How old is he? His joints, especially hips, could be really hurting him, which would explain the inability to jump and the growling when you touch him.John D wrote: ↑ He is an asshole when he gets tired at night. He stands by the bed and wants to go to sleep but doesn't have enough energy to jump on the bed. So... he stands at the bed side and looks at me for a solution. I gently pick him up and he growls at me while I do it. He doesn't like to be touched when he is tired. I suppose he would prefer it if I setup a little doggie ladder so he could climb up to bed. Haha. What a shithead.
IMG_0641.jpg
Fuck off, Jamie!
-
- .
- Posts: 15449
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
- Contact:
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
shoutinghorse wrote: ↑ Remember that smug cunt 'The Secret Barrister' .. Well he's having to swallow some big portions of humble pie right now. :D
Last three paragraphs.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/ ... -all-mean/
Yeah fuck him for admitting he was wrong when more information comes to light! Fucking asshole.Yes. My initial impression, based on the limited information available, was that the summary procedure was appropriate in the Leeds case. As the Court of Appeal explained, it was not. There were alternatives open to the judge which should have been explored. There were also obvious failings to abide by the procedural rules, although I would plead in mitigation that none of that information was available at the time that the story was first reported. As a result, the hearing was not fair. Whether the sentence was appropriate was not decided by the Court of Appeal and may perhaps be best assessed by what the freshly-constituted Crown Court decides to do, (although my position on that was neutral – I observed simply that the sentence was not out of the ordinary for serious contempts of court.)
So I hold my hands up – imperfect information makes for imperfect predictions. But is there a wider issue here, among me and other legal commentators? Were we too quick to dismiss the case with a “nothing to see here” wave of the hand, blinded by the unappealing nature of Robinson’s supporters and the organised maelstrom of fake news stirred up here and abroad? Maybe we were. Maybe we could have – should have – cleared our ears and browsers of the white (pride) noise and paid greater heed to the arguments of due process. Maybe a little more humility is required in these difficult cases. I am normally conscious in all legal blogging to couch in terms of conditionals – if this report is accurate, then the explanation might be X. Was I too quick to assume, wrongly, that the judge had acted correctly?
I think I may have been. But looking back over the litany of plainly false statements circulated between May and now – that Robinson’s “reporting” was nothing more than the BBC had done; that he was targeted by the deep state; that Robinson’s original barrister was an “unqualified duty solicitor”; that TR was never in contempt of court as the trial was over; that the courts were “covering up” serious crimes by certain racial groups; the dishonest framing of the debate as one of “free speech” rather than interfering with justice; and the other hundreds of fantastical theories clogging my Twitter notifications today – I’d suggest, self-servingly, that an inaccurate but well-meaning prediction – such as we all make in the courts every day – is lesser a social evil than the deliberate, racially-tinged misinformation campaign that we do our best to counter.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Are they the ones that come down from the ceiling or that grow up from the floor?piginthecity wrote: ↑ We don't have the Amish over here, but we do have the Mennonites - curly little stony buggers hiding in rocks on the south coast. You've got to watch out for those.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
He is about 8 years old and runs around and jumps on the bed and couch and bolts down the stairs.... as long as he is not feeling sleepy. It is funny as shit. He gets bitchy when he is tired.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑How old is he? His joints, especially hips, could be really hurting him, which would explain the inability to jump and the growling when you touch him.John D wrote: ↑ He is an asshole when he gets tired at night. He stands by the bed and wants to go to sleep but doesn't have enough energy to jump on the bed. So... he stands at the bed side and looks at me for a solution. I gently pick him up and he growls at me while I do it. He doesn't like to be touched when he is tired. I suppose he would prefer it if I setup a little doggie ladder so he could climb up to bed. Haha. What a shithead.
IMG_0641.jpg
His other grumpy behavior goes like this.... I wake up at 6:30 with the dog next to me. Before I get out of bed I pet him. He rolls on his back and lets me pet him and he is perfectly happy. Then, once I get out of bed and shower I will climb back in bed for a minute. This is NOT ACCEPTABLE to him. When I even get close to the bed he gets super pissed at me. His ears go back and he growls like shit at me. Just a half hour earlier I was petting him... but now he just wants me to stay away. Haha... what a bastard!
