Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[jhunter1163]

are you oppressing me?

Well played.

 

[RandFan]

are you oppressing me?

Well played.

 

[s_pepys]

Clearly your citation to a character that used multiple demeaning terms for women is an example of your parroting misogyinst thought. You have failed Feminism 101.

hang on. does this mean i really did fail feminism 101? im confused now.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Here's how she greta-splained the shoe controversy, in which she bought expensive shoes and bragged about them while charity donations supported her during cancer therapy:

This is a [BS] controversy, manufactured by the usual gang of people who hate Freethought Blogs

Is there a name for that style of defense?

FWIW, she also used the charity donations to make advance payments on her mortgage

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Yeah, bored now.

Can we talk about shoes again?

 

[theprestige]

The last time I looked into it I came up with something that translated (roughly) into Amazon Gardner. We have a character who is a warrior and a nurturer at the same time. Picture Xena in the vegatable patch.

STOP RIGHT THERE.

If you are trying to tell me your different viewpoint about this, you need to just. Stop. Think for a minute about how you are erasing me by disagreeing. This is probably a good opportunity for you reconsider your privilege and shut up, instead of speaking out when you obviously haven't educated yourself first. This is 301 material. Figure it out.

Or we will ban you.

/plusser

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Trigger warning:

 

[s_pepys]

Trigger warning:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/45886511c23232022a.jpg[/qimg]

ha, love it!

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Trigger warning:

Alright, Dave?

 

[luchog]

Adopting the identity of an entwife seems like an odd choice for a feminist SJW. Even the name telegraphs their subordinate existential relationship to the male of the species.

Actually, it makes a certain twisted sense. In the story of the Entwives, they were "lost" because they left the Ents to establish gardens in the southeastern lands of Middle Earth during the First Age, teaching agriculture to men, and refused to return to the wilder forests of the north preferred by the Ents. When their lands were destroyed by Sauron in the Second Age, they disappeared. Tolkien is deliberately vague as to their fate, and there are conflicting indications -- Elvish prophesy indicated the Ents and Entwives would be reunited, but in a later letter Tolkien said he believed they had been destroyed by Sauron. It is likely their refusal to bow to the will of the Ents, and pursue their own goals, that is the reason someone in the SJ crowd would choose to identify with them. Just like Eowyn's rebellion against Theoden's command to stay behind, choosing instead to fight in the battle like a man, is the reason for choosing to identify with her as well, despite her fate at the end.

Of course, all of that overlooks the fact that No True SJW would acknowledge being a fan of an oppressive patriachical religious misogynist like Tolkien.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Yeah, bored now.

Can we talk about shoes again?

Sorry, been busy and fell behind. The guilty pleasure of gossiping about A+ leaders is dominating the conversation. Is that so wrong?

 

[kellyb]

Aaaaand we have a conspiracy theory!

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3917

 

[Potentiated Synapse]

Aaaaand we have a conspiracy theory!

Not to de-rail the thread but there is some strong evidence that the police set fire to the cabin purposefully.

If I could I'd link to a youtube video with police radio conversations that are pretty damning. If you are interested you can search for "Cops torch cabin where Christopher Dorner was held up" on youtube.

 

[kellyb]

Not to de-rail the thread but there is some strong evidence that the police set fire to the cabin purposefully.

If I could I'd link to a youtube video with police radio conversations that are pretty damning. If you are interested you can search for "Cops torch cabin where Christopher Dorner was held up" on youtube.

Yeah, they've admitted to using something they call "burners". The real CT part is the screenshot of CNN saying it wasn't even Dorner.

 

[Potentiated Synapse]

Ah yes. Carry on.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

We'll see.

I like it. Who's the second to the left?

Then let's remove the question from the realm of legal technicalities and quirks. Are you actually arguing that it is possible for two adults to simultaneously rape one another -- not in the prosecutable, legalese sense, but the the gut-level, intuitive, thing-you-should-never-ever-do, Rape-with-a-capital-R sense?

I believe so. The theory has been put forth, at least, on sites that are less classy than this one.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Not to de-rail the thread but there is some strong evidence that the police set fire to the cabin purposefully.

If I could I'd link to a youtube video with police radio conversations that are pretty damning. If you are interested you can search for "Cops torch cabin where Christopher Dorner was held up" on youtube.

Evidence? I don't have time to sit through a 5+ minute Youtube video only to find out that it probably doesn't prove what you think it does.

 

[RandFan]

Sheriff: 'We did not intentionally burn' the cabin

Although the canisters included pyrotechnic tear gas, which generates heat, "We did not intentionally burn down that cabin to get Mr. Dorner out," McMahon said.

 

[Potentiated Synapse]

Evidence? I don't have time to sit through a 5+ minute Youtube video only to find out that it probably doesn't prove what you think it does.

It is in the first minute to two minutes of the police scanner recording.

 

[squealpiggy]

Yes it could, but in this case the intoxication was what rendered her unable to understand the nature of what was happening.

ETA However, my point was more that she was pretty drunk (the jury was shown cctv of her stumbling about), but the first guy was found not guilty. Which shows that it is not the case that the law says that any level of drunkenness in the complainant makes the suspect guilty. I was attempting to show roughly where the line is and that its not going to include a couple having a few drinks and then sleeping together. It is way higher than that before a person is deemed incapable of consent. In England and Wales, anyway. I've not looked at the relevant laws and test cases in many other countries.

But that's the legal test. The Social Justice test has a far flimsier evidential standard.

I've always wondered what the proper collective noun would be for goths.

A Bleakness? A gloom? A horrorshow?

Three things:

1) She asked her fans for donations explicitly for income replacement, which sort of implies that she intends to spend it on stuff she would usually spend her own income on.
2) She was already known by her fans to have a bit of an extravagant shoe fetish thing going on.
3) This was a controversy manufactured by people who ordinarily claim to despise manufactured controversy within the movement.

Ungh.

I don't think there was anything scandalous about it, but I think that blogging about your new shoes you bought with money donated to you for living expenses while you recover from cancer is not the wisest move.

And her response was contradictory. Was it a frivolous fancy or was it a legit expense?

Here's how she greta-splained the shoe controversy, in which she bought expensive shoes and bragged about them while charity donations supported her during cancer therapy:



Is there a name for that style of defense?

The Chewbacca defense?