[Cap'n Tightpants]

Our world population is getting so large, even the smallest segments of our population are becoming sizeable. What was a rare, hidden preference is now a segment that's too large to avoid.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

The answer only has moral connotations if society choses to make it so. I don't care why someone is gay. I think this is true for most everyone at this point. There are those that will never accept homosexuality no matter the root cause, and many, many more that don't give a rat's ass what the cause it and just accept that homosexuals do exist and deserve equal rights to heterosexuals. If it was scientific consensus tomorrow that homosexuality was definitively genetically based, do you really think Chongo would support same-sex marriage? Of course not.

We have a corollary here with climate change. The fact that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and is man-made has not swayed vast numbers of Americans. The nature vs. nurture is an interesting question, but as far as society is concerned, it's also irrelevant. Homosexuals will continue to exists. How we treat them will depend entirely on social norms- science is irrelevant.

I again posit that this is a good thing. If one of my children ends up in a homosexual relationship, I would love them and hope society accepts them as they are- regardless of how they got there.

Society deciding orientation has no moral importance is a moral decision in and of itself. Just like morality can't be forced into the scientific debate, morality can't be excised from how we react to a definitive (or not so definitive) conclusion.


With regards to how Chongo would react, I'm far more interested in what he has to say about it than what either of us do.


Maybe I'm mistaken, but I feel the "it is what it is" argument more often than not is placing an advance bet on the Nature argument. If that ends up correct, then the proper moral stance is "it is what it is" anyway.

If instead, we develop a pre-natal orientation injection, I see a lot of the "is what it is" crowd considering the option.

Note, I'm not accusing you of having flexible morality, but I'm accusing the vast majority of people, myself included.

[The Final Dakar]

Man, getting snubbed by Trump has really ****ed Chris Christie up. He's all like, "Nothing matters anymore, see you all in hell, I'm taking NJ with me."

[subego]

I don't want to descend to "fat guy in a little chair" level, but he's really asking for it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Our world population is getting so large, even the smallest segments of our population are becoming sizeable. What was a rare, hidden preference is now a segment that's too large to avoid.

More like they have become the new "squeaky wheel'" and a well funded one at that.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Per dollar, and per person, the trans/queer lobby is the most powerful in the country, hands down.

[Doc HM]

U.K. Govt report fingers the Saudi's as biggest fundersrs of radical Islam in U.K. S then suddenly not so keen to publish report.
Saudi Arabia has 'clear link' to UK extremism, report says
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40496778

And our govt is looking out for us how?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Remember the meme of Trump wrestling CNN? CNN dug around until they found the person who originally made it, turns out it was a 15 y/o redditor. So, what do they do? They blackmail him, of course.



CNN is toast. They were crying before? Well, now they have 1000s of new memes where they're getting the shit beaten out of them, and the top 3 trending hashtags.

#CNNBlackmail
#CNNF*cksKids
#CNNIsExtortion

[Doc HM]

Why would anyone get so worked up about a stupid internet gif?

Why would the lad even have to apologize? Why are CNN making such a deal of if?

Seems a bit mad tbh

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I think they've lost their minds, the war against Trump and his memesters is going badly for them and that's led to them lashing out indiscriminately.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Directly from their own mouths. Blackmailing a 15 y/o, I guess it's safe to say they're right and truly ****ed.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politi...eet/index.html

"The meme was created purely as satire, it was not meant to be a call to violence against CNN or any other news affiliation," he wrote. "I had no idea anyone would take it and put sound to it and then have it put up on the President's Twitter feed. It was a prank, nothing more. What the President's feed showed was not the original post that was posted here, but loaded up somewhere else and sound added to it then sent out on Twitter. I thought it was the original post that was made and that is why I took credit for it. I have the highest respect for the journalist community and they put their lives on the line every day with the jobs that they do in reporting the news."

The apology has since been taken down by the moderators of /The_Donald subreddit.

After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity. In the interview, "HanA**holeSolo" sounded nervous about his identity being revealed and asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety and for the public embarrassment it would bring to him and his family.

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

The feeding frenzy is ramping up as people awake, will CNN survive intact until nightfall?

[Chongo]

CNN managed to marshal the resources to discover, within hours, the identity of the evildoer that posted the video meme; yet after several months CNN has not turned up evidence of collusion between Trump and Putin.

[subego]

Is he 15? I've heard he's middle aged.

Either way, bad form for news outfits to print implied threats.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

CNN managed to marshal the resources

[The Final Dakar]

Hobby Lobby must have missed god's memo on buying stolen cultural artifacts.

