated HDI for the UK in 1820 was, according to economic historians 0.337.

It's clear that the "west" is MUCH better off today than in the early 19th century, while data seems to show that Africa and the Middle East today are more less at the leve where the "west" was two centuries ago. This is why immigrants come to the "west": the "west" is more free, richer, more peaceful, more developed.

The old "traditonal" west, compared to today, was an authoritarian, poor shithole. It has taken TIME to develop a functional liberal democracy, and it was necessary to DISMANTLE aristocratic traditions, theocracy, authoritarianism, old economic models. Worshiping the past because there it was "culturally homogeneous" is retarded.

[Kirbmarc]

https://viaobscuramedia.com/2018/08/25/ ... bin-laden/

Good article. Kirb should read it.

In was the hipster, the diversity consultant, and the progressive fanboy. This was not a time for righteous rebels, this was the age of nihilists with no chests, urbanites who defined themselves through consumption, and technocrats congratulating themselves on far-off plans to solve humanity’s problems with “science!”. This was the age of the eternally offended social justice warrior and the pathetically sycophantic pop culture consumer. A society whose visionaries, from Steve Jobs to Barack Obama, seemed to have little interested in planning for anything other than a post-national, post-hardship, and post-scarcity future. A civilization where one might define themselves as consumers of organic food, video games, or queer paraphernalia, but never believers in tradition, posterity, nationhood, or faith.[/b].

Technocracy and neoliberalism have plenty of problems, but to praise "faith" and "tradition" as substitutes is retarded. "Faith" and "tradition" are what keeps the muslim world backwards, illiterate, poor and violent. "Faith" and "tradition" are the reasons why Syria are Libya are shitholes, why Nigeria is plagued by thugs who kidnap girls who dare to read. "Faith" and "tradition" are why there are more books translated in Spain than in the world Arab world.

"Faith" and "tradition" kept the "west" backwards too. It was "faith" and "tradition" that supported the divine right of kings, the rigidly divided aristocratic social system, hostility to scientific development, and economic stagnation. This went on and on until slowly, gradually, painfully, the "west" got rid of them and has acquired freedoms and high standards of living.

The article is written by a reactionary Jordan Peterson fanboy obsessed with "strength".

[Old_ones]

https://viaobscuramedia.com/2018/08/25/ ... bin-laden/

Good article. Kirb should read it.

In was the hipster, the diversity consultant, and the progressive fanboy. This was not a time for righteous rebels, this was the age of nihilists with no chests, urbanites who defined themselves through consumption, and technocrats congratulating themselves on far-off plans to solve humanity’s problems with “science!”. This was the age of the eternally offended social justice warrior and the pathetically sycophantic pop culture consumer. A society whose visionaries, from Steve Jobs to Barack Obama, seemed to have little interested in planning for anything other than a post-national, post-hardship, and post-scarcity future. A civilization where one might define themselves as consumers of organic food, video games, or queer paraphernalia, but never believers in tradition, posterity, nationhood, or faith.

:clap:

I'm not sure what you think is laudable about this. The beautiful thing about "civic nationalism" is that you already have the right to care about "tradition, posterity, nationhood, or faith" on your own time, and you have every right to form communities and organizations that have similar priorities. The reason most people don't care about "tradition, posterity, nationhood, or faith" is because our cultures have organically moved away from those values over time. Trying to use the government to force "tradition, posterity, nationhood, [and] faith" on people is the route that Iran took in the Islamic revolution of 1978. I'm sure you've never talked to anyone from Iran, but I have, and I can tell you that forcing this shit from the top down doesn't work. There are a significant number of people in Iran who go along with the government to avoid being flogged or otherwise fucked with who hate the government and hate Islam. They come over here, the women all shed their veils, and they party like Americans. I don't claim I have a representative sample of Iranians to work with, but I understand from conversing with them that this sentiment is widespread in the younger generations.

[Tigzy]

Glinner seems to have gone TERF
Did anyone else notice this?

We might have done if he hadn't blocked about 99% of twitter.

[Kirbmarc]

I'm not sure what you think is laudable about this. The beautiful thing about "civic nationalism" is that you already have the right to care about "tradition, posterity, nationhood, or faith" on your own time, and you have every right to form communities and organizations that have similar priorities. The reason most people don't care about "tradition, posterity, nationhood, or faith" is because our cultures have organically moved away from those values over time. Trying to use the government to force "tradition, posterity, nationhood, [and] faith" on people is the route that Iran took in the Islamic revolution of 1978. I'm sure you've never talked to anyone from Iran, but I have, and I can tell you that forcing this shit from the top down doesn't work. There are a significant number of people in Iran who go along with the government to avoid being flogged or otherwise fucked with who hate the government and hate Islam. They come over here, the women all shed their veils, and they party like Americans. I don't claim I have a representative sample of Iranians to work with, but I understand from conversing with them that this sentiment is widespread in the younger generations.

This used to be a forum for secular atheists. Now we have people who praise articles preaching authoritarian, theocratic principles inspired by Jordan Peterson, the former pope and Catholic apologists. :bjarte:

[Old_ones]

The reason most people don't care about "tradition, posterity, nationhood, or faith" is because our cultures have organically moved away from those values over time.

Really, I should say "to the extent that people don't care", because I think saying that "most people don't care" is actually a huge overstatement. I think plenty of people are about "tradition, posterity, nationhood, or faith", but probably most of them don't want a fascist theocracy to tell them how to care about that stuff, or mete out harsh punishments if they don't measure up.