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Nah bro; blame the church.Shatterface wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:54 amI thought it came from Fight Clubpiginthecity wrote: ↑I always thought it was an explanation of the fact that, yes, you are indeed a one off, but equally so is everybody else. So being unique doesn’t mean you are in a special category of one and everyone else lumped in together.
-
- .
- Posts: 1006
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:20 am
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Freemasons are to accept transgender women !
Thank God !
Thank God !
-
- .
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:30 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
It's just like Nelson Mandela's walkabout when he was released from prison...
-
- .
- Posts: 5898
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Because they are blokes?piginthecity wrote: ↑ Freemasons are to accept transgender women !
-
- .
- Posts: 6555
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
shoutinghorse wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:52 amRemember that smug cunt 'The Secret Barrister' .. Well he's having to swallow some big portions of humble pie right now. :D
Last three paragraphs.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/ ... -all-mean/
What a cunt: he's shifting the blame for his own incompetency, and his own rushing into unsupported conclusions, onto some non-specific racists and white pride agitators. "Mummy, a bigger boy made me do it."
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
No - because they decided that they were cut out for membership.Shatterface wrote: ↑Because they are blokes?piginthecity wrote: ↑ Freemasons are to accept transgender women !
-
- .
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:30 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
HeMasons.Shatterface wrote: ↑Because they are blokes?piginthecity wrote: ↑ Freemasons are to accept transgender women !
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
One difference is that Mandela was a terrorist, right?InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑ It's just like Nelson Mandela's walkabout when he was released from prison...
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Or since The Who are in fashion at the Pit, here's Roger Daltrey's version:Lsuoma wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:53 amMUCH better version:MarcusAu wrote: ↑I'd recommend something similar - but I suspect John is already doing it...Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Dude, playing guitar while depressed & unmotivated is the Götterdämmerung of emotional health. STOP NOW!
I am serious: go find someplace like a horse rescue where you can hang out with horses - just groom or feed or something. Or maybe a small animal shelter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9mSPFw7BXo
-
- .
- Posts: 5898
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Yes, Mandela was a terrorist. He should have voted apartheid away. I mean, blacks were a majority weren't they? If they didn't like apartheid they shouldn't have kept voting for it.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
So, at long last, are these signs of Peak Trans?
https://imgur.com/vs0jFjG.png
https://twitter.com/YoungerZee_/status/ ... 3822095360
A week later and it's no better. Notice the guy calling him "fag" has more than twice the likes of the original :D
https://imgur.com/kSvPeLS.png
https://twitter.com/Cosmopolitan/status ... 4945334272
https://imgur.com/vs0jFjG.png
https://twitter.com/YoungerZee_/status/ ... 3822095360
A week later and it's no better. Notice the guy calling him "fag" has more than twice the likes of the original :D
https://imgur.com/kSvPeLS.png
https://twitter.com/Cosmopolitan/status ... 4945334272
-
- .
- Posts: 7556
- Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
- Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Even the highly biased Think Progress can't completely propaganda the tranny cause. Of course a lot of women don't want to change in front of strange men who play at being women. I do like the bit at the end where they moan that a lower court can rule to "erase trans identities." Or, you know, just not make a bunch of women uncomfortable.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Peterson and Murray chatting, with an interesting section in the middle on IQ:
-
- .
- Posts: 15449
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
- Contact:
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Squeezebox is a great song.
Walkin The Dog is an idiotic, repetitive song; always has been no matter the artist.
Walkin The Dog is an idiotic, repetitive song; always has been no matter the artist.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
I'm not sure if "Squeezebox" is less repetitive than "Walkin the Dog".... Maybe we count the repeats..... (they go in, and out, and in, and out, and in, and out, and in, and out)..... I understand this is supposed to be a metaphor for fucking... but... well... fucking is pretty goddamn repetitive. Just my observation.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Squeezebox is a great song.
Walkin The Dog is an idiotic, repetitive song; always has been no matter the artist.
-
- .
