Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/19/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    All you horny, nipple-obssessed people need to just get laid and call it a day, goodness me.
  2. 2 points
    The inherent problem with censorship is that it tends to grow and expand. We have seen that here in the U.S. with “political correctness”. An actual social judicial/punishment segment has been created. Say the wrong thing and a person’s life can be literally destroyed. Its out of control now because it has evolved into a form of mob rule and there doesn’t seem to be a way to control it, much less end it.
  3. 2 points
    You two guys and your uh-piss-duh-mual-oh-geez! The pink unicorn, I'll have you know, is the "sacred phallus"; he whom penetrates the six nippled one. And it is she, whom, must lay in submission. In fact, in the presence of the pink unicorn she may not speak, unless spoken to, when celestial men are talking! Is it not written in your law; 'she whom remains coward down while men are speaking, shall remain glorious in the eyes of the almighty phallus?' And if it is written thus, why then shall it not be so among you?
  4. 2 points
    I won't offer similar threats; because I know your interpretation of the sacred text holds the pink unicorn to be divine. In truth, though, a literal interpretation shows that the pink unicorn is just one of the Six Nippled One's (glorify her name) pets.
  5. 2 points
    You blasphemous heathen! You will float away forever on the fluffy pink clouds of the Pink Unicorns magnanimity to spend eternity pondering your vile ways! May the great horn poke thee!
  6. 2 points
    Too late. I already prayed to the Six Nippled One (Glorify Her Name) as soon as christfuckems announced he was moving. If the move goes well, it is She who will receive the Glory for it. All those who do not Glorify the Six Nippled One shall be devoured in everlasting digestive acids and gastric juices.
  7. 1 point
    Six nipples would just be overwhelming. Choice paralysis. I can barely handle two.
  8. 1 point
    That was not a personal threat directed at you, you ignorant neigh-sayer. It was merely an objective observation of what happens to those who put their *thrust in little horns.
  9. 1 point
    I'm not sure I'd say that either left or right are eating themselves, and I'm not sure that's what LF meant. I think he might have just meant that people on each side accuse the other of it? He can clarify I'm sure. I do think alongside ideological polarization we are seeing a potential realignment around populist/nationalist movements, especially on the right. There are some battles between otherwise "conservative" thinkers on the right about this, e.g. the so-called #NeverTrump'ers and the populists. Say for example the difference between David Frum and Pat Buchanan. But rather than the right "eating itself" it's more like just that the nationalists are winning. I think it's interesting that from my perspective most of the issues you raised above are more conservative criticisms of liberals than they are important arguments between people on the left. I'll grant that I have read plenty of debates between liberals about the scope of criticisms involving Islam. But the rest are mostly topics conservatives raise, rather than being the source of strife on the left. I think there are disagreements between different parts of the left on how to prioritize different issues, e.g. between what I might call the Sanders/Warren wing of the Democratic party and the Clinton wing. But they wouldn't frame any of those debates in the way you have. Your framing is essentially a conservative one. Also interesting: I don't think of Sam Harris as being on the left. I think he would identify as something of centrist/moderate. He has always had some more conservative views. You could say that his position within the Democratic party is more tenuous now because of ideological polarization: it used to be that political affiliation was not as closely connected with ideology, so there were some liberal/moderate Republicans and some moderate/conservative Democrats. That is less the case now. Harris may have been a conservative Democrat based in some large part on his views about religion and the religious right. Now he doesn't fit as easily into the Democratic party. But he was never really a "leftist", per se. I know you were just trying to think of examples, but I think your parenthetical is inaccurate and since this is a topic I've read a lot of research on, I hope you'll forgive me for going down this rabbit hole for a minute. You can skip this if you don't care It's a complicated topic, but as stated I think the above is inaccurate. To be very brief: - You can just look at BLS data. This statement is true: "In 2018, among full time wage and salary workers, the median weekly salary for women was 81% of the median weekly salary for men." That number has been pretty consistent for a while. The 77c number is from older BLS data. - What's not as straightforward is that this statistic represents (only) discrimination. In fact it certainly is not only a consequence of discrimination. The causes are pretty complicated. There's a really good 2016 NBER article that talks about a lot of the factors in some detail, which is recommended to anyone who is interested. - Some of the gap is because of differences in chosen occupations, hours worked, and some is a penalty paid for taking maternity leave (although interestingly men pay no similar paternity penalty) - Some of it is likely to be discrimination; estimates vary, but probably less than half. Discrimination becomes likely just by ruling out other potential explanations, but there are also other studies that look for more direct evidence. The NBER paper discusses a few "Left-splaining" is a new one to me. Would you call the above "left-splaining"? To me, it is what I said I tried to do before: focus on explanations that establish the existence of meaningful social problems. "The gender wage gap is a myth" is a conservative talking point that I think is inaccurate. "Women make 77c on the dollar" can also be pretty misleading with no context, where the implication is that the gap is entirely caused by discrimination. I think we could