If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

Hunt wrote: ↑there's nothing more mortifying than having your ass wiped

Bhurzum wrote: ↑

Hunt wrote: ↑there's nothing more mortifying than having your ass wiped

Does "the help" cut up your food for you too?

/childish

Are we allowed to criticise the niqab yet? This question crossed my mind as I watched that viral clip of a niqab-clad woman hurling homophobic invective at a Pride marcher in Walthamstow in London. Surely now it will become acceptable to raise questions about this medieval garment (banned in several Muslim countries) and about the views and attitudes of those who wear it?

On one level, the footage of the niqab-wearering lady spouting anti-gay hate wasn’t very surprising. Shocking, yes, but not surprising. It’s not as if someone who covers themselves from head to toe in archaic black cloth (which, as Qanta Ahmed has said, is not in the least suggested let alone mandated by the Koran) is going to hold enlightened views on sexuality. Stop the press — religious fundamentalist is not a fan of gay sex!

"Disgusting homophobic abuse at those on Waltham Forest Pride today.

No matter what form hate comes in, we must stamp it out and say no to all forms of hate! Also, very importantly we cannot call out one form of hate but be silent/complicit on others. @GalopUK @stonewalluk pic.twitter.com/kDAFoAb8Vw

— Yusuf Patel (@YusufJP_) July 27, 2019"

‘Shame on you’, the woman shouts at the man who is draped in a Pride flag. ‘God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve’, she continued, bizarrely adding a dash of old, Alf Garnett-style homophobia to her broader Koran-inspired loathing of homosexuality. I guess this is a kind of ‘melting pot’ of cultures — 1950s-style homegrown homophobia with a dash of Eastern-inspired extremism.

The clip has caused much discomfort in woke-left circles. After all, the woke crew like gay people and women who wear the niqab. How are they meant to respond to such a public spat between two of their favourite identity groups?

What a pickle. Condemn the religious nutter and risk joining Boris Johnson in that camp of nasty Islamophobes who slag off niqab-wearers? Or be soft on the screaming lady and risk implying that it is sometimes okay to bark insults at gay people? What is an intersectional leftist to do!

Their solution, it seems, is to be more gentle with this homophobe than they would be with other homophobes. The local MP Stella Creasy says she was ‘gutted’ to see this clash — a tellingly passive word.

The Independent’s coverage dances around the fact that the woman was wearing a niqab, informing its readers that the abusive woman was ‘dressed in black, with a black veil and black-rimmed glasses’. Okay. Can we be more specific? She was wearing ‘clothing commonly associated with female followers of Islam’, the paper said. We got there in the end! Strikingly, the Indie report doesn’t mention the word ‘niqab’. Perhaps it thought mentioning the N-word would set off the Islamophobes.

And is it only me who finds it pretty alarming that the victim of the woman’s abuse says in response to her, ‘We still love you’? Another Pride attendee can be heard informing her that ‘fascists’ say the same thing about her as she is saying about gay people. Why such leniency? Why didn’t they tell her to eff off, as they undoubtedly, and rightly, would have done if it had been any other kind of anti-gay hysteric?

All you have to do is imagine if the person shouting anti-gay abuse had been a big white bloke with an east London accent and loads of tattoos and a St George’s flag hanging from his back pocket. Do you think Ms Creasy would only have been ‘gutted’ in that instance? Or that the Twitterati would have been as cagey as they have been in response to the niqab loon? Of course not.

And herein lies the problem. It is precisely the obsessive ringfencing of Islam from normal levels of scrutiny that encourages some of its adherents — some, note — to cling to backward views.

If your views are never confronted, and in fact are protected from confrontation by an Islamophobia industry that depicts virtually any criticism of Islam as a hate crime, how are you ever meant to rethink what you think? To change your mind? To analyse your beliefs and try to move forward to a more progressive view of the world?

