Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/
Should the 60,000 Muslims expelled by Idi Amin in 1972 be allowed to return to their homeland?InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑ Apparently Ukip are proposing "Muslim Only Prisons"
Well, they got to have somewhere to send Tommy Robinson I suppose...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... lam-agenda
Yep. Which is both sad and scary, seeing how much infrastructure depends on linux.Sulman wrote: ↑ Sarah Sharp is a garden variety SocJus lunatic. If she was anywhere other than SF she'd starve to death.
The Linux Foundation in its infinite stupidity will reap the whirlwind. They have no idea what they have just let through the door.
And of course, where does our diversity and inclusion specialist see herself? no coalface for her. The top executive branch of the politburo is the only place for one with such profound knowledge.
Fuck her, and fuck the Linux Foundation. She's a bullshit-peddling chancer, proof of the idea that it simply isn't true that everybody should be listened to.
source: http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/ted_mail/0037.htmlFrom: Theodore Tso <tytso>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 02:17:14 -0500
If people want facts, perhaps they read some of these URL's and then come to their own conclusion:
Also, Matthew Garrett is a nasty little piece of shit and he can go to hell.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf
This appears to be the source of the 1 in 6 figure (17.6%). But it's worth going deeper. If you look at percentage of women reporting rape since age 18 (taking out the child abuse and statutory rape cases, which they also treat in detail), it becomes 1 in 10 (9.6%), and of those over 61.9% were at the hands of their intimate partner, as opposed to an acquaintance or stranger. Also in the survey, in the rapes that were reported via a randomized telephone survey, in 66.9% of those cases, the perpetrator did not threaten to harm or kill the victim. (Which makes it no less a crime, of course, but people may have images of rape which involves a other physical injuries, by a stranger, in some dark and deserted place. The statistics simply don't bear that out.)
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamli ... ummers.pdf
This one does a pretty good job of taking apart the Koss / Ms. Magazine study, which is the source for the "1 in 4" number. For example, it points out that over half of those cases were ones where undergraduates were plied with alcohol, and did not otherwise involve using physical force or other forms of coercion. And if you asked the women involved, only 27% of the people categorized by Koss as being raped called it rape themselves. Also found in the Koss study, although not widely reported, was the statistic that of the women whom she classified as being raped (although 73% refused to self-classify the event as rape), 46% of them had subsequent sex with the reported assailant.
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html
This is a more popularized treatment of the issue. There is quite a bit of anti-feminist ranting in the article, which you should try to ignore while looking at the arguments, which is that some of these rape statistics don't seem to hold much in the way of water.
Please note, I am not diminishing what rape is, and or any particular person's experience. However, I *am* challenging the use of statistics that may be hyperbolic and misleading, and ultimately may be very counterproductive if it causes people to become afraid when the reality might not be as horrible as the "1 in 4" numbers might at first sound. Just as it was wrong for George Bush to inspire fear in the population so he could push his War Against Iraq agenda through congress, it's also wrong for people who, out of good intentions, inspire fear in others or themselves of being raped if the statistics used are misleading and manipulated.
There was something like 80,000 'Ugandan Asians' kicked out by Amin and the majority were Gujarati Hindus of Indian heritage so I'm not sure where you get 60,000 Muslims from. And many went back after he was deposed.SM1957 wrote: ↑Should the 60,000 Muslims expelled by Idi Amin in 1972 be allowed to return to their homeland?InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑ Apparently Ukip are proposing "Muslim Only Prisons"
Well, they got to have somewhere to send Tommy Robinson I suppose...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... lam-agenda
I can't believe so many leftist news outlets are misgendering him in death. That is an act of violence.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ :nin: ?? Interesting how Snochia Moseley, the Maryland mass shooter / if-at-first-you-don't-succeed-put-the-gun-in-your-mouth suicide, is being described as "female" and a "she", despite having come out as a transman and undergoing hormone therapy.
It's almost as if the transradical community is afraid to embrace one of zith own.
I think PJ Watson is a little bit disingenuous when he implies that Jones is getting censored because he is a conservative. I'm not fond of totally silencing the loon, (wait here comes the but) but they also have other possibly valid reasons other than his political leaning.
Tell you what...this shooting has gone very quiet very quickly.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ :nin: ?? Interesting how Snochia Moseley, the Maryland mass shooter / if-at-first-you-don't-succeed-put-the-gun-in-your-mouth suicide, is being described as "female" and a "she", despite having come out as a transman and undergoing hormone therapy.
It's almost as if the transradical community is afraid to embrace one of zith own.
But he wasn’t banned during either of these periods and the reasons given are for technical breaches.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑I think PJ Watson is a little bit disingenuous when he implies that Jones is getting censored because he is a conservative. I'm not fond of totally silencing the loon, (wait here comes the but) but they also have other possibly valid reasons other than his political leaning.