- Posts: 5898
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
The Spectator has been consistently good on the issue:CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ Even the highly biased Think Progress can't completely propaganda the tranny cause. Of course a lot of women don't want to change in front of strange men who play at being women. I do like the bit at the end where they moan that a lower court can rule to "erase trans identities." Or, you know, just not make a bunch of women uncomfortable.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/t ... tolerance/The limits of Stonewall’s tolerance
Josephine Bartosch
‘Acceptance without exception’ is the aspirational slogan emblazoned across the website, merchandise and literature of Stonewall, the UK’s largest LGBT charity. The problem is that there are exceptions. Those who are not accepted include those who refuse to believe that a person can change their sex simply by saying: ‘I identify as.’
The fractious nature of the LGBT alliance – and Stonewall’s intolerance for dissenting voices within the community – is becoming increasingly clear. At this year’s London Pride, a group of protestors from ‘Get the ‘L’ Out’ made their feelings known by marching to the front of the parade with banners, including one reading ‘Transactivism Erases Lesbians.’ The actions of this small group of lesbians drew a furious response from Stonewall. Instead of listening to the concerns of the women protesting, or acknowledging that there is a discussion to be had on this subject, Stonewall simply stuck to its line that transwomen are women, dismissing any deviation from this as ‘transphobic’. Stonewall’s chief executive Ruth Hunt said that the lesbians involved in the protest ‘have deserted the fight for LGBT equality’ and ‘have no place at Pride’. So much for ‘Acceptance without exception’.
Thankfully, Hunt’s outrage that there are other perspectives on transgender identities is not shared by all of those originally involved in setting up Stonewall. Simon Fanshawe, one of the co-founders of the charity, argues that Stonewall has ‘a historic responsibility to enable calm reasoned debate’. It is hard to see how Hunt’s response meets that test. Fanshawe says he fears that voices – including those of transgender people, some of whom prefer to describe themselves as ‘transsexual’ – are in danger of being drowned out by the reaction of the likes of Stonewall. He says:
‘Some transgender people are proud to identify themselves as ‘transmen’ and ‘transwomen,’ not simply as ‘men’ and ‘women’ and they feel marginalised by the language and ideology that seeks to diminish this difference. I do not wish to invalidate anyone’s experience, but by not acknowledging there is a debate to be had Stonewall are failing in their duty to LGBT communities to enable self-determination for all trans people.’
So why are alternative voices being ignored? A brief glance at the Stonewall Trans Advisory Group perhaps offers an answer: those who were born male appear to outnumber females by about two to one (a similar ratio to MPs in the House of Commons). Do those who sit on the advisory group have to hold the view that stated gender identity takes precedence over biological sex? It would seem so. Take Alex Drummond, for example, a transwoman who claims to be ‘widening the bandwidth of how to be a woman’ by sporting a full beard alongside the accoutrements of femininity (skirts and make-up). It is not transphobic to suggest that someone with a male body who wears female clothes has no place identifying as a lesbian; it is simply a different perspective.
In an interview in the Guardian in 2014, Hunt said: ‘I am not interested in being the thought police.’ Yet four years on, lesbians who fail to accept male bodied transwomen like Drummond as women are demonised by Hunt as apparently ‘working against’ the LGBT community.
So what explains the change in thinking? In 2015, Ruth Hunt announced that Stonewall would make its campaigns trans-inclusive; she later said that, for transgender people: “it’s their turn now. They really, really need us.” But at what price has this focus on the T in LGBT actually come?
A cynic might suggest that Hunt’s new found focus was an attempt to make the organisation seem relevant again in the wake of the vote to allow same sex marriage. If so, this is a strategy that appears to be paying off: Stonewall’s funding has increased dramatically in recent years, from £4.33m in 2013, to £7.24m in 2017, according to data from Open Charities.
But what is all this money being spent on? Britain is finally catching-up with the legal changes LGBT individuals and organisations have spent decades campaigning for. It’s true that prejudice against lesbians and gays does still exist but it is no longer sanctioned by the state. So with at least some of the battle won, the fights are increasingly becoming internal. As a result, the rainbow is beginning to fracture. Despite the attempts to dismiss them as something of a fringe group, ‘Get The L out’s protest at this year’s Pride actually reflects a deeper malaise in the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities. There is a desperate need for reasoned debate in order to allow all sides to have their say. Unfortunately, the response of Stonewall has been to shout louder and smear those who do not toe the trendy identity politics line. By championing the rights of male-bodied lesbians, Stonewall are abandoning the very people they should exist to support and making a mockery of the struggles we still face. It is somewhat depressing that, in 2018, the views of lesbians, bisexual people and gay men are being cast aside by the very organisation that claims to push for ‘acceptance without exception.’