If this niqab-wearing woman thinks she can waltz through her community hurling backward religious hatred at gay people, should we really be surprised? After all, she lives in a country where even criticising the niqab itself is a no no, as Boris discovered when he rightly called it an oppressive and ridiculous garment, and also rightly said it should not be banned.

Boris was right. The niqab is ridiculous and oppressive. It is also anti-social, a big, black ‘screw you’ to contemporary society. It is a hostile garment, declaring the wearer’s fealty to archaic religious values and her disdain for the liberal, licentious society she lives in.

It shouldn’t be banned, of course. Women must be free to wear it. But by the same token the rest of us must be free to say that it is a stupid and offensive thing to wear and that the Waltham Forest homophobe is probably fairly typical of those who wear it.

Things have now been made worse by the involvement of the police, who are investigating this woman’s alleged hate crime. We don’t need more authoritarianism. We don’t need more speech-policing. We just need a more open and critical public sphere in which everything, including Islam, is up for debate.

InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑ I assume the usual other UK Pitter locals are on holiday as not already posted . This is from my neck of the woods in Waltham Forest. Literally a mile or so away.
Amazingly someone has been arrested already. Good luck on that identification parade.

Hunt wrote: ↑If anyone wants to prove me wrong, show me the niqab wearing women ("she-burritos" as I call them) that celebrate gay rights? I'll recant immediately.

Maybe I should do a spontaneous spider workshop, alone, outside, just for me — don’t be alarmed if you see a strange man lurking in the bushes outside your room.

Hunt wrote: ↑ From PZ's Skepticon post:

Maybe I should do a spontaneous spider workshop, alone, outside, just for me — don’t be alarmed if you see a strange man lurking in the bushes outside your room.

Yeah, right. Apparently PZ is the last person to realize that his countenance is everybody's stereotypical image of the lurking overcoat pervert. Go ahead, PZ, I dare you. You'll be reported and ejected from Skepticon faster than you can say Latrodectus tredecimguttatus.

don’t be alarmed if you see a strange man lurking in the bushes outside your room.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 31, 2019 2:00 pm

Heidi Mehta gets her panties in a twist because Target stopped selling a "Humanist" throw pillow:

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/201 ... ow-pillow/

The only possible explanation is that humanist-hating christians pressured Target to remove the offending item.

Bhurzum wrote: ↑ Well, once again I've been placed upon the Twatter naughty step. Apparently the following image is a threat of violence:

https://pics.loveforquotes.com/mi-gener ... 668824.png

Fucking commies, piss-weak cowards. Don't think I can be arsed jumping through the hoops to un-ban my account.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑

don’t be alarmed if you see a strange man lurking in the bushes outside your room.

PZ's just kidding. All of his many creepy comments over the years, filled with sexual predatory innuendo, are in jest. Totally nothing rapey lurking underneath that disheveled teddy bear exterior.

Really? wrote: ↑So it is okay on Twitter to coordinate attacks on government facilities and personnel, but NOT okay to point out Pinochet was a scumbag.

Hunt wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:30 am

From PZ's Skepticon post:

Maybe I should do a spontaneous spider workshop, alone, outside, just for me — don’t be alarmed if you see a strange man lurking in the bushes outside your room.

Yeah, right. Apparently PZ is the last person to realize that his countenance is everybody's stereotypical image of the lurking overcoat pervert. Go ahead, PZ, I dare you. You'll be reported and ejected from Skepticon faster than you can say Latrodectus tredecimguttatus.

MarcusAu wrote: ↑ A lot of this criticism seems to be based on pure ignorance.

Is there not one amougst us that has had their balls waxed?

Really? wrote: ↑

MarcusAu wrote: ↑ A lot of this criticism seems to be based on pure ignorance.

Is there not one amougst us that has had their balls waxed?

Exactly. Most men enjoy getting their genitals waxed by someone who doesn't know how to do it and doesn't have the right kind of wax.

MarcusAu wrote: ↑ A lot of this criticism seems to be based on pure ignorance.

Is there not one amougst us that has had their balls waxed?