He made and makes a lot of slanderous claims about people, for instance the families and the victims of the Sandy Hook shootings, claiming they were actors paid by the socialist types to stage a hoax so they can steal your guns. It isn't too much of a stretch to say that this is an outrageous lie told to incite hatred against people that lobby for stricter gun control. The unfortunate victims were threatened and abused because of these goofy baseless lies that were spread.
The pizzagate crap got to the point that one of his "conservative" listeners came into the pizza joint with a gun looking to rescue sex slaves.
He kind of reminds me of a criminal that lived in my general community that I learned of because one of my many girlfriends was a psych nurse that worked with the local mental health services. He was basically a skeevy conman that pretended to be mentally ill to get involved with group events so he could exploit brain damaged and mentally ill people by getting money from them and dupe them into committing crimes for him.
The lowest of the low.
Don't worry. He will still be counted as a man in the "Can you believe how many white men did mass shooting?" tally by WaPo abd Snopes, even though she was a black woman.CommanderTuvok wrote: ↑Tell you what...this shooting has gone very quiet very quickly.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ :nin: ?? Interesting how Snochia Moseley, the Maryland mass shooter / if-at-first-you-don't-succeed-put-the-gun-in-your-mouth suicide, is being described as "female" and a "she", despite having come out as a transman and undergoing hormone therapy.
It's almost as if the transradical community is afraid to embrace one of zith own.
To your point that it wasn't done in a timely matter. I really doesn't have to. Rather than banning him directly after one offense, they have done it because of cumulative behavior probably, and besides, in spite of the examples that I gave happened a while ago, Jones is still peddling the same type of crap lately too.But he wasn’t banned during either of these periods and the reasons given are for technical breaches.
The issues that make this interesting are a conflux of:
Lack of clear cause
Observed brigading
The timings before the mid terms
The general timing within the SJW-Trump culture wars
The apparent collusion between technology trusts
The expansion into basic commerce
The failure to apply similar standards across the board - ie it’s directed
The spread of deplatforming across a broader space (Southern, Goldy, Red Ice and all the rest)
The influence of left funded “think tanks” like that behind the recent abortion of a report
The unlikelihood this will stop here.
The poor bastard looks like he got his dad's fizzog, not his mum's. At least it's evidence for the poor cuck that Mary hasn't been spreading faster than Skippy on a hot bagel...Brive1987 wrote: ↑ Myers claims he got the photo today and it demonstrates how his grandson is being spoilt whilst in Korea on holiday because ... and wonderfully, he is the first grandson in a lovely exotic culture.
Only white males need fear.
The horde is gently pointing out that PZ’s gush is not supported by the date on the pic. Somethings fishy.
:lol:
But my research—including academic studies, journalistic accounts, and cases recorded in the US National Registry of Exonerations—suggests that every part of this narrative is wrong. What’s more, it’s wrong in ways that help real rapists escape justice, while perversely making it more likely that we will miss the signs of false reports.
I would post this on a MRA blog (but I would probably get banned) instead I am going to just drop this one here.Innocent men rarely face rape charges
...
This may be hard to believe, especially considering that rape is a felony, punishable with years of prison. However—to start with this worst-case scenario—it’s exceedingly rare for a false rape allegation to end in prison time. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, since records began in 1989, in the US there are only 52 cases where men convicted of sexual assault were exonerated because it turned out they were falsely accused. By way of comparison, in the same period, there are 790 cases in which people were exonerated for murder.
AndrewV69 wrote: ↑ For those interested :
Our ideas about false accusers have little to do with reality. What kind of person makes false rape accusations?But my research—including academic studies, journalistic accounts, and cases recorded in the US National Registry of Exonerations—suggests that every part of this narrative is wrong. What’s more, it’s wrong in ways that help real rapists escape justice, while perversely making it more likely that we will miss the signs of false reports.I would post this on a MRA blog (but I would probably get banned) instead I am going to just drop this one here.Innocent men rarely face rape charges
...
This may be hard to believe, especially considering that rape is a felony, punishable with years of prison. However—to start with this worst-case scenario—it’s exceedingly rare for a false rape allegation to end in prison time. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, since records began in 1989, in the US there are only 52 cases where men convicted of sexual assault were exonerated because it turned out they were falsely accused. By way of comparison, in the same period, there are 790 cases in which people were exonerated for murder.
Anyway,
Food for thought?
Maybe it is easier to prove or disprove a murder than a rape. If there is a murder there is possibly a body that has clear signs of nonconsensual damage whereas as a rape may depend on a he said /she said account o f the events.According to the National Registry of Exonerations, since records began in 1989, in the US there are only 52 cases where men convicted of sexual assault were exonerated because it turned out they were falsely accused. By way of comparison, in the same period, there are 790 cases in which people were exonerated for murder.