[subego]

It's really one of the most bizarre combinations I've ever heard.

Like if PetCo tried to buy Stinger missiles.

[The Final Dakar]

Well they're buying it for a biblical museum they're opening in DC. Seems pretty straightforward.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

Like if PetCo tried to buy Stinger missiles.

A lot of people just use such 3rd tier artifacts as decoration, not knowing their significance. Given how much HL charged, $200-1000 each, they might not have either (they certainly weren't gouging anyone). We have a lot of pre-ban Egyptian/Coptic, Babylonian, Persian, etc. (all over the M.E.) curios and what they paid was a steal. I wish I'd known about it when they had them, many of them would at least have a better home than someone's flower garden next to their pissing cherubs.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well they're buying it for a biblical museum they're opening in DC. Seems pretty straightforward.

OH! So THAT is who's paying for the most hideous building in DC.
Are these the same folks who displayed a chunk of rock which supposedly had both a human footprint and those of a dinosaur?

[The Final Dakar]

Without a shred of evidence that sounds like a Ken Ham joint

[The Final Dakar]

How I imagine the election influence convo went between Trump and Putin:

"I'm supposed to tell you not to meddle in our elections."
"Comrade! I had nothing to do with it! It is, as you say, fake news!"
"Yeah that's what I've been thinking too."

[The Final Dakar]

Oh yeah the ethics director is stepping down 6 months early citing that he pretty much can't do jack. Curious who Trump will nominate to replace him or if they just don't bother.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/05/...d-men-showers/

Starship Troopers is almost here! Woohoo!

[Waragainstsleep]

Watch all the fat guys and perverts flock to join the military as women!

Assuming any of them left their child-raping sprees in their nearest public ladies' room long enough to hear of this new development.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Shit like that doesn't happen, ask any 3rd wave feminist.

[andi*pandi]

I look forward to a world where soldiers of any gender could cohabitate and work together without any of them being raped. The current situation, well before any transgender policies took place, is already unacceptable. If you think transgender people sharing locker rooms with women will suddenly cause attacks to be an issue, you haven't been paying attention.

[Chongo]

What was the rate of sexual assault prior to mixed gender housing and allowing women to serve on combat naval vessels; and what was it after?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What was the rate of sexual assault prior to mixed gender housing and allowing women to serve on combat naval vessels; and what was it after?

I don't think the figures are trustworthy because much of it goes unreported or gets covered up.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Shit like that doesn't happen, ask any 3rd wave feminist.

I refuse to look up the definition of any kind of feminism preceded by "nth Wave".

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I refuse to look up the definition of any kind of feminism preceded by "nth Wave".

Wait... this is just the term used to distinguish modern feminism from 60s sexual revolution feminism (2nd wave), and the suffragettes (1st wave).

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I refuse to look up the definition of any kind of feminism preceded by "nth Wave".

I didn't invent it, feminists did.

1st and 2nd = Good. Voting, equal rights under the law, equal protection, etc.
3rd = Coo-coo for cocoa cocoa puffs. Wants more for women, even if that means men receive less than them (and being miserable in the process).

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I didn't invent it, feminists did.

1st and 2nd = Good. Voting, equal rights under the law, equal protection, etc.
3rd = Coo-coo for cocoa cocoa puffs. Wants more for women, even if that means men receive less than them (and being miserable in the process).

One subgroup: radical lesbian separatists. Their mantra is the only thing men are good for is their sperm. It would be safe to say that will change if someone manages to fuse two eggs together to produce a viable embryo and successfully results in a full term pregnancy. There will be no need for men because this will results in all female babies.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

3rd = Coo-coo for cocoa cocoa puffs. Wants more for women, even if that means men receive less than them (and being miserable in the process).

There's definitely an aspect of this, but in a more general sense it's a response to the 2nd Wave.

The 2nd Wave was about equality. Once society started to approach some form of that, the realization comes that true equality involves giving up what makes that group unique.

So you get pushback. As an example, 10 years ago, when the discussion was far less divisive, the 2nd Wavers were the bra burners, while the 3rd Wave said it's okay to wear thongs.


Feminism going off the rails since then has little to do with feminism (IMO). It flew off the rails along with the whole of academic sociology.

[andi*pandi]

No bras were actually burned. And I would not consider thong-wearing to be feminist. While it does prevent pantylines, I would say going commando has the same benefit with less discomfort.