Really? wrote: ↑ :confusion-helpsos: :confusion-helpsos: :confusion-helpsos: Red alert, everyone. An old friend needs some help and doesn't want to get a job. :confusion-helpsos: :confusion-helpsos: :confusion-helpsos:



:confusion-helpsos: :confusion-helpsos: :confusion-helpsos: She only gets $575 in Patreon each month. :confusion-helpsos: :confusion-helpsos: :confusion-helpsos:

Really? wrote: ↑ It's come to this. Comedian Mark Hughes has a Super-SJW parody character. That character did a 40-minute interview with Jessica "Wax My Balls" Yaniv. We learn so much from Jessica. Did you know that she has both a vagina and a penis and that both are circumcised?

What do you want to bet that Jessie will speak at the next Skepticon?

InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑

MarcusAu wrote: ↑ A lot of this criticism seems to be based on pure ignorance.

Is there not one amougst us that has had their balls waxed?

Will anyone testicle...er...testify to that?
-

MarcusAu wrote: ↑ A lot of this criticism seems to be based on pure ignorance.

Is there not one amougst us that has had their balls waxed?

KiwiInOz wrote: ↑

MarcusAu wrote: ↑ A lot of this criticism seems to be based on pure ignorance.

Is there not one amougst us that has had their balls waxed?

Mine are in Madame Tussaud's.

Random Lurker wrote: ↑

InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑

MarcusAu wrote: ↑ A lot of this criticism seems to be based on pure ignorance.

Is there not one amougst us that has had their balls waxed?

Will anyone testicle...er...testify to that?
-

When I was young and an avid cyclist there was a period where I used to use depilatory cream on my legs. One day while letting the cream set for a bit I wound up getting some on my sack. If anyone ever gets really drunk and thinks putting Nair on your scrotum might be wild or good for a laugh ... don't.

Lsuoma wrote: ↑

Random Lurker wrote: ↑

InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑

MarcusAu wrote: ↑ A lot of this criticism seems to be based on pure ignorance.

Is there not one amougst us that has had their balls waxed?

Will anyone testicle...er...testify to that?
-

When I was young and an avid cyclist there was a period where I used to use depilatory cream on my legs. One day while letting the cream set for a bit I wound up getting some on my sack. If anyone ever gets really drunk and thinks putting Nair on your scrotum might be wild or good for a laugh ... don't.

I grew up in kids' homes, and one of the initiation rites was minty toothpaste on the bell end. No - just no.

Bhurzum wrote: ↑ ...That's two (or more) ladies of the night...

Random Lurker wrote: ↑

InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑

MarcusAu wrote: ↑ A lot of this criticism seems to be based on pure ignorance.

Is there not one amougst us that has had their balls waxed?

Will anyone testicle...er...testify to that?
-

When I was young and an avid cyclist there was a period where I used to use depilatory cream on my legs. One day while letting the cream set for a bit I wound up getting some on my sack. If anyone ever gets really drunk and thinks putting Nair on your scrotum might be wild or good for a laugh ... don't.

screwtape wrote: ↑

Random Lurker wrote: ↑

InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑

MarcusAu wrote: ↑ A lot of this criticism seems to be based on pure ignorance.

Is there not one amougst us that has had their balls waxed?

Will anyone testicle...er...testify to that?
-

When I was young and an avid cyclist there was a period where I used to use depilatory cream on my legs. One day while letting the cream set for a bit I wound up getting some on my sack. If anyone ever gets really drunk and thinks putting Nair on your scrotum might be wild or good for a laugh ... don't.