-
- .
- Posts: 15449
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
- Contact:
-
- .
- Posts: 15449
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
- Contact:
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Interesting that Charles Murray & Herrnstein in The Bell Curve warned of a growing "cognitive elite", with an increasingly uniform sociopolitical outlook, that was out of touch with the general population, ignorant of their reality and dismissive of their concerns. Douglas Murray talks of the same phenomenon wrt immigration concerns, brexit, etc.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
........
There are a number of parallel narratives around TR. The global conspiracy was one. Concern at a sentence which confronted natural sensibilities in the context of a pro Muslim establishment and previous TR jail assault was another.
The one you pick as either causative or as a strawman is a litmus test
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
You've been trolled!John D wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:01 pmI'm not sure if "Squeezebox" is less repetitive than "Walkin the Dog".... Maybe we count the repeats..... (they go in, and out, and in, and out, and in, and out, and in, and out)..... I understand this is supposed to be a metaphor for fucking... but... well... fucking is pretty goddamn repetitive. Just my observation.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Squeezebox is a great song.
Walkin The Dog is an idiotic, repetitive song; always has been no matter the artist.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
John, you need to make your dog great again.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at ... 621d3064bf
SJWs continue to have the power of the state.
SJWs continue to have the power of the state.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
This new Italian Interior Minister is a real shitlord :lol:
https://imgur.com/wXdmYLD.png
https://imgur.com/LItHHwR.png
https://imgur.com/yBTXsXC.png
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/0 ... -outraged/
https://imgur.com/wXdmYLD.png
https://imgur.com/LItHHwR.png
https://imgur.com/yBTXsXC.png
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/0 ... -outraged/
-
- .
- Posts: 7556
- Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
- Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Leaving the home tonight with my wife for her nightly walk, my hobble, I found a little dog going down the sidewalk. No collar, mange, dirty as hell. The little thing was in bad shape. My wife tells me it's a Yorkshire Terrier, a tiny thing about the size of a cat. I fed her ( a her as best as I could tell) and took her to the shelter. I'm hoping someone is missing her, and wants her back very badly.
I've rescued quite a few dogs. Little ones usually yap constantly and are annoying as hell. She just sighed and put her trust my family. She ate a lot of cat food, and snuggled my daughters. It was really hard letting her go. And perhaps foolishly and impulsively, I've signed that if her owners aren't found, she has a home with me and my family. She refused to leave my youngest daughter's arms to go into the shelter, had to be pulled away. A beast we've known for all of an hour, and already attached. Goddamn it.
I'm used to bird dogs, and have no idea how to integrate this wee beastie (assuming her owners aren't found) with my cats. I'm too fucking crippled to own a dog, really. And I'm getting too sentimental in my old age.
I've rescued quite a few dogs. Little ones usually yap constantly and are annoying as hell. She just sighed and put her trust my family. She ate a lot of cat food, and snuggled my daughters. It was really hard letting her go. And perhaps foolishly and impulsively, I've signed that if her owners aren't found, she has a home with me and my family. She refused to leave my youngest daughter's arms to go into the shelter, had to be pulled away. A beast we've known for all of an hour, and already attached. Goddamn it.
I'm used to bird dogs, and have no idea how to integrate this wee beastie (assuming her owners aren't found) with my cats. I'm too fucking crippled to own a dog, really. And I'm getting too sentimental in my old age.
-
- .
- Posts: 7556
- Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
- Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
And I don't know how that picture went sideways.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Well if my vote counts for anything a small percentage of the world's canine population will soon be living in closer proximity to you and yours CFB.
Somewhat hypocritical of me perhaps - as I don't have pets. How well someone treats animals seems a good litmus test for their humanity.