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/burnbra.asp

[subego]

I used bra-burning to get across the idea... thong-burners works.

And that's a tension between the two groups. Among other distinctions, the 3rd Wave thinks wearing something purely because men find it sexy doesn't have to be incompatible with feminism.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

No bras were actually burned. And I would not consider thong-wearing to be feminist. While it does prevent pantylines, I would say going commando has the same benefit with less discomfort.

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/burnbra.asp

Really?
https://mediamythalert.wordpress.com...ever-happened/
https://mediamythalert.wordpress.com...nto-confirmed/

A little more than 10 years before the demonstration in Toronto, about 100 women gathered on the boardwalk at Atlantic City, New Jersey, to protest the 1968 Miss America pageant. The demonstration was organized by a small group called New York Radical Women and has been recognized as an early manifestation of the women’s liberation movement.

In Getting It Wrong, my mythbusting book that came out last year, I offer evidence that denials to the contrary, bras were briefly set afire at Atlantic City.

The evidence is from two witness accounts — one of which was published in the Press of Atlantic City on September 8, 1968, the day after the protest.


Boucher (1949 photo)
That account appeared beneath the byline of a veteran reporter named John L. Boucher and carried the headline:

“Bra-burners blitz boardwalk.”

Boucher’s article referred to the burn barrel that demonstrators had dubbed the “Freedom Trash Can” and stated:

“As the bras, girdles, falsies, curlers, and copies of popular women’s magazines burned in the ‘Freedom Trash Can,’ the demonstration reached the pinnacle of ridicule when the participants paraded a small lamb wearing a gold banner worded ‘Miss America.’”

That account was buttressed by recollections of the writer Jon Katz, who in 1968 was a young reporter for the Atlantic City Press. Katz was on the Atlantic City boardwalk the day of the protest, gathering material for a sidebar article about reactions to the demonstration.

Katz’s sidebar didn’t mention the fire in the “Freedom Trash Can.”

But in correspondence with me, Katz stated:

“I quite clearly remember the ‘Freedom Trash Can,’ and also remember some protestors putting their bras into it along with other articles of clothing, and some Pageant brochures, and setting the can on fire.

“I am quite certain of this.”

WJC

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's definitely an aspect of this, but in a more general sense it's a response to the 2nd Wave.

The 2nd Wave was about equality. Once society started to approach some form of that, the realization comes that true equality involves giving up what makes that group unique.

So you get pushback. As an example, 10 years ago, when the discussion was far less divisive, the 2nd Wavers were the bra burners, while the 3rd Wave said it's okay to wear thongs.


Feminism going off the rails since then has little to do with feminism (IMO). It flew off the rails along with the whole of academic sociology.

Much of that is them running out of causes; with so few real inequalities left to overcome, they now need to invent them to remain relevant and keep their "oppressed" status. There isn't much market value for gender studies degrees, beyond academics and protesting. Same goes for nearly all the other social sciences.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

Among other distinctions, the 3rd Wave thinks wearing something purely because men find it sexy doesn't have to be incompatible with feminism.

That runs 100% counter to Intersectionality.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

That runs 100% counter to Intersectionality.

This is why it was less divisive 10-15 years ago. Intersectionality wasn't the "thing" it is now.

I'm inclined to call whatever the **** we have now "4th Wave".

[andi*pandi]

Or, we could just call it incendiary wackadoos?

[subego]

This is flamist. Pls no bully.

[andi*pandi]

stfu, beta.

[subego]

Fascist.

[andi*pandi]

Snowflake.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is why it was less divisive 10-15 years ago. Intersectionality wasn't the "thing" it is now.

I'm inclined to call whatever the **** we have now "4th Wave".

I understand, but feminists still call it part of the 3rd wave. I found it distasteful, but while taking the gender studies classes at the Uni the instructor included 2nd wave stalwarts as part of "the enemy". In a way they're to be respected for trailblazing, but they're still "part of the patriarchal system that must be destroyed".

[Waragainstsleep]

The only people I see using this 'nth wave' terminology are CTP and MRAs. I'm pretty sure I've seen them go as high as n=7. Hence I just can't even.


I got embroiled in a discussion about racism with a bunch far left American minorities (and feminists) a couple of weeks back. It all kicked off over use of the term 'colourblind', the intent behind it and whether it was inherently racist or only sometimes. I normally agree with or defer to this group on such issues but it turned out they were happily being a bunch of racist assholes, at least by my understanding of the word.
I learned in this discussion that apparently the definition of racism itself has been usurped to include an explicit assumption of the presence of a white power structure. Not a racial majority power structure, but a white one. In other words, they have Americanised the definition of racism to exclude any possibility of racism occurring against white people and to define without exception all white people as racist.