My first job was as a house surgeon to a urologist at Northwick Park Hospital. We took part in a trial of Nair instead of pre-op shaving. It didn't end well (especially considering the locations of the intended surgeries) and the upshot of it all is that pre-op hair removal is no longer performed by either method. There are fewer wound infections if the bacteria living in the skin or in follicles are not disturbed and brought up to the surface.
As an aside, I became progressively more disturbed by the disappearance of pubic hair over the years. Our responses to secondary sexual characteristics are deeply instinctual, and I don't see why anyone would think it helpful to remove one of them so as to appear to be pre-pubertal. It's like choosing to wear no lipstick and have no curves and still hoping to be as attractive as before. Perhaps it's one of the mysterious mechanisms by which our birth rate is declining as the population density increases, along with young people having less sex, choosing impossible gender identities, being gay, choosing to be childfree, and so on.

screwtape wrote: ↑

Random Lurker wrote: ↑

InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑

MarcusAu wrote: ↑ A lot of this criticism seems to be based on pure ignorance.

Is there not one amougst us that has had their balls waxed?

Will anyone testicle...er...testify to that?
-

When I was young and an avid cyclist there was a period where I used to use depilatory cream on my legs. One day while letting the cream set for a bit I wound up getting some on my sack. If anyone ever gets really drunk and thinks putting Nair on your scrotum might be wild or good for a laugh ... don't.

My first job was as a house surgeon to a urologist at Northwick Park Hospital. We took part in a trial of Nair instead of pre-op shaving. It didn't end well (especially considering the locations of the intended surgeries) and the upshot of it all is that pre-op hair removal is no longer performed by either method. There are fewer wound infections if the bacteria living in the skin or in follicles are not disturbed and brought up to the surface.
As an aside, I became progressively more disturbed by the disappearance of pubic hair over the years. Our responses to secondary sexual characteristics are deeply instinctual, and I don't see why anyone would think it helpful to remove one of them so as to appear to be pre-pubertal. It's like choosing to wear no lipstick and have no curves and still hoping to be as attractive as before. Perhaps it's one of the mysterious mechanisms by which our birth rate is declining as the population density increases, along with young people having less sex, choosing impossible gender identities, being gay, choosing to be childfree, and so on.

Service Dog wrote: ↑ https://i.cbc.ca/1.5037507.1551380061!/ ... zuboff.jpg

Random Lurker wrote: ↑Been lucky myself in that all the long term relationships I've been in the women tended to go for the 'natural but well maintained' look. But not all relationships are the same. If one party prefers the shaved look and the other likes it natural, why not split the difference?

Hunt wrote: ↑
Still, not a good argument against shaving ass hair.

Spoken from experience. I just recovered from what can only be called an ass rash on steroids from hell. I've never felt pain like that before. I figured it can't be a good thing to have all that bacteria catching detritus back there. I'm feeling much better now. TMI? You're a doctor; you'll get over it.

MarcusAu wrote: ↑I hope you, Jessica, and Danielle enjoyed yourselves.

InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑ She looks like a middle aged Titania McGrath.

The Age of Surveillance Capitalism is a polemic: it argues a single side of a case forcefully with every means at its disposal. I would go so far as to say that any success it enjoys will be due almost completely to Zuboff’s use of compelling metaphors to illustrate the data extractivism practiced by surveillance capitalists. Check out her description of how people fit into surveillance capitalism, which just floored me:

I think of elephants, the most majestic of all mammals: Big Other poaches our behaviour for surplus and leaves behind all the meaning lodged in our bodies, our brains, and our beating hearts, not unlike the monstrous slaughter of elephants for ivory. Forget the cliché that if it’s free, ‘You are the product.’ You are not the product; you are the abandoned carcass. The ‘product’ derives from the surplus that is ripped from your life (page 377).

The Age of Surveillance Capitalism is designed to elicit maximum revulsion. Comparing Facebook users to abandoned elephant carcasses highlights the extent to which Zuboff is playing on our emotions to make her point. At its best, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism succeeds better than anything else I’ve read at getting across the threat posed by surveillance capitalism.

Using vivid language is a perfectly appropriate means to make a point. It becomes problematic, however, when it shades into hyperbole. When that happens, one’s argument stops relying so much on reason, logic and evidence – the foundation of an academic’s authority – and begins relying on how it makes the reader feel.