I’m not sure what argument is being made with drool :drool:free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Brive wrote:To your point that it wasn't done in a timely matter. I really doesn't have to. Rather than banning him directly after one offense, they have done it because of cumulative behavior probably, and besides, in spite of the examples that I gave happened a while ago, Jones is still peddling the same type of crap lately too.But he wasn’t banned during either of these periods and the reasons given are for technical breaches.
The issues that make this interesting are a conflux of:
Lack of clear cause
Observed brigading
The timings before the mid terms
The general timing within the SJW-Trump culture wars
The apparent collusion between technology trusts
The expansion into basic commerce
The failure to apply similar standards across the board - ie it’s directed
The spread of deplatforming across a broader space (Southern, Goldy, Red Ice and all the rest)
The influence of left funded “think tanks” like that behind the recent abortion of a report
The unlikelihood this will stop here.
As to your other points, I can agree with "lack of clear cause" in that they gave a a vague, overly generalized explanation for the ban. They could have at least given some better description on where their boundaries are.
As for timing, collusion :drool: , expansion into basic comm
erce: no.
The failure to apply similar standards: agreed
The deplatforming :drool: left funded "thinktanks" :drool:
As to the likelihood that the PC suppression of free speech will continue to snowball into some Atheist+ dystopia, I think they they are getting more push back lately and hopefully people will gravitate to a moderate position instead of the goofy politically polarized circus that is happening now.
We are informed that:“On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.”
― Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
The scariest thing about this situation is that it may be a microcosm of a much larger problem in the Australian mortgage market. An analyst from UBS, Jonathan Mott, has estimated that as much of $500 billion worth of Australia’s $1.7 trillion mortgage book could be made up of similar types of loans, often referred to as "liar loans".
You've asked the question about Free Thoughpolice's positon on deplatformings and then assumed the answer before even waiting for his reply.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I’m not sure what argument is being made with drool :drool:
You like the Data and Society mob? The SPLC? :bjarte:
You like the major tech firms ganging up in ideological lockstep? And stopping the free exchange of money based on ideas? Maybe you’d like emails and phone calls to be similarly dealt with?
You approve of the recent spate of deplatformings?
Ok. Noted.
MarcusAu wrote: ↑You've asked the question about Free Thoughpolice's positon on deplatformings and then assumed the answer before even waiting for his reply.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I’m not sure what argument is being made with drool :drool:
You like the Data and Society mob? The SPLC? :bjarte:
You like the major tech firms ganging up in ideological lockstep? And stopping the free exchange of money based on ideas? Maybe you’d like emails and phone calls to be similarly dealt with?
You approve of the recent spate of deplatformings?
Ok. Noted.
As 'recent' is a relative concept - perhaps the deplaforming of Andrew Anglin (Stormfront), Jared Taylor (American Renaissance), VDare, Mike Enoch (Daily Shoah & The Right Stuff) could also be included as examples or at least precursors to the current round.
Most people are more incentivised to protest or take action if they feel it effects them or someone with similar views to them.
Hmmmm let’s see.MarcusAu wrote: ↑You've asked the question about Free Thoughpolice's positon on deplatformings and then assumed the answer before even waiting for his reply.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I’m not sure what argument is being made with drool :drool:
You like the Data and Society mob? The SPLC? :bjarte:
You like the major tech firms ganging up in ideological lockstep? And stopping the free exchange of money based on ideas? Maybe you’d like emails and phone calls to be similarly dealt with?
You approve of the recent spate of deplatformings?
Ok. Noted.
As 'recent' is a relative concept - perhaps the deplaforming of Andrew Anglin (Stormfront), Jared Taylor (American Renaissance), VDare, Mike Enoch (Daily Shoah & The Right Stuff) could also be included as examples or at least precursors to the current round.
Most people are more incentivised to protest or take action if they feel it effects them or someone with similar views to them.
I guess he could have dismissed my named names in favour of others. I wouldn’t put my money on it.Brive: “The spread of deplatforming across a broader space (Southern, Goldy, Red Ice and all the rest)”
Freethought: “The deplatforming :drool: ”
and posits a motivation for these 'preachers':Before analyzing Wokeness as a status system, we must understand it as a quasi-religious doctrine. Unlike scientific theories or other empirical claims, the basic tenets of Wokeness are held with sacred fervor. Those who challenge them are not debated; rather, their motives are denounced, and they are cast out of polite society like heretics. To take just one example, when someone objects to the Woke principle that “diversity is a strength,” committed believers rarely greet the objection as an opportunity for argument. Instead, they attack the apostate for his sacrilege, and accuse him of unspeakable moral treachery
Wokeness, as a status system that functions predominantly to distinguish white elites from the white masses (whom we will call hoi polloi). It does this by offering a rich signalling vocabulary for traits and possessions such as education, intelligence, openness, leisure, wealth, and cosmopolitanism, all of which educated elites value .... From this perspective, the preachers of the Great Awokening—those who most ardently and eloquently articulate the principles of Wokeness—obtain status because they (a) signal the possession of desired traits and (b) promulgate a powerful narrative that legitimizes the status disparity between white elites and hoi polloi. The elites, according to these preachers, are morally righteous and therefore deserve status, whereas hoi polloi are morally backward and deserve obloquy and derision.