My feeling is that this approach has been adapted from a feminist tactic where the assumption is of a male power power structure. While this still renders abstract scenarios impossible and is therefore still unhelpful, its much more forgivable when it comes to gender inequality than race. If a homeless, penniless white guy lives in a black or asian majority country, would there still be a white power structure? Of course not? What if countries in Africa had advanced faster than Europe and travelled north and conquered and enslaved us instead? Would white people still all be racists? Would racism against them still be impossible?

America doesn't own racism. Even if its a world leader among developed nations. You can't go redefining things that way and expecting everyone to even find out let along get on board with it. Its no wonder people get confused or simply can't be bothered to make an effort to keep up with the latest terminology trends. Worst of all its causing unnecessary divisions. People who are trying really hard to be part of the solution, or at least to not be part of the problem are failing because the goalposts keep moving like people are setting traps to catch them out. Oh and you aren't allowed to ask people to explain why something offends them anymore either, thats another great one. So there is an ever growing list of things that may or may not be reasonable or even may or may not be racist, but someone non-white decides to take offence at a new word or term and it goes on the list of things white people aren't allowed to say or do and they can't even ask why. Why would anyone seriously expect even the most passionate ally to put up with that shit?

To me these are more examples of extreme left-wing beliefs that you can add to safe spaces and triggered students as going too far in what was once the right direction. Americas left is overshooting its destinations and ending up in very stupid places. I pray we don't follow suit. I really want to add micro-aggressions to the stupid list too.

So during the course of this discussion and despite their repeated statements that open discussion was to be encouraged, I was accused of using the language of white supremacists because I objected to the redefinition of terms and the miscommunication it inevitably causes. I was repeatedly shut down for asking people to explain why something was offensive to them, despite offering numerous scenarios that they could agree with, object to or offer an alternative version of, where my interpretations of certain behaviours were simply different to theirs and few people seemed to care at all that there were other perspectives that could cast certain offensive actions in completely innocent light. They "knew" that some people meant it in a bad way therefore everyone else does, deep down, or they are simply offensive because they are too lazy to take the time to learn why its offensive (without asking anyone of course). I was repeatedly referred to google things and given links which obviously agreed with their versions of things and offered no scope for alternatives.
Ultimately I was shut down again and again because I wasn't doing what I "should have" which was to apologise for being white and being racist as many times as possible, and just agree with everything they said. So much for open discussion.
I questioned myself repeatedly over the several days this FB discussion lasted. Normally I agreed with these particular people on the vast majority of political issues, including racism. It was only when two ladies started hammering me with feminist objections (in a discussion about race) that I realised I wasn't letting myself down and being an awful racist and that many of these people were being total assholes.
I was accused of mansplaining. In a FB thread. How can I interrupt someone in a text conversation? Explaining ≠ mansplaining. Plus I interrupt men to explain things all the damn time. Way more than women. It has nothing to do with your gender, I do it when you're ****ing wrong and I do it equally. I was also accused of whitesplaining. Thats a new one. I don't think I was even explaining anything that time. I cannot abide the abuse of legitimate tools in these discussions. Lets the whole side down. Eventually I was blocked because I wouldn't agree and apologise.

Ultimately what is happening now is that both sides of any argument are equipped with the tools they need to be unreasonable douchebags. I still think the right are making much more frequent use of them, but the left is definitely using them too and all it really does is chip away the moral high ground they used to almost always be standing on.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The only people I see using this 'nth wave' terminology are CTP and MRAs. I'm pretty sure I've seen them go as high as n=7. Hence I just can't even.

The first I heard the term was from my ex, from when she was getting her master's in gender studies.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Why would anyone seriously expect even the most passionate ally to put up with that shit?

Exactly.

Now imagine someone who could be convinced to be an ally, but is presently kinda ignorant. How do they react to it?

This trend is an unmitigated disaster.

[Waragainstsleep]

Part of the story I left out is that I repeatedly tried to tell them that attacking those who want to be their allies is strategically retarded. I didn't put it like that. To begin with.

[Waragainstsleep]

Oh I also forgot to mention 'White Fragility', which says that we white folks shouldn't take offence at being called racist, but should just admit it and apologise regularly.
Then someone told me I wasn't allowed an opinion on whether they should or shouldn't be offended by something (regardless of the intent). The irony.