Bhurzum wrote: ↑

Random Lurker wrote: ↑Been lucky myself in that all the long term relationships I've been in the women tended to go for the 'natural but well maintained' look. But not all relationships are the same. If one party prefers the shaved look and the other likes it natural, why not split the difference?

In the past, sailors used to eat in the dark so they couldn't see the weevils in their food.

I'm the opposite (but for similar reasons) - if I can't see it, I'm not eating it!

Random Lurker wrote: ↑Still no need for deforestation.

ll880036_v2x1000.jpg

screwtape wrote: ↑ As an aside, I became progressively more disturbed by the disappearance of pubic hair over the years. Our responses to secondary sexual characteristics are deeply instinctual, and I don't see why anyone would think it helpful to remove one of them so as to appear to be pre-pubertal. It's like choosing to wear no lipstick and have no curves and still hoping to be as attractive as before. Perhaps it's one of the mysterious mechanisms by which our birth rate is declining as the population density increases, along with young people having less sex, choosing impossible gender identities, being gay, choosing to be childfree, and so on.

Bhurzum wrote: ↑

Random Lurker wrote: ↑Still no need for deforestation.

ll880036_v2x1000.jpg

I suppose we could take your suggestion to its logical conclusion...

https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.eremedia ... 00x467.jpg

Far simpler if she just shaves her gorilla salad.

katamari Damassi wrote: ↑ So has anyone watched Years and Years(BBC, HBO)? It's by Russel T. Davies and it's the Russel T. Daviest thing he's ever done. It's about a British family and it follows them about 15 years into the future. There appears to be just 3 heterosexual couples left in Britain, and 2 of those are interracial. The family consists of Gran, Lesbian Granddaughter, Gay Grandson, Crippled Granddaughter, Evil Straight Grandson, Black Wife of Evil Straight Grandson, their biracial transhuman daughter(most interesting character of the lot), and Lesbian Granddaughter's transsexual Asian donated sperm baby. Crippled Granddaughter is so Handicap Pride that she turns down medical treatment that could restore the use of her legs.

Anywho... Emma Thompson plays a Marine LePen/Donald Trump hybrid and turns the UK into V for Vendetta. The resistance is run by Lesbian Granddaughter and is otherwise populated by POC.

I should've hated this show but I really enjoyed it. Partly for cringe, but partly because as over the top as it was, it was really well done.

mordacious1 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:34 pm

Jerry and the folks at WEIT are watching the Democrat debates and are bemoaning the thought that Trump will get re-elected. Apparently, all the candidates are left wing nutters. If I had a Trump straw, I could drink up their tears:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... /#comments

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑

mordacious1 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:34 pm

Jerry and the folks at WEIT are watching the Democrat debates and are bemoaning the thought that Trump will get re-elected. Apparently, all the candidates are left wing nutters. If I had a Trump straw, I could drink up their tears:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... /#comments

And now they're all wetting their panties planning an impeachment party like a true Progressive lynch mob. They'd better be careful what they wish for because the Left has broken down so many expectations of the presumption of innocence while simultaneously acting as if they're morally above scrutiny.
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php ... start=6420

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:29 am

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑

mordacious1 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:34 pm

Jerry and the folks at WEIT are watching the Democrat debates and are bemoaning the thought that Trump will get re-elected. Apparently, all the candidates are left wing nutters. If I had a Trump straw, I could drink up their tears:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... /#comments

And now they're all wetting their panties planning an impeachment party like a true Progressive lynch mob. They'd better be careful what they wish for because the Left has broken down so many expectations of the presumption of innocence while simultaneously acting as if they're morally above scrutiny.
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php ... start=6420

The comments there are further evidence that the leftist elite are living in their own little fantasy world.

Impeachment hearings will "educate" the "woefully uninformed" peasants, because everyone watches C-Span and Rachel Maddow just like us, amirite?

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑I'm not even positive that there is no convincing evidence against Trump, but if someone wants me to believe that then they'd need to provide some references first. "Its obvious and you're a Trump loving moron if you disagree" is not a sufficient argument