have more productive debates about these issues if we understood them better, so I try to explain them. Also, the time I've spent trying to explain them to people has forced me to spend a lot of time researching, which I think has been helpful for me. For example my research led me to studies that suggest that gendered occupational preferences are unlikely to be explained by discrimination. Women in countries with more gender equality show stronger preferences towards different occupations than men. This is relevant to the wage gap given the different salaries for different occupations. I think research like that is probably under-appreciated on the left, although I would also point out that we should ask why we value some occupations more than others. In any case, if "left-splaining" is supposed to be analogous to "man-splaining", then I think it would have the connotation of "explaining" something to people who actually understand it better than you do. That's kind of the point of "man-splaining" as a complaint. I think the problem with all of these concepts can be that they deftly side-step the important part where its established whether any particular claims are right or wrong. Not every instance of a man trying to explain how they view something to a woman is illegitimate. Not every instance of a conservative/liberal trying to explain their position on an issue to the other side is inherently wrong either. We can't have useful debates if we can't explain ourselves. We could always be better at debating though, and listening better. Sure, I think sometimes they point out actual examples of over-reach or over-radicalization, like with Evergreen. I also think there are legitimate difficulties associated with balancing identity-related issues between different groups in a multi-cultural democratic society, and there is some need to find ways of addressing group-specific complaints in a universally-fair way. There's definitely such a thing as too much identity politics, or such a thing as a politics too oriented around grievances. I don't often agree with the way conservatives approach these topics, but I agree that there are legitimate issues that are tricky to balance. This is something where I appreciated Obama's approach, actually. Does anyone? I believe that I can be wrong in all sorts of unanticipated ways. I strongly believe in the value of empirical research because it's a useful check on that. At the same time, I don't think it would make sense to think that all judgements are equally likely on all subjects. I think there are topics where I'm quite confident in my knowledge, and others where I'm not (an example: economics). There are topics where I'm confident I've worked harder to understand them than others, and topics where I'm blissfully ignorant. It's kind of like dealing with religious arguments. I'm not really persuaded by Pascal's wager, i.e. the whole "what if you're wrong?" approach. I wouldn't be impressed by a Christian accusing me of atheist-splaining their religion to them, because I think I have good reasons to be an atheist. I also think I have good reason to believe at least a few other things. And then of course some disagreements are more about values than facts. I skipped over your post about narratives for a bit. I'll come back to it though. This is long enough (sorry)
  10. 1 point
    I wish I could "like" all your shit, but you're pulling the god card and removing my feedback on your authority. Evil commie dicktator. Jk, don't ban me lolol
  11. 1 point
    That's not canonical; it's part of the psuedo-PIG-rapha.
  12. 1 point
    I can't remember where I read or heard this, sorry for not having a source, but it talked about the term "social justice" and how putting the term "social" in front of justice takes away from the endeavor to some extent. We shouldn't have to clarify justice, the pursuit of justice is a good thing. What good does putting "social" in front of it do, except to perhaps not be seeking true justice. I found the thought curious. I like how you worded "concerned with social justice' and "being an SJW," I think those who call themselves "SJW" are already on the fringe of becoming radical. I am concerned with justice, social or otherwise, but I don't label myself an "SJW." There is an UNDENIABLE pattern of behaviors for people who actively refer to themselves as SJWs, it's very identity based. There is a presupposition of oppression, making every despicable behavior following that presupposition "justified" because they're "sticking it to the oppressor" and "fighting for their rights." Unfortunately, if that presupposition is incorrect, it just makes that person a profound asshole.
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
    Evidently he is.... https://www.christforums.com/forums/topic/20295-prayer-request-for-my-exodus-out-of-california/?tab=comments#comment-82204
  15. 1 point
    ^^This. However, I just don't care, most of the time. I know who's being foolish and it sure isn't me.
  16. 1 point
    For the record, christforums has been notified of this thread.
  17. 1 point
    @Christforums this deserves your attention. LF's question should be addressed. How do you know that your version is the correct one? What makes you so special?
  18. 1 point
    Person in a cult asks another person in a cult which cult he belongs to
  19. 1 point
    True this. I find in constructing an argument, if I am saying something and it sounds wrong or I can't back it up I know I don't have a good argument and need to do a rethink. That's happens quite often during discussion. As far as changing minds go there are a number of resources on this topic, but most agree that it's very rare for two interlocutors to change each others minds. What does happen though is that some in the audience may change minds, which is why, despite people thinking I was mad, I'd bring BO up on points I thought were wrong. I never expected to actually get BO to agree, even when empathically shown he was wrong, but if someone who thought as BO did came across my post they might stop and at least wonder about their position. This is the same reason I'll debate Christians etc - I never expect to change the particular persons mind... but ya never know what can happen.