[Ape+lust]

Ditto BeckyBooze.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vq8z9YRWQE

I gave up trying to listen to her videos, all I can do it watch for her to cut her eyes to the right (her right). Why does she do it? It's very distracting and I can't follow her script because of it. Every. Fucking. Video. For. Years.

Did someone once tell her it made her look good/better/interesting or something?

At least she's ratcheted down the faux-newscaster schtick. She used to try to launch every syllable with a headsnap.

Poor Rebecca, today she's skeered of men who feel entitled to her body... men not named Reginald, that is.

These videos are demo reels, I'm sure. She's auditioned for talking head jobs, but never landed one. It must steam her buns that Lindsay Ellis parlayed that goofy Nostalgia Chick persona into a show with NPR. Maybe media guys have paid attention and know that hiring Rebecca would be a toxic injection into their workplaces.

This guy is the top listed Patreon donor she thanks by name:

https://imgur.com/CdT9AEd.jpg

Looks like she's still drawing from the pool of lovelorn dorks she despises. No wonder she's pissed off.

[MarcusAu]

This used to be a forum for secular atheists. Now we have people who praise articles preaching authoritarian, theocratic principles inspired by Jordan Peterson, the former pope and Catholic apologists. :bjarte:

Well it's not perfect, but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4l8BpYyMDQ

[Ape+lust]

:D

I love inadvertent mixed messages.

https://imgur.com/8eP1wmZ.jpg

[Ape+lust]

Milo is feeling unappreciated.

https://imgur.com/nfDP3oE.png

https://imgur.com/zdC0yPH.png

https://imgur.com/yqZDvSC.png

I have no idea how to link directly to a Facebook post. This is the best I can do:

https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/ ... 5354374357

[Kirbmarc]

Milo is feeling unappreciated.

https://imgur.com/nfDP3oE.png

https://imgur.com/zdC0yPH.png

https://imgur.com/yqZDvSC.png

I have no idea how to link directly to a Facebook post. This is the best I can do:

https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/ ... 5354374357

What a fucking snowflake.

[shoutinghorse]

https://imgur.com/8eP1wmZ.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/maSKV5F.jpg

[Tigzy]

This guy is the top listed Patreon donor she thanks by name:

https://imgur.com/CdT9AEd.jpg

'I wuv oo so much Webecca.'

[Tigzy]

I know I keep saying this, but Wu really does have a disturbing gum/teeth ratio.

[MarcusAu]

I know I keep saying this, but Wu really does have a disturbing gum/teeth ratio.

https://i.imgur.com/LeW5gy5.jpg

[Ape+lust]

What a fucking snowflake.

Just when #metoo starts to go wobbly from McGowan's antics and Argento's hypocrisy, Milo joins up with his own victim story.

He used to have better instincts. Who on the right is going to give a shit about a boytoy getting used as a boytoy?

https://www.dangerous.com/36684/milo-se ... ic-mentor/

[shoutinghorse]

These videos are demo reels, I'm sure. She's auditioned for talking head jobs, but never landed one.

She got regular gigs with Adam Savage before she cheated on her ex and his producer. Although there's still the occasional smiley face selfie whenever their paths do meet it's rather noticeable she's never been asked to appear on the Tested chat table again.

[Ape+lust]

These videos are demo reels, I'm sure. She's auditioned for talking head jobs, but never landed one.

She got regular gigs with Adam Savage before she cheated on her ex and his producer. Although there's still the occasional smiley face selfie whenever their paths do meet it's rather noticeable she's never been asked to appear on the Tested chat table again.

That's true. I'd forgotten she had that special guest gig on Savage's show.

I recall her talking about going to an audition at a TV station in Buffalo. She must want to be on TV really bad if she'd consider staying in a city she hated for it.

[CommanderTuvok]

Glinner seems to have gone TERF
Did anyone else notice this?

He went TERF at least a year ago, and the "transphobe" slur was thrown at him back then.

We lolled here at the Pit, because Glinner is a sad sack of SJW shit.

[some guy]

Milo is feeling unappreciated.

https://imgur.com/nfDP3oE.png

https://imgur.com/zdC0yPH.png

https://imgur.com/yqZDvSC.png

I have no idea how to link directly to a Facebook post. This is the best I can do:

https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/ ... 5354374357

I suspect those on the right never considered him to be one of their stars, but rather as a useful idiot.

[free thoughtpolice]

Wow. The alt right on the Brive News Network aren't fans of notorious anti-Trump dead guy John McCain.

https://dailystormer.name/evil-communis ... ally-dead/

[CommanderTuvok]

This freaky. I don't know much about how these online game tournaments work, but looks like somebody started to shoot of a weapon at one of these hang-outs.

The audio is quite disturbing.

[John D]

Wow. The alt right on the Brive News Network aren't fans of notorious anti-Trump dead guy John McCain.

https://dailystormer.name/evil-communis ... ally-dead/

In my view McCain was the worst kind of political monster. He wrapped himself in the flag and did everything he could to spend money and run up the debt. He is seen as a "maverick" but all he really was is a politician that pandered to his voters and made sure he spent tax money to promote his re-election. A very odd guy. He suffered through a POW camp for years and ended up crippled, but finally ended up being one the most-pro war Senators. He had this kind of persona where he convinced everyone everything he supported was because he was a patriot. A great smoke screen for bombing millions of little children in a stupid war. He said over and over that he wanted to repeal Obamacare and then given the chance he didn't do it... and somehow everyone thought this was brave. McCain fans are really weird.