Somewhat hypocritical of me perhaps - as I don't have pets. How well someone treats animals seems a good litmus test for their humanity.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Deffo shut off the things that are stressing you if they affect you :(John D wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 4:31 amI feel like I have lost some of my creativity and I am looking for a way to get it back. It would probably help if I stopped watching the news and spent more time thinking about other topics than politics. I have been watching Joni Mitchel videos lately too. Wow. She was super creative. Where do people get this shit from? She is amazing. I am blown away by how well she can blend her chest voice and head voice. Fuck.... my singing is such shit compared to her. So, I wonder how good I could get at my ripe age if I worked on it.
I always think running is the best option
Like not from your problems, just running, gives you like... good brain shit. I dunno.
Anyway glad it's not some more kind of serious sadness man
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
If the pup has no owners come forward and you find yourself having to deal with a dog all of a sudden, you'll be fine. Small dogs don't need as long walks a great big ones, lap dog-ish little ones especially are usually fine with a walk around the block.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ Leaving the home tonight with my wife for her nightly walk, my hobble, I found a little dog going down the sidewalk. No collar, mange, dirty as hell. The little thing was in bad shape. My wife tells me it's a Yorkshire Terrier, a tiny thing about the size of a cat. I fed her ( a her as best as I could tell) and took her to the shelter. I'm hoping someone is missing her, and wants her back very badly.
I've rescued quite a few dogs. Little ones usually yap constantly and are annoying as hell. She just sighed and put her trust my family. She ate a lot of cat food, and snuggled my daughters. It was really hard letting her go. And perhaps foolishly and impulsively, I've signed that if her owners aren't found, she has a home with me and my family. She refused to leave my youngest daughter's arms to go into the shelter, had to be pulled away. A beast we've known for all of an hour, and already attached. Goddamn it.
I'm used to bird dogs, and have no idea how to integrate this wee beastie (assuming her owners aren't found) with my cats. I'm too fucking crippled to own a dog, really. And I'm getting too sentimental in my old age.
41075.jpeg
You'll probably find it'll be the cats who decide how they integrate, they'll either be friendly or the cats will ignore the dog. Animals are really adaptable, and in dogs, humans have created a creature that innately understands our family structure and emotions and is able to instinctively insinuate into our affections haha.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Even a dog that would innately attack cats quickly realizes it will be in deep shit if it attacks a family cat, as long as you make it clear to them. They're usually very much in control of their own aggression.
-
- .
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
No, they should have attacked military targets and not murdered people in banks and shopping centres. They might also have refrained from murdering people in the townships and burning down the properties of political/business competition just to draw the police into the townships. The police would go into the townships to protect people and find people waiting to ambush them. They left a generation of people uneducated and unemployable as anything other than menial labourers by encouraging them to burn down their schools. The wrongs of apartheid don't make the ANC saints. They behaved like typical Marxist revolutionaries in their Southern African training camps, Justice was digging your own grave and then getting a pistol bullet to the back of the head. In fact, looking back, I am grateful to the SADF servicemen who kept the Cubans and East Germans at bay because there is a fair chance that the new South Africa would otherwise have been a full-on Marxist shithole from the get-go.Shatterface wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:13 amYes, Mandela was a terrorist. He should have voted apartheid away. I mean, blacks were a majority weren't they? If they didn't like apartheid they shouldn't have kept voting for it.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Meet Sarah Jeong, new lead technology writer for the New York Times...
https://imgur.com/lTXwuXZ.jpg
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong
https://www.nytco.com/sarah-jeong-joins ... ial-board/
...and racist asshole.
https://imgur.com/yuS8loE.jpg
Ralph Retort thread on Jeong's racist tweets - https://twitter.com/TheRalphRetort/stat ... 5434698752
https://imgur.com/lTXwuXZ.jpg
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong
https://www.nytco.com/sarah-jeong-joins ... ial-board/
...and racist asshole.
https://imgur.com/yuS8loE.jpg
Ralph Retort thread on Jeong's racist tweets - https://twitter.com/TheRalphRetort/stat ... 5434698752
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Some of the replies on the Ralph thread indicate that the critics of Jeong don't have a problem with racism (or at least offensive words) per se.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
The other day I drove behind a truck that had a sign in its rear window saying "Choke Haoles".
There's a popular bumper sticker here that says "Eat Local", meaning eat locally grown produce, buy at local groceries, dine at local restaurants, etc.