Aka "Saudi Arabia". Good plan.
Always liked Chas and Dave. Good solid tunes with no pretentious arty-farty or political bollocks. He'll be missed.shoutinghorse wrote: ↑ RIP Chas Hodges. (Chas & Dave) They used to always have a meal and a drink in my brothers local boozer whenever they played in our home town. Really nice blokes. :cry:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainmen ... nel=social
Is that the dike's front hole? Clearly too wide to just stick a finger into.feathers wrote: ↑ Here's a fat, black crippled dike, arguably without clothes. Where do I get my prize?
http://dutchdikes.net/wp-content/upload ... 24x556.jpg
source
Your on his side because he is your kousin. :PMatt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ You like the Data and Society mob? The SPLC?
You like the major tech firms ganging up in ideological lockstep? And stopping the free exchange of money based on ideas? Maybe you’d like emails and phone calls to be similarly dealt with?
You approve of the recent spate of deplatformings?
Ok. Noted.
You use Bjartes to answer an argument?You like the Data and Society mob? The SPLC? :bjarte:
You like the major tech firms ganging up in ideological lockstep? And stopping the free exchange of money based on ideas? Maybe you’d like emails and phone calls to be similarly dealt with?
You approve of the recent spate of deplatformings?
Ok. Noted.
This sounds like the thesis of the godfather of the Alt-Right - Jim Goad - as laid out in 'The Redneck Manifesto' written in the 1990s.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Another brilliant Quillette article:
The Preachers of the Great Awokening
I've seen SJWism as a religious cult all along, this piece succinctly explains how that is,
and posits a motivation for these 'preachers':Before analyzing Wokeness as a status system, we must understand it as a quasi-religious doctrine. Unlike scientific theories or other empirical claims, the basic tenets of Wokeness are held with sacred fervor. Those who challenge them are not debated; rather, their motives are denounced, and they are cast out of polite society like heretics. To take just one example, when someone objects to the Woke principle that “diversity is a strength,” committed believers rarely greet the objection as an opportunity for argument. Instead, they attack the apostate for his sacrilege, and accuse him of unspeakable moral treachery
Wokeness, as a status system that functions predominantly to distinguish white elites from the white masses (whom we will call hoi polloi). It does this by offering a rich signalling vocabulary for traits and possessions such as education, intelligence, openness, leisure, wealth, and cosmopolitanism, all of which educated elites value .... From this perspective, the preachers of the Great Awokening—those who most ardently and eloquently articulate the principles of Wokeness—obtain status because they (a) signal the possession of desired traits and (b) promulgate a powerful narrative that legitimizes the status disparity between white elites and hoi polloi. The elites, according to these preachers, are morally righteous and therefore deserve status, whereas hoi polloi are morally backward and deserve obloquy and derision.
IIRC, the plan from last year was to make people pay a nominal amount for access to official copies of all the talks, but the hilarious Sargon one went viral, so MM let him post it with a plea for Patreon money. I don't think they will post this year's talks, at least not soon.InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑ A few clips on Twitter but are these MythCon debates likely to be put online? I can't see any indication on their website.
Just tracking how overtly and extremely ideologically political the various pieces are here. The GOP lack of interest in questioning the friend who “was there” is just as bad.
Simple questionion. Does the drool emoji indicate support for a position or outcome? I’d have guessed “yes”. If not, I really don’t understand your response.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Brive wrote:You use Bjartes to answer an argument?You like the Data and Society mob? The SPLC? :bjarte:
You like the major tech firms ganging up in ideological lockstep? And stopping the free exchange of money based on ideas? Maybe you’d like emails and phone calls to be similarly dealt with?
You approve of the recent spate of deplatformings?
Ok. Noted.
You think the Deep State is turning the frogs gay? That Hillary Clinton is a demon? The recent spate of school shootings are hoaxes staged by the DS to take our guns away? You think youtube and other big corps that are run by the Jooze don't have the right to refuse "conservatives" to slander people, disseminate false conspiracies that incite mob hatred, and warn white people that totally aren't shallow bigots that White Genocide is happening and they need to go to war with the nig nogs and other mud people on their platforms? And deny the rights of using their platforms to make false claims about unproven and possibly adulterated "diet supplements" and peddle them to gullible marks? Which of course qualifies as the free exchange of money based on ideas.
OK. Noted.