I wonder how long I would last if I got one of them and marked in an "s" at the end of it. :shock:
If you don't hear from me for a while...
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
PZ Myers on the “How white is London” video
Morris Mn:When I’ve visited London (or New York, or any cosmopolitan city), I’ve always enjoyed the diversity — it’s a good thing. I’m also happy when everyone can feel like their wonderfully complicated place is home. There are plenty of white people in London who also feel it is their home — why should they also have this sense of exclusivity
The racial makeup of the city was 90.9% White, 1.3% African American, 1.5% Native American, 2.5% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 1.1% from other races, and 2.6% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.2% of the population.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
I don't think diversity is either good or bad. It's good if it promotes intercultural understanding, tolerance, and most of all, diverse selection of good authentic restaurants. ;) The proposition that it's inherently good for society has to be proven. It's simply an assertion. The underlying assumption is that there is something bad or defective with solitary culture and that diversity somehow ameliorates it. But why, for instance, should we assume that all the cream floats to the top and not all the shit? Why is a mono multiculture better than poly separated cultures? Nobody ever shows their work on that one. Where's Kirbmarc when you need him? Oh, right.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Hell, I'll settle for HateFacts.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
You don’t need an ethically challenged ideolog when the evidence is already in.Hunt wrote: ↑ I don't think diversity is either good or bad. It's good if it promotes intercultural understanding, tolerance, and most of all, diverse selection of good authentic restaurants. ;) The proposition that it's inherently good for society has to be proven. It's simply an assertion. The underlying assumption is that there is something bad or defective with solitary culture and that diversity somehow ameliorates it. But why, for instance, should we assume that all the cream floats to the top and not all the shit? Why is a mono multiculture better than poly separated cultures? Nobody ever shows their work on that one. Where's Kirbmarc when you need him? Oh, right.
https://www.ft.com/content/c4ac4a74-570 ... 00779e2340
A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists.
His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.
This is a contentious finding in the current climate of concern about the benefits of immigration. Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it “would have been irresponsible to publish without that”.
-
- .
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Of course not. That is the game.
The Right can faux-outrage just as good as the regressives, these days.
Saying that, I have no sympathy for Sarah. Or the NYT, who IRC, fired someone a few months ago because of dodgy tweets. That was after the left complained on social media.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
You enacted the labor - I can't be arsed to deal with Shatters' ideological blinkers right now.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑No, they should have attacked military targets and not murdered people in banks and shopping centres. They might also have refrained from murdering people in the townships and burning down the properties of political/business competition just to draw the police into the townships. The police would go into the townships to protect people and find people waiting to ambush them. They left a generation of people uneducated and unemployable as anything other than menial labourers by encouraging them to burn down their schools. The wrongs of apartheid don't make the ANC saints. They behaved like typical Marxist revolutionaries in their Southern African training camps, Justice was digging your own grave and then getting a pistol bullet to the back of the head. In fact, looking back, I am grateful to the SADF servicemen who kept the Cubans and East Germans at bay because there is a fair chance that the new South Africa would otherwise have been a full-on Marxist shithole from the get-go.Shatterface wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:13 amYes, Mandela was a terrorist. He should have voted apartheid away. I mean, blacks were a majority weren't they? If they didn't like apartheid they shouldn't have kept voting for it.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
If "diversity" was anything more than a virtuous buzzword, he would've stayed at Temple U instead of fucking off to the white hinterlands...Brive1987 wrote: ↑ PZ Myers on the “How white is London” video
Morris Mn:When I’ve visited London (or New York, or any cosmopolitan city), I’ve always enjoyed the diversity — it’s a good thing. I’m also happy when everyone can feel like their wonderfully complicated place is home. There are plenty of white people in London who also feel it is their home — why should they also have this sense of exclusivity
The racial makeup of the city was 90.9% White, 1.3% African American, 1.5% Native American, 2.5% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 1.1% from other races, and 2.6% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.2% of the population.
...where, having sat on every search and hiring committee for the last decade, he's somehow assembled a biology team without a trace of "color".
https://imgur.com/UuiIayf.jpg
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Got handed a week's ban for socking.Hunt wrote: ↑ I don't think diversity is either good or bad. It's good if it promotes intercultural understanding, tolerance, and most of all, diverse selection of good authentic restaurants. ;) The proposition that it's inherently good for society has to be proven. It's simply an assertion. The underlying assumption is that there is something bad or defective with solitary culture and that diversity somehow ameliorates it. But why, for instance, should we assume that all the cream floats to the top and not all the shit? Why is a mono multiculture better than poly separated cultures? Nobody ever shows their work on that one. Where's Kirbmarc when you need him? Oh, right.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
My experience bears this out. We have a place on Whidbey Island, which is pretty damn white USA. There is a huge amount of trust between people there, and it extends to a much more friendly and welcoming society too. When we were in the car wreck on Saturday, we had people coming out, asking if we needed help/drinks/use the bathroom. A couple of people stopped and asked if we needed rides anywhere (we did), and shit, even the State Trooper and Sheriff were really nice. Overtown (what us Islanders call the mainland), it would have been just rubberneckers...Brive1987 wrote: ↑You don’t need an ethically challenged ideolog when the evidence is already in.Hunt wrote: ↑ I don't think diversity is either good or bad. It's good if it promotes intercultural understanding, tolerance, and most of all, diverse selection of good authentic restaurants. ;) The proposition that it's inherently good for society has to be proven. It's simply an assertion. The underlying assumption is that there is something bad or defective with solitary culture and that diversity somehow ameliorates it. But why, for instance, should we assume that all the cream floats to the top and not all the shit? Why is a mono multiculture better than poly separated cultures? Nobody ever shows their work on that one. Where's Kirbmarc when you need him? Oh, right.
https://www.ft.com/content/c4ac4a74-570 ... 00779e2340
A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists.
His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.
This is a contentious finding in the current climate of concern about the benefits of immigration. Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it “would have been irresponsible to publish without that”.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
This is the problem with countries with a large welfare state taking in lots of migrants. Loving your fellow man is hard enough when you have a shared background, religion etc. It gets even tougher to love your neighbor when you barley speak a similar language.Lsuoma wrote: ↑My experience bears this out. We have a place on Whidbey Island, which is pretty damn white USA. There is a huge amount of trust between people there, and it extends to a much more friendly and welcoming society too. When we were in the car wreck on Saturday, we had people coming out, asking if we needed help/drinks/use the bathroom. A couple of people stopped and asked if we needed rides anywhere (we did), and shit, even the State Trooper and Sheriff were really nice. Overtown (what us Islanders call the mainland), it would have been just rubberneckers...Brive1987 wrote: ↑You don’t need an ethically challenged ideolog when the evidence is already in.Hunt wrote: ↑ I don't think diversity is either good or bad. It's good if it promotes intercultural understanding, tolerance, and most of all, diverse selection of good authentic restaurants. ;) The proposition that it's inherently good for society has to be proven. It's simply an assertion. The underlying assumption is that there is something bad or defective with solitary culture and that diversity somehow ameliorates it. But why, for instance, should we assume that all the cream floats to the top and not all the shit? Why is a mono multiculture better than poly separated cultures? Nobody ever shows their work on that one. Where's Kirbmarc when you need him? Oh, right.
https://www.ft.com/content/c4ac4a74-570 ... 00779e2340
A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists.
His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.
This is a contentious finding in the current climate of concern about the benefits of immigration. Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it “would have been irresponsible to publish without that”.
So... you have places like New York City, where everyone walks around with a blank stare while ignoring the other million souls walking in the street... and you have places like Troy Michigan, where I walk my dog everyday and say hello to everyone I see. I know the names of all my neighbor's dogs and we chat about my new driveway or their new shrubs.
New York and Troy and not necessarily good or bad. But, it is very hard to argue that my neighbors and I would be happier if there was more diversity. It is also not true that we would be safer, or more productive, or kinder... etc.... if we had more diversity. True, we would be more diverse, but I would be much less likely to say hi to my neighbors and get to know them and their pets. Haha... it is kind of funny... but the only guy who never says hi back to me is the Chaldean guy in the corner house. I say hi to him and he scowls. The few blacks in our neighborhood always say hi and chat with me.... but if they chose to live in Troy they know what to expect.... lots of white people... and no white people that will call them the "N" word to their face.
On another note - We used to have lots of diversity groups and training at Ford when I worked there years ago. I was even on the diversity committee. Ford management would always say that diversity was inherently good... and I would ask why the Japanese automakers were so effective. They are all run by a bunch of Japanese men.... no diversity there. I would suggest that they had a passion for quality and efficiency so they were culturally biased toward success in the auto industry. Haha.... no answer was provided.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Something Peterson observed is that the family unit doesn't scale up that well. The ultimate communist group is the family. It is obvious that successful families follow the motto "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." I work much harder than my wife, and I complain about it, but usually I live with it because she is quite ill. I understand her and I understand that she has struggles, but she still tries. This is a type of communism. We accept this within the family.
But, I cannot know that my neighbors collecting welfare really deserve it. It is hard for me to accept that they are necessarily trying their best. I know plenty of lazy people who just collect what they can.
So... with more diversity comes more skepticism about welfare recipients. The family model... the communist model... it starts to fall apart. People think their neighbors are not the same as them and that they are freeloaders. Thus we see the push toward nationalism. At least people of a similar background feel like they have a shared sense of culture... and duty to work... and security... and thus you can predict who really needs welfare.
But, I cannot know that my neighbors collecting welfare really deserve it. It is hard for me to accept that they are necessarily trying their best. I know plenty of lazy people who just collect what they can.
So... with more diversity comes more skepticism about welfare recipients. The family model... the communist model... it starts to fall apart. People think their neighbors are not the same as them and that they are freeloaders. Thus we see the push toward nationalism. At least people of a similar background feel like they have a shared sense of culture... and duty to work... and security... and thus you can predict who really needs welfare.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
I agree with all this. That's why people go from being socialist/SJW when young to more conservative and closed when older - having to provide and be part of the productive and protective function of a group will close you in.John D wrote: ↑ Something Peterson observed is that the family unit doesn't scale up that well. The ultimate communist group is the family. It is obvious that successful families follow the motto "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." I work much harder than my wife, and I complain about it, but usually I live with it because she is quite ill. I understand her and I understand that she has struggles, but she still tries. This is a type of communism. We accept this within the family.
But, I cannot know that my neighbors collecting welfare really deserve it. It is hard for me to accept that they are necessarily trying their best. I know plenty of lazy people who just collect what they can.
So... with more diversity comes more skepticism about welfare recipients. The family model... the communist model... it starts to fall apart. People think their neighbors are not the same as them and that they are freeloaders. Thus we see the push toward nationalism. At least people of a similar background feel like they have a shared sense of culture... and duty to work... and security... and thus you can predict who really needs welfare.
I think the change is not actually correlated with age, but with the need to actually work hard to produce and protect. This is why it's correlated with income and class, and why the trust-fundies, SJW snowflakes, tenured academics, professional pols, etc. are still pie-in-the-sky regressives even when they are as Jurassic as Oafie, Peezus, etc. If you are being coddled, you can spend your energy on making yourself feel good for your unearned class privilege.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
If you don't say of course Jeong shouldn't be fired for her racist tweets then you're as bad as any of the left-wingers who went after Justine Sacco for her job, starting off this whole mess.
So of course Jeong shouldn't be fired for her racist tweets.
Sarah Jeong now, and then NYTimes echoing her, say that she was just countertrolling in response to online harassment.
Well, damn, now I think Jeong should be fired because of the contempt she holds for us all, asking us to believe such an obvious piece of bullshit. How am I supposed to suspend my disbelief reading the NYTimes after this lazy excuse?
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
So now if anyone accuses you of hate speech you just have to produce two hate tweets directed at you and you are off the hook. I can see the campus protests winding down now...NOT.Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑If you don't say of course Jeong shouldn't be fired for her racist tweets then you're as bad as any of the left-wingers who went after Justine Sacco for her job, starting off this whole mess.
So of course Jeong shouldn't be fired for her racist tweets.
Sarah Jeong now, and then NYTimes echoing her, say that she was just countertrolling in response to online harassment.
Well, damn, now I think Jeong should be fired because of the contempt she holds for us all, asking us to believe such an obvious piece of bullshit. How am I supposed to suspend my disbelief reading the NYTimes after this lazy excuse?